The Hero Toya Graham: Villains of progressive failure collide on the streets of Baltimore

Toya Graham is being branded “mom of the year” by the same media who spent much of last year trying to ruin the career of Adrian Peterson for essentially the same thing. The NFL football player nearly had his life ruined for hitting his child with a switch—a practice common in the south, and among the older generation. Yet an intrusive society guiding an intrusive government that has stepped in and taken over as the parents of children has directly created the kind of situation that can be seen so eloquently in Baltimore—a per capita population without two parents in the home, hoards of children raised on the government tit dependent forever on tax payer resources for basic sustenance, and a severe lack of understanding of basic economic principles. The government with all its intrusiveness created the inner city problems seen in Baltimore so it was a bit odd to see that so many were so quick to praise Toya Graham. If there were not riots in the streets threatening to destroy the city, she’d likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Kids know that about their parents these days, so they have lost respect—because government has superseded—and eroded the authority of parents.

In our family there was a guy who was not the sharpest tack in the box, who married into the family through a divorce situation to raise children who weren’t his own. He had anger issues and lots of little psychological problems, but he at least tried to instill in the kids a sense of right and wrong—some structure to live their lives by. One of his step daughters started wanting to cat around with boys and pushed the limits of the rules for a few years, like many kids do—and he got physical and smacked her around too much so to show her where the limits where. She was sneaking out at night putting her in much more danger. The kid told teachers in the school who then called human services and soon the police came and arrested the guy—and put him in jail. He was at the time a six figure earner who was socially, a successful person. After his stint in jail over his daughter, he quickly declined as a person over the next several years and eventually lost his job, and his family. He never really got over that embarrassment. The state had intruded on his family and ruined his authority and the cost was enormous—basically another family destroyed because the male figure from within it was neutralized.

Government has positioned itself to be the end all in all debates domestic or economic. In the workplace they’ve made it so that employees can run the asylum just through threats of discrimination, abuse or a lack of fairness. In some cases employers like the clueless father do sometimes abuse their authority, but when such mistakes are made, the family often sorts out the issue better than the government does. The end result of government intrusion is inaction—so nothing happens to correct bad behavior. That’s far worse.

I never really had to punish my kids. I viewed discipline as being at wit’s end with children, and I have plenty of wits. Sometimes anger is needed, when children push things too far. But most of the time the respect they have for you is enough to leverage them into doing the right things. Generally, at their basic foundations, people want to do what’s right by people they respect. If government interrupts that respect process, they are ruining the relationship of the parties involved which ultimately creates massive neighborhoods of poor people like what was witnessed in Baltimore.

Adrian Peterson, the NFL running back, one of the best in the game, a star on the field and a pretty good person off the field came under fire beating his four-year old son with a switch and breaking the skin. For that action Peterson was rung through the media wringer for a year as commentators suggested that he should lose rights to his son, lose his career and go to jail with all the other miscreants. Likely, Peterson was trying to establish in his son the type of discipline that was enacted upon him when he was a boy. Its learned behavior in how the parent establishes themselves in the dominate position within the family. Kids need that framework so they can identify who they need to listen to. When government sweeps in and puts the parent in jail all they are doing is replacing in the child the dominate authority figure. The government uses force as well as the parent. When the guy in our family was arrested they weren’t nice about it—they stripped him down, did cavity searches and if he resisted in any way at all they threw him about like a rag doll—in front of his kids. That guy essentially lost his authority with those children that day under the force of government. The government could pretend they were helping the kids, but in all reality, they were hurting them by destroying in their lives the symbol of authority they were supposed to look up to. The violence still happened, it was just transferred from the child to the parent showing the family that dad didn’t know best–that government did.

So it was quite shocking to have so much praise thrown at Toya Graham for beating the living snot out of her son during the riots on national television. For government, they were out of answers; they created the slums of Baltimore, they made the people overly dependent and they were out of answers as those thugs, miscreants, and diabolical loons burnt down their city. When a parent actually went out into the street with violence on her mind to apply some discipline to her out of control son they suddenly praised her, because they were out of answers. Arrests and abuse of prisoners is all the authority of the state can muster, and in this case they killed the kid, Freddie Gray while he was in custody. Police often beat their prisoners just like out of control parents beat their kids—because they can. They lack the wits to apply any other method. When Gray died, a bunch of people lacking wits acted out angrily and the monster that the state of Maryland had created had no other recourse but to destroy the world around them. Toya Graham to her credit was trying to being some sanity to the situation because at least she had enough personal value to know that what was happening was wrong.

Yet Adrian Peterson was trying to instill in his son those values before that kid ever ends up on the streets, and that’s what the switch was all about. I wouldn’t have done it, because I have developed other tools to deal with kids besides hitting them, but for those who don’t have those tools, it is better to have something, than nothing. Because the nothing is worse than the violence of the state in destroying families and the values built within them. Toya Graham is a product of the state, a single mom of six kids who has trouble stinging together complete sentences—more a product of her environment than of her intellect. Yet in spite of those handicaps she at least tried to do the right thing by her son when the rest of society was trying to give him a license to destroy the world around him. But if she had been Adrian Peterson, a celebrity NFL player, instead of being placed on national television as a star she would have found herself submissive to the dominatrix tendencies of the state and the perpetual desire of it to exert control. This whole event is a progressive nightmare brought to reality by a lot of really stupid people. But, at least in Toya Graham’s case, her child might actually have a chance at life, because kids need their parents. The state is not an adequate replacement—and in their desperate hour, the police of Baltimore were crying out for more parents like Toya Graham when on any other day they’d likely be the ones arresting her for abuse.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Vote No on the Midpointe Library System: Philosophy and the changing way of expanding knowledge

I am against the MidPointe Library System in Butler County, Ohio for all the same reasons I am against school levies. Even though I tend to love people who strive for knowledge and desire to feed minds with information, the quality of those efforts can cast people adrift all of their lives ruining them, and a library in many subtle ways contribute to that personal destruction. Before detailing why and how, here is the case that the MidPointe Library System makes for itself looking for more money from voters during the upcoming May 5th 2015 election.   Essentially to make a long story short, they make the same arguments that public schools make, helping the children, offerings to the community, and all that kind of nonsense.

