The FBI Broke the Law: Just because they know the names of fancy wines, it doesn’t make them good

I couldn’t list if I wanted to any wines of any worth. To me they all taste the same and are about as valuable in conversation as talking about doorknobs. I don’t drink much of anything, so I have no interest in alcoholic apparatuses that lead toward intellectual intoxication. That makes me a pretty boring dinner guest. I also don’t care much for classic rock bands or even pop culture bands for that matter. I have almost no interest in those types of things so I am pretty stiff at a dinner party. But I do know quite a few law enforcement people, at least I have through the years, and many of them were F.B.I agents. And they typically know everything there is to know about wines and rock bands. They can tell you off the top of their head when Don Henley left the Eagles but they know almost nothing about the great philosopher and economist Adam Smith. They can tell you everything about a bottle of wine from France but nothing about how that college they are working so hard to send their children to has socialist reprogramming intentions for the youth of the world. All they really care about in regards to the school is how much it costs, so they can brag about it to their friends, and what the football team did last season—and who was or will be the quarterback.

Given all that it didn’t surprise me that the dirty cops in the FBI actually started an investigation into Donald Trump being a Russian agent planting the seeds of insurrection of his presidency even before the election of 2016 was over. The problem in the FBI is not just a few bad cops at the top, its institutional—it’s in the things they like as a group, not so much in their abilities to investigate crimes. In general I learned over the years, to work in law enforcement, especially in the FBI it requires very below the line people, people who are victims of their own circumstances and emotionally not very strong. That’s why they seek employment in large collectivist organizations, and why they like classic rock bands way too late in their lives and sip wine at dinner parties while the world burns down around them, because they are happiest when they are blaming other people for the world’s problems and they are too drunk to notice.

Along comes the optimistic President Trump who believes anything is possible, so much so that in the lobby of his Las Vegas resort it says, “If you are going to be thinking anyway, think BIG.” Now he was elected president and this new president doesn’t drink, he doesn’t really care for classic rock, and he’s all about accountability and self-fulfillment—and the FBI in their role as protectors of institutional lifestyles just couldn’t have it, so they made up lies to attempt to derail him as a person. Yes, they tampered with the 2016 election in a much more sinister way than Russia ever contemplated, then they tried to blame everything on that country hoping to tap into people’s Cold War memories and the recent good ratings of the television show, The Americans. Being below the line thinkers they sought to unseat an American president so that they wouldn’t have to deal with a leader in the Executive Branch who wanted to bring above the line thinking to the White House.

And their greatest fears emerged right away once Trump was in the White House, deregulation, entrepreneurial support, tax cuts—a new way of thinking that empowered above the line people and made all the below the line culture of Washington D.C. much less significant. Suddenly it wasn’t important what a person knew about wines, what mattered was how much capital an enterprise could put their hands on for a new start-up. The stock market grew because above the line people could see something worth investing in and wasting time listening to classic rock in the back yard of a Georgetown home inebriated by $200 bottles of wine suddenly didn’t mean anything. So of course, they attacked Trump, they went for blood, not just unseating him—and they broke the law to do so.

James Comey and is direct employees were losers who were everything I described and more. But they didn’t care if they broke the law because they were the law. They decided who lived and who died in the world and as below the line thinkers that was the most important part of their jobs to them. They had socialized with colleagues who loved fancy wine and old rock songs about the oncoming European socialism, such as “Bye, Bye, Sweet American Pie” as they drove their Chevy’s (bankrupt) to the levy but the levy was dry (the American economy) saying, “this will be the day that I die.” (I absolutely hate that song and have since I was a little kid.) Such an incredibly negative song about below the line thinking, but in Georgetown on a Friday or Saturday night, it’s a common occurrence while party goers ponder just how great Eric Clapton was and is. That’s the world of Comey and his friends who truly want European socialism to become the new way of doing business in America and from the perspective of the FBI, and the DOJ as Loretta Lynch attended those same events slapping her knee to the beat of some progressive song from the early 1970s the justification for insurrection was in their minds for all our own good.

