My New Ruger Vaquero: A best friend that brings out the best in humanity

There is nothing about my new Ruger Vaquero .45 that speaks of violence to me. Looking at it all I think about is cowboy trick shooting and stunts that can be performed with it. It is to me equivalent to a nicely made basketball intended to be thrown into a net by a good athlete, or a wonderful pair of golf clubs meant to drive a ball across a vast green into a hole 400 yards away in increments.   Shooting with the Vaquero shown in the picture is essentially a sport where science and skill combine into hitting a target under timed circumstances. There is nothing violent about the act whatsoever. Guns might have been invented out of war like necessity and the sport of shooting to practice for that eventuality—but the sport of shooting is just another human endeavor intended to test skill against adversity with the drama of competition to drive image

What struck me on this particular gun—as they all do these days is the nice messaging that often comes with them. Ruger in this case was grateful for my purchase and the supplied literature made it clear. It showed to me a serious interest by the Ruger Company to build a solid base of customer support for a product unquestionably made in America by good, hard working people. The gun feels like a well-crafted work of art, its machining is immaculate, the tolerances on its critical junctures well inspected, and it feels incredibly competent. This is not a company that should be targeted by liberal hate groups. Ruger is not a company making death—it makes life, and tradition. There is nothing about my Ruger Vaquero that speaks of violence if a person really understands what shooting is all about in the world of sport. It’s a fine tool to me for exhibiting traditional American art forms, and it’s a miracle of modern science—more sophisticated than driving a golf ball into a hole, or throwing a football 50 yards down field into the arms of a waiting receiver. To me the Vaquero by Ruger is the ultimate individual sport where great power is incorporated into the mechanisms of great engineering and it deserves to be respected as such.

But it’s not lost to me how grateful the Ruger Company is with each purchase made of their firearms. It is because of their attitude toward their customers that I get a special feeling whenever I see the emblem blazed across a t-shirt of hat, or on a banner at a competition. I know they care about their customers in spite of a world led by liberals that wants to eradicate them from the face of the planet because those political minds want to make the company into a representation of hate and violence. Football is a violent sport, golf clubs are sometimes used as weapons of hate when they are slammed over the head of a victim, but political advocates don’t seek to ban golf courses or the sport of golf. The gun has a special hatred aimed at it because liberals have no idea or desire to understand that guns like the Vaquero are designed for much more than hunting or self defense—they are built for the sport of the Cowboy Fast Draw.

In such groups as those in the preservation of the Wild West arts are some of the best people I have ever met. The world would be a whole lot better off if more people interacted with these great Americans. And on the hips of most of them are often Vaqueros by Ruger. They wear them openly in public often and nobody ever gets shot, and there are seldom ever hard words spoken to others. There is almost always respect for their fellow shooters. Within that alliance of sportsman they revere each other with camaraderie that is exceptionally healthy and overwhelmingly positive.

When I picked up my Vaquero at Right 2 Arms it was the owner’s parents who were working the store and were armed behind the counter. There was no reason to feel apprehension at that visible support of what looked like a Glock holstered on the father. We proceeded to have a very nice conversation about Gatlinburg, Tennessee while the background check came through for me. They were good people and I looked over my Vaquero as they spoke about their upcoming vacation plans. It was good, healthy conversation among highly armed people who invoked no danger whatsoever. Instead, the presence of guns elevated our interaction to something of respectful banter united under support for the 2nd Amendment.

Just two days prior I had a wonderful lunch with some VIP’s within the shooting world. We talked about gun ranges, plans for helping the youth through learning marksmanship, and the bad rap that guns were getting in the wake of the Oregon shooting.   I enjoyed the company more than I would if the conversation were a usual business lunch where all the things that people really like are talked around because of political correctness. With these guys, we could all just be ourselves which was refreshing. It was much better to talk about things that really interested us instead of sports scores and the season trajectory of our favorite football teams. There always is a solid foundation of realness that comes from those types of lunches as opposed to others that feel like a clip on tie at a wedding. It confirmed much of what I have been feeling lately about firearms and their role behind the American experience. We need to be more proud of that heritage, not less so.

I mentioned to the guys at the power lunch that we needed to market firearms differently as a public perception—that as shooters we needed to stop riding the ropes of the obvious political fights we are without question in. We need to get into the center of the ring and control the fight from that position instead of just taking the shots to the face and hoping to outlast our opponents—the gun grabbers, the liberal radicals teaching in our public schools, and the political class that wants to turn America back into an aristocracy similar to Europe—instead of one founded on independence from gun possession.

The reason my Vaquero as opposed to other guns I have bought is so special is that its purpose is exclusively for use as a cowboy shooter for the sport of Western Arts. It is the type of single action that won the West in America and that means a lot to me symbolically, and the sports that have risen up in the wake of that historical memory is not much different from the battlefield strategies of football. The games might have been invented by inclinations of war, but they evolve into camaraderie and tradition that brings out the best that a society has to offer. The gun in America exhibits the best of this example.

The summation of my contacts the week that I picked up my Vaquero at Right 2 Arms is guns make people better—not worse as progressive politics suggests. The political left had misdiagnosed the root cause of human evil and sold it back to society in a package of deceit. When that deceit is removed and Americans are allowed to wear their firearms on their hips, and discuss them as extensions of themselves, a higher quality in people emerges built out of respect. The knowledge that domination of the another person is not possible—so a respectful exchange emerges between human beings when both have guns. The trouble emerges when that relationship is lopsided, where a maniac is armed and a peaceful person is not—that’s where abuse happens. But Ruger is not about feeding that fear—they are about making America a better place and that sentiment begins with the simple thank you note that they package with their guns. I felt honored to open up my new Vaquero. It’s an honor to have such a fine gun from such a quality company. As is typical of most gun manufacturers, they are examples of what’s best about American manufacturing and that is certainly the case with Ruger. They are one of the very best, and every time I look at my Ruger Vaquero, I will think of what’s best about America and the culture that should otherwise thrive in a society open to gun use for the skills that emerge from them in sports.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Stop Being Afraid of Guns: Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman talk about gun free zones on WAAM radio

Matt Clark had me on his WAAM radio show in Ann Arbor, Michigan recently to discuss some of the hot stories of October 2015. There was enough to cover to last a lifetime of live radio—the stories and their frequency are exponentially increasing by the moment, and it’s a lot to keep track of. Without talk radio, it would be nearly impossible for the average person to follow everything. That’s why I’ve always been a fan of talk radio, because you can get a lot of news provided to you as other tasks are done, such as driving, changing the oil, and installing new hot water heaters. Talk radio is miraculous in its ability to cover a lot of ground quickly, and on Matt’s show, he is one of the best. Typically in a short hour, he can hit a lot of topics in a very fluid manner—and when he has me on with him—we really hit the topics in a furious fashion. That broadcast can be heard below.

