Gun Grabbing Obama: Attacking America from within by first disarming them

The communist oriented Democrats have been “community organizing” vigorously on the heels of the infamous June 2015 Supreme Court rulings going for what they think is the conservative jugular in the final year of Obama’s flamboyant rule as a socialist dictator.  Over the weekend I received several emails from them advocating fundraising and liberal activism.  Below is one such example from the Obama camp specifically targeting guns.  Here’s what it said.

Friend —

We’ve had to come together as a nation too many times to mourn after horrific acts of gun violence. And right now, it’s not good enough simply to show sympathy.

We need to acknowledge that there’s more work to do — that these tragedies have become far too commonplace. This is a conversation that folks need to have, and organizers like you are the ones who will move it forward.

People across the country are stepping up, and OFA supporters and volunteers are working to prevent gun violence state by state and city by city — join their fight today.

As we take the time to heal in the shadow of this most recent tragedy, we have to ask ourselves what more we can do as individuals and communities to prevent guns from getting into the hands of dangerous individuals.

The lack of movement in Congress on this issue is incredibly frustrating. But their refusal to act won’t stop progress. Because of organizers like you, states like Washington and Oregon have introduced successful restrictions on gun purchases, like common-sense background checks.

No single reform will eliminate violence. But we can’t give up, or act like this is some kind of new normal. We have to make progress where we can, and OFA and other groups have a real path forward.

There’s much more to do — so join OFA in working for it:

I’m not giving up, and I hope you won’t either. Every voice is important.

Thank you,

Barack Obama


Remember, progress to a progressive is elimination one by one of the Bill of Rights, and the gun is highest on their priority list.  So defend the gun by sending a nice message to OFA and let them know how you feel.  Communists want a disarmed America for obvious reasons.  It’s your job dear reader to make sure they don’t get their way.  Send this article to everyone you know and make sure to take action and defend your rights—or you will lose them.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Rich Hoffman is Running for President: The bad is no longer protected from the good

I made the announcement during my show on the Clarkcast over the weekend that I am running for president of the United States, along with a little single cell creature newly discovered on the Jupiter moon of Europa. Of course I was using a little metaphorical humor to convey how ridiculous it is that there are so many people running for president in 2016, and the number is still growing. I’d say the cause of that effect is that president Obama has been so terrible, and lowered the bar so low, that now everyone believes that they too could be president and gain the ability to rule the world.  That’s what happens when a standard is lowered to a level where common people with an average background gain an ability that should only encompass the best and brightest minds produced within the United States. Also during the June 20th show I covered Matt Clark’s secret mission which he called in to surmise. I then spoke about my history with bullwhips a bit, gave some statistical analysis about the perceived gun violence in the wake of the South Carolina church shooting, and introduced my friend Gery Deer to talk about the upcoming Annie Oakley Western Showcase in Darke County, Ohio. It was an entertaining radio show that can be heard in its entirety below. Following the clip is the rough script of the show to make navigation easier for sections you may want to hear again.

Radio Show WAAM Saturday June , 2015 1 PM WAAM Talk 1600  734-822-1600

5 min — Matt Clark’s secret mission update

8 min – Nice to hear from Roy Hill at Brownells as the extreme left seeks to exploit the Charleston, South Carolina church.  After nine people were killed by Dylann Roof, Obama immediately sought gun control.   The progressive elements of our society were quick to point out statistics from the United Nations indicating that 81,300 nonfatal injuries and 31,672 deaths a year involve guns, which are 308 shootings every day. That sounds truly terrible—yet context is conveniently left vacant. There are approximately 32,000 deaths a year by automobiles and yet nobody has a press conference that declares that we should get rid of cars.  What’s worse is that a whopping 44,000 people die every year from some form of drug overdose and the president supports more of that type of behavior even getting behind efforts to decriminalize it. Isn’t that hypocritical? Of course it is. The drama around the latest shooting rampage has nothing to do with the loss of innocent life—it’s all about building a case against guns so that Americans might be convinced to give them up in favor of some measure of safety. The Fanned Flames of Racisim: Barack Obama’s role in the South Carolina shooting” at Overmanwarrior’s

10 min – My history with bullwhips

17 min — Soft break

20 min – 30 years of history with bullwhips including movies, business instruction, and self-defense.  Lead in to my relationship with Gery Deer and the Annie Oakley Western Arts Showcase—home of the bullwhip fastdraw—invented in Ohio.  2015 event on Saturday July 25th.

30 min — Hard break

35 min – Introduction to Gery Deer – Gery Deer is the closest person I’ve ever met to a real life Bronco Billy. He has a background that is white-collar; he’s a writer, a television producer, a computer technician, a college graduate well versed and quite comfortable in professional settings. He’s been on America’s Got Talent and done films as a material supplier for projects like The Rundown. He also runs the only bullwhip studio in America from his home where he teaches the art form to students. He’s also a bit of a geek, and attends sci-fi conventions with boyish enthusiasm. But at his core he’s a western performer and vaudeville musician.   His band the Brothers and Company performs most weekends of the year and is a throwback to yesteryear with their compositions. He’s a very unique person who fits best in a motion picture screen rather than real life.

