The Dream of Gus Hall: Why John Brennan lost his security clearance and was an insurgent within America

During a lie detector test taken during his CIA application process, John Brennan admitted that he voted for Gus Hall, the Communist USA presidential candidate. He justified that he was doing so to show his unhappiness with the system. Brennan was hired by the spy agency and during 25 years with the CIA his work included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. After leaving government service in 2005, Brennan became CEO of The Analysis Corporation, a security consulting business, and served as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an association of intelligence professionals. Brennan served in the White House as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security between 2009 and 2013. President Obama nominated Brennan as his next director of the CIA on January 7, 2013. The ACLU called for the Senate not to proceed with the appointment until they confirmed that “all of his conduct was within the law” at the CIA and White House. Brennan was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 5, 2013, to succeed David Petraeus as the Director of the CIA by a vote of 12 to 3. Once Donald Trump became president Brennan threw himself in front of the new White House and became an activist against the reconfigured Republican Party. After his work at many aspects of a phony investigation into the Trump administration and inflammatory interviews on television, Brennan had his security clearance revoked, as it should always have been.

Meanwhile the FBI agent in charge of many of the investigations involving the phony hit on the Trump administration was terminated from the agency just a few days before for conduct unbecoming to the responsibilities that were given to the intelligence agency. Both Peter Strzok and CIA agent John Brennan had abused the power given to them under the protections of the American Constitution and acted in ways that obviously sought to undermine it. They both acted in treasonous ways and what happened to them is actually quite light. Strzok should have been fired two years ago, but if we are to be honest he was just doing some boot licking for the people at the top of American intelligence, James Comey, James Clapper and the old communist provocateur, John Brennan.

When Brennan announced that he had voted for a communist the alarm bells then should have stopped the hiring process into the CIA. After all, the CIA would shortly after that interview send Brennan to the very heart of communism in South Asia and the Near East working to supposedly advance American interests in those regions. But having such a weak mind to be disturbed by the system to actually vote for a communist in Gus Hall showed that the new CIA employee would be easily tempted by the communists in Asia rather than remain unaffected emotionally in the service of capitalism.

Obviously the Obama administration was not a capitalist loving enterprise functioning within the White House. Brennan had the president’s ear because the two obviously shared a view of America that was anti-imperialist as defined by that South Asian corridor from China down into Indonesia. Brennan moved up in the Obama White House eventually taking over the entire CIA which is an appalling thought that such a person could have access to so many records on all of us. That the master spy agency was being led by someone who actually found the things Gus Hall had said appealing.

There was no way to confuse what Gus Hall was all about, he was very open about it back then. Listening to his old interviews it sounds unmistakable to the modern platform of the Democratic Party. It could easily be concluded that all through Brennan’s years within the CIA that the advancement of communism may have actually have been their goal as a way to control those populations from a state perspective. Likely it was because John Brennan had voted for Gus Hall that he got the CIA job. It is surely why he was pulled back into government service once the Obama administration took control in 2009. He was a known anti-capitalist insurgent within the Beltway and Obama loved him so much that he put him in charge of the entire CIA.

Of course, the Obama administration over did it. Yes, the CIA and the FBI was spying on you and I and they were taking names of those who were causing trouble, and if Trump had not won the election in 2016 many of us would be in even more trouble today. Of course, John Brennan was working against us, and we knew it. That’s why many of us voted for Donald Trump, because it was either that or to take up arms against a government trying to destroy our capitalist system and to replace it with one that Gus Hall would have liked. We were well on our way to that eventual destruction on the night before November 7th 2016. Clapper, Brennan and Comey had done the back-door work of the Obama administration to ensure that Hillary Clinton could pick up the torch for Gus Hall and carry America over into that long desired communist state, and that we’d all become more like China. That was certainly the dream of John Brennan.

That dream died when Trump was elected sending all these intelligence agency heads sympathetic to the communism of Gus Hall scrambling. One by one they were starting to be fired and were losing their once lofty status as the top of the food chain. Brennan who had been one of the biggest villains against Trump due to his deep commitment to a communist world needed to lose his security clearance. After all, he had been using it to leak things to the press to attempt to undermine the Trump administration at every juncture. To be fair, the new President gave Brennan the benefit of the doubt and didn’t make any hasty moves. But Brennan continued to use any influence he had to attempt to destroy Donald Trump. Taken from his point of view, Donald Trump was everything John Brennan had committed his life against. Trump was an unapologetic capitalist who was taking the country back toward guilt free money-making and personal enjoyment as a sovereign country. Brennan and his insurgents dreamed with every thought they could manifest that America would essentially be swallowed up by China and the world would unite under communism. In his years at the CIA the foundations were put in place, a lifetime of work applied, and within a few months the whole thing was torn down.