The MidPointe Library System will have a renewal levy on the ballot on Tuesday, May 5.  Please find information regarding this levy, as well as why the Library is asking for continued community support below:

Something for Everyone in the Community

With current funding levels, the MidPointe Library System is able to provide many resources, materials, services, and programming to the residents of eastern Butler County. 

MidPointe offers a collection of over a half million items, and partnership in the SearchOhio lending consortium gives patrons access to over 16 million items from across the state. In 2014 over 2 million items were checked out. Additionally, MidPointe provides internet access and public computers to assist people in finding jobs, accessing data and doing school work.

In 2014, MidPointe offered over 2000 programs.  These are as diverse as yoga class and technology instruction for adults, to storytime and early literacy book clubs for children.  The Library’s Summer Reading Program, which promotes literacy for all ages, reached record involvement last year, with nearly 10,000 patrons participating. 

MidPointe’s influence expands well beyond the buildings. Librarians visit schools and community centers to engage young people in the joy of reading. Educators are able to stock their classrooms with books as a result of MidPointe’s “Teacher Collections.” The MidPointe Outreach Services Department delivers materials to over 200 patrons who are unable to physically visit the Library.

Library Budgeting

For the past two decades, Libraries in the state of Ohio have faced reduced funding.  In 2008, the most drastic of these cuts occurred and as a result, the Library had to dramatically reduce hours, services and staffing.   For the first time, the Library approached the public with the possibility of a .75 mill levy to supplement operations.  The voters of our Library district passed the levy, which represents almost 40% of the MidPointe budget. Overdue fines and fees only represent 3.25% of the Library’s overall budget.

The overwhelming majority of the Library’s expenses are devoted to collection development and public service and programs. Administrative costs represent only 12.5% of overall expenses and the MidPointe Library System has continually been recognized as one of the most cost-effective in the state. 

Levy Details

  • The levy on the May 5 ballot is a renewal. This is not a new tax.
  • Levy funds make up 40% of MidPointe’s budget.
  • Levy Millage:  .75 mill
  • Length of Levy:  5 years
  • Cost: The cost of this levy to the owner of a $100,000 home is approximately $22.97 a year(less than the cost of one hardback book).

Levy funds will:

  • Maintain services and materials at all MidPointe locations.
  • Continue to provide current technological resources to the public.
  • Allow for sensible expansion in our growing community.
  • Sustain programs for children, teens and adults.

Essentially they simply want more money to continue a practice that is rooted in socialism. I have never liked libraries because I have never liked sharing my books. I like buying them, and owning them—collecting them like treasures to be guarded by me as part of a life’s journey. It has always seemed wrong to “borrow” a library book from the library where they maintain “collective” ownership. The concept of a shared resource is disgusting. Library books are routinely abused because nobody owns them and are reflective of the type of society that is not centered on personal responsibility and individual ownership.image

I have not been to a library for years. In my community within my little network of a neighborhood I have one of the best libraries in the entire country, the West Chester Library, yet I never, ever use it. I would not borrow a book or movie from them, because I don’t want to use someone else’s stuff. However, I go to one of two Barnes and Nobles book stores about two times a week. The children sections in both of those book stores are tremendous services to children and show how much better private investment is in constructing the mind of young people. The book store in Newport, Kentucky is just fabulous and is still one of my favorites anywhere—which is pictured within this article. It is a temple of knowledge and I love it—yet it is struggling to stay afloat in the changing climate of online offerings. Unlike the MidPointe Library System, Barnes and Noble cannot ask for a tax increase to stay afloat in a changing economy. So they have to adapt—where libraries are doing the same things they always have—and they lose a lot of money because of it. They are essentially money pits and their offerings to the community are not beneficial as they pretend.

The job of teaching children to read falls on the parents or less directly, the extended family members of a child—aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on. Not a socialist librarian or volunteer who has a subtle agenda of encouraging sharing as opposed to ownership. The world of a capitalist society like the United States is rooted in ownership—not sharing. When something of value maintains its worth because someone owned it and cared for it, it is then valuable to someone who might want to purchase it for their own. Libraries encourage sharing and while that might sound good on the surface—the mentality created from this exchange of ideas often leads to various acceptances of degrees of socialism—like public education, public housing, public assistance and so on.image

