Wear the Best Sunglasses in the World: The official sunglasses of Rich Hoffman

img_6972When I’m out in public I get two primary comments. People want to know where they can get a hat like mine, the Australian oil skin hat I wear so much. But even more than that hat they ask me about my sunglasses—my Classic style Gargoyles sunglasses, the type I have worn now for nearly thirty years. I have always been a Gargoyles sunglass wearer, exclusively for all three of those decades. I won’t wear anything else. I’ve tried $400 Oakley sunglasses and other variations of Ray Ban, but for my lifestyle only Gargoyles are up to my standards, which are high. I am the type of person who always wears sunglasses if the sun is shining. I wear sunglasses just to go outside and get the mail because I love my eyes—the Gargoyles sunglasses offer an ultraviolet light protection on their lenses that keep that damaging byproduct of the sun from burning out your retinas and I take it very seriously. I have maintained 20/10 vision for my whole life up to this point, and I take care of my eyes with added protection. However, I have a very rough lifestyle that is very dangerous to eyes. I ride motorcycles, spend a lot of time outside, I shoot guns, crack whips and have lots of activity around dangerous projectiles. I want sunglasses that protect my eyes from everything, but I don’t want my vision obstructed. So what other pair of sunglasses could I have that look just as good with a suit, or a cowboy hat? The only answer is Gargoyles Classics. The trouble is, they have been discontinued by the Gargoyles Company for several years only coming back occasionally as a kind of retro offering. Well, this happens to be one of those times. They are now being offered once again by the Gargoyles Company. The specific technical specs and link address can be seen below.

The iconic rimless style incorporates tradition and cutting edge innovation. Make no mistake, Classic’s are back. Light weight but robust, Classic offers outstanding ANSI Z87.1+ level protection with anti-reflective and oleo-phobic treatment to repel water and resist smudging to make cleaning easier. Additionally, Classic’s famous toric shield lenses provide the user with a fully unobstructed vertical viewing pane. All Gargoyles lenses are ballistic-rated – meeting or exceeding ANSI Z871.1+ impact standards. For more information on ANSI Z87.1+ or Protection+, click here. (Available in both tactical ratings)

Sunglasses have a job to do and blocking the sun is only the beginning. Gargoyles sunglasses don’t just shield your eyes. They provide sharp contrasts and accurate depth perception, so you can see what you’re supposed to see and your day can continue without interruption. Every detail of Gargoyles lens design and execution is geared toward improved optics and better vision.

A good lens isn’t just made – it’s crafted. At Gargoyles, the Z87.1+-rated lenses are made of ballistic-designed, high-index polycarbonate for incredible strength without added weight. From there, they’re optimized and treated to reduce glare while enhancing protection. The result is a lens of unparalleled quality and durability.

No matter how good they look, sunglasses aren’t worth much if they can’t protect your eyes. All Gargoyles lenses meet or exceed US and ANSI regulations and standards for UVA, UVB and UVC protection and the Z87.1+-rated products’ impact resistance is ballistic tested. They’re designed to provide optimal coverage and block ancillary light. With Gargoyles, your eyes aren’t just protected – they’re shielded.

Gargoyles provides protection from both the sun and unexpected projectiles. U.S. soldiers put themselves in harm’s way every day, and the equipment they wear must provide them as much protection as possible. When the U.S. Army needed a higher level of protection from their sunglasses, it sought out experts in the field of optics. ANSI created new high-mass and high-velocity impact standards based on this new market need and on the necessity of having regulation and consistent quality. The US sunglass industry uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as the governing body and rating system for sunglasses.

All Gargoyles Z87.1+-rated sunglasses meet or exceed high mass and high velocity impact standards as specified by ANSI and described below:

Wearers must be able to see 20 lines of resolution clearly from 20 feet away, and pinpoint a vertical/horizontal prism from 35 feet away.

WHY THIS MATTERS  The act of covering the eyes necessarily leads to a loss in visual clarity; the only question is how severely vision will be compromised. By meeting this ANSI spec, the impact of Gargoyles sunglasses on the user’s vision is negligible.

The lens and the frame of the sunglasses need to have the same size and protection DNA, with each lens individually cut for the frame in which it is housed.

WHY THIS MATTERS  If the lenses of a pair of sunglasses aren’t balanced and measured properly, it could lead to reflection and distortion. By meeting this standard, Gargoyles sunglasses provide the wearer clear, precise visual optics while reducing or eliminating the glare depending on the lens you choose.