38 min – Gery conversation on the phone.

47 min — Soft break

50 min – Stories of the Annie Oakley Western Showcase and roots back to the stuntman great Alex Green.  Talk about the 2015 event, who, what, why, when, and where.

58 min — Exit to the top of the hour

imageAfter the show Matt sent me a picture of his view as he listened to the show from his hotel balcony in Hawaii at 7 AM in the morning. He had a nice little beverage there along with his laptop listening to the live broadcast from WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan over the Internet which I think is far superior to the old days of raw tower power. You get a much better signal over the Internet that goes much, much further. In this case the reach of WAAM was easily heard halfway around the world in real-time. As a host for Matt’s show I did it from my personal radio studio at my home while Derek at the home studio several hundred miles to the north worked the dials. All three of us worked together to put on the show you just heard from different places separated greatly by distance which I thought was a powerful breakthrough in radio. I know that The Blaze Radio is also doing something similar—and this is opening up a new frontier along the lines of talk radio. No longer are regional limitations necessary in talk radio. That means that those with the best message can now get it out no matter where they live and can reach audiences in every corner of the world without any restriction so long as they have Internet access. That is exactly why the FCC is trying to stick its nose into the Internet. It’s a very powerful tool for the crafty—and government hates it for that reason. Government intended to use the Internet for the opposite reason—as a population control mechanism—and yes porn is a form of population control. But people like Matt and the good people at WAAM are using the Internet to save the republic one broadcast at a time, which is why they put me on for a few weeks to advance the cause. It won’t be the last time I host a show—I’ll just say that.

A few years ago Darryl Parks at WLW radio told me that this was where radio was going, which meant that big stations owned by Clear Channel were in trouble. Back then there was some talk about me doing some weekend work at the Cincinnati juggernaut WLW—but there were some management changes, and reluctance on my part to get involved in that kind of thing. I am a very busy guy, and taking time out of my weekend to go down to the station to broadcast from a studio is just too great of an imposition. When they fired my friend Doc Thompson I had no choice but to pick sides against management and the rest is history. The station has been reducing its employees since then, and Lisa Wells filled the spot that I might have covered on Saturday mornings—hoping that a female might expand the station’s reputation from less of a sausage fest. But it really doesn’t.

Matt Clark asked me to guest host for him months ago and took measures to set me up at home with a complete studio so I could do the show from my home in Liberty Township, Ohio. That meant that I could do all my normal tasks and only block off an hour and a half to do Matt’s show—which was fine with me. I didn’t even have to live in Ann Arbor to be in the studio. Matt helped me set up a room in my house with a remote studio that worked just fine to produce what you just heard. Back in the day, such as at WLW, you’d have to drive to the station which is in a big building in Kenwood, park the car, go up one of the two elevators to the top floor, go through the sales office, walk down a hallway that is at least a 100 yards long, then camp out in the studio to do the show as the producer gave cues from behind the glass. It took me about a half hour to drive to the station, and an additional 15 minutes to park the car just to get to the studio. Then after the show it was the same amount of time to get back home. That in itself is an hour and a half of dead—unproductive time that I don’t have. Then you have the actual radio show which can be anywhere from 1 hour to 3 hours. A good part of the day would be completely consumed.

With the Clarkcast I was able to do my normal activities right up until the moment of the show. I went to my personal home studio, contacted the station producer, and he piped me in and off I went. After the show, I was back to what I was doing immediately. The total time was nothing more than a long telephone conversation and of a very little time impact. And Matt was able to monitor in real-time from the other side of the world. That is the power and reach of modern radio. It was fun, informative, and successful. We’ll definitely do it again. Because the world needs saving—and due to the power of the Internet, we can reach further more often than we’ve ever been able to before—and you can bet dear reader that we will continue to use those tools to preserve our republic well into the future. These tools allow the best and brightest to be heard so in a lot of ways, the bar has been removed so that many vindictive producers who control radio broadcast towers can no longer monopolize the airwaves protecting the bad from the good. In a lot of ways modern radio is seeing the opposite effect of the presidential race. Obama is so bad that he now has many challengers to his legacy because he has made the job look all too easy. Radio too is now decentralized—but now the very good can step around the big stations and get their message to the public without small-minded programmers getting in the way. And thanks to WAAM, we have all taken our first steps into a larger world.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Businessmen Should Be President: Why to vote for people like Donald Trump

If one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results—then why do we continue the insane practice of electing lawyers, community activists, and attention seeking actors to lead the United States? Government is supposed to be a management system that controls costs and divides properly tax payer resources. Yet they continue to fail, over and over again—because most of the idiots in those positions are incompetent for the job. So why does a majority of the establishment bulk at Donald Trump’s declaration for presidency? He is one of the most successful people in the world and would likely be able to do everything he said in the below Bill O’Reilly interview. Why not try him out, what would the United States have to lose—its respect? That’s gone already. The question is who would be most able as a future president to manage the despicable situation we are in currently in the United States with a successful turn-around, a person with a proven track record of success, or just another parasitic government employee?