From that point of view its easy to see why Brennan is angry at Trump. The trade war with China is the final nail in the coffin for Brennan’s CIA plans to unite America with China and to bring about the dream of Gus Hall. Corporations were to become property of the state and the central government would become the world’s CEOs. That was always the plan until Donald Trump was elected and shattered them. And thankfully Brennan is out of the government loop for good. He has lost his security clearance, corrupt FBI agents are being terminated, and the world of the communist sympathizers within our own country is falling apart. And for that we all have something to celebrate in America. Communism from within has been rooted out starting with John Brennan, and there will be many more to come.

Rich Hoffman

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

A Great CBS Interview with Cody Wilson: The heart of the entire problem of gun control

There is so much going on in this really good interview between Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson and CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. At one point during this tense interview for which on the surface is about whether or not individuals have a right to manufacture their own guns free of a federal system of control, Dokoupil asked Wilson to put away the philosophy books and consider how you’d feel is someone used the information and technology you provide for a mass killing, and it was there that the real issue of our day was discussed. CBS just as is very typical of all modern media and politics expects society and the direction of our evolution as a species to yield to the whims of sentiment instead of the foundations of logic and reason which cuts to everything that is wrong at this particular juncture of epistemological evolution. This problem is not only at the center of the gun debate in America but on essentially everything—is society better with a central government regulating everything or with individuals functioning freely and by their own impulses. The hypothetical proposal introduced by Tony Dokoupil obviously believes that a centralized government is needed for an advanced society to evolve, and to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on a weapon so to create mass murder. Yet where Cody Wilson is, is where I am and many, many others on the Second Amendment side. If you keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys, who is not to say that the bad guys do not then evolve out of the strengthening of the “state.” Obviously, we have our answer with how the FBI aligned itself with a political campaign in American elections and showed why they can’t be trusted to perform background checks and centralized gun control, because they will use that power against the people they are supposed to protect, and that makes this interview and especially important one because it articulates this essential dilemma quite nicely.

There were a few moments where the CBS reporter just didn’t have the next layer of contemplation ready. From his side of the thought process the real feat that was being exhibited was in the proposal established by Wilson, that the intentions of mankind cannot be legislated out of existence. That the desires of people cannot be regulated by taking away information. This is the hard truth that China is learning in its communist society. People desire opportunities and limiting their access to a potential activity through censorship doesn’t take away the yearning for information. If someone wants to make a gun, if it’s not Cody Wilson giving the information to that person, it will be someone else. There will never be an all-knowing centralized authority controlling all information. That was essentially the point of what Wilson was making. As human beings, people deserve to have access to information that has the potential to make them freer.

To retreat from this obvious stalemate that was when the option of non-thinking was introduced. The proposal of how Cody Wilson might feel if someone took his work and used it for malice, so that guilt might rule logic. That is currently how our entire political system has been functioning, and there is no civilization on earth that has survived well when such a thing has penetrated its culture. Yet there it was at the foundation of the CBS interview. We all knew that was the position of the political left, and at the heart of all gun confiscation, but the position has never been more grossly revealed with such nudity to conceal its ugliness. That is where the genius of Cody Wilson’s challenges to the modern court system has done such great work.

The question was never about whether gun restriction was about keeping weapons out of the hands of mass murderers. The desire was always to assume that more power given to a centralized state would make for a better world. CBS is perfectly willing to deal with the occasional bad cops in the FBI who will turn their head the other way and let off a political candidate they support, like Hillary Clinton so long as they are there to crush a political rival like Paul Manafort because just as the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s a political party that CBS happened to support had taken control of the powers of the “state.” If that “state” sometimes got things wrong and put the wrong person in jail, or killed the wrong people in a raid, or even destroyed the liberty of thousands or millions of people, that such collateral damage were acceptable for the greater good. But if one lone gunman like the one who shot up innocent people in Las Vegas recently during a music concert buys a gun and uses it to kill people, then the individual rights of people to defend themselves must be yielded for the safety of all. At that point life and death has new meanings so long as individual rights are surrendered for the greater good of all. The hypocrisy of that fundamental idea is what we are talking about in any discussion of gun control.

When there was no satisfactory answer to the quandary the CBS reporter did what all people do who advocate for more gun control, they asked for a non-thinking answer, forget about philosophy, how would you “feel.” The obvious suggestion is that our American society is supposed to be ruled by feelings and not logic, because that is the only way that such a sycophantic position can be accepted, by feeling and not thinking. What do your thoughts tell you to do? Where do those thoughts come from? Is it from God? Then you should listen to them and give up your rights and surrender yourself to the wisdom of the “state.” You should give up your guns so that the “state” can take care of you. Yet at the heart of that proposal is the fantasy of the weak to rule over the strong by way of bureaucracy, which is always the desire of the “state.” They can’t do that if the people they want to control have weapons equal to their military and police for which are employed by the state to mandate justice as it is defined by the courts—also controlled by the “state.”