From the book shelves at Barnes and Noble in Newport, Kentucky in my favorite section—the philosophy section—the two primary competing ideas regarding philosophy are on full display—because that is what people are buying. can provide obscure books within a few days and at a great price. Barnes and Noble put on their shelves titles that sell. All the other sections in the book store, politics, fiction, and cooking, current events—etc, all stem from the philosophy section. People think the way they do and are attracted to some things rather than other things based on their personal philosophy, so I see it as the most important section. In the various schools of thought in Western philosophy everything is basically built off two individuals, Plato and Aristotle. In the east it is Confucius, which leans toward Western Platonic thought. What that translates to through a long line of philosophic thought is essentially Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. imageI certainly lean toward Ayn Rand—yet I think her Objectivism is limited to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and that there will be new schools of thought stemming from her Objectivism that will have to encapsulate the bizarre behavior of quantum mechanics now being discovered. But Karl Marx has been a failure and is a dying philosophy that will either be extinct within the next two hundred years, or it will destroy our civilization. I have no use for Karl Marx in any fashion. Libraries are part of a Karl Marx mentality.image

I love libraries for their historical significance—especially the library in Alexandria. At the time the cost of printing books was prohibitive and everyone couldn’t own a book. So the borrowing of books at a library was the best way to achieve an exchange of knowledge. But that time has passed. Now there are so many books printed that the market is saturated with knowledge. It is easier, and more efficient for people to upload books onto their devices, or just buy them at Stores like Barnes and Nobel fill the traditional role of a library being a center of learning—especially for kids. But as for motivation into intellectual endeavors, libraries are not a substitute for a good parent or mentor. The reason I don’t go to the West Chester library is because it feels like a socialist utopia to me. But Barnes and Nobel feels like the intellectual center of a capitalist country and I could essentially move into every one of them and be very happy. It is for that reason that I will vote no for the MidPointe levy on May 5th. I feel sorry for them, but they are a dying enterprise that will evaporate under the changing times—and it would be better for them to see that happen now than prolonging the agony. Community isn’t very valuable unless the members of that community believe in an Aristotelian logic as opposed to a Platonic sentiment. A community of socialists is a destructive force, and that will be the unintended consequence of a continuation of the library system in America. It is time for a replacement and it begins with a withdrawal of funds from the black hole of tax increases for which libraries currently represent.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why Grover Norquist Lost His Value as a Republican: A battle within the GOP that has to happen

In the debate between Grover Norquist and Glenn Beck the battle for the Republican Party of our modern age is clearly articulate. Beck had Norquist on his television show and did a considerable amount of radio about the ties that the machine political leader had to the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Abdurahman Alamoudi who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Through his Islamic Free Market Institute, Norquist has apparently fancied himself as a kind of insurgent in the Arab world, hoping to spread free market capitalism to the socialist leanings of the Middle East. The trouble is, the Muslim extremists had the same idea and they appear to have come out on top in that battle for the minds of the world. Here is the interview where Norquist came on with Beck to defend his record, and intentions. But as you can see in the subsequent videos dear reader—it is obvious that Norquist—Mr. Republican inside man himself shaping the mind of the party for all to follow—was the one seduced by the sentiments of Muslim radicalism. He likely wasn’t always this way, but in 2004 just a few years into his attempts to convert the Middle East into a capitalist zone, he married Samah Alrayyes a Palestinian Muslim and Kuwaiti PR specialist. After this marriage he appeared to radically support the position of Muslim causes. He wouldn’t be the first man to adopt the views of a woman in exchange for a good bed mate—but when he is advising the entire Republican Party on policy and strategy—it makes him a liability. Watch closely.

This game where Republicans think they can out-wit the loose liberals of political ideology is a failed tactic. The typical liberal has very little personal conscience and view themselves as part of a collective whole, so they tend not to take personal responsibility for their actions. In the extreme, this is why they are willing to blow themselves up as terrorists. In the norm, they will lie to your face because they have no sense of personal responsibility—rather they focus on collective salvation. Norquist I believe thought he was smarter than his political opponents, and that he could get the White House to support his actions as a change agent in the Middle East. But he fell in love with a Palestinian woman and began to soften his position. From there his enemies, the people he was trying to convert, used him as a platform of insurrection from the inside out. In the battle Norquist tried to wage in the Middle East, it was he who lost and it likely started in his bed.

As much as Republicans like Norquist try to utter the conservatism of their actor president Ronald Reagan, they discover quickly that they are too easily led astray under pressure. I have a lot of personal experience with this from my own community, which contains some of the strongest Republican elements in the United States. I have been invited into their inner circle, but I keep my distance because they lack conviction. They don’t stick to their principles as stringently as I require and are too in love with the power of their position instead of the essence of their political philosophy.

Norquist as much as the political left wishes him to be the face of extremism for his desires toward tax reform and smaller government is a dangerous moderate because of his softness on issues of conservatism when the rubber hits the road. Clearly his marriage to Samah Alrayyes was a turning point for him, which led to likely a prolonged war in Iraq because of Norquist’s proximity to President Bush. The strategy formed by the Republican Party through Norquist and Karl Rove was one that favored his bed mate, and not the hard lined conservatives from Kansas—which is a polite way to put it.

Norquist likely has more in common with Bob Bergdahl today than he ever would Ronald Reagan. As Bowe Bergdahl defected to the Taliban his father who encouraged the behavior tried to justify the issue by growing his beard and reconciling with the enemy. The Taliban had his boy—because of his bad advice, and he tried to reconcile the situation with appeasement. Norquist as a power broker and social climber went to the Middle East hoping to convert them to western ideology—but once there he saw that many on the other side were just like he was—social climbers looking for power. Instead of using political parties to control people and money, they used religion—so they found common ground. He married one of their women and began to soften his position against them. But, all along, because the radical Muslims in question identify themselves with collective salvation, they were able to easily outwit the Republican Party, and they already had domestic penetration ideologically in the Democratic Party—so their influence spread in North America instead of the way Norquist originally intended. His plan backfired.