A few years ago I was involved in a resistance against tax increases at my local school district, and my solution was to put more business oriented people on the school board to solve the problem—people who really knew how to rub two sticks together and make fire in the world of business. My group proposed a few candidates that were heavily criticized because it was thought that only touchy feely big spenders who would cave into the teacher’s union for the benefit of the “kids” were the only ones qualified for the management of millions of dollars of acquired property tax revenue. I was told that business people were not qualified to run a school district. It is the same crap that is now being said about Donald Trump, that a rich billionaire does not have what it takes to be president. The conventional wisdom seems to point that incompetent, emotional, and populists make better leaders, yet they fail at everything they do. Whereas someone like Donald Trump, who has a track record of success is unqualified? That simply makes no sense—at all.

Given the constant school funding problems where management of resources is completely vacant, and the utter failures at every other level of public service, why would there be any suggestion of any other type of person sitting in the chair of an American president—other than a businessman? The answer is of course what every public labor union knows across the entire country, and that is that chaos is easy to exploit. So long as there is no management of a situation, then those employees can acquire all the money stolen from tax payers then use safety concerns and children to extract more. It’s a scam that virtually everyone in the Beltway is guilty of—especially the media. They are all pigs at the trough and they can never get enough, and they know that if someone like Donald Trump is watching the books that the slop in that trough will dry up forever. And that scares them to death.

Given that understanding, Donald Trump is belittled for his competency, and relevance—as those ill prepared to be leaders are placed on pedestals. It is a sure blueprint on how to destroy a country. Put bad leaders in charge of good leaders and the effectiveness of any organization is destroyed leaving exploitation by the wicked to be the mode of the day. I’m not a huge Donald Trump fan. He doesn’t treat women the way I would like to see, he’s more arrogant than I think is appropriate, but he’s successful, and anybody who is successful understands what it takes to be that way. Our political system needs much successful types if our republic has any hope of surviving. I’d vote for Donald Trump not because he’s a good person, but because he’s competent. In business, I’d probably get along well with Donald Trump. During a dinner conversation, probably not—but at least I know he has a desire for success as president.

The American presidents over the last two hundred years have had a variety of backgrounds; most were attorneys, or military minds of some kind. Few have a real background in business—and isn’t it time that someone have a clear understanding of what capitalism is all about? What better way for America to help the world with foreign policy than in teaching them the merits of capitalism—how to become rich themselves. Who better to advocate that than Donald Trump presently?

That is another aspect to this whole issue–governments love socialism—they love to be in charge through group consensus. They do not like capitalism at all, and they hate people like Trump because they know first that they need the money of the rich to get elected, and second they hate being reminded that it is the rich who are really in charge of everything—because that’s the way it is in a capitalist society. Trump has no respect for politicians, because they are not productive people. They don’t build wealth, they rob from it. They are anti-capitalists.  So why on earth would we ever consider voting for such a person—yet half of the Republican candidates and all of the Democratic candidates are just such people—progressives at best—socialists at worst—all advocates of looted wealth redistributed in the spirit of fairness as determined by corrupt people.

Specifically, the American businessman—the good ones, tend to make good leaders just by surviving the vetting process. Those who are successful are far more qualified than some human resources slug from P&G to run a school board, or a community giveaway artist like Obama for President. A business person like Carly Fiorina—whom I would also vote for in less than a second—has proven success as leaders—and are therefore infinitely more qualified to be responsible for trillions of dollars and billions of human lives. A community activist or school teachers are not qualifications enough for such a task such as what Woodrow Wilson used to be. Presidents and other representatives in our republic should be proven business people who have a working knowledge of capitalism and the actual cause of job creation. It isn’t politicians—its people like Trump.

So why not Trump? Why not a billionaire who has made money in global markets and knows how to read and assess a situation from different cultures? Could he possibly do worse than Hillary Clinton—who has a proven track record of failure and only has her lack of genitalia as a reason to vote for her?   I think not. Things won’t change in America until we get back to making bold decisions and acting in a dynamic fashion. Doing the same old failures of the past and copying after Europe won’t get us there. But Trump could—so why not?