That is the real fight of course, again below the line thinking colliding with above the line thinking. What kind of country do we want to be? The FBI already made up their mind, they are actively attempting to shape the world in the image of their Saturday night block parties and they are happy about it so long as they know the names of the fancy wines. That’s a world they are comfortable with and want to live in. After all, if everyone is drunk on those wines, people might actually think they are smart. But for that to work everyone has to buy into that life. When Trump came along it was for the below the line thinkers a real danger because it showed them that they had no idea what people outside of the Beltway really liked. “You mean people don’t look up to us because we know rock bands from the 70s and the names of wines from France?”

You laugh dear reader, but it really is as stupid as that, these people are terrible. Why wouldn’t Trump question our own intelligence agencies given the level of competency that they displayed in his early days in office? Just because they are American doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about. Obviously, there is more to it than just having the best resources available to them because they are in America. The quality of their minds as institutions isn’t good, they value the wrong things, so how could anyone trust what they recommend. Trump was smart not to, and they really don’t have a right to be insulted. They have shown themselves to be below the line thinkers who value all the wrong things in life. Comey should have been fired and so should many, many others. They broke the law and aren’t worth the money we spend on them as tax payers. Because if that’s as good as they get, we’d be better off without any of them.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

A Quiet Place: Hollywood’s disfunctional relationship with guns

I thought the 2018 movie; A Quiet Place was a really good horror film that was compelling. However, it was hard for me to sit through because if I had been in that story, I would have only have lasted about 30 seconds. In the movie the main characters revolve around a family that has survived some kind of alien invasion and the antagonists are some really terrifying creatures who are completely reliant on sound to move around. This leaves the survivors of earth to move about in complete silence to avoid being eaten by the creatures. I thought it was an interesting concept that made for an entertaining narrative experience, but I couldn’t help but ask the question, why didn’t the dad just shoot the creatures and kill them on day one? The movie would have been over in the opening scenes and many more people would have lived.

This movie reminded me why I’m not in the movie business. I had the same conversation after The Blair Witch Project came out many years ago where I asked similar questions. I never get lost so becoming lost in the woods and being hunted down by some strange monster is just something that I can’t relate to. In A Quiet Place if I had to deal with a situation like that defending my family against some strange creatures that suddenly appeared and ate people maliciously for every sound they made, I would have simply shot them with one of my big caliber guns. There was a scene at the end of The Quiet Place where I was literally jumping around my living room screaming at the television for Emily Blunt to shoot the alien creature as it had her family trapped in her basement. It was a compelling scene for anybody who isn’t used to firearms and for Emily who is a citizen of the United Kingdom she acted as if she were more terrified of the gun than the monster. All she had to do was pull the trigger and the thing would have been killed and her family would be safe.

I’ve been to some of those Santa Monica dinner parties and spent the evening with actors and actresses like Emily Blunt and listened to their diatribes about how guns are so bad and honestly, I couldn’t handle it. Associating with people like that wore me out. And I could see John Krasinski who directed the film working with the screenwriters Bryan Woods and Scott Beck to string out the narrative of the movie into a compelling two-hour event based on their experiences with the soft tissue Hollywood types that frequent those Santa Monica bars at midnight on any given day. It was just over halfway through the movie that we learned that the dad actually had a pump 12 gauge shot-gun hidden away in the house. But in reality, the dad should have had that gun with him for the entire film and been using it to kill the monsters.

Emily Blunt looked way too comfortable holding that gun on the monster at the end of the film and not pulling the trigger that it revealed so much about what is wrong with Hollywood today. The movies are made by scared, timid people who are lacking real experience with firearms, and it was pretty sad. Guns are not part of their culture so when one is put in their hands, they appeared to be more scared of the guns than the terrible monsters. But in reality, if guns were more a part of the story then the dramatic tension of the horror film itself would have been different. If a story like A Quite Place were real, people all across America would have just shot the things. There is no way those blind bastards would have taken over our country the way they did in the movie. Normal people just aren’t as terrified of guns as the Hollywood filmmakers were.