The lens must be able to withstand a 1.1 pound mass dropped from 50 inches, as well as a quarter-inch projectile shot at 150 feet per second from ten yards away, without breaking, cracking, coming out of the frame, or in any way touching the eye or the surrounding tissue.

WHY THIS MATTERS  From gravel to shrapnel, anything that reaches the eye could be catastrophic. By meeting this ANSI specification, Gargoyles sunglasses are guaranteed to keep the wearer’s eyes safe from any projectile that might otherwise cause significant damage.


I was riding a bicycle just this morning and I cut through a marshy lowland area that was full of mud. I managed to get through alright but on my way out of the pit was gravel. Once I got back out on the open road that gravel started flying off my knobby tires, some of which flew up and hit me in the face. Because of my Gargoyles sunglasses I did not have to worry about that gravel finding its way into my eyes—and I was able to press on. About six weeks ago I was in a major motorcycle accident. Certainly nothing I did, but things happen and my motorcycle sustained over $10,000 worth of damage. I was wearing a suit at the time that ended up covered in blood, I had torn cloths, broken bones in my wrist and ankle, but guess what didn’t get hurt as shattered glass pelted my face…….my eyes. No I wasn’t wearing a helmet—it was a nice day. Just my Gargoyles sunglasses. Occasionally when riding motorcycles down the highway behind large trucks from construction sites, rocks fly off their tires. I never worry about that debris hitting me in the face. I can take the pain if it hits me in the forehead or someplace else, but I have to be able to see through an impact—and my Gargoyles always provide more than adequate shielding.

When shooting guns, it happens often where projectiles from target impact sometimes fly back and hit the shooter. Just a few months ago while shooting my new .500 Magnum from Smith & Wesson the unthinkable happened. Given our position from a top down position, my family was shooting in a way to see if we could split a large river rock in half. Now that’s not a recommended shooting procedure, but I wanted to conduct a test to measure just how powerful a .400 grain bullet was traveling at such a high velocity backed by such extraordinary muzzle energy. You don’t get a good indication of what that is by shooting at paper targets. You need to see the bullet interact with something ominously stable. In this case it was a very large sedimentary rock pulled out of the river that was very thick. Because I was wearing my Gargoyles I stood about thirty yards from the target confident that there wasn’t any danger. The .500 Magnum punched the rock in two, which surprised me. A moment later debris rained back at us. I didn’t think much of it as I thought it was pieces of rock. But my daughter grabbed her forehead and blood was running down her face. Checking her out, a piece of the .500 Magnum bullet had bounced back and embedded itself about three inches above her eyes. She was not wearing Gargoyles—but sunglasses typical of the type you find in convenient stores. I sometimes assume that everyone is as protected as I am, and took a deep breath as we pulled the shrapnel out of her head. She was fine, but it was proof that anything can and does happen when dealing with dangerous things. Life is meant to be lived, but it’s important to take as much opportunity to give your body parts the tools to protect itself the best you can.

Some might argue that a helmet is the best way to ride a motorcycle, but they essentially encumber your senses entirely too much. Gargoyles offer protection without encumbering anything. They are so comfortable to wear that you forget they are on, but they also provide a complete line of sight in all directions. They are unique to say the least. After three decades my Gargoyles sunglasses are as much a part of me as my legs and arms. They are an inseparable part of my attire under all circumstances. So for those who have always wanted a pair, they are now available once again. They can be obtained for around a $100 so they aren’t outrageously expensive. But they feel like a million bucks, and will give you years of loyal use. Gargoyles are by far my favorite sunglasses, not just because they are reasonably priced for the quality they provide, but because they have proven to me over time to be a superior product. I never leave my home without them, and the sun rarely shines on my face without Gargoyles providing some level of protection. They are the ultimate sunglasses for an active person under any circumstance. And now they are available once again.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Throwing Off the Cloak of a Coward: French collectivism, Islamic radicalism, European socialism–still American heroes emerge

For some bizarre reason French President Hollende called President Obama to think him for the heroics of the three American passengers on a high-speed train in Belgium who stopped a knuckle-dragging Islamic radical from committing terrorism.  At the first sign of trouble French employees on the train locked that particular car to isolate the terrorist essentially imprisoning all the people in that part of the train.  Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone took immediate action to subdue the slug and their childhood friend Anthony Sadler helped beat the terrorist into unconsciousness.  That type of bravado is common in people born free in a society that advocates that kind of behavior.  Stone additionally had military training in the Air Force whereas Skarlatos was from the National Guard.  But their heroics was home-grown in spite of President Obama’s attempts over the years to turn America more into France with collectivist endeavor and passive approaches to danger.

