Issue 3 Fails in Ohio: Now, reload for the next round–because they will try again and again like stoned idiots

Looks like Ohio has defended itself from the pot smoking scum bags for at least another year.  But get ready, the joint craving lunatics of the lazy youth will be back for another round of tradition destroying endeavor by progressive activists.  Interesting reactions by the general public, seen below as the results came in.


State Issue 3

Issue 3 permits commercial production and sale of marijuana by what amounts to a monopoly in 10 locations around the state, It allows individuals to grow limited amounts for personal use. (read more)

YES 478,815
NO 908,431


Post comment as…



Mousey2 minutes ago

We all know the corruption never ends in Ohio – it’s where it starts. Talk about monopolies..get a grip folks

e2450just now

It’s a shame the amendment wasn’t structured differently. Clearly, at a minimum, medical use should be permitted. Ohio had a chance to be ahead of the curve for once. There goes that.


Chalmette023 minutes ago

Soooooooo not to point out the obvious but didn’t you guys just outlaw monopolies? Anyone know of any electric companies with no competition in your area?

Did Republicans really just think that was a good idea just to stop weed?


Aggrieved_by_CleClownsjust now

@Chalmette02  I hear what you’re saying, and respect it. I really didn’t want to have to vote Yes on Issue 2. It was promulgated by the GOP in the Ohio legislature, which I don’t trust … however, it was the ONLY way I could see ensuring that Ian James and his Irresponsible “We Feel the Need for Greed with Weed” crowd from bringing back Issue 3 over and over again — until it passed. Sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two evils — HEY!!!! I do that in every PRESIDENTIAL election! Who knew?!


ClevelandTchotchke5 minutes ago

So far, so good!  Ohioans are proving that they are smarter than Ian James, John Pardee, their carpetbagging buddies, and their cronies!  Ohio may legalize, but it will NOT be with monopolization for fat cats to make money off Ohioans, and ship it back to their ivory towers!


What a great day it is to be an Ohioan!  ISSUE 3?  GTFOH!


david7 minutes ago

Ohio is the worst f****** place to live I f****** hate this place nothing but f****** idiots


BlingFingers6 minutes ago





Chalmette028 minutes ago

Expect to see a few people leave the state who have kids who need medical marijuana. Ohio is a strange place.


ultra517 minutes ago

@Chalmette02 If these kids “really” needed it, you’d figure they’d already be gone.  If they “really” needed it.


Aggrieved_by_CleClowns5 minutes ago

@Chalmette02  I do feel for those who want to use medical marijuana to relieve severe pain including terminal illness … but you have to understand, IrresponsibleOhio’s greed grab of a monopolistic pot plan — leaving my entire Southeast Ohio region out of the pot “mix” when we po’ folk need the jobs down here! — alienated A LOT of voters. You have no one but IrresponsibleOhio to blame. Its celebrity greedy weed grab crowd could not be trusted and it showed in the polls – BIGTIME.


Aggrieved_by_CleClowns9 minutes ago

Today is like going to McDonald’s  — “I’m LOvin’ iT!” on these Issue 1, 2, 3 results!!!! IrresponsibleOhio lost on BOTH Issue 2 and 3 — the voters HAVE SPOKEN, so take your taxpayer-funded lawsuit idea, Ian, and go live in ANOTHER state where Monopolies can”take root.” And take weird hermaphrodie Buddie with you!


david10 minutes ago

Ohio is a terrible state


Aggrieved_by_CleClowns8 minutes ago

@david  Then move to Chokelahoma, or wherever you and your favorite cartel can go along to get along! Pal


Saganhawking7 minutes ago

I’m having trouble understanding what you just posted. It was funny though. Am I supposed to agree or disagree with what you just said?


Aggrieved_by_CleClowns3 minutes ago

@Saganhawking  Agree if you believe in free markets and the right to a responsible free market weed plan — let the best cultivator win — let it be about who GROWS THE BEST WEED — We down here beside Meigs Gold will win — and YOU should have the right to buy it without a cartel interfering!


david14 minutes ago

Well i can say Ohio is a terrible place to live


Saganhawking10 minutes ago

Yuep, horrible place to live. I hear Colorado, Washington and California calling your name. It’s a free country, go for it. The doors are open to you. Now write legislation concerning weed here in Ohio we can all agree to and maybe more would vote for it…


BlingFingers19 minutes ago

well the poll sure was off this year wasng it.

marijuana got its leaf kicked.

way to go people, send the pot smokers back to Colorado so they can drive while impaired elsewhere. we don’t need pot smokers here


Syphon16 minutes ago

You don’t live in this world apparently. You must have no idea how many people that are driving around are high. Go into a convenience store and count the amount of people that walk in there buying blunt wraps. I don’t smoke. I just know the real world.


avex1110 minutes ago

@BlingFingers There will be plenty of pot smokers here as there always has been. I guess most people here still favor a nanny state.


Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.


China’s ‘The Art of War’: Motivations and strategies behind global economic collapse

The White House issued a number of remarkably stupid statements during the week of 8/24 2015 specifically in regard to the China devaluation of their currency and the reaction that global stock markets have had as a result. Dear reader, this has been illustrated for everyone for several years now; I have covered the topic extensively. The sheer stupidity of those within the United Nations created on the heels of World War II to ensure that war would never again occur on an international stage only traded the aggressions of mankind from guns to finance—which effectually is much more dangerous. War with guns are often isolated to the battlefields and involve the killing and maiming of those under the command structure of government armies. Financial wars involve everyone in the world and can be much more dangerous as a slow killing, life depraving enterprise.

