Why the World Needs a Space Force: Thinking back to the moon landing and the vile music festival of Woodstock


It is a little surprising that there is so much mockery toward the Trump administration over the new fifth branch of the armed forces they are proposing called the Space Force. We’ve known and talked about it for a long time on this site and many others that progressives are actually a regressive group of people who desire with everything in their being to follow the human trajectory of the Vico cycle and to return to a world of theocracy, as mankind has done over and over again throughout history for what looks like many hundreds of thousands of years. That is the nature of politics, to control mankind in a sort of passive role under the rule of our planet and its conditions. Modern progressives in order to sell their warped desire to control all human effort simply can’t have people leaving earth and settling in space because once that happens they lose power and influence over the direction of all achievement. Out the window go the carbon credits, the taxing of farts from people and animals, the emissions of cars and capitalism, and the development of suburbia. By moving into space and settling on massive space stations as exotic metal minors on the moon, around Venus and Mars, the moons of Jupiter the concern of over populating the earth goes away. Humans can have all the babies they want, they can even double or triple their intellectual power with the use of artificial intelligence, all the concerns of today regarding human influence over that goddess mother earth go away. So why are liberals so against Trump’s Space Force and why is it so mocked?

The Trump administration had a nice little fundraiser where they presented several concept drawings for the new Space Force and I picked the design that was mostly red that looked a lot like the NASA emblem. As I made the selection I was proud to do it because it felt like a step forward that should have happened many years ago. The point of a blog like this as opposed to writing for a magazine or a newspaper is that I can bring my personal experiences into focus to share with readers which makes it an unusual platform if you are the kind of person with a lot to say. That happens to be an excellent description for my particular lifestyle as I cover a lot of topics that I am personally interested in, and even professionally involved. I was born one year before the moon landing so I’ve watched this thing come and go in strange ways. I was in high school as the space shuttle program was the envy of the world and I watched three eight-year presidents reduce NASA to an Islamic study group prior to the Trump administration. I’m close to aerospace in many aspects, its something I’ve always enjoyed and wanted to help advance in any way possible because I see it as the next great frontier. As I share often my favorite period of American history was the westward expansion into the American west during the gold rush period which created massive wealth for a new nation and I see the space age as a new period with the same level of potential, actually proportionally greater.

Just this past week my wife and I got a call about a hot new condo property coming available at Cape Canaveral where our family has some vested interest in providing housing to the great engineers who come and go from assignments at the Cape. Business was good through the late 80s and 90s but dropped off considerably during the second term of the Bush administration and was utterly destroyed during the Obama years where that socialist president pointed NASA to Russia and told them that if they wanted to study space, then ride with the Russians. No more Space Shuttles, and nothing was coming after. Of course, from the investment side of things you can’t plop down a half million dollars on a condo that no engineers are going to use because there’s no work at the Cape. But for this latest proposal it looks attractive because Space X has moved in and is routinely firing off rockets into space putting a lot of people to work with their fabulous Falcon 9 which just launched again the other night. And with the Trump administration getting behind NASA once again, things are looking good again at the Kennedy Space Center, and they should always have. If America is going to climb out from under the massive debt that Trump inherited of over 20 trillion dollars that money has to come out of new markets and revenue streams. Space is where that revenue is at, and the United States needs to be in charge of it, for the sake of the entire world. Seeing the situation up close it has been sad, but now the entire market is looking better and the next great frontier is there for us to enjoy as the next great adventure.

Talking about the moon landing which occurred on July 20th 1969, I actually remember it. I was just over one year old. I have memories of it and before which is unusual, for being so young but it was hot. We didn’t have air conditioning and I was sweating but I remember the day being hot and very sunny outside and the sounds of the television as the radio broadcasts came back from the moon and my mom talking about what an important day it was. Then I remembered the news reports a month later coming from the music festival in Woodstock on August 15th. It was ugly to me, to see so many people stuck together in the mud of a field listing to music that I have never liked—depressing loser music. As I became older I was able to think about those two events often and came to understand them as two choices of American direction. Woodstock was the progressive answer to the moon landing. The stuffy engineers in their suit and ties at NASA versus the naked hippies and drug induced losers of Woodstock. One group was saying yes to new challenges of human endeavor, the other was saying no, let’s go back to being a tribe of hunter and gathers erecting rocks to the gods and having sex in front of each other covered in mud while our language is reduced to tribal chants. The same debate rages today, those descendants of Woodstock are now running universities, magazines and television stations and are the foundation of progressive politics while aerospace development has been continually ridiculed by them in what we call the Mainstream Media. Those same stuffy suits still desire to explore what’s beyond earth like a teenager wanting to move out of their parent’s house and start of life on their own.