Prior to watching A Quiet Place I watched the Bruce Willis version of Death Wish, and that was a fun movie that was lacerated by the entertainment media because it was a very honest homage to the old Charles Bronson Death Wish movies. Now in those days I could have worked in Hollywood where the story tellers were not so terrified of guns, but understood them as a narrative advancement. For instance, Indiana Jones would have never have been the great character he was if not for that one scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman in cold blood just because he didn’t have time to run all over Cairo looking for his girlfriend if he was wasting it fighting him. Back then, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were still on the outside looking in within the film industry so they could do things like that in movies. But once they were invited into the Hollywood social activist club they stopped doing those kinds of things in their movies and people gradually stopped watching. A Quiet Place walked that fine line between ultimately using the gun to solve the problem of the story but they took the entire movie to arrive there. Because the human sacrifice count was high enough the Hollywood community gave A Quiet Place a pass, but to me it was pretty disgusting. It was a movie made by Hollywood types about a world they are afraid of, but for the rest of America where guns are as common as a glass of water, the movie was a useless exercise in stupidity.

The dad played by the director was a pretty good character, but of course when he needed a weapon at the end of the movie, he didn’t have one and he was killed. If he had been carrying his shotgun around, that stupid monster would have been dead quickly, and efficiently and they all would have lived happily ever after. Guns are a huge part of American culture and when Hollywood shows their ignorance, movie goers let them know it. Even though A Quiet Place was considered a successful film critically and at the box office the real numbers show it only made $188 million domestically and $152 million internationally. $340 million is not very much money for a movie at the box office these days, the movie would have done better business if it had embraced the gun culture more instead of trying to appease the anti-gun Hollywood types.

The last scene of the movie A Quiet Place was a hoard of the alien monsters converging on the house as Emily Blunt smiled at her children with her cocked shotgun ready to shoot them all. OK, so where was that attitude at the beginning of the film? The point of the entire movie seems to be to get the parents to overcome their aversion to guns so that they can defend themselves. Because the sonic device that the deaf daughter only appeared to agitate the monsters, it didn’t kill them. Only the gun did. So that is my problem with this whole Hollywood vantage point. They literally want their cake and to eat it too. They want an anti-gun message when the gun is the only thing that people want to pay money to see. But to appease the Hollywood gods who drink too much in Santa Monica bars, the filmmakers have to avoid using the gun as much as possible, until the very end of course.

That’s the way you do it.  Death Wish was a great movie!

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Of Course Sheriff Israel Should Have Been Suspended: Democrats fly to Puerto Rico during the government shutdown

Not to be overly simplistic but politics these days could be said to be of two representative groups, Republicans represent above the line thinking as defined in the great business book, The Oz Principle and Democrats representing below the line thinking. Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who are below the line thinkers but their social aims point in that direction, so let’s use this example to have a discussion. The issue of the new Governor DeSantis suspending the bumbling fool Scott Israel over the response during the Parkland massacre is a perfect example of what we are talking about.

In the world of a typical Democrat accountability for one’s actions are never part of the consideration, below the line thinkers are always victims who are never responsible for anything. Everything to below the line thinkers is someone else’s fault, so when Sheriff Israel was given a very expensive budget in one of Florida’s wealthiest counties to protect the people there, he blew it. The shooter who would eventually attack the school had a long-troubled past which the police knew about and when the guy finally instigated his intended violence toward the kids of Parkland High School Israel’s police force wasn’t ready and behaved less than gracious under fire. Many more people died as a result of Sheriff Israel’s incompetence than otherwise would and it was a truly sad situation.

But in the aftermath, it was Sheriff Israel who was leading the charge to have guns removed from society by attacking the NRA hoping to deflect responsibility away from him and his law enforcement department. His radicalism in advocating below the line positions was excessive and even political moderates were getting tired of the excuses from Sheriff Israel. After eight months of excuses once Governor DeSantis took the official office as Florida’s next governor, he did what most Republicans seek to do, and that is provide accountability to a situation—above the line thinking.