Reading and understanding The Art of War from Sun Tzu is extremely important. If we had schools that worked correctly, it would be required reading for every 7th grader. Every member of the house and senate on Capital Hill should be profoundly familiar with the classic book on oriental strategy. West Point does teach The Art of War to their students, and there are some other classes provided with an emphasis in military might from higher education that instructs on the Sun Tzu military philosophy, but it is grossly evident that most of the world is oblivious to the thinking of oriental thought due to the lack of actions to prepare for the knowing insurrection.

The book is established by thirteen chapters and they are as follows.

  1. Detail Assessment and Planning (Chinese: 始計,始) explores the five fundamental factors (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership and management) and seven elements that determine the outcomes of military engagements. By thinking, assessing and comparing these points, a commander can calculate his chances of victory. Habitual deviation from these calculations will ensure failure via improper action. The text stresses that war is a very grave matter for the state and must not be commenced without due consideration.
  2. Waging War (Chinese: 作戰,作) explains how to understand the economy of warfare and how success requires winning decisive engagements quickly. This section advises that successful military campaigns require limiting the cost of competition and conflict.
  3. Strategic Attack (Chinese: 謀攻,谋攻) defines the source of strength as unity, not size, and discusses the five factors that are needed to succeed in any war. In order of importance, these critical factors are: Attack, Strategy, Alliances, Army and Cities.
  4. Disposition of the Army (Chinese: 軍形,军形) explains the importance of defending existing positions until a commander is capable of advancing from those positions in safety. It teaches commanders the importance of recognizing strategic opportunities, and teaches not to create opportunities for the enemy.
  5. Forces (Chinese: 兵勢,兵) explains the use of creativity and timing in building an army’s momentum.
  6. Weaknesses and Strengths (Chinese: 虛實,虚) explains how an army’s opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of the enemy and how to respond to changes in the fluid battlefield over a given area.
  7. Military Maneuvers (Chinese: 軍爭,军争) explains the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon the commander.
  8. Variations and Adaptability (Chinese: 九變,九) focuses on the need for flexibility in an army’s responses. It explains how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.
  9. Movement and Development of Troops (Chinese: 行軍,行) describes the different situations in which an army finds itself as it moves through new enemy territories, and how to respond to these situations. Much of this section focuses on evaluating the intentions of others.
  10. Terrain (Chinese: 地形) looks at the three general areas of resistance (distance, dangers and barriers) and the six types of ground positions that arise from them. Each of these six field positions offers certain advantages and disadvantages.
  11. The Nine Battlegrounds (Chinese: 九地) describes the nine common situations (or stages) in a campaign, from scattering to deadly, and the specific focus that a commander will need in order to successfully navigate them.
  12. Attacking with Fire (Chinese: 火攻) explains the general use of weapons and the specific use of the environment as a weapon. This section examines the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack and the appropriate responses to such attacks.
  13. Intelligence and Espionage (Chinese: 用間,用) focuses on the importance of developing good information sources, and specifies the five types of intelligence sources and how to best manage each of them.

Verses from the book occur in modern daily Chinese idioms and phrases, such as the last verse of Chapter 3:


So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

This has been more tersely interpreted and condensed into the Chinese modern proverb:

知己知彼,百戰不殆。 (Zhī jǐ zhī bǐ, bǎi zhàn bù dài.)

If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous (literally, “a hundred”) battles without jeopardy.

Common examples can also be found in English use, such as verse 18 in Chapter 1:


All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

This has been abbreviated to its most basic form and condensed into the English modern proverb:

All warfare is based on deception.

In short, the failure of the United Nations has been to assume that all nations of the world, particularly communist countries, would give up their ability to deceive and open themselves to vulnerability to all for a global group hug, which will never happen. Not in a million years—not in ten million years of progressive philosophy. Every academic throughout the world who thought like Woodrow Wilson and his successor Franklin Roosevelt and believed in the ridiculous United Nations practice of global unification failed to understand the nature of those from the orient. The Art of War is their governing philosophy and in the case of China, they use communism to unite the flags of the world behind their centrally planned cause. That is why oriental countries are so prone to communist regimes—because at their heart is The Art of War. It is the most important book available in understanding the current crises in China.

China has been deceiving the United States openly for quite a long time and using a ruse of friendship to lull all capitalist nations to commit themselves into a vast amount of debt out of a mutual relationship of deceptive trust so that they can crush all resistance to them in the future. They are playing a global game inspired by The Art of War. So keep that in mind while the White House continues to pretend that relations with China are good and marching in a positive direction. China is poised to crush the United States through a devalued currency and a trade imbalance, and they don’t care if lots of innocent people are hurt in the process. We are talking about a communist country that openly kills babies when they turn out to be girls—because the state has designated a one child per family policy. China is looking to expand—they have an unnatural imbalance of males within their society and they look to The Art of War as a way to expand their society. And they are doing it right now.

This is not a warning, or a bit of political theater. It is a fact that anybody familiar with The Art of War would easily understand.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Just Type in “Overmanwarrior”: A great offer from Second Call Defense


George Lang from Second Call Defense presented a very nice offer during the WAAM radio show I was hosting for my friend Matt Clark.  I’ve done quite a lot of radio but this was the first time I was the host, which took a bit of getting used to.  Its one thing to be a guest as George was, it’s another to be the pace setter watching all the commercial stops and working with the producer on the other side of the glass.  But it was fun, as I expected it to be and as always quite revelatory.  The entire broadcast can be heard at the following link, which I’d suggest listening to again and again because of all the information presented.   I dedicated the show to the use of personal firearms for self-defense spending the first half talking about my personal experience in the matter, then put George on to discuss Second Call Defense, which is to my mind as important as the bullets you put into a gun used during a self-defense situation.  George covered a remarkable number of legal ins and outs during his segment which was worth listening to all by itself.  I have included the script I was working with to provide some guide to the broadcast.  The times include commercials which have been removed from the following recording.  George offered a free month of Second Call Defense subscription to anyone who types OVERMANWARRIOR into the redeem code on their website—which was a pretty good deal.