By acknowledging a Space Force progressives know there will never be any going back because government in the context of American history never gets smaller, it only grows and if that growth is to encompass the level of personal freedom that conservatives demand, then the influence of American reach must grow to justify that potential. There is of course the addition of space tourism that is a market happening this year as well as many advanced satellites that are important to our culture that need protection, so a Space Force now only makes sense to meet the needs of a growing civilization. Yet people like Al Gore, and Michael Moore, and the greenie weenie Democrats truly do desire to turn off the minds of human beings with drug use, which is why they support the legalization of pot, and to have another music festival like a bunch of cannibals dancing around a rock in the mud praying to the gods to make it rain so that they can grow food. Today the god is no longer some Celtic tyrant, or Roman myth, but is the earth itself. But science says that the earth won’t be around much longer anyway. It’s only a matter of time before Yellowstone’s massive volcano erupts destroying much of North America, or something hits earth from space, or the sun grows to a size that eventually swallows our entire planet to a fiery cataclysm. The human race has a choice to survive and move into space to escape that fate, and we should take it. And we will need a Space Force to protect that advancement for the sake of our species. And I picked the red emblem as my vote for the patch that those new members of the military should wear while doing it.

Rich Hoffman

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

Peer Pressure Won’t Save the Political Left: Insight into how racism is used to distort reality

I don’t get a lot of comments and it’s certainly not for a lack of readership, most of the readers here are reserved to a kind of voyeurism which validates their own thought processes. And those who are against me don’t like that I engage people directly, and that I will often do so for years—so they don’t often comment. It’s not good to pick a fight with a guy like me because I can out write, out think and through sheer will, outlast just about anybody. There may be people out there somewhere who are just as stubborn as I am, but I’ve never met them. I reserve the right that they may exist, but they have yet to show themselves. Likely if they are there they are residing on top of a mountain somewhere and have decided to just watch sun sets everyday instead of doing what I do. But the comment below is from a long-time voyeur of sorts who decided they couldn’t deal with my comments on the recent white on black shooting in Clearwater, Florida centering on a “stand your ground” case. So before picking the comment apart, like this person knew I would, lets see what they said:

I’ve been following your blog for quite some time now and aside from your political ramblings I’ve found your other topics to be either laughable at best or appalling. This entry falls into the latter. Both men in this case acted childishly. That much I can agree on with you. Where I differ begins with the title. I think you couldve gone a different route to prove your point but instead opted to become part of the problem and not the solution. To say that blacks fundamentally are targeted because they don’t follow rules is both silly and absurd. To label someone a thug because they didn’t abide by the rules of the handicap parking space is just as outlandish as saying you, yourself, are a thug for speeding, jay walking, littering, etc…the list goes on. It has nothing to do with the skin color of a person as to be determined a thug by your own admission. So to say that blacks must assimilate if they do not want to be staring down the barrel of a gun is frankly stupidity. I would challenge that you wouldve even bothered to write on this subject had it been a white on white crime and before you go and try to pick my comment apart for entertainment/material for a future blog post. I have read other post made by you suggesting a racial bias on your part. I fail to see how you call yourself a leader and a international business man yet, can’t see the injustices that are spouted by you on a daily basis. Honestly, I’m surprised you even have a job in the public sector for behaving in a manner that I’m sure would make your employers shudder if they were to read this site. Good day sir!

The nature of this little comment in many aspects are completely dedicated to peer pressure, the reference in the first sentence to diminish the content is an attempt to make me feel self-conscious about the judgment of a larger tapestry of society—that my work here is “laughable,” and “appalling” as if such judgements might make me run for the security of a social blanket of approval. Then there is some commentary that is rather thoughtful about their opinion on the nature of black gun violence. But the last third of the comment is dedicated to attacks designed to put me on the defensive, such as suggesting that if the dead person had been white, I wouldn’t have even written about it. Then there is the veiled threat of social superiority toward my ability to make a living, as if to say that because I have a thought that is not one they agree with that I should not even be allowed to make a living. So it is worth doing to understand how such people like this are functioning in the world and why they think the things they do.

As any reader here knows I pick everything apart and white people have been the brunt of most of my wrath. Just ask James Comey, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton or that skanky prostitute in the Lee Wong incident locally. They were all white people and yet I never considered their skin color when criticizing their detriment to our society. Yet the critic of this published comment assumes that because a person is black, that they shouldn’t be held to any kind of standard otherwise its racism. If a black person does something wrong, such as breaking the laws of our society we are supposed to look the other way because of some sin committed long ago when slaves were brought from Africa to North America and that forever we owe something to people of color because of this heinous act. Well, I wasn’t there to commit those evils and just because I’m white I am not connected to my ancestors. If my grandfather got drunk and slept with crazy bar whores and slapped around women I am not connected to this sin. I am my own person and am not attached through ancestry to any sins of any past. And the same holds true for blacks. They aren’t owed something for what their ancestors went through. They are to be judged on what they do and say in the here and now. That is the way of things.

