Gun Rights “Shall Not Be Infringed”: Philosophy trumps legality–get to know Senate Bill 199 and Senate Bill 180

I get really tired of all this talk about gun control. On Saturday Night Live shown on October 10, 2015 the obvious attack against guns was incredibly obvious. They did several skits attacking guns showing how the progressive New York culture sees the rest of America. Well, just for clarity not to the gun owners who read this site each day, but those progressive types who are way too politically left-winged, the Second Amendment is not up for debate. It is not up for negotiation. And there is no interpretation of the words “shall not be infringed,” that opens the door for more rules, confiscation, or government involvement. As lawyers do try to discuss the meaning of words which can take on different meanings as times change the Bill of Rights is an extension of American philosophy for which legal terms evolved. The intent of the Constitution therefore does not fall under the proper interpretation of legal minds, but philosophy. And the essence of that philosophy is that governments cannot be trusted—which is grossly evident in our modern news cycles. Here is how the terminology has been misinterpreted by legal minds giving the illusion that the Second Amendment can be modified to suit some progressive diatribe—such as those shown on left leaning news outlets and entertainment venues.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well-regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case-law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

  • regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
  • regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon.  US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
  •  regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

That’s just a bit of history on how the Second Amendment has been knocked back and forth over the years. Yet the trend in spite of New Yorkers like those found on Saturday Night Live around the rest of the country is for gun laws to become less stringent not more so. For instance in my home state of Ohio there are two pro-gun bills being introduced for discussion which are very important.   The Ohio Senate Civil Justice Committee had a hearing Wednesday, October 7, at 2:30 p.m. in the Finance Hearing Room to discuss two pro-gun bills.

Senate Bill 180, sponsored by Senator Joe Uecker (R-14), would allow an employee to store a firearm in their locked vehicle without fear of employer retribution.  Throughout the country, many employers have adopted “No Firearms” policies that extend beyond the physical workplace to include employee parking lots – areas often accessible to the general public and not secure.  In order to comply with these policies, many employees must choose between protecting themselves during their commutes and being subject to termination by their employer.

The fundamental right to self-defense should not stop simply because you park your car in a publicly accessible parking lot owned by your employer.  When companies invite employees to park on their property, they should not be allowed to dictate employees’ constitutional rights inside one’s own vehicle.

Senate Bill 199, also sponsored by Senator Uecker (R-14) and Senator Randy Gardner (R-2), would allow an active duty member of the military to carry a concealed firearm without obtaining a concealed carry license if the active duty member is carrying a valid military identification and a certificate indicating a small arms qualification.

If your company has such a misguided policy that impedes your inherent right to self-defense, please contact NRA-ILA’s State and Local Division at state& and share this information.

And that’s where I stand, there needs to be a lot more guns out there, not less, and we need to be able to carry them in more places more often. The trend is clear and the necessity for more guns is obvious. Guns are not just instruments of death the way left leaning politics frames them—they are part of the philosophic American experience. They transcend legal interpretation as philosophy trumps legality because it is in thought that all law emerges. So to undo some of the laws misinterpreted by sissy-driven legal minds over the years, the Ohio Senate Civil Justice Committee is working to walk back the intrusions that gun owners have been conceding—illegally due to improper legal negotiations from the anti-gun lobby over previous decades. The activism displayed on Saturday Night Live and other anti-gun venues made a false assumption—that gun rights “shall not be infringed,” were up to debate. They aren’t under any circumstance. End of story. It’s not complicated. Guns=philosophy which trumps legality.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Trump Offers Himself as a Superman President: A curious query into meekness and the assumption that its good

One thing that really disgusts me is when I’m around other men who make the statement, “I’m not superman” as a way to let themselves off the hook for underachieving. The statement usually comes when there is great pressure to do everything and be everything to all the needs of all who require solutions. The chicken thing to do is to declare—I’m not superman, “I’m not perfect,” “I’m just a man.” I don’t think there has ever been a single day in my life from a young boy until the present where I’ve just wanted to be “just a man.” Considering the name of this site is “overmanwarrior” that should be a pretty good indication of where my sentiments reside in the context of personal expectation. So when presented with problems, no matter how many or how difficult, I always lean in to solve them all and carry whatever burdens there are—no matter what the odds. To my mind that is what is expected out of men—all men of all races and ages. It is their job and if they fall short of that attempt—I don’t think much of them. That is why I am so interested in the Donald Trump campaign. He says and expects of himself much of what I do—which is the type of person I want for president. That was never more obvious than in an early October weekend interview with Trump by CNBC’s John Harwood who declared to the presidential candidate, that America doesn’t have “superman” presidents. Trump’s response was that “You will if you have Trump for president.” Watch for yourself.