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Not Everyone Wants to be Bruce Jenner: A review and defense of ‘Jurassic World’

Well, that was a treat that was quite unexpected. Jurassic World was absolutely marvelous and a stunning fourth addition to the Jurassic Park movies. I anticipated that it would be good, even that I would enjoy it—but I did not expect it to be such a respectable tribute to the original movie while at the same time standing on its own. There are so many things great about Jurassic World that I could literally write about it for days on end and not touch everything I’d like to say. So for brevity I’ll focus on an aspect of the film that is quite clearly a source of some of the negative reviews from progressive sectors of the media—and that is the clear definition of the alpha male—and how that calculated approach is aimed at appeasing a hungry audience craving such definitions in a generation of watered down bravado. Chris Pratt was actually wonderful in the movie as a very strong alpha male character while Bryce Dallas Howard’s character was extremely comfortable in her femininity by the end of the film. It was an unusual approach that offered no apologies.

When Joss Whedon Tweeted, “I’m too busy wishing this clip wasn’t 70’s era sexist. She’s a stiff, he’s a life force – really? Still?” The Avengers director was referring to a clip showing Howard and Pratt speaking where it was obvious that the male character had the alpha position over the female. Whedon suggests that if a film does not diminish a male character in modern cinema into some sort of beta male—that the presentation of the material presented isn’t relevant in the modern age. The Tweet was designed to put pressure on director Colin Trevorrow, Steven Spielberg and the executives at Universal Studios which thankfully they didn’t listen to. This explains a lot about why I didn’t care much for the second Avengers film, Age of Ultron. Whedon I thought tried too hard to make Scarlet Johansson an alpha type when her character on-screen obviously wanted to submit to the Incredible Hulk. Maybe if she had loosened up a bit the Hulk would have stuck with her. Just a little advice, Joss—it’s free. Joss is riding a franchise built by Stan Lee, so it’s hard to screw it up—but his progressive approach is costing the Avengers money. Sure it’s doing good business, but it could be better. There is much more to be made if the filmmakers would listen to their audience instead of trying to cram progressive diatribes down their throats. Some people want their males to be alpha and their female’s beta. It makes for good sex and happy couples. Not everyone wants to be Bruce Jenner. Thankfully the filmmakers of Jurassic World ignored a lot of the progressive product placement in their film favoring audience satisfaction instead.

One particular scene which I thought was actually quite remarkable was when a tattered Claire was laying on the ground behind the protective foot of the classic T-Rex while it was protecting her from the movie’s villain, the Indominus Rex. It reminded me of a classic King Kong movie with Fey Wray off to the side being protected from a threat. Claire was a very competent career woman who was running the whole park. It wasn’t her fault that the Indominus Rex got loose and ate all her visitors. But over the course of the film she loosed up and embraced her femininely attributes a bit more through her character arch to arrive at the end a willing beta to Chris Pratt’s alpha. That might be out of fashion in Hollywood, but it’s quite what people in the theater audience wanted to see—because it’s what they want in real life.

Chris Pratt’s Owen character several times throughout the film firmly established himself as the alpha character even explaining to Claire’s nephews his relationship to the raptors. They obeyed him because he was the dominate male even to the point where he could ride a motorcycle through a rain forest with the raptors hunting with him. The nephews seeing this tell Claire, “you’re boyfriend is a badass.” There was a very obvious embrace of Pratt being the alpha during the entire film and it was Claire’s task to realize that she was a beta in an alpha disguise and to realize that through the movie’s tribulations. And there is nothing wrong with that. If audiences didn’t like that type of thing, they wouldn’t go see the movie and have such wonderful memories of the previous films.

What makes the Jurassic Park movies work is the primal understanding of animal behavior. Humans are in fact animals and have raw needs similar to any dog, cat or gold-fish. The Daily Beast recognized this trait in its review of Jurassic World calling the movie a “sexist mess” because the theme of the story is “about a woman’s ‘evolution’ from an icy-cold, selfish corporate shill into a considerate wife and mother.” That assessment is true, Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady as a swashbuckling, macho, ex-military velociraptor trainer helps her find that realization, but it is her character arch to find it—which she does. At the end of the movie there was applause from a packed theater—some even stood and clapped. Obliviously mainstream America stands apart from Joss Whedon and reviews like The Daily Beast—Whedon even deleted his Twitter account and backtracked a bit on his comments. If he wants his Avengers films to hold up into the future—he better take some notes because 50 to 60 years from now Jurassic World will still be a beloved movie whereas the Avengers risk being viewed as dated and out of touch with the human experience. Feminism in the way that progressives present it is not appealing to the masses—only the levy supporters and Santa Monica neurotics sipping lattés over cold cuts sending text messages to the person sitting next to them.