But even more alarming is this notion that a person’s employment should be attacked if they have opinions that drift from the media-controlled culture of today’s liberalism—that boycotts and marches with a wink toward potential violence should be utilized to keep dissenting opinions locked up away from others to see. That is after all what’s going on with Alex Jones and Google owned YouTube. So let me establish some advice to this commenter and to other reading this who might need some ground to stand on in a confusing world sometimes—confusing only because people like this are always trying to make things murky. Every person should strive to make themselves the best at something out of all others in the world. If you are the best at what you do you are always in demand. No matter what political opinions you might have—people will want to pay you for the things you can do that others can’t. I have many things that I am the best there is at and that is very valuable to the world of commerce. Now the world is a big place and there are a lot of people in it, so I understand what kind of statement that is, but I have worked harder than others for many years to develop those aspects of myself so I do enjoy the fruits of those endeavors.

The assumption from this commenter is that jobs are handed out as favors to people and that if someone misbehaves, that the job can be taken away. Or that if an angry mob of insurgents hell-bent on socialist democracy protest in the streets that a person like me might lose their ability to make a living. That is the threat that is occurring quite often these days, where CEOs must step down to avoid controversy, or men are losing their entire careers over the #metoo movement, and so on. I would propose that if such people are losing their livelihoods they weren’t very valuable to begin with and people wanting to take them down politically only needed an excuse, which radical protestors gave them. But if you are truly valuable, such measures will never work.

As to the nature of who reads here, I’m not writing these articles in the vacuum of space. I get many hundreds of readers every day and they come from all demographic backgrounds all over the world. People I deal with professionally obviously read my content, everyone does. Anyone who Googles “Rich Hoffman” runs across my many millions and millions of published words and knows my thoughts on things. But if they want access to those things I do better than anybody else in the world—the entire world—then they put up with it. However, and I do deal with hundreds if not thousands of people every week, most people agree with me on most things. They are just afraid to say so because they fear a social stigma. And that is what people like this really fear. They hope that they can keep people’s opinions hidden away while a more progressive society takes over and rules us all. But when people have an outlet, like I provide, then all that intention falls apart, and people choose freedom, logic, and order over anarchy, chaos and progressivism. And you can’t censor those who are living beyond the controls of peer pressure.

Rich Hoffman

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

What is Fake News, and Why its Bad: The lesson to learn from Urban Meyer and Ohio State

I’ll be happy to answer the question that Jim Acosta from CNN asked Sarah Sanders and Ivanka Trump, as to whether or not the media was the enemy within the United States, as he asked at the daily briefing this past week at the White House. Several years ago on a radio show I discussed in great detail the plans that the KGB had in 1947 through 1959 to infiltrate American society with communist propaganda and take over our education, media and entertainment enterprises. Largely we are now seeing the result of that effort—by not only Russia, but every communist leaning nation in the world. Of course, not everyone fell for it, but most did, which was consistent with Donald Trump’s answer on the matter. Fake news therefore is identified as the enemy because they tend to attempt to shape news stories to fit a political agenda rather than just reporting the facts of the matter. When a news organization is concerned with shaping the news to fit an agenda, they could and should be considered fake.

What Jim Acosta was doing in putting Sarah Sanders on the spot in front of everyone watching that news conference was a communist form of consensus building. I’ve covered that many times before as well from school board meetings to local trustee meetings, there are methods of facilitating public opinion in a democracy to urge weak people to follow a majority opinion and that was exactly what Acosta was attempting to do. By attempting to trick her into saying that the news present wasn’t the enemy, she would also be endorsing the CNN was not guilty of the type of propaganda news that they were actually engaging in. So even by advancing that question, Jim Acosta was attempting to shape the news in a fake way.

Of course, everyone in the news is not dirty, and a free press is vitally important in a free society. But much of the time these days, a news and opinion site like this one has more validity toward the news than the corporate media because much like the Koch Brothers who were previously thought to be very Republican corporate media often has complicated ownership overseas or their boards of directors are invested in the globalist aims of modern politics which was started a long time ago with the desire of communism to spread to all corners of the world. People don’t always know why they think the things they do. The same corporate owners may attend an NFL game and be brought to great emotion during the National Anthem and consider themselves very patriotic. Yet they tend to support shared wealth across the world propping up communist and socialist regimes all in the name of a unified world under collectivists values. They never of course see themselves as the enemy, just as they don’t see their media outlets as part of the problem. But nevertheless, that is precisely what they are. They put foreign interests over the interests of domestic America and within that decision is the mess of mixed economies, mixed ideologies, and cultural indifference which is then shaped by Fake News.