I’ll tell you what, I like this guy Cody Wilson. He’s smart enough to point out the hypocrisy of the court system on the issue of the Second Amendment and he has the bureaucratic nature of the power the “state” locked in paralyzing self-analysis. The “state” always seeks to have philosophy always stuck in limbo because their fundamental epistemology is flawed within the proposal on gun control to begin with. The only way that anybody could justify such a rationalization is to not think, but to feel. How would you feel if someone took something you provided and killed people with it? The proposal is that you then shouldn’t do it. Cody Wilson under such a premise should not provide milling machines and blueprints for making guns because someone might use that information to kill mass groups of people. But then that same logic shouldn’t be applied to a government that we’ve instead given all that power to who then goes and kills innocent people and rules over individuals in an unjust way. And there lies the problem, the threat is there whether or not guns exist or not, because the desire to abuse power is part of the human experience. In our social evolution we have discovered that if individuals can protect themselves from such aggression that civilization can advance. But if that protection is then yielded to a state government, then the mass murders aren’t crazed lunatics who should be in an insane asylum, but are government workers protecting their pensions and their liberal ideology from the realities of the world, and they can and often are far more dangerous.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Ghost Gunner 2: Everything you need to know about the moral, and legal need to manufacture guns in your home

The Ghost Gunner 2 is a wonderful mini milling machine that can produce gun parts without a lot of machining expertise. It is the device that senatorial candidate for the GOP Austin Peterson of Missouri is giving away to a lucky recipient to make a point on Second Amendment protections. Since gunpowder was first contemplated in around 142 AD in China society has evolved along its advancements. While many think of guns and gunpowder as a destructive device, its widespread use and development has greatly decentralized civilization allowing the concept of an “America” to evolve. Prior to the invention of gunpowder empires largely controlled the lives of mass civilizations through emperors and kings. It took about a thousand years but with the invention of gunpowder and guns slavery was ended in the civilized world, nations were born, and scientific development has flourished. So, guns are not bad, and neither is gunpowder. But to put it mildly to the lefty politicians who clamor for more gun control and stricter background checks, it is not the job of the federal government to regulate firearms. It is the mandate of private citizens to use firearms to keep government in check. So, it only makes sense to have the ability for every household to manufacture their own firearms any time they want and in whatever quantities they desire. The Ghost Gunner 2 makes that home manufacturing of firearms very practical.

In the United States I think the major gun companies are real treasures. I love Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Henry Repeating Arms, Magnum Research—I love every one of them. The people who work in these places are genuinely good people making a great American product and I personally think every American should add one gun to their collection every year to support these fine businesses. But we need to get something straight about all this sudden concern about “ghost guns,” firearms made off 3D printers from plans downloaded from the Internet, the Genie is not going back into the bottle. We can’t “uninvent” guns without destroying society itself. Because honestly, it is the gun and gun powder that has brought about our advanced society. Without the invention of firearms, common people would have never have gained the opportunity to overthrow their kings and emperors and our society would be a much different one today. It’s highly likely mankind would have never gone to space if not for the invention of the gun and the emergence of America as a direct result of personal firearm ownership.

The political concern isn’t so much over the 3D printed guns which produces a kind of hard plastic AR lower that isn’t very reliable, it’s the technical ability of something like the Ghost Gunner 2 that brings very advanced milling machine ability to private homes. That realization destroyed what many left leaning anti-gun advocates had long been fantasizing about. They thought that if they lobbied congress to change some gun laws, or put pressure on Dick’s Sporting Goods and Field & Stream to take guns out of their stores, or that liberal politicians might even shut down gun manufacturers by taxing them and regulating them out of existence, that they might rid the world of guns. What they learned is that as regulations and the threat of them have increased, the ability to manufacture guns at home which have also increased as a direct response and the threat of having millions and millions of guns in society that don’t even have traceable serial numbers on them is even scarier.

I personally have no problem with my guns being registered. But given what we’ve seen out of our own FBI during the Trump presidency and the massive laws that were broken in an attempt to overthrow him through impeachment, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to see why registering guns with the federal government would be problematic. If they were to ever gain the ability to confiscate guns through the legislature they would simply read off their directory and go home to home in a confiscation raid which gives an emerging enemy an unfair advantage. I say an emerging enemy because obviously if a government is seeking to protect its power and wishes to take more from the people who fuel it through taxation, then their ability to disarm the population to protect their advances gives them a terrible advantage. But for the gun owner, the power of their firearm ownership keeps such governments from gaining too much power. It’s not that we should go around shooting everyone, but the threat of having it keeps potential dictators from getting any crazy thoughts. Naturally, being part of a thoughtful civilization as the Obama years made the threat of gun confiscation a very real possibility, companies like those who manufacture Ghost Gunner 2 have found a way to overcome that threat. Personally, I think produced firearms that nobody needs to know that you have so that they aren’t on a target list from some future government is the key to a continued free society.