Toward the end of the broadcast there were a couple of callers that Matt wanted to get on the air. I am typically sympathetic to callers because it takes a lot of guts to call into a radio show, to sit on hold for up to an hour not knowing when the host will put you on the air to millions of potential listeners.   If the callers are respectful I typically don’t interrupt them because it’s important to get their view points out on the table. A police offer took issue with my proposal that regarding gun control, my more guns are best approach was something he had a problem with. Matt and I let him talk which directed him to the real point he was trying to make—but it was near the end of the show, and we didn’t have time to expand down that line of thought. The cop of course felt that civilians were not as equipped to handle a crises situation as compared to law enforcement. As Matt and I had been talking about gun free zones needing more independently armed citizens to keep things in check, the officer wanted more police on staff to protect schools from violence.

Well, more cops won’t work because they are too expensive. There is a cost for safety and security, and if it does incur too much of a burden, there needs to be other alternatives. The solution to gun violence is not more gun control laws, or more cops patrolling the streets and schools—its more armed citizens who will do the work for free not in a reactionary way, but a proactive way. A cop in the school in Oregon would not have stopped that violence. A well armed student could have. More cops working off tax payer funds are not the answer in almost every situation. We do need the police, but more for the report that happens when violence occurs so that courts have evidence to look at. So I don’t agree with the nice guy who called into Matt’s show. From his point of view, more cops in schools make sense—because he doesn’t care how much police cost an area in increased taxes. To his mind taxes can be perpetually raised so long as safety is the focus. But that’s just stupid.

There is always a danger when tragedies occur for the timid minded to seek out more government to provide security. More cops in schools are an expansion of government. Whereas a more open gun carrying society would provoke cheaper and more direct security in a laissez-faire kind of way which big government types simply don’t understand. If progressive minded people are not tampering with the lives of other people, they don’t feel secure themselves, so my typical laissez-faire style of security is something that drives them crazy. Gun laws in America should essentially be the same as the laws that govern business and commerce. Less laws and more responsibility invoked at the point of contact driven by self-preservation.

There was a lot right that occurred during the “Wild West” period in America of which guns were such a part of the mythology of western expansion. To consider the effort it took for Americans to load up in covered wagons and head west for up to a year of travel at roughly 20 miles per day with all the dangers that such a journey provoked, and that within 100 years of that type of settlement, there were railroads, cars and airplanes invented that could connect all that open space seamlessly is quite a miracle. Forget about who the Native Americans were—whether they were caretakers of Mother Earth’s land, migrant Chinese people, left-over Viking warriors, or a lost tribe from Israel, the effort of frontiersman is one of the great stories of human innovation and tenacity ever conducted by free people. Guns evolved from muzzle loaders at the start of western expansion and ended as a pretty significant technological innovation resulting in lever-action repeaters and the Colt .45s that tamed the West into one of the freest land masses on the face of the planet. Progressives hated the Wild West because it was a period of history where laissez-faire lifestyles provoked hopes through capitalism and innovation that has never been repeated at any other time in known history. For all the barbarity of frontier life, it paved the way for a wonderful country that exploded upon the world an immense economy. Without the gun, none of that would have happened.

I am of a mind that Americans shouldn’t even have concealed carry anymore; they should make guns a part of their fashion. It should be as common to see a gun on the hip of a person as it is to see a business suit now. The American gun is a tribute to our heritage and a reminder of what a laissez-faire approach to legislation, and justice can provide a free people. As a society, we have to get away from this crap of being afraid of guns. We have to stop putting orange indicators on toy guns at Wal-Mart so not to scare some pansy police officer with a happy trigger finger willing to shoot anything that they might consider a threat. It ruins the experience for a kid of pretending that guns are real when they play with those toys. Schools need to stop trying to keep kids from playing shoot-em-up at recess by making fake guns out of their hands. Playing with guns is good for kids—they should do a lot more of it—especially boys. Avoiding guns is making our society into a bunch of wimps and it’s getting worse year by year. That’s what happens when you take advice from people like that caller into Matt’s show. More government employees and more gun laws turn our society into a much more regressive one. Aside from the obvious expensive nature of continuing to add government employees at tax payer expense, micromanaging society is an even more cost incursion that has detrimental effects on social responsibility. The 100 years where America operated as a much more laissez-faire society between the War of 1812 and the rise of the progressive era with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 America became a global superpower. Under progressive influence, America has regressed steadily from 1912 to 2012.

2012 will be viewed as a pivotal year in American politics. Obama won a second term, Ohio’s governor Kasich lost his battle with the unions, and many of those who refused to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney as a Republican presidential nominee decided they had enough of politics as usual. Since 2012 the American people have started to turn more toward a desire for a laissez-faire approach to all things related to government which will increase as millenials realize that most of their educations during the first twenty years of their lives were a complete farce—they learned all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. It is among them that they watch the big government reaction to all these failed progressive problems and are starting to consider other options. Of those options I believe we will see a new trend that guns will become more open and accepted. They should be, they are an important aspect of American culture.