Let’s take the Urban Meyer story from Ohio State where the wife of his wide receiver’s coach was allegedly abused by her husband. The wife said something about the incident to Urban Meyer’s wife and everyone is to assume that the wife would then talk to the coach about it forcing him to report the incident. Because he didn’t report the incident he has now been put on leave from the University while an investigation is conducted, so the story as reported is that Urban Meyer has been suspended for some cover-up at Ohio State, which happens to be going on while one of the top college football programs in the country is in their pre-season. The Fake News of the story is to of course advance the #ME TOO movement, which is rooted in progressive politics. It is also to advance the communist notion of reporting to the “state” everything that goes on, and that no single individual is more powerful than the all mighty state. The real news is that Urban Meyer is one of the top football coaches in the country for a very rich university and that in all likelihood even if his wife told him about the abused woman’s story he might not have heard it because he was busy watching 90 hours a week of tape on the upcoming season’s rivals to prepare game plans to. Most people don’t want to get involved in other people’s business, so they tune out things to give privacy to their friends, neighbors and employees. But the implication here is that Urban Meyer had an obligation to rat out his direct employee based on what a couple of wives said to each other and because he didn’t he and the football program at the university are in big trouble. The story is no longer about minding your own business and letting people be people, it’s about reporting to the “state” anything that it might care to know.

The Ohio State story happened because the university has been sucked into the type of progressive politics that Jim Acosta was trying to pin down on Sarah Sanders. A failure to push back against the attempt leaves even giant, wealthy institutions like Ohio State groveling to the press so not to have negative stories that might have an impact on enrollment. The Trump administration understands better than other presidential occupants of the White House what the game is. Lucky for us Trump, who is a master at branding, was able to come up with a term to describe it, Fake News. Calling these kinds of media outlets “fake” pulls away the mask of their real intentions as propaganda arms for progressive politics. That of course is the new name for global communism, which is why there are so many stories about how great and wonderful the Chinese are these days, and why a trade war would be so devastating. It’s not that a trade war will be bad for the United States, but it is terrible for communist China. You might have noticed that even the almighty company of Google had to create a new search engine that complied with the “state” regulations of China’s censors. China for many years has been buying up investments in the United States that contribute to the corporate opinion in their favor, but ultimately, they are a communist country seeking to hide their intentions behind masks given to them by the mainstream media.

Fake News is the news that attempts to shape a story toward a political objective. Real news is that which takes a story to its logical conclusion regardless of who is exposed in the process. The Fake News that is out every day to attack Donald Trump has an agenda to destroy his administration to preserve the progressive gains made in the past, so every story they produce is created to shape the opinion of the event. Just as the Urban Meyer story is not about protecting a wife from an abusive husband, it’s about establishing in people who the “state” has power over even The Ohio State and that if you hear something or see something, you have an obligation to report it. Fake News is about establishing fake power for the objectives created long ago to preserve the need for communism to become mainstream. And what Jim Acosta was trying to do with Sarah Sanders was to get her to endorse their Fake News as a reality, and she denied them of it, which is why she’s so good.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Lying, Cheating, Wife and the man who just wanted to Buy New Shoes: Why Trump should shut down the entire Russian investigation

Anyone who has been married to a dysfunctional spouse understands why President Trump has every right to call for the end of the Mueller investigation. People in such relationships, which is nearly everyone at some point in a marriage must navigate the balance of powers that go on between spouses and when a weaker minded of the party feels they are losing leverage in the relationship ultimately go for the “you’re cheating on me bomb.” That’s where one spouse accuses the other of cheating when there is no evidence of it other than the fact that the other spouse doesn’t seem to enjoy their time with their married partner. There is of course no way to prove such an accusation, it’s an undefendable position that forces the other party into a defensive position by default and it completely sucks the life out of the relationship. Psychologists understand that such a tactic is purely manipulative and is the prime motivation of a destructive trend. And such is the case of the Democrats who have nothing to campaign against Donald Trump but a scandal they entirely made up by an investigator protecting the reputation of his friend James Comey, who was fired by the president for doing a bad job and leaking classified information to the press.

I wouldn’t say that I’m a Paul Manafort supporter. But if he’s going to be charged and run through the political torture chamber just for working with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, then Hillary Clinton should be subject to much, much worse. The only reason Paul Manafort is being scrutinized in a trial for which he may spend the rest of his life in jail is because he worked for a short time on Trump’s campaign and the message from the Deep State to everyone is that if anyone helps Trump in the next election, they may face the same trouble. This isn’t a trial about tax evasion, it’s about busting people close to President Trump and scaring away people in the future who may join his campaign. Trump’s legal team have every right to be upset, and Trump himself is completely justified in calling for an end to the entire Russian investigation. He knows he didn’t do anything wrong, yet he is being forced to defend himself from a negative which has an impact on what he wants to do from the Executive Branch.