Of course, political lefty radicals want more laws to legislate these types of personal gun making machines but I’d say to them, who thinks anybody is going to follow the law? Laws will not put the Genie back in the bottle and I would say they will be vastly ignored if they do create such legislation. After all, marijuana is illegal and political leftists have been ignoring those laws for decades. Why should gun owners obey laws just because some politician makes them up to protect their own power? By following the Constitution of our nation, the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment which protects the ability to exchange the knowledge of gun building from one person to another are critical to the continued success of the United States of America. Having a gun that has a serial number on it that the federal government can trace is not important to the right to own a gun to protect civilization from an out of control government. In a gun free world, history shows that governments often spin out of control and we’ve seen it in American culture as well as anywhere, so taking guns out of society and legislating them out of existence just isn’t a possibility. The more laws there are, the more innovation will arise to step around those laws. If there are more gun control laws centered around serial number registration than naturally the human thing to do would be to invent some way to step around the law. It’s that simple.

All my guns are registered, and I don’t worry about any federal government trouble at this time. My kind of president is in the White House and I feel good about where the nation is going. But I personally do have the ability to build every part of a gun from the ammunition to the most complex part of a gun and if society fails for sustained periods of time, I can see a real need to be able to manufacture my own guns from my home. Liberals want the American population to trust their government completely, but Austin Peterson has the right idea, gun ownership is the heart of our Constitution, it is at the heart of all civilized society. Guns aren’t defined by whether or not they have a serial number that shows they are officially recognized by the federal government, they just need to shoot straight, and not blow up in our hands. They need to be reliable, and we need to have them, that is all that is required. That is why the Ghost Gunner 2 is a wonderful invention and I am very inclined to get one just in case someday I may need it.

One of the most satisfying things I’ve done in a while was purchase my new Desert Eagle from Magnum Research. The gun wasn’t in stock, I had to wait for them to make a run through their shop to get the style that I selected. And they were very good to let me know the status along the way which I appreciated. I personally know well over 100 people who could machine a gun from a block of aluminum without even breaking a sweat. That’s why I was able to appreciate all the fine craftsmanship that went into my Desert Eagle. But if Magnum Research were to be regulated out of existence by politicians hell-bent on power, I would still get my gun. No law from some modern politicians trying to manipulate the Constitution is going to stop me from that. They can’t have it both ways, they can’t advocate law breaking (marijuana, and illegal immigration) then expect gun owners to follow the laws liberals like. Respect for the law is just what it is, and liberals have shown that they don’t respect the law, and that is a situation they made for themselves. And that is why we will make guns in our homes whether or not it is legal. So long as the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, we will have them whether or not there are serial numbers to go with them, because it is that very government that we have an obligation to keep in check. And that is the ultimate law of the land. Without that we have nothing anyway.

Rich Hoffman

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

Join the NRA Today: Guns are the only hope for a civilized, and fair society

It’s always good to get a new American Rifleman from the NRA in the mailbox. More than the articles on various guns and their industry counterparts I enjoy the awareness of legislative activity regarding the Second Amendment. In the August 2018 magazine there were some really good columns once again by Wayne LaPierre, Oliver North, and Chris Cox which brought to my mind some very urgent reflections about defending the Second Amendment which has been lost behind the incredible news events of our current news cycle. I mean it should be noted that socialists are now defining the Democratic Party, which is good, because it is peeling back the false layers of civility which has hidden the Marxist roots of that political affiliation and their ultimate aims of repealing the Second Amendment and essentially destroying all the Constitutional amendments. With the media love of discovering the socialist from the Bronx Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this Tweet below shows how shallow her political philosophy truly is, yet she’s really all the political left has, and its good to see the cracks forming. She’s just another young kid that is nice and speaks well that liberals hope will be a recruiter of more socialists to gain them a youth vote. But the same thing that makes socialists accept the Karl Marx concept of collective ownership of production means is the same thing that is destroying them as a party, they are lazy and unambitious. But to conceal their faith repealing the Second Amendment is their rally cry that none of us should ignore.

I have never thought that there was a difference between socialists and Democrats. People say that Democrats are more of a “centralist” vantage point along the political spectrum just as many of those same interpreters would say that I am a member of the hard right. I can say that my position has never moved, nor should it have. I have always been very conservative. It was the world that moved to the left including most Republicans. So call it whatever you want, it was socialists who injected their ideas into both political parties and pulled the entire spectrum of political philosophy to the left making the center where Americans a hundred years ago would consider the ultra, ultra-left. I grew up on Davy Crockett from the famous Walt Disney television show and westerns like Gunsmoke. Even at eight years old my mom said I reminded her of John Wayne because of my moral outlook on life, and back then that was quite common. What has changed was everyone else, and just because the masses moved to the left, that doesn’t mean it’s the correct thing to do. It just means that socialist radicals have gotten their way—at least up until this point.

And that is largely how the gun debate has also evolved, the political left has taken an aspect of American culture and moved the vantage point of analysis far to the political left to the point that the Second Amendment has been under serious threat. Even though many of those same socialist supporters who have been suddenly supporting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the new spokeswoman for the modern socialist movement support gun confiscation by the government they spend most of their time playing video games that feature guns, so the contradiction couldn’t be more pronounced. Yet the premise of what socialists are asking of the world states emphatically that guns will need to be more a part of the world’s future than ever before because there is a major flaw in the thinking on the left that nobody has been talking about.