As Matt and I closed out his show it was obvious that the government has well overplayed its hand in this card game called politics, and police officers have seen the last of the days where panicked parents and squishy minded voters just increased taxes and threw more bodies at every danger that presented itself. We are dealing with a whole new age in a new century, and if America is to survive, it will only do so with an overall political approach that is laissez-faire toward everything—starting with guns. Once more guns are injected into our society with more frequency, and openness–then all things related to our commerce will reflect that less restricted approach. It’s a mentality that we are missing in America that goes or comes based on how our society maintains its relationship to the gun. A laissez-faire approach to firearms is not an extreme position with equal measure against the gun grabbing liberals on the opposite side of some political spectrum. It’s not up for debate with a high low bar between positions where left and right politics meet in the middle. Guns are a part of America and there should be no apology in wanting them, carrying them, or using them. If America had that attitude presently, a lot fewer people would be dying in these mass shootings. The shootings themselves are caused by failed policies and an overly cautions society that is so afraid of guns that they can’t even allow a child to have a toy unless it’s colored in some way so not to scare other people into believing its real. Nobody should be such a bunch of wimps as to be scared of guns. Our education system has made our society that way—to our own detriment. And now its time to stop being afraid.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

ISIS Guilt in Chris Harper Mercer’s Violence: What Obama didn’t say caused the Oregon shootings–but he should have

There is certainly enough smoke to point toward an inconceivable fire if its proved to be true, that the Oregon shooter, Chris Harper Mercer wasn’t just the usual loner, the poor boy who couldn’t get a date and sought to put himself into history’s remembrances even as a villain after committing overwhelming violence. He appears to be more ideologically motivated. There are three things that give away the real story, and it’s likely that all three are connected. But if any of them were to hold up to the truth of proper investigating by real journalists, then there are a lot of people who should be immediately fired for the cover-up—because if these mass shootings really are to be stopped, the correct cause must be identified, not just the effect. Death was the effect, but guns were not the cause. Behavior was, and what motivated that behavior is the point of this discussion.

Not long ago Alek Skarlatos and his friends coming back from some ruckus boyish festivities in Amsterdam put a stop to an Islamic radical who attempted to take over a train in Belgium on its way to Paris. Skarlatos led the effort and has been since touring the world as a hero for stopping the possible terrible crime. Skarlatos would have been at the Umpqua Community College the day that Mercer showed up armed to kill Christians specifically, but the young hero was training for Dancing with the Stars down in Hollywood for the television show, enjoying rightfully his new-found celebrity. Now there are a lot of community colleges in the United States, so it’s just a bit odd that this attack happened to occur at the exact college of Alek Skarlatos just a matter of weeks after stopping the Belgium shooter. Initially when the Belgium shooter was stopped, the radical ties to Islam acquired during a time that the attempted murderer was in Spain had been suppressed with a cover story that the violence was not related to religious motivations. Remember that.

Apparently the FSB, (Federal Security Services in Russia) tried to warn the American CIA that a black-Islamist terror suspect had tried to gain passage to Syria through Turkey during the first week of September in 2015. That terrorist suspect was listed as Chris Harper Mercer and was on a list of 87,000 people they were watching, and was identified as being an Islamic State adherent after the attempt to get into Syria—all this flagged by the Foreign Intelligence Service, (SVR). Now, it’s possible that these agencies were just trying to make a name for themselves in the wake of the Oregon shooting, but what this congers up for remembrance is the Boston Marathon bombing by the radicalized Islamic terrorists there tipped off to us again by foreign intelligence agencies as our own Homeland Security failed to notice. Even with all the intrusions that the NSA is conducting on Americans they have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent so far in stopping terror from occurring—because the evidence is certainly present that these young kids—such as Mercer—where behaving in a way that indicating coming violence.

Third, just as in Benghazi where Chris Stevens was killed by a September 11th plot to sack the American embassy there, just a few months before President Obama’s re-election—were overeager reports that the violence had been caused by an anti-Islamic video. This time Obama himself took to the podium immediately after the incident in Oregon to call for more gun control. Even Chris Harper Mercer’s own father jumped on the train of anti-gun sentiment to show his shock that his son had owned 13 guns and declared that if his boy had not had the guns, the murders never would have happened. Everyone connected to the story was way too quick to blame the gun instead of the behaviors leading to Mercer wanting to kill specifically Christian people. For instance, Chris was coming from broken home, the father did not live with the mother—which is likely a much more telling tale of why the shooter had emotional problems and was unadjusted to social life. The root cause of young Mercer’s issues likely would reside between the dad and the mom because they did a bad job raising their son. Blaming guns is easy for the father, but the real cause of the Oregon deaths was that as a father he failed to give his son proper values to live life by. That left the young kid to bounce around aimlessly for several years before befriending some people on an online site called the “beta boys.” I have written extensively about the problems associated with “beta males” so the irony is not lost. Mercer had problems likely caused by his parents which should have been investigated before any press conference was conducted about the cause of the violence.

Even worse than all this—and at this point there is no way to really know—but there are several reports that the same agency that tipped off the CIA leaked information into the Russian publication Reedus indicating that Mercer’s online profile in The Red Room was changed from his original identify as an ISIS terror supporter to being a “white conservative Republican” immediately after the Oregon mass shooting. It was there that Mercer (supposedly) had warned the people he liked in that online forum to stay away from colleges in the Northwest because something was going to happen. Again, it’s possible that Russian intelligence agencies were just trying to make America look bad in a public relations battle taking place around the globe presently. So if it’s all untrue, Obama just has to say it—or perhaps his various security experts. Just give a press conference telling us that all this information is bogus and that there isn’t a grain of truth to it. That would put the issue to rest—because if any of this is true, there is some serious explaining to do—like why wasn’t it immediately revealed to the public that just like the shooter in Belgium, Mercer was motivated by Islamic radicalism—which would explain why he asked if potential victims were Christians. We don’t yet know what happened if potential victims indicated that they were Muslim. Apparently the father didn’t know Chris enough to understand if he had lost his son to radical Islamists—he didn’t even know he had guns. Unfortunately much of this information is coming from independent journalists and blog sites. More can be read at the following link, but much of the information could be cleared up by CNN, Fox and many other outlets if they would do a little digging and either shoot down the theories, or support them with hard evidence. But a failure to address these issues indicates more guilt, not less.

Then of course is the mysterious push for this shooter to remain anonymous, as if by not applying a name to Mercer will prevent other screw-balls like him from doing something similar. The parts of the story that backed this line of thought have conveniently been released while other aspects were completely ignored and this behavior was done in odd choreography with local and national law enforcement. The decision to put a lid on the kid’s story was made within hours of the shooting with unusual clarity by law enforcement. There is just way too much that doesn’t add up.