The purpose of a spouse to use such an accusation is obviously to obtain leverage over the other person. So by accusing a spouse of cheating it implies not only the hurt of mistrust, but the additional burden of trying to overcome a very negative position. There is almost no good way to answer such a thing, which is why the question is asked to begin with. Cheating may or may not be going on, but that is not why the question was asked. If there is cheating going on there are deeper problems in the relationship that often spawn from a degrading effort on one of the married parties. But the question is usually all about obtaining emotional leverage over the other person so that the guilt whether or not the other party is guilty will have to react in a predictable way to prove their innocence, which is just another form of emotional control.

That is what the Mueller investigation has been attempting to do, and why the media has been complicit in facilitating the assumption of guilt from the outset. The effort was always about trying to control the President of the United States by forcing him into a defensive position. For instance, the pressure from the investigation, which was completely made up has essentially taken President Trump’s Attorney General out of the fight from the start. Trump does not have an AG like Obama had with Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder, he has someone who was forced to recuse himself from day one, which took away an important weapon from the president at the start of his administration. If the goal of the Democrats is obstruction, then of course they have won that fight by using this form of control to keep some weapons out of the President’s column. After all, that is exactly what the Robert Mueller investigation was all about from the start, to disrupt the President’s administration with chaos and a fragmented team. If the Mueller investigation were over it would reopen communication with Trump’s AG. But as it stands now, any communication with Jeff Sessions is viewed by the media as obstruction of justice so Trump can’t speak to him.

This is similar to a guy being accused of cheating on his wife but needing to go down to the store to buy new shoes for work the next day, but his wife doesn’t want him to buy them because she wants to buy new shoes and they can’t afford to do both. So the wife might accuse the husband of cheating to keep him home so that he won’t buy the shoes. By having the Mueller investigation always going on, it keeps Trump’s Department of Justice separated from him, which is the point. The accusations force a change in behavior within the Executive Branch and anything they do puts them into a position to only look guiltier. If the married guy tells his wife that he has to go buy shoes tonight because the ones he has now has holes in them and won’t make it another day, and he leaves, he risks his wife to make a bigger incident that just might be grounds for divorce. The man may buy his shoes but find out that the wife is filing for divorce and that she is taking the house and his kids. Being the man, likely the judge in the divorce will side with her and he’ll lose everything so he’s better off to stay home and not buy the shoes. Little does he know that the wife is not only buying shoes of her own but she’s meeting her new boyfriend across town and they are having illustrious sex and have created fake accounts on numerous dating websites so that they could flirt with each other undetected all the time. After all, that’s why she is ultimately accusing the husband of cheating because she is, and she needs to throw anybody off the trail by putting all the focus on him.

Anybody with a brain knows that Paul Manafort’s court case is a shakedown, and the entire Russian investigation is a hoax to cover the crimes that the Democrats and the FBI have actually committed, just like the poor husband who couldn’t buy new shoes because his cheating wife promised to divorce him if he even thought about leaving the house. Trump has been in the same situation—anything he might do such as firing Robert Mueller, sending a pardon to Paul Manafort or General Flynn, or even pushing Jeff Sessions to shut down everything so that the FBI and DOJ could resume normal activity under their proper boss in the Executive Branch would draw suspicion of obstruction of justice, as if “justice” were the mandate defined by the real criminals. And that is not how things are supposed to be. The entire Russian investigation and everything surrounding it is about trying to control Donald Trump. And that is just not acceptable. We didn’t vote for Trump to go through this. We voted Trump to get rid of all this. I would 100% support Trump if he fired the entire DOJ right now. I think it’s the only right thing to do, just like the man who wants only to buy some new shoes and stay in the same house with his kids should really divorce his lying, cheating wife.

Rich Hoffman

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

The End of Facebook: That is a very good thing

I first heard about Facebook while I was on a movie set in Hollywood, California. We were shooting an all night firewhip sequence for a studio project and since I was the expert bullwhip artist every take during that 12-hour shoot involved me. That left lots of time for the rest of the cast and crew to talk and it was during these many conversations that started and stopped so frequently that I first heard about Facebook. It was 2008 and Facebook had just come out and was competing with Myspace as a new social media platform. I had a pretty fancy Myspace page that featured my bullwhip work and since it had been invented essentially for start-up music bands to get noticed, it had also worked for me to get noticed by Hollywood. I understood the power of this new social media thing because it had literally made it possible for me to do work for Hollywood while still a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio. Typically, if you wanted to work for movies you had to live in the Los Angeles area to network, but not anymore. With social media celebrities could talk to anybody and people of all types of backgrounds could suddenly be in contact with each other.

Yet there was something I didn’t like about Mark Zuckerberg. One of the actresses on set who had recently done work for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies had been a tester for Facebook and she knew Mark. Facebook was recruiting celebrities to help push the new social media platform so to take out the previous Myspace rival and she was one of them. At that time, she was very enamored that the young 21-year old Zuckerberg was already a billionaire. I asked her why he was a billionaire for a free service for which she didn’t have an explanation. All she cared about was that Facebook could get her more work around town. As she said, a few sexy pictures of herself on Facebook would get her an opportunity to get meetings with dozens of producers for new movie projects and leap her ahead in the audition process. So she thought it was great and that Facebook was going to be the wave of the future.