In all our lives there has likely been a time and there will be again where we lose power for a sustained period. I recently wrote about the Yellowstone volcano that is bound to erupt with a major cataclysmic event, as it has in the past, and when it does, much of the United States will be without power and food for weeks if not months on end. Just as hurricanes and other disasters come and wipe away a lifetime of work occasionally, bad things do happen and when they do, the government cannot protect people. The looting that takes place after major tragedies is heartbreaking, and nothing makes it worse than not being able to protect what you do have after such tragedies—even it it’s just your life that you have left. The Second Amendment is not there to protect your rights and liberties only if there is sustainable power grids and times of peace. It’s there to keep civility for when things aren’t so good, such as when the entire infrastructure of civility breaks away leaving us all to fend for ourselves. When there is a major power disruption even to the point where phones don’t work, there are no police to keep the bad guys away. There is only you and your gun, and that is what makes America the best place to live in the world even when there are major snowstorms, flooding, and power outages. Most of the time civility is restored within a few days or weeks on the North American continent. In the case of the Yellowstone eruption when something like that does occur, it might be months, but without question America has the wealth and resources to get back on its feet, and it will. But the transition time will require individuals to maintain order while the government regains its footing.

What socialist are asking when they demand gun confiscation and restrictions is that we place our entire trust into a centralized government, which is the first thing that falls apart when tragedies do happen. There is nothing worse than losing power for several days and running your refrigerator on a generator than to have people less prepared walking down the road outside looking for food and seeing that you have lights on in your home. The only thing that keeps them from taking over your house so they can get access to food and water is your guns. The promise of death ends their fantasies of stealing your supplies is usually a good deterrent and peace is maintained. Just as the presence of police tend to keep people from killing each other from arguments, humans need a deterrent to keep them from acting in a hostile way toward other members of the human race. Socialists desire to ignore that human trait and to just put blind faith into government which has proven to have major flaws.

We’ve seen just in the debacle of the FBI in regards to their picking one political party over another and attempting to bend the law to manipulate elections that we can never truly depend on centralized government to do everything that we need as a society. They are prone to corruptions clearly and we can never trust them completely. They are not much different from the bandits hitting the streets during an extended power outage looking for food and water and they will attack their neighbors once civility is stripped away during tragic events. In those times only, the gun can protect individual rights from the desires of the mob.

While the current trend is to demand trust the implied aspect of that thought process is all the alarm bells we need to consider to protect the Second Amendment and it is good to see that the NRA is doing such a good job of keeping the pressure on. But it shouldn’t be viewed as an extreme right winged position. It is now only because the socialists have contaminated thought through the efforts of the lazy, who clearly outnumber the rest of the population in America these days that gun control through legislation and confiscation is even proposed. But like everything from the political left and the socialists who are driving their philosophy, they are missing the point and have not thought things through to their natural conclusions. They don’t have a plan when centralized government fails. But as we know, centralized government barely works in the most optimal conditions, and that is why guns must always be a part of any successful society, because it can and often truly is the only way to maintain civility. And without civility, no nation has any hope of building into the future.

Rich Hoffman

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

Twelve New Moons Discovered Around Jupiter: Why I stick to new media as opposed to working with the old for substantiation–independence has far more value

The news took a back seat this week along with many other big topics, but it should be considered quite interesting that 12 more moons were just discovered around Jupiter. That brings the number of moons around the giant planet in our solar system to 79 which goes to show that we are all in for a lot of news like this for the next two centuries. We’ve been looking at Jupiter for many years now with high-tech equipment and we continue to have discoveries like this happening all the time. It only builds a case that we still have a lot to learn when it comes to space and what we will learn about it. NASA also this past week announced that they planned to return to the moon within the next decade and that once we set foot once again on that moon of our own, that we will stay there, likely forever. We need a space base from which to work, because there are just so many discoveries waiting to be made and leaving from the moon is much more practical than always leaving directly from earth.

I suppose this is a good time to answer many letters I have received recently about the nature of this website and my ambitions for it. Many have asked why I don’t put my efforts into more formal markets, like established magazines and newspapers, or embed myself into more formal television and radio media—as I have in the past. The answer is simple, because the news is moving so fast and the world is so well-connected that many times what I do with information which is to personalize it into an articulate way for people to digest, there isn’t time to submit articles to an editor or even schedule television time. One thing that I learned a long time ago doing talk radio segments and even hosting live radio broadcasts is that information is needed by the public, they are very hungry for it. But the drawback to live broadcasts is that they are often forgotten as quick as people hear them. Printed media is still the best way that people retain information because they can reread what they hear coming back to their source information again and again.

Of course with the internet most broadcasts can be watched and listened to over and over again, but people seem to retain information better when they read it as opposed to having someone read it to them or give it to them in some other way. Many of my articles, even ones from many years ago are still very active. Where modern newspapers clear their stories from their servers within a few years, my articles go back for over a decade. If people want to do research on a topic from 2011 it is very easy for them to retrieve that information and track a trajectory of a story’s development, such as the evolution of space vehicles for personal transportation or regenerative health. I have found that this method of a “blog” has more staying power then regular newspaper and magazine articles in the context of history.