What John Harwood said was actually a mouthful—it had meanings at many levels. But most obvious is that American presidents should be expected to be supermen—otherwise no nation can expect to maintain such an exclusive status as a dominating superpower. Ordinary men with their petty weaknesses have caused enough trouble over the years, from John Kennedy’s affairs, to LBJ’s womanizing, Bill Clinton’s obsession with sexual relationships, and the Bush family meekness, if the problems in our country were to really be traced back to an origin, it comes from human beings—especially people who are supposed to be leaders, lowering the bar of their own expectations to be viewed as simple men with humble origins. Society might teach that meekness is a positive trait in Sunday school, but in reality that just gets your ass kicked intellectually and physically. Meekness invites some dominating personality—or county to step in and push you around and that mentality needs to change if America is going to survive.

Men should expect themselves to be supermen. Teddy Roosevelt with all his faults pushed himself toward greatness nearly with every breath he took, daily. One of his life goals was to kill a man which he did on San Jaun Hill with his Rough Riders. He overcame illnesses, great opposition, and even finished a speech he was giving while he was shot. He was campaigning when an assassin’s bullet penetrated his body—he knew it—yet he finished his campaign speech anyway just to show how tough he was. That was not a guy who allowed himself to be “meek.” Andrew Jackson was another such personality. Over his lifetime he survived many duels and carried with him all his life an expectation toward a rough and ready approach to just about everything. It was because of Jackson that the United States currently has Florida, Texas and had a paid off debt during his time in office. Thomas Jefferson was another personality who expected of himself not great physical strength, but incredible intellectual strength. It was because of him that we have the Marines when he put together a force to go and fight the Barbary Pirates. I would expect every American president to exhibit similar behavior. Even though those presidents were far from perfect, they at least made attempts during their lives to be more than ordinary. They certainly tried and had personal expectations of greatness.

During westward expansion many men challenged themselves against fate for the potential of fortune. Most failed, but a few rose to the top and became larger than life characters largely on the backs of their personal bravado. Doc Holiday was one of those gun fighting characters that took a debilitating illness and pushed himself beyond the limits of fear to something he otherwise would not otherwise become as a gentleman gambler. Many don’t know it but likely the real inspiration for the Lone Ranger western character was a man named Bass Reeves. He was a black lawman who was obsessed with living with honor and a sense of justice for the innocent. The westward expansion period was an exciting time because there did emerge strong personalities that pushed themselves toward superhuman expectations, Jessie James was one, Wild Bill Hickok was another. After World War II many westerns were made in the movie business and on television that embodied something of an overman mindset, where men tried to live under a system of honor to protect their families and friends with a superhuman courage. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood built their careers around embodying those traits to the movie going public. For a lot of years there was an expectation among other males that they were expected to act whenever possible as something beyond mortal when pressed.

Most males today make me sick at their lack of bravado, and now we live in a time where such superhuman expectations have been abandoned. Even among our celebrities there are no longer many who even attempt to portray a larger-than-life personality. Yet John Harwood says it so easily that we don’t elect superman presidents. When have we decided not to? What ridiculous imposition of assumption dictated that we vote for the meek, week, losers of low self-confidence emitting from the “everyman” like sweat running through the crack of a gorilla’s ass? When did weakness become such a noble quality—because at such a point the instigator should be wrung up and cast through the folds of time into a boundless existence where they can do no further harm toward the fate of humanity. No wonder so many people dislike Trump’s boastfulness. Donald Trump doesn’t sit around crying like some modern man that his goldfish died. Trump doesn’t politely pretend to be stupid so some losers can feel like they belong at the tables of greatness. Over the last few weeks there have been several examples given of past Mit Romney campaigns along with John McCain as if they were the types of presidential candidates the Republicans were looking for in 2016.   Are you kidding me? Both of those idiots lost—because they took the advice of marketers and allowed themselves to be seen as “everyman” instead of “overman.” There is nothing noble or good about the belching, farting, insecure everyman. There is nothing endearing about such a creature. The universe is laughing at them daily—we don’t want them in the White House.