I was upset to learn later that RealD 3D had no intention to use the movie footage we shot for the film but had sold it to CGI artists for movies like Iron Man 2 and The Immortals. I stayed in contact with many of the people who worked on that set for several years, especially the stunt coordinator. There was a real temptation to start a Facebook page and attach that actress as a friend which would have instantly put me on the doorstep of every entertainment figure in Hollywood which would have been worth millions of dollars in opportunity for me personally. But I couldn’t shake that Facebook seemed to me to be diabolically intrusive. I read their sign-up agreement and could not accept the data intrusion they were proposing. So I took myself out of that next wave of technology from the start.

In 2012 as I was releasing my new novel Tail of the Dragon, my publisher was telling me I needed to set up a Facebook page to promote it. Instead of setting one up myself my son-n-law did it for me, because he and my daughter were on Facebook so the damage was already done. It didn’t have any of my contacts in it, which made it pretty worthless, but it fulfilled my contractual obligations with the publisher. As I was doing radio promotion work for the book several of the talk show hosts who knew me well thought it was funny that I had set up a Facebook page, because they knew how I felt about it. But I had managed to do it in a way that kept my privacy under my control and that was just how it was going to stay. People could argue that Twitter and Google are just as bad, and I did make a transition over to those media platforms over time, but I don’t think anything is as bad as Facebook in exposing personal behavior patterns and contacts, then selling that information to companies and governments for all types of vile purposes.

Looking back on it that was quite a time in history. In the summer of 2008 while I was on that film shoot Barack Obama was running for president and those same Hollywood people were excited about him. I wasn’t excited about John McCain, but I certainly wasn’t going to support a Democrat. But the Hollywood people supported any Democrat because like Facebook it was a way to make first contact with the producers around the city. Supporting Democrats was the first requirement for working on any film or television project unless you were a specialist like me, who had a very unique talent. But even then, it only went so far. Turning away from that life by rejecting Facebook it allowed me to work for the Tea Party rebellion that eventually elected Donald Trump. Not having Facebook allowed me to operate incognito for the next decade and do some really good things, politically. The decision was an expensive one, but what good is a lot of money if you don’t have a country. Facebook to me was literally a battleground of ideology that was harmful to the rebellion that had to happen. Even though most everyone used it, including many of my Tea Party friends, and they used it to network with other like-minded people, I needed to operate off the grid, and because of it I was able to do some pretty high-level activity without leaving a crumb trail for the opposition to follow, and that was very important.

It doesn’t surprise me that the stock is tanking for Facebook. The value of the company is in extracting personal data from people and selling it. Now that they have been busted for doing just that and Mark Zuckerberg is trying to repair the public image of Facebook’s major privacy violations, the end is inevitable. Because Facebook cannot make everyone happy. They cannot give privacy to their users without making their investors angry. And they can’t give their investors what they want without violating their users, so Facebook can’t win, and they are on the decline. There is no way they can recover.

Who knows what social media platform will replace Facebook. Of course, something will but whatever it is, it won’t be like Facebook. Facebook took people by storm during an era of naiveté that will never come again. What people thought was just a free way to speak to family and friends over vast distances turned out to be a window into every part of our lives, and people will never let their guard down in quite the same way ever again. Many people are perfectly willing to trade privacy for enrichment at first glance, but it doesn’t take long for resentment to build. I was against it from the beginning and I could have made great use of it at the cutting edge, but if I had, my life would have been quite different. It is often better to operate off the grid than on it, especially when tactical reasons mandate social camouflage. So it doesn’t hurt my feelings to see Facebook going downhill. I think it’s a really good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Jim Renacci’s Term Limits Pledge: Overcoming the false assumption about institutional value


I felt fortunate to be invited by the Renacci team to be a part of a press conference for Jim Renacci in downtown Cincinnati to sign a U.S. Term Limits pledge in front of the media. My usual thing in events like this are not just to capture what a candidate is doing, but to examine the larger implications in a cultural aspect since that is always my interest. I care what politicians say, but for me it’s always about the larger implication. What Jim Renacci was doing was very smart, his opponent for the Ohio senate seat that Sherrod Brown currently has occupied for many decades now is one of the best examples of what an entrenched politician in Washington D.C. looks like. Renacci is the underdog in the incumbent race so he must go after weaknesses in Sherrod Brown, which is the issue of term limits. So Renacci signed a pledge to only serve two terms as a United States Senator once elected to counter the long and ridiculous record of Sherrod Brown in front of the media which was very effective. But what I like to bring to the table when covering events like this is that big picture, so I camped out in a part of the room that showed the media interaction with Renacci from a vantage point that the regular media won’t or can’t provide. By watching the video below, I think you will find the information very interesting.