Here are the plans and pricing.  The box requiring the redeem code is on the next page while filling out the payment information form.


Radio Show WAAM Saturday June 13, 2015 1 PM
WAAM Talk 1600  734-822-1600

5 min — Matt Clark’s secret mission

8 min — Previous show and buying a .500 Magnum after realizing that society is already over the precipice.  Clinton emails, Lois Lerner corruption, Benghazi cover-up, drug violence, open borders, ISIS terrorism, power grab by the Justice Department law enforcement over localized police, Common Core and two generations of poorly educated children, the weakest foreign policy of United States global presence in over a century, bomb scares at the White House, Justice Department cover ups, and men who want to be women and vice versa—the world has fallen over the edge.

10 min — What I wanted to be when I grew up—a gunsmith.

17 min — Soft break

20 min — Treat at the bottom of the hour, old song from T.G. Sheppard and Clint Eastwood from a more civilized time – the 1980s.

  • The reason 80s music and movies still resonate so powerfully in our culture.

o Reaganomics and individual empowerment.

  • Dirty Harry represented by Clint Eastwood embodied traditional America with the encroaching progressivism culminating in the movie Sudden Impact.

30 min — Hard break

35 min — Song “Go ahead and Make my Day.”

38 min — Introduction of George Lang and his company Second Call Defense.

47 min — Soft break

50 min — Continuation about Second Call Defense.  Possibly take a phone call or two.

58 min — Exit to the top of the hour

As George pointed out during the broadcast George Zimmerman could have saved himself a lot of headache if he had used Second Call Defense during the Trayvon Martain shooting in Florida.  Using a gun in home defense or in a stand-your ground situation is only part of the story.  Because of the way laws and modern politics work, the burden of proof falls unfortunately on the shooter to validate their innocence.  When talking to the police after such an unfortunate incident, it is best to give the police as little as possible to turn around and use against you in court during a criminal or civil trial.  Some of those court hearings can be so painful that you might almost wish you hadn’t used a gun—which is the reason for all the progressive legislation—to nudge Americans away from the Second Amendment.  There are entirely too many people involved in self-defense shootings every year that lose everything because of the legal entanglements that occur after.  The very best thing to do in such a case is to turn all the legal work over to Second Call Defense and keep your mouth shut—even if you’re innocent of all guilt.  The system works against gun owners, so you’ll need some help, which is why George Lang is involved in Second Call Defense to begin with.  It’s a much-needed service for firearm use; just as the NRA is needed as a lobby against a gun grabbing government.  They are both very important and go hand in hand in this modern age of a lawyer driven society primarily against gun rights.

As I reported in my broadcast my decision to purchase the .500 Magnum was for all the reasons that the SWAT guys used a .50 caliber sniper rifle to stop the crazed gunman who opened up on a Dallas police station just hours before my show.  They used the big, powerful round to disable the getaway van by putting two shots into the engine block.  The .500 Magnum has the same type of stopping power, which in the world we are living in, is needed.  There is no reason to take risks with personal safety, so I am choosing the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum as my choice for family defense.  But, those big bullets aren’t enough to protect a firearm user from the diabolical reaches of the classic political class and their need for a straw man to prosecute in the wake of a shooting.  Their need for a straw man should never be underestimated.  As a firearm owner, you need protection from them as much as you do the goons, the punks, and the creeps George and I were talking about.  It’s a vicious world out there, and I have to thank George for making it easier for listeners of the Clarkcast to get protected with a free month by using the redeem word, “OVERMANWARRIOR.”  Take advantage of that offer, it is some of the best insurance that you can have for yourself

I’ll be hosting for Matt again on Saturday, June 20th at 1pm.  On that show Gery Deer will be with me to talk more about guns, knife throwing, and bull whips.  Be sure to tune in for more voluminous entertainment and interconnecting knowledge.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

U.S. Economy Drops 0.7%: The cost of too many rules and regulations

Not surprising the U.S. economy contracted 0.7% in the first quarter of 2015. At least it wasn’t a surprise to those outside of the Beltway, and progressive cities of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. Everywhere else in the America they saw it coming. Only in the progressive quarters of the nation are the illusions of government tampering not glaringly evident. Unfortunately, most of the surviving newspapers of any merit are still located in those cities, and the reporters there seemed alarmed by the economic retreat into the negative numbers.

No matter where you go in America, there is a big problem. Work ethics are at an all time low. Employees expect higher wages than ever for doing the least amount of work. Yet their competency is dismal. It is actually shocking now when someone does what they are supposed to do in a task, as opposed to doing something incorrectly. Competency is in short supply. But that’s not the worst of it. Government regulations driven by slack-jawed attorneys have crippled American manufacturing methods with stifling rules that prevent common sense in creating productive goods and services. There seems to be this infinite belief that more rules imposed on businesses will not correlate into a lack of productivity. Most companies, even large ones these days will declare that they are late to a schedule because they don’t have the manpower to execute compliance toward all the rules they have to contend with. For most companies compliance to their industry is a majority of their occupational commitment.

Government has imposed itself into virtually every crack of every endeavor in the United States which has destroyed the creative process of producing GDP. The evidence of this trend is actually in our artistic endeavors culturally. After seeing the latest Avengers movie I came away disappointed. It was a pretty good movie, but it was of a quality that was nearly television from the 80s quality—which is saying that it wasn’t new, spectacular, or worthy of a big screen treatment. Sure the special effects were good, but the music, direction and overall plot wasn’t much different from a typical Dukes of Hazard episode. Aside from the new Star Wars movies coming out, the film industry looks to be in desperate trouble. Most of the big movies hitting the silver screen are 1980 retreads, Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Terminator, etc. In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, a new movie seemed to come out every few weeks, many of which were memorable cultural benchmarks, like the Matrix, Twister, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and so on. But with all the talent and film schools out there, Hollywood is incapable of producing anything new. That is a huge problem.