Trump has no trouble sticking up his hand and declaring he’s not an “everyman.” He states emphatically without apology, that he is and would be, a superman. That’s who I want at the wheel of a “superpower” that America is supposed to be under the capitalist style of government that we have. We don’t need another meek statesman who believes himself to be just another guy in a field of team players unimportant on the cosmic stage. We’ve had plenty of presidents like that—and they haven’t done us a good job. As a result, there are not enough men in the world willing to be a superman within the sphere of their personal contacts. Ask a wife who she’d rather sleep with, a crying fool ready to throw himself at the feet of a community and sacrifice himself to their qualms, or an unapologetic superman who always has the answers and is ready in a fraction of a second at all hours of the day to take her where she wants to go? What about the child who looks up at a father and wants someone who knows best 100% of the time, or the wavering reed of indecision who declares that they are just men among men—and nothing particularly special. Then who would that kid listen to when they ask what would happen if it were discovered they smoked pot for the first time. Typically the meek dad would say, “well son, I’ve smoked it and it wasn’t very smart, but you’ll have to make up your own mind. Who am I to judge or tell you anything, I’m just a man?” Compare that to the dad who tells the kid, “if I catch you smoking pot I’ll kick your ass off this fu**ing planet you little bitch. I’ve never smoked it and only pussies smoke it because they can’t handle the pressure of this life and seek to numb their minds from the pain of reality. That makes them weak and you don’t want to be weak.” Which is the correct answer dear reader? That is why the world needs more supermen. The meek types have done enough damage to last many lifetimes—and its time to change our approach. The world needs more supermen. Wives want them in their beds, kids want them as fathers, and nations need something to encourage them to be better people. So especially in the White House, we had better learn to elect such people. Because we all need to face a high bar and stop using humanity as a crutch for laziness, and cowardly dispositions. We have tried that and it doesn’t work.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Jock Lindsey’s Hanger Bar: A tribute to the real life Fred Sorenson

Not many people except for aviation enthusiasts would know the name of Fred Sorenson. On a Wednesday in mid June, 2014 the veteran pilot turned 65 and as mandated by the FAA had to retire from his job as a pilot for Southwest Airlines. On Flight 4246 from Burbank, California to McCarran International it was his last flight, professionally. The man had a colorful career as a pilot. He once flew in and picked up Steven Spielberg and a panicked crew up from their Hawaii location while shooting Jurassic Park just as a hurricane was headed to destroy everything in its path. But that wasn’t the first time Sorenson had met Spielberg. Years prior, Sorenson was flying the crew of location scouts around for Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those guys liked Fred so much that they offered him a role in the movie. That role turned out to be the famous secondary character Jock Lindsey complete with his pet snake Reggie as seen below.

Movies are reflections of real life characters, like Sorenson—people who live real mythologies. Without such people to populate our memories there is no canvas for which to paint a character like Indiana Jones upon. That’s why I’m so proud that Disney now that they’ve opened up their new Disney Springs—the former (Downtown Disney) have built a bar/restaurant dedicated to the type of real life characters that Fred Sorenson really was. Disney could have done the usual thing and had a restaurant more directly connected to the famous archaeologist played by Harrison Ford, but they didn’t. Instead they decided to concentrate on the spirit of adventure that characters who knew Indiana Jones would have exhibited, which was a smart idea. What they ended up with is a place called Jock Lindsey’s Hanger Bar which features a theme reflecting the early days of aviation and an adventurous spirit that had roamed the world during that period.

When things really get cynical in my life, I find balance in the type of people who rushed out to the grand opening earlier this week and wanted to be the first to record their experience at the new establishment. Ironically the best video I saw of the event was from the Jones family—aptly named. The couple in the above video run a travel business centered down the road from Disney World. They invented their life so that they could have unfettered access to their favorite vacation destination and live their life within that grand mythology. They are my kind of people, they even homeschool their kids—so they are not the kind of glazed over products that public education produces intellectually. They are fully alive people functioning from their internal bliss, so their optimism is contagious—and revealing. They had to be among the first to visit the new bar dedicated to Jock Lindsey whose character set the tone for the entire Indiana Jones series over the next three decades.

So guess where I’ll be going on my next trip to Disney World? And I’ll likely be more excited than they were to visit Jock’s place. The little Indian Jones relics spread around the bar were put there just for people like me and the Jones family—fans who truly feel passion for the little things in life. But additionally, unlike the Jones family, I have expected out of myself to actually live the life of people like Fred Sorenson myself. Because it takes unique people to give film makers and the creative minds at Disney the idea to capture such personalities on a screenplay page to make mythologies out of. So the adventurous little trinkets that populate the bar from the old-fashioned propellers to the boat dining area outside have a particular appeal to me.