Obama if he had things his way would have done as the French employees did, and that would have been to sacrifice the members of that particular train car so to save the rest of the passengers—which is a collectivist mentality.  Hollende is an open socialist who somehow believed that Obama had something to do with the heroics by some American policy, just as he spoke on behalf of all France for thanking the three American heroes from saving their progressive country from their own failed policies.  Europe is breeding these terrorist idiots because of their lack of a philosophy that is centered on individuality.  A collective based society, which France is, is not far off ideologically from the collectivism of radical Islam, so these young religious fanatics like this terrorist on the train can feed off society’s passivity.  In this case it was 26 year-old Ayoub El-Khazzani from Morocco who had been on a French intelligence watch list since February of 2014.  Somebody obviously missed the fact that the Islamic terrorist had bought a ticket for the high-speed train complete with bags of weapons.  Not a very effective watch list.  El-Khazzani had been radicalized in the southern Spanish city of Algecians at a mosque which had been under surveillance due to its extremist teachings.

Obviously there were a lot of fails, El-Khazzani slipped through security, the French employees on the train behaved like a bunch of wimps leaving a couple of American guys trying to have a good time in Europe to quell all the failures with their bravado.  The heroic actions are something to feel good about for all Americans—but I would remind everyone that it’s also expected.  That’s not to take anything away from what they did, it’s just that America shouldn’t be the only culture on earth with some testicular fortitude left in its up and coming heroes.  This kind of thing should be a lot more common—specifically, somebody should have kicked the snot out of Ayoub El-Khazzani way back in Spain well before he ever got on a train in Amsterdam.

Collectivism in every aspect breeds the kind of cowardly behavior that made Ayoub El-Khazzani possible and put him on a train to inflict danger to innocent people.  France, and essentially all of Europe functions under that same brand of collectivism as a culture believing that the needs of the few must be sacrificed for the benefit of the many.  That’s why French employees isolated that train car—to protect the rest of the train.  Such people make easy targets which empowers radicals seeking to impose their version of collectivism on the masses.  Lucky for the French in this case, there were Americans nearby to stop the furtherance of such terror.

This brings us back around to why the socialist President Hollende would even call Obama.  I can understand him thanking the guys who stopped the terrorist attack.  But why would he even think to call Obama—as if the American president had done anything to contribute to the endeavor.  That is an insult to the heroics of the young men.  Rather, they behaved heroically in spite of Obama’s efforts in creating a socialist utopia hell-bent on extreme leftist political positions.  Those young men went to American schools which teach socialism these days, but thankfully they had a love for American film and had in their minds a little heroics put there by an art that still relishes individualism.  I saw a picture of one of the boys with their mom which featured Clint Eastwood from the Fist Full of Dollars films.  Probably not a coincidence.

It is good to see the young men so happy after they discovered that they wouldn’t die from their heroics.  I’m sure Spencer Stone would not trade his nearly severed thumb right now for a comfortable night in a Paris hotel, and without question Alek Skarlatos is proud of the blood on his shirt and may never wash it again just so he can remember it.  This is something that President Hollende and Obama do not understand about this terrorist attack.  Sure the young men saved lives, yes the terrorist son-of-a-bitch nearly shot Stone and luckily the gun was jammed.  But those young men are happy to have proven themselves under duress and that is something they will live with for the rest of their lives—and it will carry them all to lofty highest for which no amount of money can ever provide.  The injuries Stone endured he will tell this story proudly each time he gets the opportunity. Most young men would trade these three, even with the possibility of death, for a chance to feel what they are feeling right now—and that is a foreign concept to Hollende—obviously.  Those guys didn’t attack that terrorist thug for any other reason than raw heroics—the need to do what was right.  They didn’t do it to save France from the embarrassment of another terrorist attack by Islamic radicals.  They did it because it felt good to act heroically rather than cower like a chicken in a seat trapped by French employees to seal their fate awaiting an afterlife—totally at the mercy of a 26-year-old Moroccan who wanted to kill innocents in the name of Allah.   Being a hero is the best feeling in the world.  It’s worth doing even if death is the result—because no young man wants to be condemned to a lifetime of suffering knowing they were too wimpy to face down danger when it presented itself.