The music industry is even worse. While at Kings Island recently I couldn’t help but notice that many of the young people were mouthing the words to songs that came out when I was a teenager, and heard while at that very same park. Also, the 80s Store was busy with people of all ages relishing all the great memorable aspects of the 1980s that they remember, or want to remember if they’re too young to have actually been there. The 80s Store features film memorabilia from E.T. to Ghostbusters, which is reportedly another retread coming to screens soon this time with women from Saturday Night Live instead of the original cast. I’ll go see it for fun, but do producers think they can recreate the magic of Ghostbusters just by changing women actors from men and stimulate a new audience? That’s part of the problem. The music they play in that store is a trip down memory lane. Back then every week was a new top 40 song and that went on for the entire decade. It was similar to the 1950 and early 60s where the music industry just hit it out of the ballpark with just about every song released. The art in the songs were about things people care about and reflected a culture of capitalism and freedom that was trying to find its way. There was an underlining sense of optimism in 80s music that was not heard in the late 90s or subsequent decades. The music of today is so hell-bent on political diatribes that the music goes out of fashion within a few months, not even years. Creatively our culture is in trouble, the people in it cannot produce original material, and those that can have been ostracized politically out of those progressive cities to preserve the ideology of those regions and our culture is suffering—clearly.

But those are just the symptoms; the cause is in the heavy-handed regulatory climate of our present government. During the 80s, Reagan gave people the impression that the sky was the limit and that the American dream was obtainable. For a lot of people, it was. For some it wasn’t, and for the undisciplined, they spiraled out of control due to indulgence in excess, whether it was money, drugs, or women. But at least there was a belief that anything could happen in America. The 1950s were similar, it was a post war-time, Americans had a good standard of living and businesses were booming. There was no lack of opportunity for those who wanted it as the world put itself back together after World War II. The music was reflective of the overall culture.

When I came out of Avengers: Age of Ultron movie I told my kids that our culture was headed for real trouble. The movie was average at best, and the filmmakers knew there were high expectations after the first movie did so well. Well, the Avenger movies aren’t a shiny penny anymore. There is a level of expectation that the public has and the franchise is slipping. I first noticed it during the latest Captain America movie, which was good-but not as great as it should have been.   With all the resources available from Disney, Age of Ultron was the best that they could do with a comic series that came out in the 60s and 70s? It should be expected that a movie like Frozen should come out every year instead of the occasional hit that it was. Again, with all the resources at Disney, that’s the best that they can do?

While watching Avengers II, the prescreening stuff was obsessed with progressive causes, such as the new ABC Family channel “Becoming Us,” which features a transgender family dealing with a dad who wants to become a woman. Really? Who thinks that thirty years from now in the Kings Island 2015 store that anybody is going to want to buy a t-shirt or hat with the logo “Becoming Us” on it? Progressives are more interested in being a change agent for an extreme minority rather than giving people what they really want in entertainment. Two or three more people might want to have a sex change operation because of “Becoming Us” but the vast majority of people will just tune out because the subject matter turns them off.

Then there is the ACLU case accusing Hollywood of hiring only men for big projects like Avengers instead of women. They ask questions like “why are all the directors of big blockbuster movies all men?” In fact Melissa Goodman, director of the L.G.B.T Gender and Reproductive Justice Project of the ACLU of Southern California said, “Women directors aren’t working on an even playing field and aren’t getting a fair opportunity to succeed.” Goodman doesn’t see the reality on the wall, she assumes that if a woman is cast in some below the line job or as a director that people will rush to the multiplex to see whatever they put up on the screen and it just doesn’t work that way. Transgender issues are not an issue. Boy George in the 80s had great success and people bought his music. But he wasn’t in everyone’s face about it every 15 minutes reminding people of his rights. He just made decent music that people wanted to hear. These days everything is about fairness and regulating an industry into making things fair. To that effect, in order to make something fair the good must give way to the bad, the strong to the weak, and the brilliant to the stupid, which of course waters down the end product in favor of stylish sentimentality. Yet the net result is a blasé commitment to the final product by a customer base indifferent to the consumer drive to participate.

The same ridiculous laws have migrated out of entertainment and into mainstream occupations. It is more important to government regulators to have a company hire minorities, women, or immigrants than the best people for a job who can make the best product. If companies don’t show an interest in bending to the will of government sentiment, then a government audit of some kind will come in for a shake down forcing the company to either shut down or pay extraordinary fines as a “payoff.” While all this is going on of course the company is less productive and not making whatever it’s supposed to be good at. The energy of the company is on compliance, not productivity.

Then of course comes the most intrusive element of all, taxation. There is a belief that a corporation should be willing to pay infinite amounts of tax just to operate within the United States. Well, that’s not how it works. Companies exists for one reason, to make money. Not to lose money. If they have to pay too much in taxes, they have to cover their margins somehow, and usually that means either relocating their business to a region that has low taxation—or they will just decide to shut down. There is no moral case for paying taxes to support government programs invented by politicians who know nothing about running a business. Companies will either not produce their product, or they’ll leave the country.

So when it’s wondered why there was a 0.7% drop in GDP during the first quarter of 2015, now you know why. Regulations are too intrusive, taxes are too high, and the political climate is more interested in all the wrong social issues than in actually making things people want. That has created a stifling atmosphere that is quickly evident in our arts, which directly translate over into our more productive sectors of society. Regulations and rules kill GDP. They do not enhance productivity, they hurt it, and in American society there are too many rules. That is why there is a retreat in productive output. Government has intruded itself into the affairs of the American people and the net result is less of what makes us good. Why is that so hard for progressives to understand? More rules don’t work in sports, why does anybody think they would work in business?