My oldest daughter probably has the adventure bug the worst in our family. Over the last six months she and her husband have traveled extensively first to the Snowdonia mountains in Wales then all over the rustic terrain of Iceland. They often stayed in the type of places captured in the fantasy environment of Jock Lindsey’s bar. My daughter has never really aspired to be an Indiana Jones type of character, but rather the real life Fred Sorenson personalities—people who tend to have beat up luggage and only a fist full of dollars in their possession at any given time living on perpetual hope. And with such people often come personalities of child-like optimism. Movie people know when they meet people like Fred that they need to tap into that essence so to bring their natural magnetism to their projects. My daughter as a photographer is always on the lookout for these types of people because when you meet them good things happen. It’s no coincidence that Fred was involved in two of the greatest adventure films of all time, even if remotely—Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jurassic Park.

Disney when designing the Jock Lindsey’s Hanger Bar clearly understood just how important Fred was to Indiana Jones and the mythology that followed that popular character. Of the artifacts displayed in the Hanger is the dinosaur bone that Spielberg gave to Fred thanking the pilot from rescuing the film crew from the hurricane in Hawaii. And that’s how it goes with people who live lives of adventure—they collect a lifetime of items that reflect what they endure through experience. That is why such places are so exciting. It’s why the Jones family and many others were so excited to visit the new bar at Disney Springs. Disney as a company better than anyplace in the world understands how to capture the life essence of adventure without the risk of actually living life on the edge. Guests to Disney Springs can visit Jock’s bar and get a sense of a life of adventure—the type of adventure my daughter just recently shivered through in Iceland. It’s not the same as real life, but its close enough to celebrate the type of life people like Fred actually lives.

I’m looking forward to visiting the place; it will likely be the highlight of my next trip to Disney. It’s not just for the remembrances of one of my favorite movies that Jock Lindsey’s Hanger Bar represents. It’s the celebration of adventurers everywhere in every walk of life. It’s not just a place dedicated to Indiana Jones, but to the type of adventure that Raiders of the Lost Ark was always a tribute to. Producers from Spielberg’s famous movie knew that the essence of that adventure was in the real life persona of Fred Sorenson. Because without him, I don’t think Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been the masterpiece it was. So it was fitting that when he retired from Southwest Airlines he retired in a manner similar to the opening of Raiders—flying off into the sunset. When I do have my beer at Jock Lindsey’s Hanger Bar it will be to him that I dedicate it to. People like him are the types we should all aspire to be. They create excitement just in their every day living and they make life just a little bit better because they are alive. They make movies better just by waking up in the morning. All anyone needs to do to make their movies classics is to turn their cameras on those magnetic personalities and let the film do all the talking.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

An Answer to Rand Paul: Why Trump is good for the GOP

Watching Donald Trump on the Jimmy Fallon Show Friday September 11th, 2015 just ahead of the second Republican debate of the campaign season on CNN, it was clear that the New York billionaire was in his element and most poised to become the next president. He had such a good show with Fallon that it may be remembered in history as Teddy Roosevelt’s “I carry a big stick” speech. Trump is independently successful, in the old-fashioned way, and after more than a decade on television with his own reality show teaching others how to be successful, he has become a very polished performer in front of the camera. He has a stage presence better than Ronald Reagan and far surer of himself. And I think that’s a great thing, considering we’ve just come off nearly 16 years of a divided country almost as fractured as America was during the Civil War. We have the Clintons to thank for bringing us that fracturing during 90s, but that’s a story that’s been told before. Now we have to clean up the mess and figure out who is most poised to perform the job of president now.


The real test for Trump will be this upcoming CNN debate. I’m sure he knows that the Republican establishment will throw everything but the kitchen sink at him over the next few weeks, but essentially he can lock down the nomination for president with this next debate. If he dominates, most of his rivals will be forced to step out, as Rick Perry just has. Likely that is what is at the heart of Rand Paul’s frustrated comments just before Trump went on the Fallon show and gave a brilliant performance. If Trump dominates the CNN debate, the money will dry up for most of the Republican candidates and the road to the White House will have ended for them. Here is what Paul said:

“What does it say about GOP when a 3 & half term Gov w/ a successful record of creating jobs bows out as a reality star leads in the polls?” Paul tweeted.