And that is where the real difficulty is in deciding what kind of country we want to be, because we can’t be both. Below the line thinking is easy and destructive, it is far easier to destroy than to make, so that is why Democrats with their below the line thinking and overall victimhood mentality attract so many losers and can activate them to advance on a cause so quickly, because their fear is always accountability so as long as there is chaos and blame, they are quick to hide their incompetence behind violence and mass driven protests.

Accountability is hard so its much more difficult to stand up and accept that responsibility when there is always a parade of below the line thinkers to throw more animosity in your direction deflecting that pressure away from them as much as possible. This is why it was hard for even staunch NRA defenders to advocate for sanity after the Parkland shooting because the mob of below the line thinking had taken over. There was power in the masses for below the line thinkers who shared together a fear of responsibility. There was power in victimhood, in using the death of the innocent to advance a below the line political idea, such as the confiscation of guns. Guns themselves didn’t kill people, they are tools for above the line people to take responsibility for their own safety and property. But for below the line people who would never dare use a gun to defend themselves because they don’t want the responsibility, its easy to call for the elimination of personal firearms and the expansion of the state with more laws. But in the case of Parkland there were police on the scene as the gunman was killing and they did not engage. Sheriff Israel had allowed their daily routine to become too soft they were not ready for the danger when it came. But rather than take responsibility for their ill prepared training, Scott Israel deflected all responsibly to gun possession and he helped launch a national campaign against them.

If we want an accountable, and successful nation, below the line thinking just can’t be allowed—which essentially eliminates one political party from the discussion. We can see the same example of how Democrats behaved in Mid-January after they had just returned to Capitol Hill to the House and Senate only to charter a plane to fly to Puerto Rico to watch the play Hamilton. President Trump as a businessman understands leadership and accountability so he purposely stayed at the White House as the government shutdown dragged on and debate over the border wall persisted. Democrats being below the line people devoid of personal accountability don’t want to see how their actions can have an impact on the world around them so they tried to coax Republicans into playing along, but under Trump’s leadership they stayed put. While the news stories went out that government workers weren’t getting paid due to the shutdown Trump was in the White House ready to make a deal but the Democrats just off a Christmas vacation took another luxury trip to Puerto Rico to attend a high brow play. Typically, Republicans get caught in these kinds of things trying to defend themselves from a negative position, but Trump kept the discussion on above the line topics with true leadership—leading by example.

That is truly the battle of our day, the difference between personal accountability, and below the line victimhood. Losers are known as losers because they are never responsible for anything in their life, they make themselves perpetual victims because they lack the courage of personal accountability. The reason that Democrats want to expand government so much is to cover up their notion of accountability deflection. The more people involved, the more chaotic the bureaucratic chain of decision gates, the less people know that the real game is in protecting below the line thinking so that political leaders can sneak off to a luxury play in the tropics during a government shutdown and nobody would notice. And that is exactly what Democrats did in trying to protect the incompetency of Scott Israel after the Parkland shooting. The NRA which is an organization all about above the line thinking, personal accountability and the defense of American ideas became the scape-goat by default. Above the line thinking was attacked because the masses were afraid of what role they played in the mess and would rather expand government and pay more people to stand in front of them and help redistribute the blame game to everything else.

Governor DeSantis like President Trump was making a point in suspending Sheriff Israel, the intent was to demonstrate above the line thinking, just as Trump stayed at the White House to show leadership under fire. Accountability is the key to all successful enterprises, and Democrats just don’t have it in them. By their nature they always seek below the line solutions to above the line needs, so there will never be peace and joy in politics so long as this is the case. Everyone in our nation needs to at least be working toward the same objectives. One part of the country can’t take responsibility for everything while all the below the line thinkers fly off to Puerto Rico to attend a play while bitching that the President won’t budge on his needs for border wall funding. And what Sheriff Israel did, which is typical of all below the line thinkers was reprehensible, he tried to blame the very good NRA for his own incompetence. And if he had been successful, it would have had a terrible effect. Its bad enough that many people died because of him, but what’s worse is that he refused to take responsibility. That is his crime and why he had to be suspended. He’s lucky that was all.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Tear Down the Statue of Liberty: Understanding what immigration should be and knowing real history