For me the best part of the movie was the ending. I loved the first movie and thought that there was no way to ever recapture that raw, primal—yet heroic ending—but Colin Trevorrow absolutely nailed it. Tears were streaming down the faces of the people sitting around me and it was quite spectacular and deeply satisfying—especially for fans of the original movie. I’m not going to spoil it for those who have not yet seen it. But I will say this—read my article about the T-Rex Café in Orlando and you’ll understand why it’s such a wonderful ending. CLICK HERE to review. I hope because of Jurassic World that there is a T-Rex Café in every North American city. I would eat in it once a week if there was one in Cincinnati.   That name had great meaning to me before Jurassic World. After the film it has even more.

I love dinosaurs, I love paleontology. I love The Dinosaur Store in Cocoa Beach, Florida, the T-Rex Café in Orlando and Jack Horner in Montana—along with the great work that he does every day in the world of DNA sequencing. There is optimism in science that is unlike anything the human race has ever endeavored to venture in to. Jurassic World is in love with science, human potential, and the dangers of raw primal urges that get out of control. My great fear in going into Jurassic World was that Colin Trevorrow would miss the mark and taint the great franchise that Jurassic Park is. I was afraid that he’d put a dagger into it to the extent that Universal Studios in Florida might actually shut down my favorite part of their great park due to age and irrelevancy. But what I found was a film that breathed new life into the classic dinosaur movie and invented characters that were actually likeable—and mainstream. In a time where the media is telling us that Bruce Jenner is normal and that even the Hulk will walk away from an overly masculine woman in the Black Widow—Jurassic World doesn’t try to cram feminism down our throats behind the thrills of an action film. Instead it aims to give the audience what they paid for and ignite in millions of little kids a love of science and the ancient past in the form of heroic dinosaurs.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Jack Horner’s Science: The future being born from Jurassic World

The best things that come out of the Jurassic Park movies are the lasting impact their theoretical sciences impart into the future. When the first one came out in 1993 it changed the way zoos and theme parks operated. There is a little bit of Jurassic Park in just about every amusement park to this day. A quick trip to the Cincinnati Zoo will show even more evidence. The films and science that come from them are a nearly perfect marriage of imagination and reality. So it is quite exciting to see another film emerging called Jurassic World. Each time there is a new Jurassic Park film, of which Jurassic World will be the fourth, the outside world suddenly becomes interested in the very important work that the paleontologist Jack Horner is conducting that will change the future of the sciences in unimaginable ways very soon.

Not being able to complete the foreign language courses and therefore not obtaining his bachelor’s degree the budding scientist fought through great opposition to discover incredible dinosaur fossils and flesh out new theories as to their origins. It was Jack Horner who pushed the science community out of the box from thinking that dinosaurs spawned reptiles. The emerging answers was that dinosaurs are the parent DNA of birds which attracted Michael Crichton to write his novel, Jurassic Park by incorporating the new theory into a compelling story which brought to life dinosaurs through DNA resurrection into a modern theme park for children to enjoy. Steven Spielberg then made a film from Crichton’s book and history was made. The world learned about DNA and how it could be used to bring back creatures from the past—but ultimately cure humans in the present. Jurassic Park had a positive effect on the emerging science in a very positive fashion. Because of his voluminous work within paleontology Horner was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Science in 1986 by the University of Montana where he works to this day in Bozeman.

In his 2009 book How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn’t Have to Be Forever Horner unveiled his latest theory about genetically nudging the DNA of a chicken through reverse engineering into a dinosaur. It was a concept that he came up with during the filming of the first Jurassic Park movie over two decades ago—and now science has caught up to his vision. It won’t be but a few short years before Horner finds a way to pull off the attempt. He is now funded by people like George Lucas, so he doesn’t have to dig for dinosaurs and money at the same time—which is the largest impediment to science. Because of that Horner’s operation in Bozeman is one of the hottest spots in science and is revolutionizing the world with ambition and options.

Once mankind can build a dinosaur obviously there will be implications to the human race. Everything that we are, and our fates are locked in our DNA sequencing. Once we learn to work with that DNA like we would put a car in the shop for a proper diagnosis of something amiss, humans could be fixed at the genetic level to cure whatever issue we wish. Once Jack Horner builds his dinosaur and future entrepreneurs build actual Jurassic Parks the impact on humans will be much more significant. A new era will give us many options that we hadn’t considered and a whole host of new philosophies and intellectual options will be presented to us. That is the impact of a new Jurassic Park film. Without one, Jack Horner would be just another obscure eccentric digging in the badlands of the northern United States scorned by the scientific community and their accolades.

Even though it is old and dated now, one of the best parts of any amusement park I have been to is the Jurassic Park portion of Universal’s Islands of Adventure. It is there that reality meets fiction and I was able to actually walk through the closest replication of the fictional Jurassic Park on earth. For me personally, who has loved dinosaurs since I was a very little kid the discovery center at the real Jurassic Park was like entering the gates of heaven. I raised my children on the Jurassic Park movies, and on the music of John Williams, so there was something very special about the place to me. The movies and subsequent theme park attractions have all the optimism of early adventure films like the Jules Verne inspired Journey to the Top of the World, and Around the World in 80 Days—but then has the action and horror of something like Jaws. Then mixed in with all of that is quite large does of Indiana Jones—the nothing is impossible human spirit that Dr. Grant came to symbolize in two of the three Jurassic Park movies. These elements have been combined no place else and are central to the optimistic essence of the upcoming Jurassic World.