The Channel 5 camera was set up on the right of my position and you will notice that not only the on-air talent asked a question, but so did the cameraman. Then positioned around the front of the room was cameras and microphones from most of Cincinnati’s media, both television and radio, and the questions they asked were fascinating. Usually when these kinds of things go on we never get to see the body language and appearance of the people asking questions, so perspective is very helpful. Most of the people in the media are liberal and present themselves as very shallow, and sloppy intellectually—literally, and their appearance shows it. It certainly says a lot about the slant they provide to any coverage that they do give. Even saying that I thought the coverage of the event was fair, but my video will certainly provide an education as to what really goes on at press events so that viewers can see for themselves how media bias enters into the picture.

What was most interesting was that the concept of term limits was generally a very difficult one for the media to grasp. By the nature of their questions it is clear why the reality of such proposals falls short of communicating effectively with their viewers and listenership. As Jim Renacci explained quite effectively, term limits should be an acceptable practice in politics—yet to the liberal thinking people who serve as filters in the media the concept is foreign to their way of thinking. The assumption by those on the political left, and often on the political right is that elected office is something that is to be aspired to, and therefore there is great intellectual value in having a long-term senator working for “the people” for several decades. But to accomplished business people, like Jim Renacci and Donald Trump, an elected office is like a retirement job. They go for elected office to give something back, not to become something.

What the media present could not grasp was that their concept of institutional value was not relevant to politics, yet just about every senator and congressman is happy to give them that illusion which is what has created such a defective political system. The pledge that Renacci signed is a promise to reverse that trend, but for many politicians who came into office because the private sector was just too scary for them, whether they were failed attorneys or just failed people, they found through a popularity contest—a typical election—redemption and they are very hungry to maintain the illusion that they are members of some aristocratic society that has some kind of special power for their constituents. That is exactly how Sherrod Brown has stayed in office for nearly half a century—because he has maintained an illusion that only someone like him can do the job. But for someone who was already successful before he ever stepped into a public office like Renacci, politics is a service job that he can easily master. The institutional value that the press was speaking about at the press conference doesn’t exist.

The biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is in their beliefs of institutional value over individual input. As a republic the United States was built to have a constant rotation of elected representatives enter office and leave routinely—and were never supposed to make careers out of elected positions. Liberals of course believe in the aristocratic notion that there is collective knowledge embedded within institutional systems that must be preserved by teams of people. In that case Mitch McConnell is just as guilty as Sherrod Brown in the belief that being a long-time senator has more value than a newcomer fresh to a seat. The procedural protocol of the Senate itself has more value than the vote of an individual vote from a senator or congressman.

Then there is the issue of fundraising and maintaining majorities in state houses and within Washington D.C. That same media present at the Renacci press conference is the same media that wants to turn politics into a sporting event where there are this many Republicans and this many Democrats, and every election is like a football game as to which side has the most points on the board at any given time which indicates who is winning and who is losing. Such a system inevitably attracts the dollars of special interest who then has a lot at stake in making sure their team wins—which is why political campaigns are now so expensive, which then beholden the candidates to the money people and not their constituency. It becomes a vicious cycle of dysfunction built on the false notion that institutional value has actual merit. Which it doesn’t.

What Jim Renacci was offering at this press conference was more than a publicity stunt to distinguish himself from a political opponent in the long-time senator Sherrod Brown. It was a challenge to take all the money out of politics, and all the falsehood of institutional value and to set the entire system correct with a nice healthy rotation of elected representatives. People like Jim Renacci and Donald Trump will be successes in life before and after any kind of political office, so when they are in office, we can expect good work from such people. But Sherrod Brown could have no such similar success. He can only be successful in life so long as people like the media shown in the video above believe that he has some secret power like “institutional value” to use on behalf of an American democracy—which is not what the United States is. Rule by the mob which is a “democracy” is not the same as representative rule, and under such a premise the falsehood of institutional value erodes away into mist, because it never had value to begin with. It never did from its roots in Europe, and it certainly doesn’t in modern-day America. People like Sherrod Brown are easy to find and once they are elected into office and people don’t really understand how things really work even though the media covers these types of stories every day, politicians are placed on a pedestal and kept there to satisfy the general ignorance of political parties. But when someone like Jim Renacci comes along and offers the real thing, it is then that a crises mounts—in a positive way. It is then that the falsehood of institutional value evaporates, and the truth of the matter is revealed, and that was the challenge that emerged from that very interesting press conference.