Also, I am not limited to a word count on these articles, which is important. Most news outlets have restrictions on how long a topic can be covered, or how many words an article can cover. This artificial limitation is ridiculous in this modern age. I get feedback all the time that my articles are too long, that people don’t have time to read over 1000 words per article every day. Well, I have found that most topics require at least that much print to cover a topic fully, and for my readers to get into the depths of a problem that is my offering. So the articles are purposely longer than what other contemporaries might think is needed. The goal of my articles is to provide coverage and opinion in detail, not to just hold readers attention to sell a subscription or get click based advertising for the site.

And for that reason, I do all this without money being involved. I have a natural interest in these topics, which many people share. I do lots of things in my life that make money, so I am not concerned about another paycheck, even though many people also think that writing on this site is all I do. In all reality, I am a very hard worker that is interested in many things, and so writing on this site is an overfill of what happens in my regular life that I am willing to share with people for their own benefit. It is not the aim of my days, so I do not have to charge money for its access or content like many newspapers do. I think there is a real honesty in some of these blog sites that have made them very beneficial to modern news sources. I have a great subscription base that has sustained itself over the years. Typically, its only more intelligent people who tend to read all this content where shorter termed thinkers stick to just the highlights of pop culture which is fine with me. I’m not interested in shaping my content to the dumbed down needs of pop culture. I just want smart people out there to know that they aren’t alone, that intelligence and thoughtfulness, along with wit are very much alive and they can always find those elements here.

Ultimately I had a very open fight with several reporters around the Cincinnati and Dayton area where they would cover me from time to time and they got into a habit of thinking that they were doing me some kind of favor. As it turned out they were very jealous of my blog site because it baffled them that I could write so much content about so many different topics and of course being employed the way they were, there was great restrictions on what they could write about. I never worry about what I’m going to write about, I love that freedom. And I’m happy to trade an official publisher that might be able to fine tune the grammatical elements with the freedom to write what is most on my mind in a fast-moving world. That made these reporters very upset leaving us to a war of words which ended with me telling them I could out-write any of them all together every day of the week all weeks of the year. Obviously, I’ve kept up my end of the bet. I think anybody would be hard pressed to find another writer anywhere, in any industry who writes as much as I do and has as much to say about anything at any time that I do—all days of the week, all weeks of the year, year after year after year. I don’t do it for money. As I have said I do many other things for money. I write because it’s a personal passion and I like the independence of doing it the way I do. I’m my own boss and I answer to nobody and that’s the way I like to do everything, But I am not shy to remind those challengers that I am out-writing them every day of the week and I don’t even get paid for it the way they do. I do all this and I still do many other things that take up most of my time all week-long.

My decision for this endeavor is largely out of a personal desire to put context to our fast-moving world in the form of writing and to cover as much as possible as quickly as things happen. Newspapers, cable shows, and local television and radio have so many people involved in their productions that it slows them down and waters their content toward loss of potency. But at my site I have only me to filter through the evidence and articulate a response, and if that is what people are looking for, they can get it. It is hard to know what to think about things as fast as they come in, so that is where I like to lend a hand. And that is the reason sites like this have become the new media that people trust and is having a vast influence over the shape of today’s culture. The traditional methods are failing, but new methods like this are growing and I’m happy to play the part that I do. The value for me is in getting the information out to the people most hungry for it, and I am reminded of that importance every time a story like this Jupiter discovery emerges. It’s easy to lose such observations in the depths of all the other events soaking up the news cycle. But at least we capture here the lightning in the bottle for the right people to see and act on, and to not forget it in the years to come when such information is ultimately most needed.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Blue Wave of Liberalism: As the Supreme Court rules in favor of tradition, tears are all that come from the left leaning insurgents

We are seeing a blue wave, a blue wave of liberal tears, that’s a whole lot better than the blood of slain socialists and communists in American streets. With the two biggest Supreme Court decisions coming this past week leaning the court in directions it should have always been, liberals should consider themselves lucky. The court system is working properly for once not just because it is representative of a conservative view for a change as there aren’t surprises such as we had in the Obamacare case years. The High Court under the guidance of President Trump is working competently especially in two cases, their support of the Trump travel ban which had been challenged by the lower courts and the reversal of the mandatory union dues to be paid by non union employees. By adding these decisions to the bakery case of a gay couple trying to compel a business owner to bake a cake for a ceremonial practice that they didn’t wish to do, a positive pattern is clearly developing which is good for the human race, but bad for liberals who demand the sanctioning of their bad behavior from good people in order to live their lives—and the Supreme Court is philosophically aligned for a change on the correct premise of all Constitutional debate—the act of compulsion over individuals.