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Tea Party Goes to Washington: Rand Paul’s Success at battling the “Patriot Act.”

Very seldom does anything done in Washington D.C. ever get turned back to a reset. Rand Paul’s stand over the Section 215 of the Patriot Act signed into law on October 26th by President Bush is one of them. On May 25 2011 President Obama signed the Sunsets Extension Act which was a four-year extension of the three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. The act stands for United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It was created out of panic, some in the Senate actually had wanted the spying program well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks for the data collection it would allow. Like the TSA which also came as a result of the terrorist attack in New York, the Patriot Act was anything but patriotic. It was a chance for government to grow and become more powerful. 9/11 could have been avoided if only people had been doing their jobs ahead of time. Instead of expecting government workers to perform their tasks of security as the FBI and CIA knew about the planned terrorist attack—the government for a whole lot of bad reasons created the Patriot Act to step all over the rights of Americans as defined by the Constitution with a more ominous intrusive government trading safety for security.

Rand Paul entered the Senate as a Kentucky representative in 2011 on the backs of a book called The Tea Party Goes to Washington. He is often the smartest guy in the room as he has had a successful career as a doctor prior to his bout with politics. Like most Tea Party supporters, Paul is not interested in politics as a way to further his social status. He only seems to care for solving problems the way a doctor would want to solve a patient they actually wanted to fix. This makes him a nightmare for the establishment politicians.

In Butler County, Ohio it was declared by establishment Republicans in John Boehner’s district that Tea Party Republicans were about to go extinct after the 2014 elections. The feeling was that the radical Tea Party types who expected politicians to follow the Constitution were going to be shoved out of the orthodox portions of the party and discredited. Once such a thing happened it wouldn’t take long for everyone to lose interest and go away. CLICK HERE to see how that’s going and what types of things really go on behind the scenes to facilitate that fantasy. But now well into 2015 that isn’t happening. The Tea Party still meets every month, and is still holding politicians feet to the fire and within only four years of entering office, Rand Paul is doing the hard work of what needs to happen many, many more times—he’s actually eliminating laws that should have never existed in the first place.

The purpose of this little article is for the novice to understand what Rand Paul is all about. Likely there will be a lot of anxiety toward Paul for the next couple of years as establishment Beltway types will panic at his resiliency, and buoyancy. Rand Paul is one of the few candidates in the GOP field of potential presidents who I want to see as President, so I put this article up to show newcomers what he’s about and how he handles himself. As shown in the videos included he is equally persuasive speaking to liberal pundits and conservatives alike. As a Republican he is able to reach across the aisle and speak with liberals in a way that doesn’t demonize them displaying a leadership tendency that truly frightens lesser politicians who make their livings with slimy activity. Rand Paul’s exclusive reason for running for president is to put those slimy politicians out of business—which means if his name is on the ballot, I will be voting for him.

Rand Paul has promised to eliminate the Department of Education if he is elected president which is another thing that truly must happen soon if America is going to survive into the 2020s. Without something truly dramatic happening in the public education system, out future generations of Americans will be destroyed before they ever reach adulthood, just because the public education system is so bad. The DOE was created in 1979. President Reagan wanted to eliminate it, but didn’t. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY. Under President Bush it expanded by double under the No Child Left Behind Act and from there kids under labor union influence have been swept away toward socialism at a maddening pace—which has been a byproduct of a centralized federal effort. Education has to be a state’s rights issues and must be decentralized if it is going to survive in any form. So far only Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and probably Scott Walker are able and willing to do anything this controversial. But it has to be done and soon. Make no mistake about that.

Another federal department that Rand Paul has vowed to end is the Department of Commerce. That department has turned out to be a giant make rich scheme for the well-connected and has nothing to do with the expansion of national GDP. It could be completely eliminated without anyone realizing it was gone. For America to survive these are things that must happen. Failure to do so will lead to a slow integration through collapse into United Nations led efforts to mold the world into one big stew. This is certainly the intention of the Clintons, and appears to be the purpose of the Obama Administration. The Bush family is also perpetually headed in that direction as they always turn toward bigger government each time there is pressure placed to do something responsible—whether it’s providing security to the people of the United States or expanding the economy. For most Beltway politicians they rubber stamp more government expansion and head to K-Street for easy money and sinful recreation—no republic can survive under such conditions and poor leadership.

Rand Paul on the other hand is refreshingly intelligent—and a natural leader. All leaders know that their position is not a popularity contest. Most of the time people will hate you for being a leader—that comes with the territory. Rand seems very comfortable with that role, which is another reason he is such a good presidential candidate. The GOP would be crazy not to nominate him for the presidency if it comes down to a choice between some big government slug like John Kasich, or Jeb Bush. I know for a fact that most establishment Republicans want Kasich in my home town because they want corporate welfare—they want to get rich off the government in all the wrong ways that safety net welfare often occupies regarding poor spending and corruption. Paul has stated that he will get rid of corporate welfare before he touches social welfare—which I can agree with.   I want welfare gone for everyone so to allow recipients to become better. If a company gets corporate welfare, they are allowing government to falsely prop them up against competition, which is not how capitalism is supposed to work. It’s cheating and is no different from “deflategate” in the NFL involving the Patriots cheating that has gone on. It doesn’t matter if you win a Superbowl if you cheated to get there. The same in business, a company isn’t really good if it cheats to be profitable. If a better company comes along that can do something better, then the old company should fail and possibly go out of business in favor of the better company. That’s how things are supposed to work in America and Rand Paul understands that.