I’m proud of those boys, but they didn’t do it for me, America, or France.  They did the right thing because it felt good to do.  All it took was for Alek Skarlatos to tell his friend to get the terrorist, and those guys in that moment got the monkey off their back which plagues all young men—the nagging question of whether or not under a dangerous situation they would have the courage to act heroically.  And thanks to a radical Islamic terrorist, those American heroes can now carry with them a badge of honor that will last a lifetime.  And they deserve to be proud of it.  Because in American culture we still have as a standard that an individual life lived under the cloak of a coward is far worse than death.  And young men, and old in America because of their focus on individuality—still know that when such an opportunity presents itself—you do what you have to in order to remove that cloak from personal identification forever.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Beating Enemies from the Inside Out: Handing the baton to Donald Trump

I know the difference between a wolf in sheep’s clothing with malicious intentions and a wolf who has decided that the sheep need protection from other wolves and has sided with them to further their species. Many think that the Donald Trump run for president is something of a Trojan horse into the Republican Party intended to derail conservatism. I can understand their skepticism. But as I remind people often—we all have our little gifts innate to our individuality and mine has always been the ability to see way over the horizon toward trends and dangers well before anybody else. I have been able to do that all my life, and it was within weeks of the Donald Trump run for president that I saw something very special happening in politics. Donald Trump is in a position to do something that I have been doing with this blog site for over five years every day, and that is address difficult issues directly on a gigantic global stage, and if he is successful, where he actually steps into the White House, I am confident at that time that I’ll be able to step away from the daily contributions to this site and do something else—because Trump is largely going to be able to take the baton to the next level.

My family came over for dinner on Friday night to watch the wonderful Donald Trump speech from Mobile, Alabama. Trump was able to put about 30,000 people—according to USA Today—into a local football stadium for a very enthusiastic rally promoting his candidacy. Trump may not get into the details or have the same defined value systems that I do, but I see on his face and hear in his words a guy who has lived his life well—epically in fact—and now wants to give something back as a man at the top of his game—the way the process should work. I’ve always said that the best among us should manage the money and affairs of our nation—and Trump represents a trend changing element. So I wanted my family to see history happening. They came over, my wife picked up some Chick-fil-A, and we watched about four hours of Trump coverage including the live broadcasts on Fox and CNN. It really was an amazing event.

I have read a lot of books over the years and many have been Trump’s. Books like The Art of the Deal, Think Big and Kick Ass, Never Give Up, Think Like a Champion, Why We Want You to be Rich, and The America We Deserve are highly motivational and were written by a guy with a very long track record committed to the power of positive thinking. He has achieved so much in his life that really President of the United States is the only social thing left for him to conquer which is what I believe his true motivation is. He has the gifts and the mentality, and he’s testing himself on the largest stage possible, and the result is something that like everything else he has done will greatly benefit a large number of people.

My oldest daughter who thinks very highly of me immediately noticed what I wanted her to see by coming over to watch the Trump speech. “He reminds me of you,” she said with some level of intensity which she said when Trump signed a copy of The Art of the Deal for a fan while he was in the middle of his speech. Trump’s approach to problems is very similar to mine and I had been thinking the same thing. My wife has been saying that the reason she likes Trump so much is again because he reminders her of me, which she has been declaring for the last couple of months. Trump is running for president in precisely the way I would if I were in a similar position. He stays up each day working his campaign longer and harder than any other candidate and is able to dominate his rivals with sheer charisma. He’s at a different stage of life than I am, but the heart is what they are talking about—the intentions behind his actions. Because of all those elements, I feel very confident I understand Donald Trump and what he’s up to.

Slowly, as the back of this train, where the rest of society is, catches up to the front—where Trump has been all his life—the true impact of this soon to be global phenomena will make itself known. What we were watching in Mobile, Alabama was unique in the world of politics—a perfect blend of entertainment and political philosophy colliding within contemporary static patterns. Even though politicians have for years used celebrity as a way to prop up their numbers as second-handers, Trump is able to turn that whole system on its head. It used to drive me crazy to watch Bill Clinton fly Air Force One around speaking venues—completely paid for by the tax payers—to raise money for Democrats. Landing into Mobile Trump applied the same trick with his Boeing 757, his own plane built by years of personal success. That plane can fly at 609 miles an hour and can travel 4,400 miles without stopping. The plane is a symbol of Trump’s power. I was watching him on Twitter leading up to the big speech in Alabama. He was in New York just a few hours before his speech, but was able to jump in his plane and fly out to a remote site—perform his speech—and be back to sleep in his own bed. No other candidate can do that because they are second-handers—and Trump knows it. He was able to circle the stadium in his plane a few times just to rally the crowd on the ground that he already has a personal airplane better than Air Force One as a private citizen. It was a psychologically imposing reminder of just who he is, and what he has the potential to do in America.