I’m sure Samah Alrayyes is a nice lady—people tend to become friends and lovers with people who they share some things in common—whether it is a love of power, prestige, or a breakfast ritual. When a man decides to put a ring on the finger of a woman, it is usually not just so that he can have sex with her, it’s so that he can share other parts of his life with a spouse. But a man is crazy to think that a woman won’t have an influence on him once she’s in his daily life. That’s usually not a problem so long as the man isn’t trying to sell himself as the savior of the Republican Party while trying to bring peace to the Middle East with the kind of mind games that belong on day time soup operas. At that point a line was crossed that Norquist cannot return from. He blew his credibility and his years of fighting for conservative causes because he fell for the exotic appeal of a foreign culture.

It is one thing to respect a culture and its people—to even be friendly to them. There are a lot of people who I like from different cultures—some of them come from communist backgrounds and I try to help them see the wonders and joys of capitalism because I want to see them improve their lives. But, I have to maintain my emotional distance from those people because they think differently. If I feel I cannot convert them over to a right way of thinking according to my viewpoint, I don’t bang wine glasses with them. I drop them like a dirty rag before they get too close. It looks like that’s what Norquist should have done in 2002 and 2003—but he didn’t. He might make a nice husband and friend to the Arab world but a leader in the Republican Party he has forfeited. Conservatives like me aren’t going to put up with it. So we are having this ideological battle now because we are between major elections.

The left may enjoy the spectacle because they don’t fight each other—they assimilate toward the same collective ideology easily. But to me they also aren’t relevant to the debate. Republicans have to stand for something or they will be like Grover Norquist—full of a lot of tough talk, but soft in their core and easily swayed by skirts and lobbyists because their real love is not the ideology or philosophy of conservatives, its in the power they wield as beltway insiders. I don’t think Norquist is a bad person, or even had bad intentions. But he’s weak at his core and has allowed himself to be a carrier of Muslim radicalism into the roots of American politics and that means people like him have to be shoved aside for more conservative representatives less in love with power, and more in love with conservative philosophy.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

2014 Values Voter Summit: How Glenn Beck is incredibly wrong

The Glenn Beck speech at the 2014 Values Voter Summit was very good and worth watching—which can be seen below.  There is a lot he said correctly—especially regarding Sykes-Picot agreement.  I was one of the first to cover that origin of trouble in the Middle East and if members of Beck’s staff passed it along to Glenn Beck to report—well, that’s why I write this stuff—to educate and help people understand the world around them.  It doesn’t hurt my feelings if Beck takes his big platform and expands it.  Click here to review my article on the matter.  It is the key to understanding the trouble and politics of the Middle East.  The rest of Glenn Beck’s speech was good as well and worth witnessing.  I agree with most of what he said, but in some parts of it he is vehemently wrong.  In those portions his life as a former addict crosses over into the realm of strategy and his advice is bad.  Specifically, it is in his self-sacrificial calls to surrender thought to God and to embrace Christen passivity in the face of evil.  Like many people who have found God late in life to redeem their self-destructive paths people like Beck fill their lives with scripture to plug the holes that were formed through drug and alcohol abuse.  It’s a survival mechanism that works better than personal and social destruction.  But for confronting evil, strategically, Christ is not the example and the kind of passivity Glenn Beck talks about in his speech will get a lot of people hurt, and or, dead.  So let’s explore the correct position below after watching the speech.

I understand that Glenn Beck is under tremendous media pressure to avoid being called a rebel rouser and is taking the Martin Luther King approach to solving problems when confronting evil.  Well—Martin Luther King ended up dead—killed by his rivals.  Beck also talked about Jesus, for many of the same reasons and suggested that Judas was frustrated with Jesus and his lack of ability to rally the troops against the Romans—which is why Judas betrayed Jesus.  Well, Jesus and his passivity caused him to be killed—assassinated as a religious rival to the power held in Jerusalem.   Beck and his utterances about Christ’s passivity obviously has not listened to the popular church song, “Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War” which invokes a bit of battle balled.  Passivity of religion rolled over into politics will end your movement before it ever begins and sparks for rebellion is necessary if there are hopes of overcoming evil.  God will not come down from Heaven and break down the walls of Jericho to the sounding of trumpets and slay the enemies of King David through simple prayer.  Such things require action to square off against evil and to conquer it as it presents itself.

Without Sam Adams, his cousin John would have never been the second President of the United States.  The American Revolution would have never happened.  Without Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson would have been just another former European styled intellectual pointing out what should be as opposed to what was.  Without a rebel rouser, action against the enemy does not happen.  In his speech Glenn Beck brought up the criminal Barabus who was picked by the mob to save instead of Jesus.  Beck stated that the angry mob in Jerusalem wanted a rebel rouser to spark rebellion and Jesus just wasn’t that type of person to perform the task, so they picked Barabus whom history would have otherwise only remembered as a harmless, petty inciter against the vile institutionalism of the day.  However, it was the pressure from the mob that caused the Romans to even put in place a system of providing a choice to their subjects to take the edge off their tyranny.  Without the aggressive pressure of people like Barabus—the Romans would just slaughter anyone who disagreed with their power.  Because the Romans feared an uprising against them, they put in place mechanisms to appease the mob—just as what happens to this very day especially during elections.