As a very strong advocate of President Trump and his policies I am in a good position to defend the reasons that we want to build a wall. Only stupid people thinking in a negative below the line way would think that the reason is racism. The actual cause is to inspire more above the line thinking which stupid people are terrified of, so their only defense is to accuse above the line thinkers of racism. But in all honesty the need for the wall at the American southern border is to defend the values of the nation from those who don’t share those values and it has nothing to do with racism. Even deeper than that however is the need to defend America from its domestic enemies, any below the line thinkers who seek to destroy the concept of America who are now gathered under the clear tent of Democrat politics. I’ve had the benefit of watching my son-in-law go through a naturalization ceremony where he had to swear as a new American citizen to defend our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, and it was quite serious when placed in that context. Well, the Democrats have positioned themselves as clear domestic enemies and they are on full assault, so its time that we make it clear what this fight is really about. Don’t negotiate with them, destroy them!

The Statue of Liberty is a part of recent American history, there is a lot more to the concept of freedom and liberty that were in place well before the French gave us that statue which resides in the harbor of New York. It was commissioned in 1886 by President Cleveland at the start of the progressive movement in New York City so any references to the Statue of Liberty and the role it plays in immigration are tainted at best. Elis Island where the Statue of Liberty resides then became the first immigration station in the United States from 1892 to 1954 where roughly 12 million immigrants passed through on their path to citizenship. This is why progressives are particularly fond of the Statue of Liberty and keep using it as a reference to illegal immigration at the southern border, because the whole concept of a processing station with the Statue of Liberty looming over the process is one born in the heart of progressive politics in America to begin with in the very recent past.

It was Emma Lazarus who wrote the famous words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

She was part of the movement that was trying to raising money for a permanent home for the Statue of Liberty as it had been touring around since the French gave it to us. She was close personal friends with the progressive economist Henry George who wrote the terrible book Progress and Poverty, which ultimately inspired Emma to write what she did. That is why progressives in our modern era are so quick to point at the Statue of Liberty and attempt to unite the entire country behind their cause. Personally, I think we should tear down the damn thing. If you want to put up a symbol of American values in the harbor in New York for the world to see, it should be someone like John Wayne who much more embodies the values of America rather than the statue of a French designer who was part of the progressive era as it was born in New York society to grow like a massive disease to attempt to destroy American civilization.

There is a reason under capitalism that people are poor, it’s because they are lazy. In a capitalist society, which is something Henry George was debating, effort is the key to earning a good living. If you have that basic approach, you can do well in America. If you don’t, then you won’t, or wouldn’t until the progressive era corrupted politics with all their social reforms that made it so that people were less inspired to work hard and more inspired to think below the line such as is common in the labor movement which is another progressive era invention. Henry George and Emma Lazarus were some of the first people in America to propose a land tax which came directly out of this quote from his 1879 book Progress and Poverty:

Take now… some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: “Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city—in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage-coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?” He will tell you, “No!” “Will the wages of the common labor be any higher…?” He will tell you, “No the wages of common labor will not be any higher…” “What, then, will be higher?” “Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession.” And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.

–Translation, Henry George is proposing that the hard-headed businessman must be compelled to donate their riches to the “community.” That the wealth they create isn’t a value of its own which makes a town into a city or electricity to replace the candle. What the Statue of Liberty represents isn’t freedom, but compulsion as proposed by early progressives who are below the line thinkers trying to hide their negative vantage point behind do-gooding.

The below the line progressives and their modern Democrats are what early Americans fled from in Europe yet they followed with immigration the efforts of those frontiersman and adventurers who came before and built New York City with ambition and capitalist yearning. Below the line thinkers like Henry George saw this wealth and wanted to tax it, and his little girl friend Emma Lazarus adopted his ideas and stuck them on the side of a statue the French gave us as if they understood American capitalism and that is how the first immigration station started in America, which was a disaster from the beginning. Immigration is a fact of life when something has value and people are leaving areas of low value to seek a better life. But Emma missed the point, her entire quote was inspired by an economic below the line thinker who wanted to tax land owners as his great contribution to thought.