For this blog site I have loaned my personal reputation and image to the plight of solving hard problems and I do it because I know that if someone doesn’t do something, there won’t be much of a country left in a few years. I know many important people read it every day that is at the top of political discourse and it helps them navigate through a very complicated time. It costs me far more to write this blog than many might think—but I do it because someone has to say these things as bluntly as possible. Just a few years ago, Glenn Beck and I were very closely on the same page, but over time, and personal circumstances he has essentially taken the money from his success and turned inward leaving the fate of his life to God. The guy who was able to pack the Mall in Washington for a Restoring America tour essentially got knocked off the national stage and is now broadcasting out of a cave in Dallas. He moved from New York to seek friendlier people who wouldn’t harass him on the social scene when he was out with his family. That’s where he and I differ tremendously.

Years ago Darryl Parks from WLW radio asked me how I dealt with the kind of harassment within my community from all the things I said on the radio and within this blog. He assumed that everywhere I went I would be harassed—and he’d be correct. Only people know that if they confront me that there will be a fight of some kind. There are two ways that people advance conflict, directly and indirectly. Direct conflicts are where people actually try to pick a fight with you and physical violence is the result. That has happened, and I deal with that kind of thing accordingly. Obviously, my behavior has not changed and it will not change, because I know how to handle those circumstances. Indirect conflicts are the passive aggressive types where people smile to your face, but try to stick a knife in your back at the first opportunity. These are the most common attempts, and were what Darryl Parks was asking me about. I have said it long before I’ve heard Donald Trump say it, that nobody out thinks me. Lots of people have tried, but nobody outthinks or out lasts me. I make a point to always be the last person standing in whatever conflict is presented, which ironically is the best deterrent. Once word gets out, people try much less frequently. Due to my relatively young age, I still get takers every now and then who try—especially older people who think by their age and social status that they have some inherit right to win a strategic match-up by default. I respond to them by not only beating them, but in embarrassing them to their very core. When they make a move against me I fully intend to send them to bed each night with doubt strewn across their faces and impotence that no Viagra pill can fix. I always plan to break them down from the inside out. Physical violence is fine as a last resort, beating someone from the outside in—but for a cunning mind, a truly dominate alpha male, the best way to beat a competitor is from the inside out. You can see a beaten person from the way they hold their eyes in a simple gaze. Trump, better than anybody running for President understands exactly what I’m talking about—he applies it each day—and that has won my trust.

Since Trump began his campaign he has had death threats lashed against him by drug lords, he has challenged entire countries and their governments to end their corruption, taken on the entire media establishment, both political parties, said and done anything and everything he has wanted, and he has still been able to fill a rally on a Friday night in Mobile, Alabama a year and a half from a presidential election with enthusiastic supporters while advocating his economic prowess using his private airplane with the reminder that he’s willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to have a lobby free candidate sitting in the White House. Sign me up. I understand the kind of fighter that he is and am confident that his brand would destroy a political establishment that I want to see eradicated from the American scene. I am 100% confident that a Donald Trump as president would usher in a decade unique in not only America, but in all of human history. The Reagan presidency would become a footnote of inadequacy, and Trump would be successful because he knows how to win from the inside out, and not just the outside in.

So we are witnessing history in the making, something that is truly unique. I know what Donald Trump is doing and why he’s doing it. I don’t have to sit down with him to see it, because it is obvious to me that his motivations are very similar to my own. But he is positioned to take it to a new level, and for that I would gladly support. He is offering the kind of President that I have been asking for, so I’m going to advocate on his behalf. What people say about him from the past are interpretations of their social positions regarding the wake of defeats handed to them by Trump. People who have been conquered still have to live with themselves even after embarrassments, so they justify their existence with snaky comments and behind the back undermining. For instance, even with all that I’ve said and done, why is it that people from my past don’t come forward to say, “hey, remember when we met in that back alley, and you lost, or I got the better of you on such and such date.” You know why dear reader—because it’s never happened, and it never will. When you are a winner, you know how to hold the high ground and make others tear themselves to shreds trying to get to you. And that is what Trump is doing in a presidential election before the primaries. It makes me very excited to see what he could actually do once he won the election. I get the feeling that America by then will be a very different place. And that’s not a bad thing. At that point the words on these pages become much less relevant as a new day would spring forth in America, and I would emphatically assist by passing the baton to someone with a larger platform to finish the job.