In essence the nature of the travel ban where people from war-torn communist and socialist countries are fleeing to America can be summed up simply. Why are there people from bad places in the world trying to get into America—because America has value where El Salvador and Iran have lost that value. People wanting to survive desire to leave for the opportunities that America has to offer. However, bad guys who want to destroy America hide in the great numbers of migrants so that they can embed themselves like a Trojan horse into that culture of value and soon the problems of gang violence that is in El Salvador are in the streets of New York and Chicago. The main problem is that the failures of socialism and communism have created violent clans for which people are fleeing from in those host countries causing an immigration problem. Liberals like socialist behavior and have always been fans of communists so they ignore the failures of the origin countries and seek as all Marxists do, the looting of value wherever they can like some sick insect destroying a garden. The Constitution grants our president, whomever they may be, to protect American borders from just such a menace and that is what Trump has done, and the Supreme Court has upheld that right. The American people cannot be forced to sanction evil, in this case giving socialists and communists a path toward continued existence by forcing Americans to fund illegal immigration and allowing dictatorships and totalitarian governments to thrive off the looted wealth of America by flooding the border with immigrants and collapsing our legal system under the weight of sheer chaos.

And it was 41 years ago that a previous Supreme Court putting their finger to the air and trying to predict the future allowed labor unions to compel employees to pay union dues to them for which they would then spend on liberal political candidates. As I’ve pointed out many times the concept of labor unions were always socialists in their nature—their aim was always to compel the many to support the views of the union leadership—which were always Marxist in nature. The decision was wrong then and thankfully this modern court reversed that bad practice which will go a long way to restoring sanity back into our employment sectors. By allowing labor unions to compel employees to give them money it was no different from some mob boss compelling business owners and the people of a community to pay for protection not from the world, but from the mob bosses. Always behind the effort was the desire of the many to steal value from the few to sanction behavior that individuals didn’t agree with, which has the adverse effect of weakening our Republic style of government. America was never a democracy where the mobs rule by sheer numbers—which was always the desire of socialists and communists, because the lazy, the stupid, and the evil will always accompany the masses giving democracies their proper place in the Vico Cycle. Looking back at the failed countries of the Trump travel ban, failed societies of democracies that have allowed their cultures to be overrun by evil have destroyed the value of their homelands and they as a sheer survival instinct seek value where it is so they can loot from it—which is the cause of illegal immigration. The same holds true of labor unions who seek the input of the most valuable to loot that wealth and convert it to collective oppression to sustain their own existence.

The argument that labor unions have against such a Supreme Court ruling is that it supports “free riders.” People who benefit from the union negotiations without paying for the service. But what labor unions really mean to say is that they require compulsion and surrender of individual will to the mass desires of a tribe mentality to function effective as a leverage holder of a place of business. That is bad enough in private businesses, but it is absolutely detrimental in government jobs where tax payers are forced to fund this chaos then to have the looted money confiscated turned into liberal weapons in the realm of politics. By allowing the practice of such looting of individual wealth in favor of collective benefit, the previous Supreme Court of 1977 opened the door to the artificial financial support of a liberal party in America that would have never existed but for its thuggish roots into socialism which stole its value from people who would not give them that value unless the highest court in the land had said that such a thing was legal. The high court finally after more than forty years corrected that mistake and we are all much better for it.

yPhilosophy is the key to our civilization, and without it, we have chaos, which is what previous governments have been exporting up until this Trump administration. With President Trump showing that he is willing to protect the bold, the current Supreme Court has shown that it is willing to uphold individual rights over the protests of the group assimilators who want to turn our Republic into a mob driven democracy well on its way to anarchy—quite on purpose. The case-law from just this week’s Supreme Court cases will resonate for the next century in very positive ways Constitutionally, and that is good for everyone in the world—even the illegal immigrants. It protects what they are seeking. Even though the dream of America might be put off a few years through the legal immigration system that is merit based it means that when they do get to the greatest country on planet earth that their dreams will be intact and opportunities will be there for them to utilize as individuals. The socialist influences that have destroyed their homelands are finally being pushed back in America which keeps that light on in North America for the rest of the world to follow and that is truly the greatest aspect of this week’s rulings by the Supreme Court. While the liberals may think its all unfair they should at least take refuge in the fact that they are shedding tears, and not blood, because their continued incursions into traditional American life is not permissible and if we did not have the courts doing some of this suddenly good work, then it would be war in the streets against their collectivist ideologies, and they wouldn’t like the result of that. They should consider those tears a lucky byproduct.

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

A Challenge to Peter Strzok: If you think you are smarter, faster and tougher than me, then let’s clear up your illusions right now

Well, after reading through that Inspector General report I have one thing to say to Peter Strzok who stated in his text messages to his girlfriend Lisa Page, that Trump supporters were poor to middle class, and uneducated—there isn’t a single FBI agent who I would say is smarter than me. I was a Trump supporter before anybody took him seriously and guess what, look how right that turned out. I mean I’m not one to toot my own horn although people might look at the millions of words I have written and think I do that very thing often, but believe me, I hold back. But it really does irritate me when people who are not as intellectually stout look at me, or a group I’m associated with as a “Trump Supporter” and think they are somehow superior to me. There is nothing about Peter Strzok that is superior. I’d like to speak on your behalf dear reader, but you’ll have to do that for yourself. And its one thing to say it, it’s quite another to do it, and Trump supporters now have history to blow wind in their sails. We are looking smarter with each day. But the massive arrogance that came from the IG Report is the least of the trouble.