Literally on the other side of the world relative to the Oregon shooting a Moroccan nationalist on the radar screen by counterterrorism agencies for his radical jhadist views tried to kill people on a speeding train about a 100 miles north of Paris. Apparently young Chris Harper Mercer admired people like that shooter because they gained instant celebrity through the acts of violence. ISIS as a terrorist group has seen a lot of disjointed young people trying to join their cause. Most of them come from broken homes and are awkward socially for one reason or another and are attracted to the power of terrorism advanced by the terrorist group. There are always people out there who love the villains in a story—because the bad guys often have power that is envied by those who inwardly feel most powerless to express themselves against a tapestry of social orthodox. You don’t see otherwise nice young girls leaving comfortable middle-class homes in Britain to join the UAE or the Israeli army. They are fleeing toward ISIS and radical Islam because at least there they can see a structure that their lives are lacking. Weak people like the bad guys, because it gives them an association with instant strength that they don’t inwardly have. Whether Chris Harper Mercer was one of these types remains to be seen. Much of what I have written here was provided to me by readers of Overmanwarrrior’s Wisdom and I have spent the last 24 hours doing what research was possible at this early stage.

There is certainly more to the story than what we have so far been told. But the root cause of the violence was not the gun. It started with bad parenting followed up by a failed education system. Then the community failed to turn that “beta boy” into an alpha by placing an incorrect emphasis on masculine necessity that is crucial to the biological urges that young men need to build their self-identity with. And to correct all that, it is likely that Chris Harper Mercer was attracted to the violence of ISIS and that his actions were more influenced by them, than by the convenience of a gun. That is the real story and is the reason that the Obama administration was so fervent to get out in front of this story. Because Chris Harper Mercer was and is a product of the failures of Obama’s terms as president—Obama gave rise to ISIS through his passivity, he has advanced the failures of progressive educations and social engineering and he has mastered the art of laying blame everywhere but at the true source. So when it is asked why there are so many people like Chris Harper Mercer emerging these days to create mass terror—all Obama needs to do is look in the mirror. Under his leadership, the situation has exploded, and it has nothing to do with guns.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Carl Icahn’s ‘Danger Ahead’: Why Trump University failed but the billionaire would succeed as president

DOk course I daily keep up with a wide range of subjects and read heavily on them—which is quite a task if I were to think about it. It’s for no other reason than I have a lot of passion for many things. For instance, I forgot to sleep over the past weekend for both Friday and Saturday nights because there wasn’t enough time to do everything I wanted to do on those days. Sleep was not an option. But of those things I have not read lately much in the financial journals. You might remember my alarm while buying a car recently at the extremely low-interest rates. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. I have been thinking about other things, so didn’t really hear the loud voices coming from people like Carl Icahn about low-interest rates. However, as a Trump supporter for president, I did notice the Icahn had endorsed Trump and his tax package for reasons that I had noted centering on interest rates. Icahn is one of the most respected investors in the world so I felt a little pride at recognizing something that he was uttering which should concern every American immensely. Icahn put his thoughts together in a video called Danger Ahead that should explicitly encourage people to favor Donald Trump. The situation is dire and requires immediate attention. I’ve been warning about this phase in the American economy for a long time, but now that it’s here, we have to take action to solve the problem as we are well beyond the point of no return.

Icahn has done several such videos and doesn’t just stop on the corporate inversion concerns mixed with extremely low-interest rates. He goes further and addresses the other major crises present in America, which is so grossly obvious in politics and in business—our society has lost the quality of its people to do basic business. As a supporter of unfettered capitalism, the only way to keep everything in reasonable check is for people to function from a distinct cultural morality. For instance, as Icahn points out, many of today’s CEOs, and Board of Directors along with hedge fund investors are morally bankrupt so they invite snake oil salesman in the form of politicians to induce unneeded regulation on economic matters further restricting the free flow of financial expansion. Icahn has specifically pointed to a particularly low quality breed of manager class that has emerged in America which is proving to be catastrophic to our ability to deal with the financial crises that is coming.

To be a good manager a person has to function from a general foundation of ethical behavior. If a manager has hidden deep within their psychosis insecurities and didactic desires, they are likely unequipped to be good managers. Even worse, in the chain-of-command structure of most American business managers are reluctant to put second-in-commands to nip at their heels challenging their authority with anybody competent. So the incompetent are often the types who find promotions. The best and the brightest are most of the time left to die in some corner of a manufacturing environment as the worst and weakest thrive. This is a trend that has been going on for a long time—so it’s nothing new. But it’s beginning to have an effect on our national GDP that is measurable.

I can say from experience that the world is dying in regard to management. It’s really bad in the United States—most people on the other end of the phone or on an email are completely incompetent for their positions. They are culturally destroyed so that they are not equipped to function in a modern business environment. Good management is becoming a serious lost art in America, but it’s not limited to our borders—it’s the world over. The primary fault of these phenomena is our education systems which have been heavily influenced by politicians who know next to nothing about money. There is serious knuckle-dragging going on in modern business, when the issue should be reversed. Considering what is spent on modern education we should have the opposite problem. So the blame is on our educations system.

There is some criticism of Donald Trump and his Trump University that was in operation during the last decade. Essentially, Trump wanted to create a new generation of business leaders with his education institution infused with his perpetual optimism. It was a failed enterprise, so many in the media are pointing toward that failure to hang on Trump the selling of false promises as if the whole thing had been a scam—and why the billionaire would be a failed president. But where Trump would succeed as president but not as the head of a university is due to the Metaphysics of Quality which I’ve talked about extensively before. CLICK TO REVIEW. Trump as a president is largely a salesman for all things Americana whereas institutional learning cannot teach people to think from the front of the train of thought. Leaders are a special breed. As president, Trump can help create an environment for leaders to emerge, but education institutions cannot make poor managers into good forward thinking people. It just doesn’t work for the masses. Trump tried, but not everyone was ready for the effort of leadership, and this is what’s essentially wrong with all education institutions—even ones infused with optimism of Donald Trump. It takes great leadership to create good managers, and leadership is not the criteria used to invoke promotions. Instead, we have created a system of brown-nosing and schmoozing to accomplish promotions—and that doesn’t automatically create leaders. Leadership cannot be bought with the price of tuition, it has to emerge from within individuals who have value and know how to spot it in others.