To understand a Trump presidency is to understand the effort that actually built his 757 airplane. He could make America into something better, and I want to put it in his artistic hands to perform the task. The metaphor of that power made its impact in Alabama before he ever landed, and that left the global media short of words—because for many of them it was the first time they had seen such a thing outside of their personal static patterns where the rich and famous relegate themselves to the plush towers of Abu Dhabi. Trump wants to fight, he wants to conquer, and he wants to do it on behalf of America for one last triumph of a life well lived. And that in and of itself is wonderfully unique. A wolf is running for president not because he wants to eat the sheep that flock within American politics, but because he wants to fight the other wolves who reside in the cracks of global endeavor, and he wants to prove to himself that he can beat them all. And in the wake of that effort, America will become great once again. I know all that because I know myself, and I understand the drive that resides deep inside a person born to be a winner.

Now, watch the above videos and learn all about Donald Trump and understand why I’m right once again.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Oskar Schindler, The Answer to Glenn Beck: The Summer of Trump — It’s all about love

Glenn Beck asked the question of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh why they were supporting Donald Trump for President as the former Fox star was grabbing for answers after the Megan Kelly feud failed to put a dent in Trump’s campaign. Beck had been against Trump believing that humbleness should be a quality of an American president, that Trump is a pro assault weapon ban supporter; he’s soft on Planned Parenthood and would offer the White House a first lady who had posed nude as a model. He continued on baffled as to why conservatives would support Trump the way they have been in spite of all the controversy. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. I have been receiving the same kind of questions from traditional Republicans as well; many who are aghast at Trump’s run for president. It truly scares them as they really believe in establishment politicians—the system that has delivered the current mess. So I have thought very hard on the subject. I understand why I support Trump as a front-of-the-train guy. It isn’t easy to explain it to back-of-the-train people however but in thinking of a way to express the reasoning I thought of one man as represented in the 1993 film from Steven Spielberg–Oskar Schindler played by Liam Neeson from Schindler’s List.

Before anyone says that the real life Oskar Schindler was a Nazi war profiteer and has no comparison to Trump, or that the situation in Schindler’s List is not even remotely the same as the current state of America—I would argue both points. Oskar Schindler was a businessman who worked the Nazi Party into making himself huge profits. But during his experiences he realized how evil the party under Hitler truly was and he had a change of heart, so he decided to save some lives and work the system from his position of strength to do it. Without talking to Trump personally about the situation I think a few really big things happened to him over the last couple of years where he has had his own Oskar Schindler moments. First and foremost I think the smart money of New York sees the writing on the wall. 19-20 trillion in national debt will crush America and likely Trump knows George Soros personally, and everyone on the financial end of the country’s business knows that the left leaning billionaire is trying to topple the American economy. Trump and his financial friends will lose a lot of money when that happens, so now is the time to fight to preserve America as a safe haven of financial independence. Second I think the birther issues involving Trump’s push to get the Obama administration to release the president’s birth certificate, which was done in April of 2011, was an extreme revelation to just how corrupt the political machine truly was—at all levels. Trump won that hard fight but immediately Sheriff Joe Arpaio went on CBS and proved that the birth certificate was a fake. There was something very fishy with the whole deal and since Trump was one of the only people not to back down on the birther issue, he felt vindicated from the shower of criticism and decided to do something about it. There was obviously a shadow party at work within the federal government and there wasn’t a single Republican in the field who was poised to fight it, so Trump out of self-interest, and a since of righting a wrong decided to step forward to fight it.