Praying to God in front of an armed thug who wants to destroy you and everything you stand for will only get you dead.  Trusting in God to save your soul from evil might get you into the gates of Heaven, but it will destroy life on earth for you and all that you love.  Passivity is not the answer—aggression is.  The bad guys need to know that the mob is angry and that at any moment some rebel rouser will shout “let’s get them!”  The only messages such villains understand is force—unapologetic force at that.  It is nice if that force is backed by a value system represented by Christians or some other religion of value, but passivity toward aggression cannot be a plan for expanding goodness in the face of evil.  That is just dreadfully empowering for those who favor aggression and blind power over those who are easy targets.

The current role that America has in the world shows this—the foreign policy of those raised as peaceful Muslims—like Barack Obama in the country of his education Indonesia—has a hands off pacifist behavior that is also characteristic of the modern liberals and libertarians who think that they can smoke a joint and offer the peace sign to a radical terrorist and all will be well—that God will just sort it all out.  They are insanely wrong.  Religion is only good for a relationship to the after world and establishing some foundation beliefs that can build a civilization.  But it will not provide good advice on how to deal with an aggressor.

I’ve never been a pacifist.  I learned martial arts at a young age and learned how to make myself invincible from a one on one attack through blocking techniques.  You can’t guarantee that you will always win in such matches with the opposition, but you can force a stalemate by not allowing their force to overcome you.  This has been a very successful position, and I’ve had many people—most of them bigger and stronger try to impose their will over the years—and they have not succeeded even after nearly five decades.  I’ve been in a lot of fights from young to old, the most recent one was actually a few years ago in front of several Butler County police officers which took place in the Hamilton Court House parking garage.  When confronted with vile evil, God won’t swoop in to help you.  You have to help yourself and confront it directly.  They have to know that if they make a move against you, or the things you care about—that you will pummel them.  That is the only way to achieve peace without being the victim of slaughter.  I’ve never been a drug user or a person who uses evasion techniques to avoid thinking—so have never had a need to turn to God to fill holes in my background.  I have always acted upon the moral appraisal that my mind produces based on the conditions of the world around me.  So I can speak from experience, pacifism feeds aggression against goodness, it doesn’t make it go away.

It took several hundred years after the death of Jesus for Christianity to begin taking hold.  In the meantime, many innocent people were murdered and lives were destroyed needlessly because mankind was too willing to surrender their life on earth for a perceived entry into the afterlife.  This allowed evil to manifest on earth and rule the planet for the last several thousand years.  And it was a stupid strategy that was supported by people like Glenn Beck over the years who get their messages mixed up—on one hand they stand aghast at the depravity of the world but then think that the situation will be solved by putting trust into God without any direct action taken by the victims of violence.  God made evil as well as the good, and places them into the battlefield of life for purposes yet defined.  However, in that transaction, goodness cannot yield to villainy and pacifistic behavior will not lead to victory for Christians.   When you see the actions of a bully, you have to be willing to look that bully in the face and destroy it if needed—and you can’t hesitate—you have to be willing to turn evil into a pretzel if need be and to end its life on earth if the situation calls for it.

As a person who has looked directly into the eyes of evil for many years and challenged it with force of my own, I can report that pacifist behavior feeds them leading to violence not avoidance.  I once confronted evil by taking on the entire police department of a local city who was using their power to sell drugs to kids through a local school.  The police gained these drugs through raids and instead of the evidence sitting on the shelves in a FBI lab somewhere, the cops were selling it back on the streets for extra cash—and everyone knew about it, including the mayor at the time.  How do you dear reader think that confrontation went?  Praying to God certainly didn’t help.  Many of those same cops were influential in the local churches, and gave a lot of money to the donation plates.  That evil had to be confronted directly—and it was.  I’m still around—many of them aren’t.  So who does God favor?  Does God favor the meek and weak, or the one who will spit down the throat of evil when pressed?  My experience tells me that God does help, but only when evil is confronted by the good—not yielded to.  Many of those police officers referred ended up destroyed by car accidents or health ailments within a few short years so fate does play out to some extent, but in my experience, meekness leads to the destruction of good, not the furtherance of it.

It is also in my experience that disguised behind the sermons of peace are people generally afraid of confronting evil, and they use the excuse that God is the ultimate mitigation of justice to avoid needed confrontations.  Born again Christians are particularly of this type as they must believe that their sins from the past will be rewarded through meekness toward God, by surrendering their lives to ancient provocation.  It is easy to do such a thing and still appear to be tough in standing against evil—without actually having to perform the task.  But it doesn’t work.  Evil must be confronted.  You have to be willing to look it in the eye and beat it down.  Without such a position, evil grows through embolden observation of pacifism.  Glenn Beck says a lot of things that are right, but on the issues of aggression and the inevitable confrontations with evil, his past taints his strategic thinking for the future. And his opinions about tactics against aggression by mixing religion with observed thinking is wrong.

Rich Hoffman


“Fat Han” in X-wing Miniatures: “I’m in it for the money”

When I participated in my first tournament for X-wing Miniatures I was still learning all the rules—but knew enough to build a squad of ships that would be competitive against even the most seasoned players. However, when I revealed my squad to my opponents, they immediately assumed that my use of Han Solo on the Millennium Falcon which encompassed a point build of 55 points out of 100 meant that I was a rookie player who did not trust my piloting ability. The Falcon fires in a 360 degree arc as most of the other ships fire in a 90 degree arc coming off the front of their ship. Most seasoned tournament players at the time if they did use the YT-1300 were using Chewie or Lando and using two B-wings or some other assortment of support ship to save points. Nobody was using Han, which made no sense to me. He was after all one of the highest pilot rating cards in the game and he has a wonderful re-roll ability that makes him very powerful. His card on the Millennium Falcon looked to my eyes to be one of the most powerful combinations in the game, and I thought it would be crazy not to use him in a tournament.