Trump and Icahn are free to say what they think because they are rich. They don’t have to worry about making anybody above them angry with their opinions—which most smart people in the world are very concerned about—because their upward mobility depends on it. If they show up their boss—who may well be an incompetent loser, they may not be able to buy that house next year, or a new car. I’ve had the opportunity to do a lot of hiring over the years and a common question I ask of new employees is how hungry they are to perform the task they are being hired for. I say to them that I expect them to challenge me for my job—that I want them to bring their best to the game table. I don’t want ass-kissers, or appeasers of any kind. I want people who will challenge themselves every day and look beyond me for their opportunity. I never worry about somebody down talking me to someone else because my reputation speaks for itself. All people who are involved in management should feel that way. But they don’t. They watch with fearful eyes always over their shoulders worried that somebody might notice that they are incompetent—because they have been taught that having faults and being not so good at things was a virtue rather than a detriment that it truly is. Trump and Icahn at their senior ages can afford to be critical. They may not have felt so comfortable saying these things 20 years ago, but now they are because the evidence is so grossly obvious. For the record though, I have always said these types of things, so it’s nice to see others joining the party especially people like Carl Icahn.

The net result of this present debacle is due to the failed philosophy of power within the collective instead of the value of individual merit. When Icahn says that the unions are somewhat at fault for the situation, he means that good managers have thrown up their hands and tossed the meat to the dogs instead of sticking around to fight it out. Those who do tend to stick around these days are the suck asses and losers who are more interested in titles than in the merit of their positions. As low quality people, they look toward the position of their office for social value leaving them little intellectually to provide the masses by way of leadership. So America has destroyed one of its valued commodities—the breeding of good hard-nosed leaders of which people like Trump and Icahn are a dying breed. They are both looking for one last shot at fixing the world starting with America—because both are old men who I believe want to leave the earth better than when they found it. And right now, the risk is that they will leave it far worse—not because of them—but in spite of their efforts.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Sticking to our Guns: Why you should join the NRA today

Over the weekend Dana Loesch stirred up controversy against the anti-gun progressive insurgents with a controversial new ad. It was quite effective prompting a Twitter war with radical anti-Second Amendment nut cases. And to her credit for every negative Tweet she received, she donated to the NRA in that person’s name and bought herself a box of ammunition. Her spunk should be greatly admired because besides the national debt, protecting the Second Amendment is the key strategic objective of all right thinking Americans in eroding away the terrible damage to our country that progressives have invoked presently.

If you are not a member of the NRA dear reader—what’s stopping you? In a town of lobbyists in Washington, the NRA is probably the only one that I support—and you have to. Without them, the Second Amendment would have been gone a long time ago by progressive, communist sympathizers who want to disarm society and put the government in charge of everything. What they don’t tell you about their gun grabbing tendencies is that their ultimate objective besides wealth redistribution is the eradication of private property. They do this through many progressive taxes—especially property taxes which are of course directly attached to public schools using our community’s children as hostages toward that objective. The gun in America through the Second Amendment is established to protect private property from enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold the Constitution with something besides a sling shot. Governments cannot be trusted, so the only way that progressives can implement their strategic objectives is by removing guns from society.

Guns are the key to a free society and the rest of the world would be a lot better off if they’d learn that very simple truth. Every single human being on planet earth, man, woman and child under parental supervision should possess a gun. There would be a lot less violence in the world if guns were more readily available than there are now. ISIS would have far less control over the Middle East, Islamic radicals in Africa would quickly loose their ability to terrorize innocent people—the communist governments in China, North Korea and elsewhere would lose their ability to abuse their own citizens and it would keep everyone honest. The only reason government doesn’t fly out of complete control in America is because of the ever-present knowledge that Americans are heavily armed and if government steps out of line, there will be trouble. So let’s get that straight before we discuss anything more. Any liberal who stands against the Second Amendment, any religious figure, and any body of government whatsoever is essentially attacking the American way of life and should be considered an insurgent against the Constitution. There is no debate with some “other side.” There is no touchy feely testimony about some terrible crime that occurs which should move America off defending the Second Amendment that justifies any such proposal. Bad things happen—nothing is perfect, but guns for the essence of individual freedom in the modern world are essential to our survival as a country. The rest of the world should copy the American way of life for their own betterment and the sooner they get that through their thick skulls, the better.

I have written many millions of words and conducted many speeches against public education. It is proven that government schools are liberal recruiting centers designed to undo private property through progressive taxation—and the whole system needs to be scrapped and redone. I have been very passionate about the issue. But there comes a time when you’ve made your point and the new strategy of the day needs to be addressed, because when it comes to liberalism they provide moving targets. I will always cover education issues, but I am going to shift my passion toward defending the Second Amendment with my considerable talents being put to full use. The reason is that it’s time now for those voices to add to what’s always been out there—which is the NRA. They have held down the fort for a long time, and its time they get some reinforcements because the progressive aspects of society are shifting their depleting resources into that direction for one last ridiculous push toward communism—their secret dreams which sing them to sleep at night often under the influence of drugs, and alcohol while listening to Miley Cyrus grind her crotch against a Teddy bear.   Liberals are parasitic animals and their attempts at attacking the Second Amendment need to be met for the intentions always established by the political left.

Of those new voices Dana Loesch is one of those great new talents who are helping the NRA change-up their marketing, which is essential to their continued success. I plan to add to those voices for the strategic implementation of that task with my own talents-which will of course be unique. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Because the time is now to expand the reach of the NRA’s base of support to the new markets of the Millennials and other middle-grounders that have been on the fence and only know about guns from television shows like CSI. Hollywood used to help spread the message of the NRA, but since that valley town of entertainment is nearly all liberalized these days, the marketing efforts that have been needed to keep the NRA expanding require more creative voices from unlikely sources—of which Dana is one.