Undoubtedly many in the Beltway are secretly hoping that something bad happens during this whole PATRIOT Act issue. There are probably loose plans for false flag events to take place just to attempt to hurt Paul’s stance on the government surveillance programs that are in jeopardy. But in reality Rand Paul knows that the entire NSA could be shut down and nobody would really notice. If the United States would stop fumbling the ball in the Middle East either on purpose or out of sheer stupidity, it wouldn’t take long for ISIS to run out of bullets. And if the FBI and CIA would actually talk to each other there wouldn’t be a need for The Department of Homeland Security. That is just another branch of worthless government expansion. I’m sure as I’m writing this there are plans to rattle the nerves of the American people and to make Rand Paul look bad for his steadfast resolve into shrinking government instead of allowing perpetual expansion. But if everyone holds to the line they will discover that most of the debate is strictly rhetoric. Most of government could be eliminated and nobody in the core of America would notice, or care. And that is the game of chicken that Rand Paul is playing, and for which we should all hope he succeeds. This is what it looks like when the Tea Party goes to Washington. And it’s a wonderful thing for Constitutional purists—for which every American should be.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Truth Behind Pseudoscience: How the Forest Hills superintendent played a part in the destruction of scientific method

Pseudoscience is a growing trend which I cover quite a lot, mainly because it is evolving out of a lack of trust in the current intellectual institutions. As it turns out the imagination of mankind is more reliable than its ordained collectivism—the level of reality that the masses are willing to accept. For those masses, their level of intellectual aptitude is not very high, and they are happy to relegate their trust to those they consider authority figures. But that trust quickly evaporates when it is discovered that those authority figures are extremely corrupt individuals lacking basic leadership skills, which is certainly the case when the Forest Hills superintendent was caught trying to manipulate his child’s individual test scores—because obviously those types of things are important to his family. This is not an uncommon occurrence. In my dealings with public schools I was amazed at how simple their thinking was, and how easy to corrupt they were. My net result of observation was that they cannot be trusted with much of anything—especially the framework that science and education in general are bound by. Here is the story of the superintendent as reported by Channel 5.

ANDERSON TOWNSHIP, Ohio —Forest Hill School Board members have released the results of their investigation into allegations that Superintendent Dallas Jackson is accused of invalidating a first semester exam score, because his son did poorly on the test.

It could be a packed house at the Forest Hills School Board meeting Monday night after the district’s superintendent was accused of tossing out a test because of his son’s grade.

The board met in executive session for more than three hours Monday night.

According to an unnamed investigator, Superintendent Dr. Dallas Jackson attempted to interfere with grades on a pre-calculus honors mid-term exam, but the Turpin High School principal addressed the exam grades without influence from the superintendent.

Teachers first sent a letter to the school board questioning the ethics of the superintendent’s inquiries into the test his son took.

WLWT has been pushing the Forest Hills district for the documents for days. The station obtained a copy late Tuesday afternoon.

Jackson tried to step in after 44 percent of the honors students, including his son, failed an exam in December.

An independent investigation found Jackson sent a text to the principal saying he was not happy with the way she was handling the issue.

The district reported Jackson met twice with the principal at Turpin about the exam. Jackson told the principal the failure rate was due to either “a bad test or bad teaching.”

The principal approached the teachers in charge of the exam about averaging out the test grade, but they refused. Ultimately, the teachers, the Turpin principal and assistant principal agreed on a plan to give students a chance to raise their grades.

Jackson disagreed with the plan, but it was implemented anyway.

In my experience at witnessing, writing, and researching many stories like the one above from Forest Hills, it is safe to say that I don’t trust much of anything that comes from institutions backed by government—especially if they have connections to international trade unions. There is just too much temptation to cover up bad human behavior, or interpretations of a strongly held static pattern—such as a religious preference—to alter and manipulate data intended to be involved in critical thought. As I say that I can’t help but think of a book a person I greatly admire wrote called The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. Sagan is not the type to jump into conspiracy theories and wanted very much to fight back the trend to take imaginations into pseudoscience. But the scientific data he often relies on to make proper decisions are known to be deliberately revised. Evidence cannot be considered if it is destroyed and proper assessment of data cannot be deduced if it is avoided to protect intellects from the challenges of new data that may be contrary to a static pattern of thinking.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a 1995 book by astrophysicist Carl Sagan.

In the book, Sagan aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople, and to encourage people to learn critical or skeptical thinking. He explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking, and should stand up to rigorous questioning.

Science to Sagan is not just a body of knowledge, but a way of thinking. The scientific way of thinking is both imaginative and disciplined, bringing humans to an understanding of how the universe is, rather than how they wish to perceive it. Science works much better than any other system because it has a “built-in error-correcting machine”. Superstition and pseudoscience get in the way of many laypersons’ ability to appreciate the beauty and benefits of science. Skeptical thinking allows people to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He states that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

Yet we live in a world where public schools have deliberately avoided critical thinking and reason—so that emotional decisions centering on collective endorsement can be utilized instead. The result of this action is an entire society that has lost the ability to think critically or to use reason to make determinations. When those types of people are in charge of an institution what you get is the kind of results seen in Forest Hills Superintendent Dallas Jackson. His son had a bad grade, he was a superintendent of an important public school, and he didn’t want the embarrassment of having his kid not performing at the top of his academic expectations………….what would the neighbors think? Worse yet, what about the rest of the family? So he used his power to abuse the system to his needs. This has happened within the IRS involving Lois Lerner. It happened in Benghazi. It happens every time a teacher decides they want to have sex with one of their students. It happens all the time and at all levels.