I can say those things with some level of certainty. If I were in Trump’s situation, I would spend a billion dollars of my own money to fight it. Heck, I write a blog every day for free to fight these things staying up late at night, getting up early in the morning with nothing in it for me at all, but the sense of righting wrongs. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that Trump’s wife Melina probably has something to do with his sudden rush of conservative value. A good woman does put lead in the pencil of A type personalities, and a new son gives a man something to fight for. I’m sure if you peel back Donald Trump that those are some of the core motivations. There are a lot of things that Donald Trump does and says that I completely understand. If he were president, I could convince him to stay off my guns. He’s a New York guy so his policies are largely shaped around the gun laws of that crowded city. But it’s my hope that a Trump presidency will take the fight to the enemies of America making it so that I won’t have to use the Second Amendment to defend my property from an out-of-control nation in debt to a world looking to collect. Once that debt gets over $20 trillion, the lights start to go out and a collapse is inevitable. But listening to Trump, he is conducting his campaign the way I would if I had the resources and time—so I trust him. I know a lot of people in business who put on a metaphorical mask when they do their work, but once the mask comes off they are normal people. I think Trump put on his mask to do his deals over the years, sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat, but he discovered that some of the people behind the masks of people he was dealing with were really bad people, and he is in a unique position to do something about it, so he is. I would too.

After all the controversy I watched Trump closely, particularly after the Megan Kelly situation. Trump has been playing the situation of president in the classic deal maker fashion, just like playing a simple game of Poker. He has baited pundits to discover their positions, and then he takes control of the situation after they show their cards. He is a lot smarter than he has let on, and he’s in far more control than many believed. His ego maniac position is not part of his true character, but a device he uses to discover the kind of cards people are holding. By insulting people directly and indirectly, you provoke them into showing their hands. It’s a classic trick that has obviously made Trump a lot of money over the years, and he’s now performing it on a world stage. He’s not just playing this game to win the presidency; he’s setting the stage for global negotiations when he becomes president. I’d bet everything I have on the matter. He’s playing the game that far ahead.

Watching his speeches in Michigan, then New Hampshire, then flying out in his helicopter to Iowa—no teleprompters, no handlers, just straight talk speaking with extreme confidence knowing that every word he says will be analyzed and cut-up any way possible—he gave three of the best speeches I’ve ever heard from him. He is a master at the top of his game and there are hints that he has a lot more in the tank. And that is scaring the crap out of establishment types. Standing in front of his personal helicopter in Iowa he was asked if he’d be willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to become president, and he said without pause—yes. It’s over for the other Republican candidates. This race is over. The 2016 election will be between Trump and whoever the Democrats can put up. And Trump will not run to lose, he’ll do anything and everything in his power to win and the money men know it.

I say that because soon there won’t be any donors to the other candidates. Now that word is out that Trump is serious, the funding for them will dry to a trickle. It won’t take but a few months from now. Trump has another advantage over them that nobody has yet picked up on. Donald Trump is a hard worker. He is willing to work harder than any person running for office. After listening to his recent speeches I am convinced that he read voluminous amounts of information and he was quite comfortable in reciting what he had been learning. He is a smart guy, and I doubt he sleeps much. I understand that because I’m the same way as is in evidence by the voluminous amount of work I produce. Trump will out work and out spend anybody running against him Republican or Democrat. That’s why he’s already shaping global opinions about him in a way that gives him negotiation power once he holds office as president. He is speaking a language that Putin understands, the Saudi’s are terrified of, and Mexico is silently stunned about. The “shadow parties” of world governments are really scared of Donald Trump and his unstoppable campaign during this mythical 2015 “Summer of Trump.”

There really isn’t a policy issue in the 2016 race that is bigger than the economy. Only someone like Trump can wrestle the economy back from this staggering debt. If he can’t than it’s over, and many people like me see it from the front-of-the-train. Those in the back will discover it soon enough. Glenn Beck is not a back of the train person, but he is when it comes to faith and religion. He has had to turn too much toward religion to hold his life together as a person and his opinions about Trump are largely shaped in the context of faith. I don’t have those handicaps when thinking about Trump, and Trump doesn’t live by those limits. I understand his religious position. Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand president. Many Objectivists that I know have taken issue with my assessment of Trump comparing him to Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. They countered to me that Trump was not like Roark, but more like Gail Wynand—the newspaper tycoon who married the hot wife and traveled the world in his boat once he realized the futility of the fight against him. I can see that, which plays into the whole Oskar Schindler comparison. But Roark loved building things, and so does Trump. I think Donald Trump is a lot deeper person than he shows most people and deep down inside, he is more a figure out of an Ayn Rand novel than out of The Bible, which is the heart of Glenn Beck’s issue, and one that Christian conservatives will have to come to terms with.