Largely I have left many of the efforts toward defending the Second Amendment to the committed voices that have been out there. But over the last few years a few things have changed for me. First, I watched how much radicalism there was toward the two Discovery Channel shows, Son’s of Guns and American Gun, which I liked quite a lot. Both were pulled off the air and the main male leads in both were put under scrutiny legally. Some was justified; some was due to their cable reality shows featuring guns. Another change for me was that I had grand children. When I first did the YouTube video A Whip Trick to Save America some of the negative feedback toward me was to discredit my love of traditional western arts. They called me a “hillbilly” and “trailer trash” because I wore a cowboy hat in the video. Their assertion was that anything less than New York fashion would do—but to me that fashion was heavily progressive. I love old westerns and the values they exhibited. For myself I can live among progressives and not have my position challenged, but I worry about my grandchildren. They deserve to have the kind of America I grew up with and as I look around at the possible male role-models, I’m really the only one who has held firm to those traditions. So I’m not going to let that progressive America ruin my grandchildren. It’s not going to happen, let me put it that way. Because of the negative feedback I received about my whip work during the education reform debates, I took note and decided to make some adjustments for the present crusades.

Additionally, at the time a few years ago I had a publisher and some novels that I was planning to promote in the traditional way—through New York—which is heavily anti-gun. My thoughts were that since my character of Cliffhanger used bullwhips instead of guns that it might be more acceptable to them for mass market reasons. However, it wasn’t. Cliffhanger was far too traditional for publisher heads, so it didn’t really matter. My decision since has been to just do what I feel like doing and let the chips fall where they may. I have given up on the New York and Santa Monica creative class in working with them to produce content that America is looking for—they aren’t interested, even if they make a lot of money in the effort. They are far too radicalized politically for that collaboration so I’m at a point in my life where I no longer care. Those who support the Second Amendment in America need to be proud of their position. They shouldn’t feel like they have to hide their love of guns underground—which is what has been happening. Guns should be main stream, so anything I can do to help that I’m going to. It’s just that simple. I do not support the present direction of the country. So why avoid promoting gun ownership just to appease a few publishers? To hell with them.

I know that if I felt that pressure to not flamboyantly advance the gun culture in America, then it’s probably twenty times worse for the average person, so its time to change that—and to stop apologizing. It was only a few years ago when westerns were just about all that was on television which entertained the Greatest Generation after World War II with the first programming provided to the new television format. While I’m looking forward to Tarentino’s new western The Hateful Eight I don’t have a lot of faith that it will have a lot of the traditional values shown in westerns, but will just be a bloody gun fight typical of the new age director. The production company putting out the film is hopelessly progressive, so I can only look forward to it so much—but in the realm of westerns, that’s all there is. Star Wars is a modern western replacing spaceships for horses, but the values are very similar. Other than those influences however there’s not much for the modern gun lover to get their heels into. Progressives are waiting for the old timers who were raised on westerns to die off so the modern progressive kids brainwashed against guns in public school can become the dominate voting class—and when that happens even the NRA will be overwhelmed. So the good ol’ NRA needs a little help. I plan to help them and obviously Dana Loesch is doing her part. And if we all do, we can help shape the future in the proper way. A conservative future must have at the center of it a love for the gun, because everything else emerges from it—primarily economic freedom and personal liberty.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.





The Real Reason John Boehner Left Congress: How evil hides behind institutionalism

I don’t plan to bash John Boehner into the ground forever. As much of a nice guy as I think he is, nice doesn’t mean a person is immune to criticism, especially when they hold very public government positions—yet John said something that was very insightful within his announcement speech of leaving congress ahead of some serious controversy. The cause of his effect—his desire to step down as Speaker of the House and to leave congress all together by his words is to protect the institution of his office intending to offer that the individual sacrifice themselves to the higher concept so to preserve it. In Boehner’s case, he is specifically indicating the minority of his political party who are rebel rousing constitutional purists, and are going to fight him at every step in future key issues, such as the funding of Planned Parenthood, the debt limit and the inevitable fiscal cliff that we are all facing as a nation. Boehner proposed that the institution was greater than the individual which explains immensely what is wrong with American government in 2015.

Even though Boehner and his wife just bought last year an $835,000 condo in Marco Island, Florida that in itself is not a case of alarm other than it’s a bit expensive for a guy who only makes $223,500 per year as speaker. For one, $835,000 doesn’t get you much of a condo in Florida, that’s nothing too crazy over-the-top even though socialist leaning despots have tried to make an issue of the purchase. That’s not a lot of money for the private sector—but it is for a government official who is supposed to be doing the business of the people who elected him. For Boehner to spend that kind of money on a second home in Florida indicates that he intends to become a lobbyist sooner than later where he will easily be able to make a seven-figure salary twisting the arms of his former friends for favors. Boehner is 65 years hold presently. The rules dictate that all members of congress take one year off to cool their former connections—but at precisely November 1st of 2016 at the age of 66 look for John Boehner to have an office on K-Street as a means to pay for that expensive condo in Florida and to rake in the money for about a 10 year career at that lofty sum. Boehner will become rich off the “institution” he holds in such high regard and he will have done it without really bringing any real value to the table of philosophy and republic preservation. He will have done it just to enrich himself behind a mask of “sacrifice” like every other loser who has left office and found employment as a lobbyist.

It seems like a long time ago but remember Trent Lott, the former Senate Majority Leader in 2008? Well, he and ex-Louisiana Senator John Breaux opened up a lobbying firm and took in $30.8 million dollars over a three-year period after they left office. They now work for Squire Patton Boggs who does lobbying work for Amazon. Their job was to twist the arms of people like John Boehner into doing what they needed for their clients. Boehner was often the monkey in the middle who had Trent Lott beating on his door over some issue or another—a guy who obviously helped pave the way for Boehner to emerge as an obscure Ohio congressman to the eventual leadership role of Speaker of the House by working things behind the scenes. Well when those favors are called in what’s John supposed to do, keep the door closed on Trent? Or is Boehner supposed to listen to the twenty raucous Constitutional purists who demanded that Boehner act out of integrity instead of lobbying dollars. Boehner decided that if he wanted to cash in on the “institutional” scheme of government employment then he’d better do it while he was relatively young. So he sang, zippity do da, and announced his resignation—while he still could cash in on his “sacrifice” within congress for 25 years. For him it makes sense, play golf at his new Florida condo for a year while the House drowns in squabbles that have no easy answer, and then return for Christmas of 2016 as a millionaire to close out his years and family fortune by providing access to corporate America the halls of congressional power. So much for the value of the “institution.”