Well, let me answer that question for Paul and the rest of the GOP field—as well as all the other people like Glenn Beck who think Trump is a simpleton, a buffoon, a reckless madman, and a wildly progressive candidate who will bring destruction to the country if elected president. Trump is a polished television performer. He understands how television works and how much information common people can retain in a speech. While he may not be a Constitutional attorney, or a talk show host who has built their life as an expert on American history, he is aware that all that knowledge is useless if you can’t sell the Constitution to the house and senate on Capital Hill. So even if Rand Paul were elected, or Ted Cruz—who know the Constitution likely better than the Supreme Court, the normal zombies out there who live in pop culture land don’t care even a little bit, so there will be no adherence on Capital Hill to the Constitution, so why dwell on it. Trump has a different strategy, which I agree with.

Since I’ve been writing these daily articles starting in 2010 I have watched Glenn Beck fill the Mall in Washington with hope filled speeches, I have watched Governor Kasich run as a Tea Party darling, promising big changes and Constitutional adherence, and I watched my hometown congressman John Boehner take over as Speaker of the House and watched Mitch McConnell across the river become Senate Majority Leader. I watched Boehner force members to read the Constitution after his swearing-in and talk like he was going to reform Washington. Guess what happened in all those cases? Big waves came and swept away Beck throwing him into near irrelevance in Dallas, Texas away from the media culture of New York, where the fight for our nation’s survival really is happening. Beck picked a fight with George Soros and the billionaire unleashed his wrath on the pest forcing him to leave town and find solace in Jesus. Boehner, McConnell and Kasich all had their asses handed to them with just a little bit of progressive resistance. Obama clearly outplayed Boehner. Kasich lost to the unions. And McConnell was never anything but a muddy middle ground player in Washington. He’s far from conservative as the party platform professes small, limited, government with responsible spending. They are effectively wimps and they are the most powerful in Washington.

Along comes Trump, independently successful, charismatic, and he has a wrathful temper. He’s used to winning everything he does and he actually loves to fight. While people like Beck used to be alcoholics and drug addicts open to vices that corrupt man’s mind, Trump has always been against weak personality flaws. He has been shaped by the typical New York progressive view of the world in the past, but he currently has the ability to go on the Jimmy Fallon Show and declare without hesitation that America needs to decrease its spending, close its borders, and become a rich nation again without apologizing to the world—and people clap. Movie stars line up to have selfies taken with him, and he is generally admired by even people on the left. When he states that he supports taxing the rich, it is a calculated effort—a way to take the wind out of the sails of open socialists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. What can they say to “trump” Trump when the Republican candidate is advocating the same things they are in their platform? (It’s called political strategy) On the Fallon Show Trump advocated during a comedy segment that corporate taxation needed to be lowered—and again people cheered him on. That is important—I believe taxes in general will be lowered by Trump, especially for corporations. Hedge fund investors are easy targets who are like Vegas gamblers. The wealth they create is all in paper—so taxing them is an easy target. Corporations on the other hand actually make things—and their taxes need to be lowered—considerably. In the climate we live in now, Trump knows he won’t get both and still get political support from the population in general. Not when socialism is what the political left is selling.

I know that people are worried that Trump is poised to become an American version of Russia’s Putin—but I think he’s smarter than that. I think a lot of the egomaniac persona is an act designed to throw people off while conducting The Art of the Deal in real life. For people who don’t understand those kinds of skills I can see why they are timid. People think when they meet me that I’m a hard right-winged guy who is intolerant of the world and that I live in a fringy cave of conservatism. They are surprised when I can sit down with people who think very differently from me and conduct myself in a reasonable way. I’ve been in sales of some kind or another all my life, and the first thing you do when feeling out an opponent’s position is to find out where they are. So you club them over the head with aggression to find out what they are willing to defend most, then you work toward an agreement with that knowledge. It’s a strategy, and Trump is certainly good at it. What he shows is not always where he’s willing to sign a deal. That’s likely what scares Beck and Paul, because they are Constitutional purists. However to me, I think the Constitution was framed by the Federalists way too much—I live near Hamilton, Ohio which is named after Alexander Hamilton—who was an idiot in my opinion. I did not like Hamilton’s fiscal fights with Thomas Jefferson—and I didn’t respect the way George Washington let Hamilton have his way with the country’s financial approach of too much centralized government intrusion. I think with all the rhetoric that I’ve heard from Trump that he’s a closet Anti-Federalist. I think he’d be more of a president like Jefferson than Washington. I think he may be as bombastic as Teddy Roosevelt was, but away from progressivism instead of toward it. I actually think Trump as a president would be a combination of George Patton, Thomas Jefferson, and the Democrat Andrew Jackson. Personally I like Jackson, he balanced the books in America for the only time in its history, and I think Trump is the only person right now in the world who could tackle the 19 trillion-dollar deficiency facing us right now.   I see no downside to a Trump president, only strategic opportunities that benefit our country.