Its not unrealistic to imagine that some curators at The Smithsonian Institute, or The National Geographic Society who have poured their faith behind the Charles Darwin theories of evolution and built their careers around those assumptions would not stuff the bones of some giant discovered in a Ohio mound into some vault, or even destroy the evidence to preserve their scientific outlook. For instance, everyone knows that whatever wreckage was found in the Roswell incident was sent to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Not long thereafter there were many UFO sightings around Southern Ohio probably related to new military technology either being developed at WPAB or the testing of alien technology found in the wreckage. Or perhaps somebody or something connected to the wreckage went looking for their stuff back. Supposedly the complex of this mysterious Air Force base was connected by tunnels to the Mound Nuclear complex nearby in Miamisburg. And in the middle of all this activity was the Masonic temple that looks down into downtown Dayton and the Great Miami River upstream from the nuclear site. Old buildings around Dayton all up and down the river in that area have lots of references to gargoyles and strange winged creatures that really don’t have a direct connection to the frontier development of those communities, so something really odd is going on behind the veil of the presented reality there. I probably wouldn’t think anything strange about any of this except that somebody decided to build the entire nuclear research facility right in the middle of a magnificent mound builder complex right in the middle of the site. At the Miamisburg Mound at least two skeletons of people over 8 feet tall were found, so any credible university it would be thought would seek to do some major excavations in Miamisburg to discover who and what they were. Instead, science and industry backed by politics built a nuclear research facility supposedly connected to the alien conspiracy theories of WPAB. If you take Carl Sagan’s scientific method at face value one has to ask—what proof is there of any paranormal, or pseudoscience behavior? Well, the mound itself there in Miamisburg is large, and the entire nuclear faculty was built around it for some reason—perhaps to give the illusion of having respect for Native American culture. Yet nobody has dared to do a proper excavation of the site in over 100 years. Why? The University of Dayton is literally just a few miles away—they have some anthropology courses that they offer. Nearby University of Cincinnati and Miami University both have respectable archaeology programs, yet nobody has pulled together the ability to do a suitable dig at the site—which would unquestionably produce many more skeletons—probably some of which were giants—relatively speaking. Science creates the pseudoscience speculation because of the various cover-ups which likely stem from a religious desire, or a European pride issue of maintaining that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the cultures that were already in the New World were truly primitive hunters and gathers. The culture that built those mounds was more advanced than previously thought, and those in charge wanted to manipulate the facts to force reality to be shaped to their desire.

That’s why it’s a big deal when someone like Dallas Jackson abuses his authority to make his son look smarter to his peers. Jackson manipulated the science of critical thinking to create a desired outcome. When this happens in a local school system, you get mistrust and some chicken gawking toward righteousness. The teachers had a chance to push back against management and show what ethical people they are ahead of their next levy attempt, and the news outlets get a story to cover. But when the same thing happens on a national level with all the coordinating institutions protecting their version of realty—whether it is in preserving the illusion of European history and cultural superiority, religious orthodox, or even political alignments the only way to scratch at the truth is through the pseudoscience.

Public education institutions have lost their relevancy because they have shown themselves all too willing to behave as a filter to reality by programming the masses into illusions of understanding—so to preserve versions of reality they see as valuable. For Dallas Jackson it was more important to him to have his son look like a smart kid than in the actual fact of his son’s intelligence. So he sought ways to fudge the numbers in favor of his boy. This is how Carl Segan’s trust in the scientific method goes wrong because institutions and those in charge of any collective oriented enterprise are prone to doing just as Jackson did meaning that very little of what is produced and offered as truth can be taken as such without more evidence being sought out through speculation. Little things do add up to big things rather quickly and because of that pseudoscience is gaining ground where orthodox science is failing. And sometimes it all starts with a superintendent just trying to change the grade of his son to look better in a social setting. That is the damage that is done, and why it is so perilous a path to take.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

I’m Sick of Homosexual Marketing: Their lifestyle choices are imposing, and disrespectful

Personally I’m really sick of the whole social homosexual issue and don’t have much sympathy for the Indiana and Arkansas governors under protest from gay groups over their recent legislation which should be covered already by the 1st Amendment anyway. I’m not gay, and don’t personally associate with gay people because they typically don’t share my values, and I have no plans to change that value judgment. I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show was a terrible movie, and I hate gay pride parades because of all the stupid color combinations. Yet in spite of the opinions of the progressive left and right, that does not make me a homophobe—as they like to call people who don’t share their appreciation for anal intercourse—which is gross in any fashion—man or woman. When I look at people I try not to think about what kind of sex they enjoy, just as I don’t want to know if they like fried chicken or sushi. Whatever their choices—keep it to themselves, because I likely don’t want to know. Sex is a very small part of existence, so policy should not be built around any sexual orientation. Gay people don’t have a right to molest straight people with audacity and gross behavior in public—then cry foul when people don’t like what they see. When those people utter such, they don’t deserve to be called names and attacked socially by a collective mob to change their behavior under coercion, which is what has been happening in Indiana. At that point gay people lost their sympathy and have simply become bullies. They may have a rainbow inspired aggression—but they are still bullies.