But what was most sickening about Boehner’s announcement was his social proclamation about institutionalism—as if he truly believed that the House of Congress was so sacred that he needed to remove himself from the situation so to preserve it. That is just ridiculous—manically so. Boehner’s presentation of the assumption was meant to throw people off the trail of his true intentions with a long nurtured social illness that poses that institutions—collections of people brought together under the umbrella of common belief are more powerful than the individuals who formulate the beliefs that the masses collect under. The assumption is that sacrifice erases the need for individual logic so long as that individual is willing to surrender their mind to the collective whole of an institution. The media and virtually everyone watching instantly forgave Boehner for his vagina-like approach to exiting Congress at a critical time because he evoked to the public that his individual needs to avoid the coming conflict was not about himself, it was to preserve the “institution.”

When I am critical of the church and religion in general it is because it trains the masses to think in this fashion, which is one of the greatest evils offered to our modern modes of thinking. I would never propose that being an atheist was the correct approach either. I am of the thinking that the correct approach to these complicated problems has not yet been invented. There is no philosopher from the past who has provided a map to navigate by—that map still needs to be created. But putting the individual in a subservient position to institutional value is false. On the other hand, you cannot have mass anarchy either, where individuals live hedonistic lives indulging at every impulse—evil and otherwise. A code of behavior is needed to hold individuals together so that proper conduct at life can be achieved. Yet allowing an institution to define those guidelines surrenders the individual to the impulses of mass collectivism.   Not a smart idea because what it does is allow for an institution to wear a mask of holiness, whether that institution is Congress or something like the Catholic Church and allows the value of behavior to be applied to the collective efforts of the institution instead of the individual behavior of its members.

For instance, you might remember dear reader the situation of Jerry Sandusky of the Penn State football program.   Jerry was part of a group of well-known and powerful campus personalities who routinely raped children. The behavior was hidden behind the institution of Penn State—the institution was greater than the sum of the individual, so Penn State would live on while Jerry went to jail for his behavior. Yet Jerry was allowed to molest children under the cover of the institution—by using its mass and authority to give him leverage, and access to many young boys. The Catholic Church is known to have conducted themselves in the very same fashion—yet the church itself continues on as a symbol of piety even though it provides a shield to hide the individual behavior of the criminally insane. Congress does the same thing; it hides the individual behavior of its members under the greater good of institutionalism. So if Boehner decides to work the system to his benefit, then its forgiven because he has surrendered individual thought to the yearnings of institutional preservation. But in reality it has nothing to do with the institution so long as Boehner can pay for his Florida condo with the lobby power of K-Street.

Institutionalism is not superior to individual will. Society still has to figure out how to merge good behavior with a code of conduct that is rightly generated by the inner needs of every individual—but surrendering thought to institutional control is not the best option. And neither is the notion of sacrifice. You would think that after many thousands of years of sacrificial emphasis within our institutions—whether it’s sacrificing your life for a job, a family, or a god, that we would have learned to recognize the farce. When a public official like John Boehner says such a thing in a very public statement, you are listening to a ruse—likely in his case—one that he believes himself, especially as a devoted Catholic. Don’t pay attention to the individual misbehaviors of the people who make up the institution, so long as the value of the collective entity is preserved with immunity. Do you see what’s going on dear reader and why we have such a poor philosophy? It allows evil to work its desires behind collective enterprise without the worry of individual value—and this is how poor conduct spreads itself through institutions. With that known, Boehner isn’t just leaving to save himself the future embarrassments that have been headed his way as the leader of the Congressional “institution.” He’s leaving to get rich—while he still can. And that’s the real story.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Being a Big Fish in a Small Pond: Sheriff Richard K. Jones running for congress

It was spring of 2015 and I was at the Brazenhead in Mason, Ohio having a beer with some heavily connected conspirators fresh off the ear rings of Judy Shelton, the local Republican protector of John Boehner within the ranks of the Central Committee where I first learned that the Speaker of the House in Washington D.C. was planning to step down. It was also there that I learned that Sheriff Richard K. Jones was eyeing Boehner’s congressional seat which evoked some interesting thoughts which had been percolating for quite some time. At times I have liked Sheriff Jones. He once gave me a well done portrait sketch drawn in a way that made him look like a Wild West superstar—which I liked. But he lost me when he supported the union position against Governor Kasich’s Issue 2 in 2012, and the Lakota levy in 2013. As larger than life and John Wayne-like that Sheriff Jones wanted to be, he was a strictly local hometown celebrity who would be like a tropical goldfish cast into the frozen waters of the Artic Ocean if he were to go to Washington where much bigger fish than he experienced in Butler County, Ohio were there to eat him quickly—so I thought it odd that he’d even consider risking his reputation at his age to such a politically dangerous enterprise. After all, in Hamilton, he was a big fish in a small pond—but in Washington, where the GOP is changing rapidly under Tea Party influence—the game had changed in front of his face not in his favor.

I get the opportunity to work with lots of people from other parts of the country. In my work with bullwhips locally I was always well-known to be the best that anybody had ever seen. I grew up with that designation where literally everyone I met had never witnessed a person who could crack a cigarette out of the mouth of a willing participant with a bullwhip. For me it was not enough to be a big fish in a small pond, I had to know that I could be a big fish in a big ocean too—so I pushed myself to get better and compete against people from all over the world. Competition after all makes everyone better, even if you don’t like the results. I knew as a bullwhip artist that I could never truly consider myself one of the best in the world if I didn’t challenge myself against people who also considered themselves the best at the craft.

My journey took me to many competitive events; winning several trophies competing with the best that are out there. I even have had some stints in Hollywood dazzling celebrities with my whip work. I know what it feels like to stand in the middle of the road on Brand Blvd in Glendale California where television producers and movie stars were gathered around stopped traffic to watch me perform because they had never seen what I was doing before—and were fascinated. For me personally, it was then that I deserved to call myself a big fish in a big ocean. I had challenged myself and I had to. My life goal was to write stories about the pulp hero Cliffhanger and as the author; I had to know that I could have the swagger in real life of the character I had created. As a writer I had to know that I could do what I demanded my character to do. I never wanted to be one of those sickly writers who live through their art. Rather, my art had to reflect my reality—so I demanded of myself to be really good at the things I wrote about. Yet prior to the year 2000 few people knew about me outside of my hometown. I was a big fish then too, but the pond was small and easy to win in. Outside of my town the water was much larger and there is always the theory that there is somebody better than you. Until you test yourself against them, you don’t have a right to consider yourself the best—and if that’s your goal, you have to step out of the small pond and into the big one and compete.