Trump is far more than a television reality star. It must be remembered that his television stardom only came after he had a successful career as one of the best in his field of endeavor. And he’s offering something to politics that we haven’t seen before. People like Trump don’t run for president. They purchase them, and then stay in the shadows. There isn’t another person on the Republican stage for president right now who can resist that purchasing power—including Ted Cruz. But Cruz knows what he’s doing. Trump is breaking through a lot of ice and Cruz is succeeding in his wake. And that is how someone like Cruz can get a foothold in Washington that he otherwise wouldn’t get. It takes someone like Trump to bust up the old way so that something new can come about. And in 2016 we are in a bust up year. We have to destroy the garbage that politicians like Barack Obama and George W. Bush have given us. And we need to do it fast, and spectacularly. Out of all the possible candidates in the world on any continent at this moment in time, only Trump has an opportunity to perform the task. And instinctively, people know it.

The American Constitution is excessively important, but to my eyes, it was corrupted from the gate. The Anti-Federalists folded too soon and gave way to Alexander Hamilton entirely too much. So I’m all for making the Constitution more conservative with Supreme Court appointments who survived The Apprentice instead of some liberal trash from a left-leaning university. I want to see Secretaries of State who know Project Management, and negotiators who know how to cut off the head of their opposition and stick it on a pike for all to see. And I want a President who will do all this with a smile on his face and who has the ability to walk onto Saturday Night Live and joke about it selling back to America all the things that are good for it—starting with their national pride. So to answer Senator Paul, the reason the GOP finds itself losing to a reality television star is because they have lied, cheated, and allowed themevles to be beaten by complete idiots for over two decades now. And people like me are sick of it. Trump offers something different and I’m willing to try it—because doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. Voting for anybody but Trump would be considered insane because nobody else, Paul included has the ability to market their good ideas to the public—and therefore would drown in the corruption that pours off K-Street like water over Niagara Falls.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why America Should Abolish Labor Day: The Marxist roots of a national holiday

It was a disgusting Labor Day Holiday in 2015. I have never liked Labor Day because the premise of it speaks of unionized activity. And of course the premise of organized labor is a bad one, collective bargaining, collective adversarial relationships with management, and the greatest insult of all, the expectation that a job is an entitlement that should not be connected to performance. Entertainment unions aren’t as bad as manufacturing and government sector unions because there is still a bit of free market capitalism present in those fields. If a star football player or movie star doesn’t put butts in seats, their value goes way down. But in almost every case, labor unions do not connect productive work to their efforts at solidarity and their efforts are criminal viewed through the proper lens of capitalism.

Even more sickening are the number of times during Labor Day that employees were termed as “workers” in the mode used commonly in Karl Mark’s Communist Manifesto.   Such as the term at the end of the book, “workers of the world, unite.” Democrats and labor union leaders use the term “worker” in precisely the same fashion and every time I hear it I am reminded of just how much communism has penetrated the capitalist culture of America much to all of our detriment. When President Obama or VP Joe Biden say “worker” they are using communist terms to describe people. Their vantage point is clearly framed by Karl Marx—and that is the general spirit of Labor Day—to me it’s a communist recognition holiday—so I don’t like it.

Of course from a communist perspective the White House thought it appropriate to issue a new executive order on Labor Day—this one was one of the most disgusting that I can remember in recent history. Here’s how The Blaze reported the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Showing solidarity with workers on Labor Day, President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Monday requiring paid sick leave for employees of federal contractors, including 300,000 who currently receive none.

The White House wouldn’t specify the cost to federal contractors to implement the executive order, which Obama was to address at a major union rally and breakfast in Boston. The Labor Department said any costs would be offset by savings that contractors would see as a result of lower attrition rates and increased worker loyalty, but produced nothing to back that up.

Under the executive order, employees working on federal contracts gain the right to a minimum of one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours they work. Stretched out over 12 months, that’s up to seven days per year. The order will allow employees to use the leave to care for sick relatives as well, and will affect contracts starting in 2017 — just as Obama leaves office.

Here’s the problem with this ridiculous executive order and the Labor Day that it was signed on—it celebrates “not working,” non productivity. It is a celebration of staying home and doing leisurely activities as opposed to actually working. The premise is a bad one rooted in laziness. When Marx says “workers of the world unit” in the Communist Manifesto and Barack Obama tells those workers to stay home more often, they are both building a sense of entitlement toward the endeavor of work that is unhealthy, and detrimental for a capitalist nation. Marx says to unite so that through collectivism they gain leveraging power to deprive an employer of their labor so that they can make ridiculous mandates as to the allocation of their effort toward productive enterprise.