The stupidity that “they” think is part of our culture in America is the real problem, such as believing that they can sell to us that the FBI had no bias in the Hillary Clinton investigation over her emails—that intent and evidence could not be deciphered based on their investigation into the matter from the Inspector General. Hey, the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were enough. By the time you add Andy McCabe into this mix along with James Comey there is plenty of evidence about FBI activism and bias that has damaged the FBI permanently. And it all starts with the basic premise that they as federal employees were given massive power over our lives and know more than we do as the people who put them in such a powerful position. So they acted against us all by trying to overturn an election because they thought we were too stupid to make an election decision on our own, so they had to intervene. If there was any tampering of the 2016 election it wasn’t the Russians we needed to worry about as to tampering it was the FBI and the leader of all that tampering was Peter Strzok under the direct supervision of Andy McCabe and James Comey. And they all need to go to jail immediately.

I didn’t think the IG Report would amount to much, after all, it’s the swamp trying to punish the swamp—how much could they reveal in such a report? But for smart people, “like me” and likely you dear reader we saw all this a long time ago. That’s why we voted for Trump in the first place. I don’t need any government overlords, I don’t have any “betters” who need to rule my life. I’m much more qualified, thank you. Nobody knows what’s better for me and my family than me. Nobody is smarter than me, especially some cheating FBI agent who can’t even keep his own family together and would say and do anything for the sexual favors of his mistress who appears to be crying all the time based on the IG Report. As bad as that report is, it points to even more problems on what isn’t in it. The Inspector General is obviously trying to do just as James Comey did with Hillary Clinton, they are trying to throw us a bone so that we attack Peter Strzok and James Comey, the obvious villains, and hopefully everything else could go back to normal. Only normal isn’t acceptable. I don’t ever want to go back to the way things were, where there are FBI agents who actually think they are better, stronger, smarter and faster than me—and will act in accordance with that misguided interpretation of reality.

When Christopher Wray as the new Trump appointed Director of the FBI spoke in reaction to this very damaging IG Report I understand that the job was a tough one. He seems like a decent person and I’m sure the people working for him are decent people as well. But are they smarter than the rest of us? Hell no. I am not impressed with the 5% recruitment rate—obviously the FBI if they have people like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok at the top of their organization their recruitment methods are not very good—I mean 5% of what, people inclined to collectivist thinking, to following orders without thought, of people who might lean Democrat—the way that Wray stated the issue he tried to make it sound that only 5% of the FBI recruiting class each year could get a job with the agency, as if that were a good thing. But he has only been the director for a very short time, only a little over a year at this point, so the same type of people who hired Peter Strzok are still making decisions of what constitutes those 5% in the acceptance criteria.

Let’s make something clear, and I’m speaking personally, I vote for representatives to go do these administrative tasks in government because it’s a waste of my time. I could do a better job at fighting bad guys than the typical FBI agent. I have no worries about running toward danger while other people run away from it. I doubt there is a single person in law enforcement that has the kind of testicular fortitude that I have, especially when there is danger. With that said, I have better things to do with my time that I think are far more valuable, so I am happy to hire Trump to go staff these positions in government to take care of the basic security of our nation. But Peter Strzok hasn’t been doing the job because I couldn’t. Let’s make that quite clear. He’s doing it because I don’t have time to do it myself and my time is put to better use on other things. It certainly isn’t for a lack of skill and intelligence. I can promise Peter Strzok this, he couldn’t walk a day in my shoes. But I could easily walk a day in his.

That is really what these people are mad at, Donald Trump is one of those smart people who have done well in the world and he has come into a presidential position and made everything look easy. For him it’s like a retirement job. He’s destroyed the fanfare and spectacle of the office which has given people like Peter Strzok a grim dose of reality. None of their jobs are that hard. What they don’t say in that IG Report is that just about anybody who works hard in the private sector could be a better FBI agent than Peter Strzok. The ceremony of their offices as federal employees are not that difficult. They could be easily replaced. The reason more people like Trump are not in office is because they have better things to do with their life. I certainly do. I don’t have time to waste on losers like Strzok and Page. They are my employees, I’m not theirs. The most revealing thing stated in the IG Report was that Peter Strzok stated to Lisa Page in documented text messages as evidence that the FBI would stop Donald Trump from becoming president. That indicates intent, and employee radicalism—and a challenge to management—me and you dear reader. He also talked about using both guns if Trump where elected—that sounds like a threat to me. And if he really means it, I’ll meet him right now and show him who really is his boss. And it isn’t the president.

Rich Hoffman

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