Well, about three months later some of the best X-wing players in the world used almost the same build at the Nationals played at Gen-Con 2014. In reaction to the new TIE Phantoms released at the end of June 2014 a new type of Rebel build called “Fat Han” emerged in the meta game to deal with the incredible maneuverability and fire power of the new Empire faction ships. In fact Paul Heaver who is the current world champion used nearly the same build as I had to climb into the top four at the nationals.

I never published my build anywhere and Paul and I never spoke—yet to his experienced eyes he picked that particular build to deal with the new elements coming into the X-wing game. And he wasn’t alone at the nationals; there were many other top players who were flying “Fat Hans” in competitive play which changed the game for the better. It is doubtful that Paul Heaver received the same sideways glances that I did when I placed my YT-1300 on the board. I was a newbie, Paul was a seasoned champion. But it made me feel good to see that even in a game where I am not comfortable with all the rules and certainly lack the experience of that kind of competitive play, that I’m able to fairly quickly jump in and identify trends that are out on the edge and not yet fashionable.

This was an important observation as I spend a great deal of time pointing out trends that are coming as opposed to the ones that currently exist. If the ability is gained, it can be applied to virtually everything in life even in areas where others are much more proficient. The “Fat Han” builds are now the complaint of the X-wing Miniatures world because of their extreme effectiveness and they will continue for some time until something else knocks them off in the months to come. But for me the experiment was very telling, and useful.

I left my tournament feeling like I could have done better and that I was close to something big as far as a strategy. The other players were so polished and knew their stuff—citing the rules from top to bottom quickly and were certainly at the top of their game. So I thought there might have been something to their complaints about using Han Solo and the Falcon in such a way as I was. But as it turned out, the best X-wing players in the game soon after turned to the very same strategy because the meta game pointed tactics in that direction. What I’m proud of is in seeing the trend before it occurred. Part of it is that I have a personal preference toward the Millennium Falcon, but when all the cards are looked at, it is beyond refute that the YT-1300 is by far one of the best tactical pieces in the game and that it should be included in any Rebel build.

I know much more about X-wing Miniatures now than I did during my first tournament, and I will know a lot more in a year than I do now. But the trend of seeing strategies and cycles beyond the curve of orthodox thinking is something I have been able to maintain even when others knew a great deal more about something than I did. It’s not some magic act, but simply a confirmation that Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality strategies are employable on every level of endeavor, even in gaming. I do pretty well in life staying in front of the curve of social trends in most everything I do—even leisure. So it was fun to feel the scorn of the X-wing community—even though it was friendly jousting at the time—then find just a few months later that the entire meta game is moving in that direction.

I remember what it was like when I was a kid and I was the one who loved Star Wars above all the other social trends that were occurring at the time. It was considered very “uncool” to like the science fiction epic publicly. But I knew at the time—even as a very young kid, that there was something unusual about the stories and that the values conveyed in them had meaning beyond the social trends of the time. Now, 30 plus years later Star Wars fever is everywhere even to the extent that drones have been flying over the filming locations looking for a hint at the storyline. The only people now who think Star Wars is “uncool” are the backwards thinking lost in time souls who can’t identify with the values of the stories. They are people stuck in the past—in the policies of the New Deal, and progressive utterances inspired from the pages of Karl Marx.

I have a shirt that I like to wear when playing X-wing Miniatures with Han Solo on the front of it—not unlike the kind of shirts I used to wear as a 9-year-old kid that says, “I’m in it for the money.” It is a very capitalist message and I first saw it in Hollywood Studios, Florida while coming off the Star Tours ride. I was surprised that Disney did not filter that pro capitalist message as there are many progressive executives who work for the large entertainment company. But, Han Solo is an unequivocal capitalist—an Ayn Rand type of capitalist in the Star Wars saga and he is one of the most popular characters there is. In fact, while downloading the new Star Wars game Commander onto my iPad I noticed that the characters on their load screen featured Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker because Disney knows where the money comes from in the series. It’s not the altruistic Luke Skywalker that people want to emulate; it is the capitalist Han Solo. This is a trend which will increase now that Star Wars is socially cool—altruism is out, capitalism is in.

That capitalist philosophy has spilled over into the X-wing game as the designers were careful not to weaken the message when designing the Han Solo game card. If played right, a “Fat Han” build can take being shot by opponents while dealing consistent damage during an entire match. It’s a very capitalist build and I think that the hatred for the build early in the game meta can be traced back to the fact that so many people are trained from their educations to hate capitalism. But—the meta of the game has moved by need of competition to utilize “Fat Han” builds just as the new Star Wars films and television shows soon will do the same on an epic level under Disney’s care. They know there in the hallowed halls of “Mouse Town” that capitalism is the key to social order and I could see that emergence as far back as the release of that Han Solo shirt featured at Hollywood Studios. We’re all in it to win, we’re all in it for the money—and that is why “Fat Han” builds have risen to popularity and why capitalism will emerge triumphant from 2020 to 2030 in ways that have never been seen before.image

I’m so sure of it that I’d bet everything I have. With the same assurance that I built a “Fat Han” build in X-wing Miniatures during a time when it was considered too novice-like to even think of bringing it to a tournament—I can see that capitalism will crush socialism under the care of the Disney handling of the Star Wars franchise. Some people may bellyache and complain, but the trend is already emerging. I can see it as plain as a sun in the noon day sky on a cloudless day around the equator. It’s so bright that it burns. Meanwhile, I have to change my tactics to stay competitive. “Fat Han” will no longer work because everyone is using it. So my new build is something I’m called “Dashing Han” which is more akin to how the Falcon actually flew with Han Solo at the controls. It is very difficult to fly, but should provide an advantage that will last a while. Because the name of the game is to always stay out in front of the meta.