Just before Labor Day a middle-aged male uttered happiness at their ability to have a four-day weekend. They had Friday off, but would also have Monday off due to the national holiday. They were quite happy to be free of work for four consecutive days. The statement to me was troubling because it indicated that the work the young man was doing was so far from what he’d rather be doing that he considered the opportunity for freedom from that expectation enough to proclaim joy. Now I’m sure a lot of people feel that way toward their jobs, but that doesn’t make it right. If you feel that way about something you work at, I feel sorry for you. Working is a joy. When I do it, it is part of my life in every way. I work while I’m at Disney World. I work at 4 am—I work all the time, even during holidays, weekends, all hours of the day because I see work as a creative endeavor and it feels good to make things. I enjoy making things. It is a joy to bring things to life that did not exist before. The thoughts of that middle-aged man were not something I could understand, or sympathize with. What would that person be doing besides working, playing video games, watching a movie, or just talking with friends? Those might be fun exercises, but they are often spectator sports. In the case of video games and other entertainment, the programmers did the work; the players just enjoy the productivity that brought the product to life. Enjoying entertainment is not in and of itself productive—its leisure. Productivity is when you bring something to life and the effort creates economic energy. Being productive is quite rewarding. You feel good after a hard day of work.

Yet the president is instigating a quandary that does not make sense. On one hand he is saying that workers are valuable, then on the other that they aren’t needed, because if they can afford to take off one hour of paid leave for every thirty hours they work, clearly they aren’t being paid for productive enterprise—but are relegated to the type of work typically associated with the government office worker—a butt in a seat that does very little but browse the internet all day while being paid extraordinary amounts of money for nothing. Obama clearly doesn’t understand the value of hard work and is clearly aligned with the referred middle-aged guy who was happy to have four days off for Labor Day. They don’t want to work; they simply want a job that pays them so they can do what they want in their leisure time. Obama has shown that his value in a job is not in productive output, but in time off work. That is an important distinction. It is a false assumption based on Karl Marx, not any capitalist philosopher. The failure is in the basic premise established on a college campus with Marxist pot smokers ignorant to the benefits of real productivity.

I would be alright with getting rid of the Labor Day Holiday completely. America doesn’t need to spend less time at work; it needs to work more, and harder. That may not be a popular sentiment, but you don’t get to be a great nation sitting around playing games all day. You have to do things that are productive, even if it’s fixing something around the house, or getting groceries. Productive output is the measure we have in life to gauge success. For those who couldn’t wait to have four days off, what did any of them achieve in those four days besides some extra sleep and more time to perform leisurely tasks? How productive was that long weekend, really? Not much, because the American government promotes that lazy, lackluster communist mentality that is so common around Washington D.C. They promote the entire nation to think the way they do—and to them Labor Day means spending time on their boats, eating out, or having more time to socialize with others—all acts that require the productivity of someone. To them they care not a bit—so long as it’s not them.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Unconquered Donald Trump: Results from the first GOP presidential debate of 2016

I think Donald Trump had a bit of a “crap this is real” moment leading up to the first Republican debate for the presidential race of 2016 on Fox News, but he quickly recovered—as I expected him to. It started civil, but quickly escalated into what we expected from Trump, aggression, boldness, and a very short fuse in regards to incompetence. And that’s why he’s ahead in the polls, and why he continues to dominate. People are sick of the other types of politicians who were on the stage with Trump. We’ve seen them before and they don’t have what it takes to fix what’s broken in Washington. At its heart, what is broken in the Beltway are politicians and their propensity toward greed. Only a person of great wealth can resist the temptations of K-Street and as well-intentioned as some of the presidential candidates were during the debate, I think their time is in 2024, not 2016. If I were interviewing all of them for a job, I would give the presidency to Donald Trump overwhelmingly over the other candidates for two simple reasons, he’s used to getting things done on his own and he can resist the temptation of power—because he already has it.

It was stunning really to see how the progressive left covered the debate leading up to the event. The new strategy from the left now that Trump is a serious candidate is to call his supporters dumb. One reference I read from someone at NBC on Twitter was that Trump’s supporters tended to only have a high school education or less—which is supposed to be a considerable insult. Many of those same types said the same things about Reagan, so Trump is in good company. But I found the statement interesting.