Once Jurassic World hits theater screens, museums all across the country will open up exhibits trying to recapture the movie experience and millions upon millions of children will learn something important as a result. Book sales of Jack Horner’s material will skyrocket and adults will learn much about what’s coming in science. These are things that are available every day, but are typically ignored until something like Jurassic World puts the focus on those options.   I’m looking forward to seeing the new movie just because of the conceptual design of actually implementing the original thoughts of the John Hammond character who was an unabashed capitalist that made everything possible. The Jurassic Park movies are extremely interesting in how they rock back and forth between capitalism and conservationism. Without the money and financing nobody would have anything—but left unchecked and disrespected, things spiral out of control quickly. So there is a core to the films that philosophically is at the heart of just about everything facing our world today economically and politically.

The premise of Jurassic World is fantastic and is what is facing real amusement parks like Disney’s Animal Kingdom and Sea World—how do you balance out a nice respect for science while still driving up park numbers to the levels it takes to make them financially profitable?   It costs a lot of money to care for large animals and once people get used to seeing them, interest curves off—even when it comes to genetically recreated dinosaurs. So because they can, scientists play a bit of Frankenstein with the DNA of dinosaurs to make a new creature—which is something that we are all facing in the very near future. If we can remake a dinosaur like Jack Horner plans to, why can’t we then make what we want in any form that we want it? Then, why can’t we apply the same to our own bodies as well. If we want to be 6’ 6” basketball players we could make ourselves into one. We could also build the perfect Victoria Secret models. Or we could turn off old age in our own bodies and live for several thousand years instead of just a measly 100. But to do that what happens to our religions and philosophy of sacrifice when so much is being built that is not dependent on invisible gods from realms unseen? Those are the themes that Jurassic World explores but against a canvas of optimism and wonder. It is an extremely unusual enterprise for a film that is about more than just thrills.

At the heart of Jurassic World is Jack Horner. Without him, there wouldn’t be a movie or the books that were the source material. The science of Jack Horner is changing the world from Bozeman, Montana and shaking the foundations of the establishment. The profits from Jurassic World will directly help Jack Horner build his real life dinosaur and that is the best aspect of the new movie. The hard questions about the morality of such a task are dealt with in the films, and then in reality they will be formed into new options that just weren’t there before. Or maybe they were. Perhaps this is how Noah lived so long and in the times before the Deluge giants ruled the world and genetics were manipulated in such a way to give people extremely long lives. Perhaps we are truly resurrecting a past that was imposed on us long ago that we are just now rediscovering? We will find out and leading the way is Jack Horner.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Helping Chief Blackwell: Cincinnati needs more guns–not less

Gun grabbers and pacifists are licking their lips with all the recent violence in Cincinnati involving guns. As Channel 9 released the report below and the Cincinnati Enquirer pandered to the same class of the panic driven drivel, the root cause of the gun violence was ignored in favor of a progressive objective seeking to demonize personal firearms. Here is how Channel 9 presented the case for which the burden fell on Chief Blackwell.

Cincinnatians have been barraged with the reports of 168 shootings so far this year. They include the recent gun battle on I-75, gunfire ringing out on our streets in broad daylight, teen-agers getting shot and teen-agers doing the shooting. There’s one thing all these incidents have in common: a gun.


That’s what I wanted to talk about with Chief Jeffrey Blackwell when I sat down with him Friday. Guns have been on his mind too.


He produced a daily report showing shootings are up 23 percent this year compared to the same period last year. Homicides are down, but he agreed that the recent violence has created an atmosphere of unease. 


His short-term response to the outbreak of gun violence is to create a new “gun-reduction program,” a group of 13 officers who will focus on the people police know of who are responsible for much of it.

So I’m going to do Chief Blackwell a favor, and explain to him the cause and how to remedy the problem that the city manager of Cincinnati has placed upon his shoulders. First of all the reason for the increase in gun violence is that the news reports from Baltimore and Ferguson have shown the criminal minded how to avoid prosecution and harassment by the police. Now that they’ve seen how mobs of people can protest the police and how the police have been neutered, particularly in places like New York City, and Chicago—respect for the law is at an all time low. Poor quality politicians and the media have fanned the flames of violence provoking it in many cases in inner cities where government dependents reside in a high concentration. The net result is an increase in the statistical violence involving guns in Cincinnati, and just about everywhere else where large concentrations of public housing, and welfare dominate the per capita population.