Rich Hoffman


Declaration of Independance: Poor minds not qualified to care for such a wonderful document

I do not believe that there is a single lawyer, politician or lobbyist who could write the Declaration of Independence today in 2014. When modern progressives, socialists, and domestic terrorists declare that they believe the founding documents of America are “living documents” they are wrong—because the quality of the minds that could contribute in the ways they propose would only diminish the meaning. It is possible that John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were among the greatest collected minds in human history when they gathered to write the Declaration. They were as proficient philosophically as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle only all existing at the same time and without the murder of one by a society protecting itself from their intellectual advancement. When those three gathered and Jefferson wrote the founding document, a new era of philosophic endeavor had begun in the wake of war. A unique window had opened and the three of them stepped in bringing the rest of the new country with them. The results were the Declaration of Independence that was presented and edited by the Continental Congress in the following days leading up to July 4th 1776.

Congress ordered that the draft “lie on the table“.[66] For two days Congress methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure.[67] Congress removed Jefferson’s assertion that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies, in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Britain who supported the Revolution. Although Jefferson wrote that Congress had “mangled” his draft version, the Declaration that was finally produced, according to his biographer John Ferling, was “the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity.”[67]

On Monday, July 1, having tabled the draft of the declaration, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with Benjamin Harrison of Virginia presiding, and resumed debate on Lee’s resolution of independence.[68] John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[69] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.

After a long day of speeches, a vote was taken. As always, each colony cast a single vote; the delegation for each colony—numbering two to seven members—voted amongst themselves to determine the colony’s vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation, lacking permission to vote for independence, abstained. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean (who voted yes) and George Read (who voted no). The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by the Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who was opposed to Lee’s resolution but desirous of unanimity, moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[70]

Here is the text as it appeared after those edits:

Introduction Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained. In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[77] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Indictment A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[77] Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Denunciation This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[77]Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.Conclusion The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.Signatures The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents, Benjamin Harrison, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26), was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[78]

It is unlikely that there is a single mind in all of Washington D.C. who could write those sentences presently let alone put them into a contextual sentence.   Clearly those same minds are not capable of participating in a “living document” which evolves over time to accommodate changing circumstances. This is the actual sad part of our history is that the intention was that each generation would produce men and women like Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, but this has not been the case. Instead, American society has regressed into the worship of stupidity and patted themselves on the back for passing gas in the form of a “fart.”

It would be my wish that I could associate with people like these Founding Fathers, instead of the weakened people of the modern age—people unable to understand the above document let alone produce another one of equal value. What is to be respected from this period in America is that intelligence was honored and valor was a part of daily existence and it is these traits that carried America to become the greatest country on earth. It was not the “come lately” types who spent years of their academic lives getting drunk, pursuing sex, and passing gas yet expecting to build their minds into understanding the need for the Declaration of Independence. Worse yet, to even entertain the belief that they were equal to men like the authors.

The sad state of our modern times is that intelligence is attacked and stupidity is worshipped, and it is for this reason alone that no modern man should even conceive of changing a single word of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution—because they simply are not qualified—intellectually. No modern Supreme Court Justice, no lawyer—anywhere, and no current resident of the White House are able to meet the task of intellectual aptitude required to care for the founding documents let alone amend them. They are only capable of winning elections and moving money from one pocket to another—but they are not stewards of America equal to the founders—and authors of The Declaration of Independence.

Rich Hoffman


50 Years of Marriage: The Rams draft Michael Sam–the first openly gay NFL player

It was a rare privilege these days to attend the 50th wedding anniversary of some family friends hosted at a church they had spent their entire life attending.  Prior to the event my wife and I had just celebrated a few days ago our own anniversary of 26 years.  My parents were there and next year they will celebrate their own 50th anniversary.  Growing up I had two sets of grandparents who both went past the 50 year marriage mark which didn’t seem unusual back then.  In the middle of the celebration came the news through social media that Michael Sam had been drafted in the 7th round by the St Louis Rams—which was significant because he is the first openly gay player to enter the NFL.  Talk about locker room tension, or even on the field concern of being tackled by the guy who will unquestionably struggle to keep his sexuality in check around naked men every day.  The kind of idiots who think that gay athletes can be paired together without circumstance are the same fools who can’t fathom being married for 50 years to a member of the opposite sex, raising a family and falling in rhythm with that person in a lifelong dance that builds good people as byproducts to the relationship.

A long time friend of mine gave a nice speech to the crowd amassed in the bowels of the Grace Baptist Church in Middletown about how important his parents had been to he and his sister over all those years.  It wasn’t difficult for him to conger up many good memories of all the years his parents had been there for him like a rock to depend on.  As I listened I knew my own children and now grand children had similar thoughts which would become that much more pronounced when my wife and I hit our own 50 year mark.  That seems like a long time ago, but we realized during the speech that all these 50 year marriages had essentially all been present at our own wedding and they were at the stage then that we are now.  I remember thinking at the end of the 1980s when divorce was becoming rampant and easy by lawyers looking to make money off other people’s misery that many then thought 25 to 30 years of marriage was impossible, yet many were present at our own wedding at the Becket Ridge Country Club.  That in itself was sadly unusual.