Rich Hoffman

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

Compromise is a Dirty Word: Republicans and Democrats are not conducive to an equal and profitable exsitance

It was nice to see so many requests from the liberal left asking that everyone unite under a common cause of America for the day of July 4th. A call for civility is always a good thing, only behind a few layers of social acceptance crept an ominous villain which went unnamed—and that’s usually how it is with conservatives. All parties in the matter are not equal, the political and the left and the political right are not “equally” complicit in the crimes against the American Constitution, are not “equal” in their desire for social change, or even their basic value systems. One party is not equally aggressive, or beholden to an equitable measure of the responsibility for bringing about a day of peace so that all Americans could enjoy a few fireworks. And that assumption was very disturbing because it essentially lures conservatives to believe that they are equally complicit in the crimes of division, which of course they aren’t.

If in a married couple one member of the relationship is always trying to make the other behave in a manner that keeps the marriage alive while the other is always running around cheating and bringing bad elements into the union—both parties are not equally responsible for making the changes needed to make things work. It doesn’t take two to always compromise in order to make concessions for a husband and a wife to get along. If the husband wants to cheat it is not the wife’s responsibility to compromise with her husband and just let him surf dating websites for entertainment. She is not equally responsible to compromise toward his defects emotionally. The man might say to the wife that she doesn’t dress sexy enough to hold his interest, or that the wife is too much a sexual puritan to full satisfy his desires, it is not the responsibility of the wife to sacrifice all her beliefs so that the relationship can work. Maybe she doesn’t want group sex, maybe she doesn’t want to yield to anal sex, maybe she wants a sexual relationship that is more intimate and caring, not filled with so many taboo driven characteristics. It is in the value judgments of the two married people to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, but if the wife finds the request for sexual fulfilment disgusting, the burden is not for her to scrap her value system in order to get along with a defective husband. It is the husband who must figure out if his values are even conducive to being in a marriage if those are the types of things that he’s interested in.

A marital example is something that just about everyone can relate to and perfectly captures what is being asked when civility between political parties is suggested. It suggests that conservatives and democrats come together equally and put away their weapons just for one day while all Americans watch fireworks and enjoy American pie at their local parades. However, reality knows better and what everyone is fighting about is not a resolution that both sides will meet in the middle and join hands to live happily ever after. When the value systems of both sides are so opposed, the philosophy of the two cannot magically be bonded, reality has parameters for behavior where some things just aren’t conducive with each other. Good is good and bad is bad, they are not relatives to one’s position within the universe. Good behavior or bad behavior is good or bad here on earth or on the other side of a black hole on the far reaches of the universe. We would call that a universal truth. To use the marital example as a foundation of thought, if a man cheats on his wife or demands reckless sex in their relationship the violations against the marriage are the same here as they would be on the far side of the universe. Good and bad cannot be mixed together to form a stable reality.

Conservatives are not responsible for yielding to the ANTIFA protestors’ desires for anarchy. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires for open borders. Conservatives are not responsible for the progressive political platform on abortion where actual death of babies is a negotiating point—is life formed at conception or during the 12th week, or moments before the baby leaves the womb during birth. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires to tax everyone and redistribute the wealth of their society to the lazy bastards who refuse to work and would rather be homeless. In the case of the relationship between conservatives and liberals it is the liberals who want to take from the value of conservatives to sustain the lives of others that is the problem. Conservatives are asking for individual rights not the rights of groups to exist, and that sums up the fundamental difference as to why the two sides will never get along. One side will have to conquer the other and a basic philosophic position going forward will have to be decided upon. If a man is going to cheat, he is deciding to bring bad things to the relationship which makes a marriage unstable. He might complain that the wife doesn’t do this, or that she doesn’t do that, but ultimately it is her value systems which set the restriction for which he is trying to bend. If the purpose of a marriage is to bring about children into the world and to nurture them into a profitable existence than what does anal sex have to do with the happiness of a family, other than the husband is dealing with his own perverted desires? The fight between conservatives and liberals are just the same, if the purpose of politics is to lay the foundations for a proper society, yet one political philosophy wants to support group think and social welfare while the other supports individual rights those two positions cannot be mixed together to make everyone happy. It’s impossible.

Everyone can think of people in their lives who are defective, where they eat too much, drink too much, or have destructive characteristics that harm themselves and others around them. Yet it is not the responsibility of the good to yield their values to the destructiveness of those broken people. You can try to help them by bringing them to the light, but you cannot yield the light to darkness and expect light to survive. The destructive people out there hell-bent on personal failure have nothing to offer, they can only take from value. They don’t assist value, so there can be no equal merging of the two sides. Compromise is never really a compromise because it is always value which is traded away, one side takes while the other gives, that is the nature of good and evil. One side has it, the other side takes it, so there is never an equal partnership and in order to share value with non-value the essence of that value is what gets stretched out and diminished in the process. Everyone wasn’t born equally right from their point of view. It’s not just a matter of democrats talking to conservatives to find common ground. It’s about discovering a philosophy that actually works and building a society that works on principles of good and rejecting concepts of evil that we are talking about and with such ideas, compromise is a dirty word.

Rich Hoffman

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