An example of how gays step over the line all too often occurred when I was much younger—I was at a video game arcade using the rest room when a very wiry person came up to the stall next to me. Now it was a big bathroom so there were many other stalls he could have used, instead he stood right next to me. That was problem number one, because I don’t like people too close to me unless there is no other option—and there were options. Then he tried to have a conversation with me, which was mistake number two. I really don’t like to talk to people when using the restroom. I like to get finished as quickly as possible and get out of those places—because they usually smell bad. So I didn’t want to talk to him. Then he tried to look over the divider at my assets, and he was not shy about it. I’m not ashamed of anything there, so that didn’t bother me so long as I’m dealing with a heterosexual. But as it turned out, the guy was gay, and he asked me if he could perform oral sex. That was it. I called him a fag. He called me a hater and grabbed my shoulder to look me in the face as if he had authority to touch me, so I punched him. I heard a pop when my fist hit his face and he went down and stayed there. I stood there for a moment to see if he would move, which he did a little. I finished with my bathroom visit taking extra time to see if the guy would try to engage in conversation—but he didn’t. Instead he stood up, refused to engage in any further conversation not even bothering to wipe the blood from his face in the sink and left. It was a really strange ending to a really uncomfortable trip to the restroom.   He was obviously embarrassed that he ended up on the floor after trying to engage in sexual activity, and left quickly once he could stand again. I expected security to come, but they never did so after waiting around for about 15 minutes, I left never to see that guy again. If that had been today, I would have had an army of PC police there to put my face on the news and the newspapers would have written about it until they ran out of ink—but back then distinctions in such behavior were still judged as something negative—and the sentiment toward change has not enriched our culture. There have been similar incidents over the years, but that was the worst and most obvious—and the question I’ve always had is–why should I have to put up with those people?

Men and women have separate bathrooms for a reason, so that sexual conduct doesn’t get mixed together. But with gay people, there are no barriers, and they defiantly have the advantage because only they really know if they are gay or not. If a guy wants to use the stall next to me in the restroom, my wife has a right to know if some rival for her affection is trying to get a mental picture of her private affairs. If the guy is heterosexual, she doesn’t have a rival, but if he’s gay, she does. This is a problem, as a straight person, I should have a right to use the restroom without sexual advances—and in this modern society—you never know. If you’re endowed, you can’t hide that stuff behind a stall, so the eyes of a gay person can see everything clearly—if they want to. So where are the rights of heterosexuals in this whole discussion over non discrimination—because in order to protect ourselves from sexual advancements, one must make a value judgment against those who clearly are willing to cross the lines of acceptability?

It is baffling to me how critics of the new Indiana law interpreted The Religious Freedom Act. Gay advocates as reported by The Blaze in the following article reflect the lunacy.

MSNBC host Ed Schultz clashed with a conservative guest from the Heritage Foundation Tuesday night over Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law.

The liberal host opened up his show asking Ryan Anderson, “How does this law open it up for blatant discrimination?”

“This law doesn’t open the door for discrimination,” Anderson quipped back. “This is the law that’s been on the federal books … and it governs over 30 states.”

“Wait a minute, that’s not true,” Schultz responded, contending those laws don’t have “the definition of a person connected to a corporation.”

“No, no it does,” Anderson rebutted. “The Supreme Court held just last term that the definition of person in the federal RFRA includes corporate persons.”

“Cut his mic off! Cut his mic off! We’ll bring him back if he wants to be courteous.”


Schultz disagreed and reiterated his view that the law opens the door open for discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.

“Corporations do have rights!” Anderson said. “The New York Times has free press rights. It goes not just to each reporter, but to the institution. … In the same way, people who form organizations also have their religious liberty rights protected.”

Schultz then asked Anderson if it was the position of the right-wing that business owners should be permitted to tell gay people to “get the hell out” of their restaurants.

To make matters even worse, members of the UConn coaching staff are boycotting the Final Four in Indianapolis because of the Religious Freedom Act saying “UConn is a community that values all of our members and treats each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of their background and beliefs, and we will not tolerate any other behavior.” Well, given that they are a progressive institution to begin with, their statement is consistent with the teachings of the progressive movement—but they fail to identify one glaring issue. In order for this whole thing to work—this equality thing, it requires people like me to put up with swanky perverts who want to turn our bathrooms into pick-up joints and to treat them with some level of restraint. If I were to walk into a women’s bathroom undoubtedly there would be quite a stir as woman would likely scramble to cover their private parts from my male eyes. But we are supposed to disregard this restraint in the presence of gays and allow them to view without any feelings of guilt the fruits of our privacy for the benefit of their sexual perversions. The action on their behalf requires nothing. But for someone like me, it requires an abandonment of value and preservation reserved typically between the sanctity of a husband and wife.

If there is a business that typically caters to a religious crowd, don’t they have a right to discriminate against those who might drive away other members of their business who seek refuge in their endeavors? Don’t straight men and women have a right to use the restroom without being eye candy to the deviant—or will UConn protest the term deviant to describe a person who spends too much time thinking about sex? Don’t businesses have a right to sport productive enterprises that might be negatively impacted by a couple of dudes making out in public with pink tights and a hat full of flowers? Of course they would. To argue otherwise is insane. Yet the progressives have done just that and revealed to what extent they wish to impose themselves on society. They want normal people to lower their expectations to the level of the valueless, and to allow themselves to be sacrificed to the mass whims of collectivism. And when faced with such a vile understanding, the conservatives don’t even have the guts to speak out against it—except for Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. He defended the law quite well and you saw what progressive Ed Schultz did—he cut off his microphone.

The only way that gays can win their position is to stop the debate against them with name calling, or break down any moral retribution that might be cast in their direction due to them being entirely too focused on sex instead of higher elements of mental acuity. In both cases they act as a parasitic organism against society at large, and personally, I’m tired of hearing about their feelings. Homosexuals represent between 2% to 10% of the total population depending on the survey source. At best they are asking 90% of the rest of the country to put up with their marketing efforts toward finding more dating options. That’s pretty much what it boils down to. And for the rest of us, particularly me, I’d say we’ve heard enough from them. I’d like to go to the can without worrying about some rainbow princess trying to watch me, and if two drag dressing transvestites want to suck face in a business of mine, I should have a right to toss them out to keep from intruding on the privations of the other customers, and all their kids. At some point enough is enough, and we’re there.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.