Progressives love college because they have the institutions filled with professors who are foot soldiers of recruitment for their cause. Progressives can’t wait to get young people alone from their families and on campus so they can take the bright young minds of America and steer them further toward liberalism. So yes, they encourage kids to go to college so they can get their hooks into the minds of the young without the influence of their parents around to protect them. These days the years between the ages of 18 to 22 destroy most of the potential lives of a large portion of our population with instructed progressive viewpoints preventing most college graduates from ever getting up off the mat once they’ve been knocked down upon it. People who have not been so defeated in their lives may in fact lean toward Donald Trump for that very reason, because they are not yet defeated people, and see in the billionaire a similar person also undefeated. But it has nothing to do with a lack of intellect between those who support Trump, or don’t. It has to do with whether or not those voters function from a defeated personal position, or still have fight left in them.

Trump was clearly the smartest guy on stage at least from strategic intellectual nimbleness. I couldn’t tell Megan Kelly either how I would force Mexico to build a wall, just as I couldn’t describe to someone how I would sell them a new car. People who are good at things can just do it. People who have made great livings at making deals are just good at such things. They can’t explain those types of things to the unskilled, the conquered, or naive. Most young people are conquered by one of two ways, through their military service and the rituals of basic training, or through their college experience. I think both have tragic ramifications to the mind nurtured through most of their lives toward individualism. I have watched many bright young people have their lives destroyed during the college years. Girls who were saints in high school, who practiced abstinence while at home with their parents to monitor their activities are some of the first to be conquered in college with cocaine habits given to them by men looking to exploit their relative freshness—lifestyles conducive to the college experience. I have been to college dorms, particularly freshman housing and witnessed a lot of nudity, smelled a lot of drugs, and watched young people give their lives away to indulgence for which they are permanently damaged—for the rest of their lives. Colleges are progressive utopias of intellectual destruction.

But not all kids are destroyed in college. Some actually excel, and Donald Trump was one of them. If a person survives the experience, they can actually be toughened up to a point where progressive influence cannot reach them. They are a rare breed, but they are very resolute in their decision-making. This is the kind of fire which forged Donald Trump. And it was obvious with him on the stage at the debate. Candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz might be more lawyerly astute to be president, but that’s not what America needs right now. It needs someone who knows how to hire the right people, and Trump excels at that because as an unconquered person, he is able to spot others who are also of the same mind. And that is the key to solving America’s current problems. We don’t need anther lawyer or the smartest guy in the room. We need a guy who is unconquered and can staff the White House with similar types who are better at tasks than he is.

Anyone who understands management knows that they key to being good at it requires the constant recruitment and nurturing of those who are better at specific tasks than you are. A proper manager has to have a lot of general knowledge so they can speak to lots of people about their specific tasks, but they don’t get lost in the weeds, because that’s what they hire other people to do. They don’t have to be everything to everyone. They just need to know how to recruit and maintain enough knowledge to maintain those relationships. Specific knowledge on investing might be great for the field of making money, but it is useless in the understanding of arms negotiations. If a person is great at one and not the other and they happen to be president, then their administration will be lopsided in one field, and deficient in all the rest. It would be Trump’s job as president to find the best people to fill all those fields, and he’d have to have enough general knowledge to nurture those relationships with some sort of direction. But it’s not his job to perform all those jobs. So to answer the border question regarding Mexico with specifics, it’s not Trump’s job. He has no idea. But he does know how to hire the best people and recruit them to his cause, and that is how he’d perform the task. However, it’s impossible to explain such a thing to people not skilled in leadership.

But that’s the world we are living in. It is run by college graduates and military veterans who have mostly been conquered in some fashion or another. They confuse intelligence based on the scale of compliance that they have endured as opposed to the unconquered types who possess natural leadership ability. Sometimes that leadership lasts through the vetting process most young people endure through their post high school years. A lot of the time natural leadership carves their own path completely free of the gate keepers and orthodox thinking shaped by progressive social programmers. And they just excel, just as Trump did as a young man. And they do as presidential candidates because winning is just in their nature. You can take such people and bury them with impossibility, but they always find their way out of trouble and turn mud into gold—because they are part of the select few who are members of the unconquered class. Trump is certainly one of them, which is why he is my best pick for President of the United States. For him it’s a job demotion. For everyone else on stage with him at the debates, it was a dream come true. And after a while, Trump realized that once all the hoopla from the media calmed down he found himself quite comfortable in the center of the stage—where he’s used to being. It was then that he showed the progressive left that their biggest fears were coming true—and there isn’t anything they can do about it. Nothing is working, not even calling people stupid for supporting Trump, which is why they continue to do it—because they have no other recourse.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.