Yet in areas where there is a high concentration of gun ownership, like Mason and West Chester, Ohio—there is almost no gun violence per capita or by volume of gun ownership. That is because the quality of people in those areas are different—there are less thugs per capita in those areas. So a simple gun reduction program won’t work, because guns have been invented and bad guys will find them just as they do illegal drugs.   Reducing gun ownership within the city of Cincinnati will only guarantee more violence, not less—because when those who behave with an animalistic desire to suppress others drives criminal behavior against the innocent—the lack of guns allows for an unbalanced defense against thugs. Thugs are those who wish to impart violence against others to fulfill their own personal objectives. The victims may not desire to take part in that desire but if they don’t have a gun to equalize the ill intent, the thug will have the advantage 100% of the time without any resistance.

Progressives and other community advocates who lazily wish that guns had never been invented and fantasize that more government workers could manage all the elements of society into peace if only there were no more guns are the cause of the violence and the delay of the solution. They are the cause of the increased violence coming and going then point at the guns as the villains. Well, they have lost their seat at the table. There is enough history and facts now to dispute their fear based diatribes. Fewer guns increase violence, more guns reduce it. It’s a very simple equation.

If the violence within Cincinnati were to truly be reduced, then more homes with more guns should have them. There may be a slight spike at the beginning of such a proposal where the guns are used to dispel the efforts of a bad guy but once word hit the streets, the cockroaches would return to their hiding and keep their crimes from the eyes of humanity—for the most part. Give some shotguns to the old men who sit on their porches in Avondale talking about the old days—and let them eliminate the violence on their streets, the car break-ins, the drug deals, the gang gatherings—and it will quickly be shown how effect a pro gun program in the hands of private citizens truly is.

Take those same old men in Avondale sitting on their porches with shotguns painted against the reality of our day and they would be arrested for poor handling of a firearm and disturbing the peace while the members of a gang stand on a street corner down the road and laugh. The old men are an easy arrest for the police and keeps their captains off their backs for lack of arrests—but the kids down the road are difficult. There are legal entanglements and revenge killings—and they are just too much trouble. No cop with a family wants a cartel killer to show up on their doorstep, so they leave the kids alone. The gang is just too much trouble to deal with. Cops will show up to take a report after violence has occurred, but they just can’t do anything until a crime is committed making them virtually powerless to stop anything before a thug committees a violent act.

So what is Chief Blackwell supposed to say to a bunch of panicky politicians wanting a quick fix to a problem they created with progressive policies?   Tell them the truth, or tell them what they want to hear—that he’ll focus on getting rid of guns off the streets. To liberal progressives, that is music to their ears, so they might be appeased—for a while, but it won’t solve the problem. Violence will continue because those in charge have been deemed weak by the thugs, and that will only breed more thugs—not less. Before crime can really be solved management must admit that some of their citizens are thugs, and that they seek to correct that behavior with a basic respect for humanity. Those failing to adhere to that basic respect must be dealt with in the only way they understand—with force. Then and only then will violent trends decrease, and assumptions toward civility be cultivated successfully.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

West Chester Will Fight Anything: What makes a good community successful

I’ve discussed this Community Foundation deal set to take place at the location of the old Lakota Union school on Cincinnati Dayton road before. The proposal is to build a Boys & Girls Club at the site offering all day kindergarten for Lakota students—which is a fancy way of saying that it’s a full-time babysitting service funded by the taxpayers for residents of the Lakota schools district. In spite of the $40,000 that Lakota spends each year on the change agent Jeffery Stec to build public support for the union fees the public education employees extract from the tax payers each year, the school board has partnered up with the socialite Patti Alderson and former No Lakota Levy advocates to build a consensus within the community toward future school levies. The next levy is due to take place around 2017. With all the money spent, it just wasn’t enough to hire a progressive cheerleader from Cincinnati—other deals had to be made to keep public opinion in favor of the school system to over 50%. It’s a bit of a shell game going on behind the Boys & Girls Club at the proposed location. Everyone gets something out of the deal, even the tax payers who want to use the free babysitting service—except for a majority of the tax payers who end up paying for the whole enterprise. For them they are supposed to buy into the seemingly good intentions of the Boys & Girls Club mission to replace the parenting of young people with a progressive leaning education centered on altruism.

What is interesting is not that bandits, thieves and social parasites behind the issue, it’s the opinion of some who advocate on their behalf which I couldn’t help but notice in the comments section of the latest Journal News article on the matter, seen below. I’m certainly not one who demonizes builders and developers. I see those occupations as a creative enterprise. I am a fan of the Liberty Way developments and I love the Union Center Blvd developments. But I like to see a resistance that forces those developers to be either better in their presentations, or cleverer in what ends up finally built. Resistance is the key to good management. Those who do resist are not bad people or impediments to progress. Politicians have a tendency to lay down to developers because it is those type of businessmen who tend to contribute to political campaigns hoping that at some time in the future government will get out of their way to allow them to make some money. That leaves the private citizen as the natural counterbalance between these two forces that are needed to maintain good government. It is because of the many private citizens in and around West Chester that there are so many good things happening in one of the most affluent areas of Ohio. Yet the below comment was left on the mentioned article and illustrates a sad belief to the contrary.