Between 2005 and 2008 I had satisfied my goal. I had met and worked with some of the best bullwhip artists in the world. There were a few I didn’t get to meet, but at a high level, everyone is pretty even, so you get a good idea of where you stand among them. And it was very satisfying to realize that with all the hard work, that I could swim with the biggest fish in the biggest water possible and hold my own. I didn’t do such a thing to fulfill my personal ego, but to satisfy my literary needs for my own personal work of philosophy. After I achieved that goal I was ready to move on to the next thing and was quite secure in my place in the universe. Those who watched me and competed against me who worked hard to get better and better, I am happy for. I never felt a need to keep up with them or to outdo their efforts—because I know what they are trying to do—which was the same thing that I was—they need to know that they can swim with the biggest of fish. And I respect people who strive to do that. There is lots of room for big fish to swim in a big ocean. There are plenty of little fish to eat, so there is no reason not to cheer on other big fish to grow even larger—and impressive.

When Sheriff Jones first gave me the poster of himself I thought of him as a big fish. The day he gave it to me Fox News was going to have him on that night to talk about immigration issues on the border of Arizona. And during the Issue 2 union debates he and I were frequent guests on 700 WLW radio—so I thought of him initially as a big fish in a big ocean. But over time it was obvious that he was happy to be the big fish in the small pond, because the ocean out there was a bit too threatening. He’s a local boy who will always be the hometown hero, the public servant who marches in parades and made good by the area he grew up in. But going to Washington D.C.—that’s a big ocean that requires more than just tough talk—you have to actually be tough.

Jones showed what kind of person he was during the Issue 2 debates where he thought he was a conservative Republican who attended Tea Party events and was fighting to preserve American tradition. But his view of that tradition was much like John Boehner’s, a progressive touchy, feely, sentiment about conservatism that belonged more in a Sunday school class than in the halls of Congress. As the government in Washington started changing slowly under the Tea Party influences, Jones stood against that tide attempting to preserve the Republican standard nurtured by crony capitalists and pink middle-grounders just a few steps away from socialism on the scales of political philosophy. Issue 2 exposed him as a labor union supporter who refused to see the damage collective bargaining was doing to local budgets. He certainly lost my support, and many others like me who are looking for a purer version of a constitutional republic than we presently have.

When I heard that he wanted Boehner’s seat the first thought I had was that he’d be reluctant to test himself against the big fish of Washington. I remembered my first bullwhip competition against some really talented people—particularly Chris Camp who had won about everything there was to win in the bullwhip arts. He was a star in Vegas, had several world records and was the bench mark of a really good professional bullwhip artist. I worried for days before the competition about having a respectable showing against him. That was nearly 15 years ago, but I remember well how nervous I was about it. It was a bone chilling paralysis that sucked the life right out of you. The reason I was so nervous was that I thought I was pretty good with the bullwhip, but if I couldn’t hold a candle to Chris, I would know that I didn’t have what it took to be the best. Since the bullwhip was one of my signature attributes it was very important to me to be one of the best, so I pressed on. In 2005 after working very hard, I won every event there was against the best competition that the nation provided. I earned their respect and I earned the right to consider myself one of the big fish—and it was one of the proudest days of my life. In the scheme of things, it was a pretty minor deal—a competition at a regional festival. But, in the world of bullwhip work, it was a big deal to me because I had a lot to lose in the attempt.

In the world of politics becoming a congressman at the federal level is like winning that bullwhip contest against a really skilled group of guys. And Sheriff Jones I knew when I heard the story from the political insiders at Brazenhead that the local sheriff wouldn’t risk the disgrace. It’s not that he’d lose the race. I believe he would be elected if he ran for the seat. Butler County is the most populated area of Boehner’s district, which runs all the way up to Greenville, Ohio. Jones could run and win I think pretty easily. I share with him a passion for two big platform issues, his stance against drugs and illegal immigration. But on most other issues, he is as soft as Boehner was, and the now former Speaker of the House was just chewed up and spit out of Washington by a Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that is fast emerging to dominate the party. Those like the local apologist Judy Shelton who have fought so hard to keep Boehner in power all this time are well behind the political current of the times. Conservatives are demanding to move back to the right, they don’t like the left, or even centralist’s positions. And that is where the big fish swim these days. And in that pond, Sheriff Jones is a little fish who will have to scramble for his very life. That’s not a risk I think he is willing to make at this stage of his life. The time for him to test himself with such a feat would have been twenty years ago. The insurrection that is currently happening on Capital Hill for which Donald Trump and several other outsiders are a part are going to change politics from now on. Boehner saw that he was not equipped to handle the hard decisions that are ahead for a Speaker of the House, or even a congressman. So he jumped off the train singing songs. Sheriff Jones is of the same mind. If Sheriff Jones wants to be remembered as a big fish—he better stay in the small pond, because if he goes to Washington, he’ll be eaten rather quickly.

The talk went on that evening and I listened casually while looking at all the magnificent cannons decorating the Irish Pub. It was an appropriate setting for political intrigue and maniacal subterfuge among the socially manipulative. And that made the beer taste better. But I only half believed those sources when they said that Boehner was going to step down. So I have to also believe that Sheriff Jones is going to climb out on that limb and try to take Boehner’s seat. My advice to him would be to keep his image of a big fish alive for the sake of his grandchildren. An embarrassing experience in Washington would be hard to recover from unless he thinks he’s savvy enough to take on the candidates coming out of FreedomWorks. Because they are the future—the past is John Boehner and progressive radio hosts like Bill Cunningham. Sheriff Jones has more in common with them than the candidates nurtured along through FreedomWorks. Getting elected is only half the battle. Getting trampled as a RINO on the house floor is far more embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.