Resistance to illegal immigration isn’t to protect America from a “browning” of it from people south of the border, but in ensuring that the people who do come into America want to protect its Constitution and not to overthrow it. Hidden behind their proposals are the below the line efforts of the Statue of Liberty founders who were not rugged American capitalists. The debate isn’t about preventing all people into America through immigration but in letting in the best and brightest, not the perpetual poor, lazy, and drug addicted. Some people you don’t want in your country. People lacking value are some of them, and its time to have that debate instead of retreating back to some stupid words that Emma said on the Statue of Liberty. In fact, its time that we just take that damn thing down and use some other symbol of American value that is more properly representative of our present circumstances, like a gun that is there to protect the land owner from bleeding heart progressives like Henry George from using public resources to steal money from those making it, because he thinks he’s morally inclined to do so and to distribute that wealth to below the line thinkers who didn’t earn it to begin with. The debate is really about values and who has them and who doesn’t.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Why I Hired Donald Trump: Negotiations with below the line people are not possible when people of value are the only ones that matter

Regarding the government shutdown and the border wall funding debate I keep hearing that there are supposed to be bipartisan discussions and that our government of checks and balances require compromise. Yet it is permissible for Democrats to only contribute one dollar toward border wall construction and we are supposed to laugh and accept the behavior. No. that’s not how it works. Here’s how it does, in the United States, the greatest economy in the world and the best country providing the most freedom and personal lifestyle choices of anywhere on earth there are many companies that routinely investigate their cultures for improvements. The United States has produced more literature and analysis on business technique improvements of any sector of any economy anywhere, so a lot of consideration should be given to the abilities of change agents within production cultures and studying how those effects can cascade into our political order for the better. Because it is impossible to take a culture that is full of bad stuff and expect it to negotiate with good stuff and generate a reasonable outcome. And the Democrats and even RINO Republicans in this current debate are bad people as defined by the process of needs associated with our present circumstances.

No consultant in their right mind would think to go into a large company in serious need of reform and expect to make peace with the losers of that culture. Losers in this case are defined as below the line thinkers, people who finger point, do not take personal accountability for their actions, are perpetual victimhood advocates intent to hide their poor practices behind chaos and mayhem. That is precisely what the modern Democrats are in the American political system. When companies need to get healthy, they do not sit down and negotiate with the trouble makers. They get rid of them. First of course you invite them to the table to be a part of the improvement process. But it is never a thought to surrender good productive output to the demands of the below the line thinkers. It’s just not in the realm of possibility.

Yet that is precisely the assumption of these modern Democrats, they expect Republicans to be blamed for the government shut down. They expect Republicans to be blamed for border problems. They expect value to always cover for poor conduct the way delinquent employees sit in the shadows and nit pick at leadership without doing anything but destroying opportunities at productivity so that the expectations of success never swing in their direction. We are supposed to expect no performance out of Democrats, and to give them an equal seat at the table of respect. That is their actual premise which to any sane person would be laughable.

It is simply amazing how much of this “open border” money has been trickled into our media environment intent to manipulate young people into believing in a giant borderless world. After the interview that President Trump gave to Sean Hannity on January 10, 2019 the response from the print and television media was outrageous in support of that open border position. There was real fear in what President Trump was talking about as it was obvious, he wasn’t backing down and nobody in his Republican party was really putting pressure on him to do so. Then the fear escalated when it was obvious that supporters like me, the part of Trump’s base that in numbers of 30% will stand with him no matter what. The panic on Friday morning going into the weekend was full-blown and nearly animated beyond reality. They were flipping out the way most below the line thinkers do when they are exposed to the light of day and realize that they will be measured to a level of performance whether they liked it or not.