To say it’s unfair, or not an apples to apples comparison to say that Oskar Schindler saved Jewish lives and Donald Trump is just a selfish businessman who wants attention, is to miss the real tragedy of the present moment. If the economy fails, more people will die than they did in the German/Jewish holocaust—that is for sure. But think of the evils going on presently from the aborted fetuses at Planned Parenthood to the obvious shadow government conspiracies happening at every level of political endeavor. Trump is wonderfully free of any control mechanisms within that system, and I think his crusade is more out of moral obligation than self fulfillment. His life already is like that of a president. It would be a step down for him to reside in the White House. His ability to make decisions without the temptation of making money off the deal is an ability that I would put my money on over any potential candidate. With the current problems facing the nation, I don’t see any other way out of it, but through someone like Trump.

If Trump comes after our guns, I will happily fight him on it. I am happy to argue and throw mud at him over issues involving the Constitution. As I’ve said, I know for certain he’s not as conservative as I am—but few people are—if any are. But I see in him a man who will work harder than anybody, who can finance himself and owe nothing to anybody, and who can actually stop America from being a debtor nation. I’m even open to his health care options because Obamacare will further bankrupt America, and without that insurance still raises 7-15% each year. That is unsustainable as well. America doesn’t need a church pastor in the White House. It needs a cut-throat Ayn Ran type of money man who is self-sustaining and seeks his own advice 100% of the time. Watching how Trump handled the “birther” issue convinced me that he’s the only one who can be president in this current climate. Everyone backed off that issue except for him.   Without Trump, Obama would have never produced the birth certificate, and what they did produce was obviously tampered with. The story died, because nobody in the media had the will to take the next step for fear of being called names by the administration. But somewhere in there Trump made his decision to become a modern Oskar Schindler. Critics might say Trump is running for president to satisfy his own ego, that he used to be a progressive—Democrat—a liberal who is working with Bill Clinton to sabotage the political system for the aims of the Clinton Foundation. But I think Trump’s 2005 marriage to Melania Knauss is the real secret to his behavior. I think deep down inside, behind all the bolster and theatrics is a man in love with his wife—and I think he wants to make the world better for his family—so there is something of it left for them. His new son Barron is likely the primary motivation. I say that because it would be for me, and I see a lot of myself in Donald Trump—particularly in his will, and ability to fight for what he thinks is right. That is why this is the Summer of Trump with an administration to follow.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Lynnette and Rochelle for Donald Trump: Why the 80s were so great

I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.


I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.

Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.

In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.

But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.

If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.

There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.

The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

No Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat: The Debbie Wasserman Schultz silent admission

Let’s see, how many times do I have to say, “I told you.”  I’m really not one of those guys—the I told you so types.  But I did.  I did, I did, I did say it many times in many hundreds of thousands of written words and radio broadcasts.  Years ago when I looked at the public education system in my home district of Lakota and identified correctly the cause of the continued tax increases and ineffectiveness of the education institution to teach young children to grow up to be good Republicans, I stated rather emphatically that it was socialism that was being taught in those education institutions.  Of course there was backlash, a lot of it.  But that didn’t make me wrong.  It was just inconvenient knowledge that nobody wanted to think about.  Time has proven me absolutely right, which has been revealed by the Bernie Sanders campaign for president in 2016.  Finally!  My friend Matt Clark talked about the issue on his Saturday radio show recently (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN) and it was a topic of countless deliberation on the news networks, which was quickly drowned out by the Fox News debate, but when pressed, Debbie Wasserman Scultz couldn’t tell Chris Mathews what the difference was between a Democrat and a socialist.  The reason she couldn’t was that there isn’t a difference.  It’s simply a name change.

To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property.  In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions.  They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases.  The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy.  They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.

But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that.  To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations.  Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.

Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept.  Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive.  Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative.  Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds.  They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control.  If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them.   That is because they are functionally socialists.

Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks.  All those developments are in competition with one another for validity.  For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road.  Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc.  The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area.  Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer.  But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city.  That is the beauty of free market capitalism.  The same mentality should be applied to education.  There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others.  Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars.   But that’s not the system we have.  Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars.  The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games.   There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe.  If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.

Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth.  They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit.  They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power.  That is socialism.  That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was.  She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.

The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense.  When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior.  It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party.  But the terminology is historically accurate.  Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school.  Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior.  That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference.  Because there isn’t one.  When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism.  The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes.  It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with.  Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it.  They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own.  I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble.  I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.”  Because they didn’t listen when they should have.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face

Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.

The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.

Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.

“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”

“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Kate Scanlon / @scanlon_kate / July 22, 2015 /

Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.

Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.


Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]

Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]

This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.

Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]

In 1917, she started publishing the monthly periodical Birth Control Review.[note 3]

On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]

Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]




Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.