Long marriages are not about sexuality.  They are about teamwork, commitment, determination, tenacity, love, and a willingness to walk through the fires of life and spit out the flames one by one at whatever cost.  No marriage over such a long time goes without pitfalls because life has a way of issuing out detours to such journeys without any compassion to our sensitivities.  Long time couples find a way to work through things and come out on the other end and their families are stronger for it.

The news of the new openly gay NFL player is a judgment based on a person’s sexuality only.  It is a progressive desire to destroy all resemblance of traditional family values and place before the world the progressive notion of an athlete that is gay as though such a thing could be normal.  Regardless of how one believes another might become gay, the fact that Michael Sam is will without question cause difficulties in the lives of his teammates.

Being married for a long time I can declare with safety that if I were playing football and the cheerleaders had to shower in the same location as my team mates, my wife would not be OK with that.  The reason is because sexuality needs to be focused and conducted in the bedroom of our home in order for her to manage all the other tasks of our family.  Having nakedness and sexual temptation outside of our marriage would then weaken all the important tasks in our relationship, such as picking out new trees for our yard, keeping track of events in the extended family, needs that the children might have and so on.  Seeing the naked bodies of many women even if the occurrences did not lead to sex would be distracting to our relationship.  It introduces elements that would pull the context of our marriage maneuvers into the primal realm which is not sustaining to families at large.  It’s not a matter of trust so much as sacrament.  If every other young woman prancing around gets a nice view of the tripod and can go home to satisfy themselves to its memory—what sacrament is there for my wife who is then supposed to worship it as a phallic beast meant only for her appeasement.  At football games she would know that all the little girls had the same knowledge of it as she.  They may not handle it but the vision of it is there in their minds for their enjoyment.

NFL player wives already have to accept that their husbands are likely cheating on them while on the road for away games.  That is bad enough.  But now they have to worry that Michael Sam will be doing more than playing ball on a football field and even if it isn’t beyond just looking—the act will be a sexual one.  For a man who likes to be under other men, nobody can legitimately ponder that for a gay male—being on the bottom of a football pile is not a fantasy that he will carry with him to his private acts.  For each man who adds a bit of sweat and odor to the fantasies of Michael Sam, it is sexual essence robbed from the wives of the players who are left with almost nothing sacred for their own bedroom.  Part of the appeal of a married couple is that their sexuality is committed to each other—not the world at large.

I do not like it when my wife goes to a doctor.  Her nakedness belongs to me.  Now, in the scheme of the human body we are all just clumps of flesh and once the soul is removed, the body decays away into dirt.  Humans bring value to such nakedness through their relationships.  If every other man out there has seen the naked body of a wife, then there is less sacred appeal in the bedroom—and anybody who has been married for a long time knows the need for such things.  Sure you get used to seeing each other but there is still purity in knowing that every neighbor up and down the street has not seen her which makes her treasures a gift of the relationship.  Without such enticements, fighting through the really hard stuff is not very appealing—and people usually give up.   This is also why being married to a stripper will bring unusual tension to a relationship.  It might be fun while she is young and attractive, but down the road when her old customers are lonely and looking her up online after she’s popped out a couple of kids—her naked body will be on their mind.   They don’t want to talk—but to remember.

To people who think marriage is a mystery and really have no clue to how relationships work, they are cheering for the progressive step forward society has taken as the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam.  They believe that putting a gay man in a locker-room with other guys will actually work but it won’t, mark my words.  The two things are not biologically, or intellectually compatible and the tension of sexual premise will be distracting to the organization in a very negative way.  Progressives are fine with the conflict, because they are out to change the essence of how human beings conduct relationships.  They are interested in the social impact of changing behavior—especially in marriage.

An old friend sat at my table at this anniversary dinner—one I hadn’t seen in about 20 years.  We picked up our conversation upon the last sentences we had uttered two decades ago only he filled me in on the three marriages he had over that duration.  Such things are normal these days.  Having children with one wife then children with a second and third and trying to see all those kids who are essentially being raised by other men who do not share the same kind of values as the original father is simply destroying children—and these days it is normal behavior.  Nobody thinks twice about hearing his story—but when people find out that my wife and I have been married for a quarter century they almost act like they stumbled into a leprosy village.  Yet everyone yearns for the 50 year anniversary.  I doubt there is a woman alive who goes to her wedding day not hoping to someday celebrate 50 years of marriage to her husband. Yet increasingly, such thoughts are a fleeting fantasy.

The progressives have destroyed the lives of many millions of people by teaching them the wrong values; this latest stunt involving Michael Sam is just the most recent.  Unisex bathrooms, easy pornography, and cheapened sexuality mixing gender roles attacking the family unit of tradition aggressively have destroyed our modern culture and left the children to be raised essentially by government schools.  Behind every marriage these days is a parade of parasitic lawyers chasing after the couple like hyenas waiting for one of them to stumble so that legal action against the other can take place and the state can take control of the children.   What my friend was thanking his parents for at the anniversary dinner was for giving him a sense of tradition and value as the trend has moved toward thinking that the Michael Sam draft is fashionable. Anybody coming from such long-term marriages whether it is my friend, me, or my children are lucky and we know it.  But it will be up to us to protect such opportunities in the future as the trend is against it.  Yet it shouldn’t be.

Rich Hoffman