You have to love West Chester. They will fight anything. Over the years, the community has fought a community Rec Center, a 1,000,000+ sf upscale Steiner development on Cin-Day (Yes, the same one building in Liberty), a YMCA, the schools, a new Kroger, a Christian school, sidewalks, bike paths and a Boys/Girls Club. Sounds like a great place to live.

In the article Danielle Richardson and the West Chester-Union Twp. Historical Society, essentially propose to the Lakota school district to buy the old school for the cost of $1—to clear it off their books and turn it over to someone else to manage. The Historical Society has an interest in the century old school building to maintain the image of Old West Chester as a hub of tradition to remember the roots of what made the area great to begin with. If everything that is built is new, then the roots will be lost forever of what attracted people to West Chester in the first place. If there is nobody challenging all these projects, such as the commenter above, everything that makes West Chester great would be lost forever—and changed into something else. For Lakota, which is a very progressive government organization—that is their intended goal on a social level—to change the behavior of the community at large, so their actions must be met with resistance. That’s why they hired Jeff Stec at a rather expensive cost to “change” the minds of the public toward support of a tax payer funded institution. New members of West Chester by their own destructive predilections want to change things into what they left behind. If everything is new and there is no sense of history, then they can feel equal to the people who have lived in West Chester for years. It’s a natural weakness that comes from the type of people who transfer to various locations around the nation. They are rootless by nature, so often have a tinge of jealousy toward those who do have a sense of belonging to a community or family.

An example of this is in Danielle Richardson herself, she is the person at the center of the “chicken” controversy which continues to boil in front of West Chester Trustees. Farms and chickens are part of West Chester’s history and some traditional value toward that memory needs to be made to accommodate that vintage sentiment. New money moved into West Chester and wants to think that the entire community is the Weatherington Country Club. It makes for some good back slapping over drinks to brag about pushing all the hillbillies out of West Chester with all their furry creatures. But, in doing so they destroy the nature of their very investments—which makes no sense, because they improperly value the wrong attributes of a society. West Chester attracted all the great investment it has now, chickens, goats, cows and all—and the old Union school is part of that—and they have value. If the image is allowed to change, then West Chester will become just another community that rises to greatness, and then falls once change agents transform the area into something that future generations despise. Because in thirty years when the new Boys & Girls Club building is old, and all the people who constructed it are dead and gone—nobody will want to preserve all the cheap construction that looks new in 2015, but will look out-dated in 2030. And where will that leave West Chester?

When Randy Oppenheimer from Lakota announced in April 2014 that a joint agreement between the district and the club to operate an all-day kindergarten program on the site was evolving and they were seeking public input—Lakota put Jeff Stec on the case in the form of three public Community Conversations that were held in June to garner public input. Pro levy school types showed up to listen to the paid change agent, but anti-tax people generally stayed home knowing what Stec was. His job was not to garner input—it was to change minds. It’s the old Saul Alinsky Delphi Technique trick talked about over the years—only dressed up with some new terminology. Lakota does not want to make a deal to preserve a piece of their history, they need to make a deal that pulls levy supporters and anti-levy supporters together, so they are using the Boys & Girls Club for that reason. Lakota to do the right thing should do as Randy suggested, and that is auction off the property. If the people who want to build the Boys & Girls Club are really interested in developing the property, they should pay for it without an alliance with government assistance to get premium property dirt cheap—and see what the market value the project will garner in the free market. If that happened, minds would change rapidly into a different direction. It would be my guess that the Historical Society would have more value for the property than the proposed Boys & Girls Club, unless Patti wants to cover the costs herself—which she could do. That would be the best way to proceed.

But to the people who think like the commenter in the Journal News article, they are missing many elements to the story. What makes West Chester great is not rubber stamping all the side-walk proposals, the YMCAs, Libraries, and Krogers, its in fighting for a standard of living that makes our community a—brace yourself—“community.” A community is more than a bunch of buildings and socialites who want to be remembered for their charity, or a school that wants to throw money at their out of control labor union, it’s about people, their history, their chickens and the connection to the past that gives a place a sense of grounding—even to those who move from far away seeking something of substance to fill their lives with meaning. West Chester is good because it has a vigilant population that will fight for its history mixed with a nice conservative base of finance that will make new things for people to enjoy. It takes resistance to offer proper management and an honest government that can make the best decisions possible. And in West Chester there are plenty of those types—and we are lucky to have them.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.