But let me add to this discussion as a warning for all those below the line thinkers who have been thinking they understood the game that was being played, a continuation of that way of doing things was always off the table. You should be happy that its Donald Trump, and you’d be wise to shut your mouths and listen to what he wants to do. Because the alternative is much more violent. Putting up with the same old Chuck and Nancy show is not an option. Continued budget problems and continuing resolutions that just kick the can down the road are not part of the discussion. Only growth can solve our debt problems and only in protecting American sovereignty can we take our country back to a healthy state. An acceptance of all the chaos and violence of the open border push that anti-American forces like George Soros have been imposing on our free market system are not going to be tolerated. America has to be brought back to a healthy state and that requires above the line thinking to destroy below the line thinking. Not negotiate with it.

All across America right now and even in other countries there are very smart people acting as consultants who go into and fix the operations of those companies once they have been identified as unhealthy. It takes a strong vision from a leader to evoke the changes needed and it takes removing below the line thinking from the process and replacing them with above the line thinkers. Negotiating a peace treaty with below the line thinkers is never an option. Changing their behavior is, or simply getting rid of them. The leverage on the border wall and the government shutdown is completely in Trump’s power. The best thing to do in this case is to crush the below the line thinking from everyone in the media down to the political pawns involved in the matter, and to either destroy them or show them the door and force them to exit the political arena on their own. But there is no leg for them to stand on, the arrogance of Nancy and Chuck and the people who follow them who think they have a right to a seat at the table indicates they have no idea what is going on. Just because you are in a political party and that’s how things have been in the past does not mean that’s how its going to be in the future.

As one of Trump’s 30% base I wouldn’t care if half the government quit their jobs tomorrow and found work at a McDonald’s drive through. I like seeing the government shut down. There are too many employees in it to begin with. And I am certainly not an open border guy. If we want to help people in their domestic countries from the crime and poverty they are fleeing from, well let’s send them some good ol’ capitalism and some guns and turn them loose with their own experimental republic. Forget about asylum, build them a shopping mall and some guns to protect their banks so they can actually have an economy and give them a civilization they can build a home with. The current political order uses them as pawns to flood our current border and loot the wealth of America for a big political military assault that has been in the works for many years. But Trump supporters elected him to the White House to stop that assault, and that doesn’t automatically give everyone a seat at the negotiating table. I hired Trump to destroy that old order. Not to play with it. Keep that in mind.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

There is No Such Thing as Universal Health Care for All: It’s a dumb idea created by dumb, lazy people hungry to control us all

When we are born there is no right to healthcare. Other people are not burdened with our support for life, and there is no guarantee that, that industry will even be around for our lifetime. The socialist fantasy of universal healthcare like a universal living wage are ridiculous notions born of lazy, below the line thinking. The problems of course are that people cannot be compelled just because they live to care for other people other than themselves. But more than anything, the healthcare industry itself is a changing business model and in its current state needs a lot of work. There is more to the fantasy alignment of socialism politically and socialism in medicine. One thing about modern medicine is that it is a very socialist enterprise and I personally despise it. Demanding funding to fill that monster isn’t a good idea and that is truly at the heart of the matter.

I am normally a very healthy person. One of my best features that I am very proud of is my immune system. As a kid I had perfect attendance for years in school and was seldom ever sick. As an adult I almost never miss work for anything and bounce back quickly when something major does happen. But I am over 50 now and that brings with it new challenges to a body that is beyond its reproductive usefulness. Nature has a way of rejecting bodies it no longer needs and as we age we all deal with the consequences of this effect. The world has little need for a human body that is no longer reproductive or seeking to be, so disease and degradation are facts of life for any aging person. But I still don’t accept that I am powerless to not determine my own fate so I found myself deathly sick for about three weeks at the end of 2018 and wondering the aisles of Wal-Mart at 6:30 AM seeking a way to combat my multiple ailments. I was highly suspicious that I may have ingested some government formed mutation of the flu designed to kill me because I just couldn’t shake this sickness and there were moments when I wondered if I was actually going to die.

My children were very worried, and as we moved into the New Year there was pressure to get over the sickness, so I could resume my life and all the people who need me to do my thing for their own benefit. So I won’t get into the details of what I had to do to fix myself. It certainly didn’t involve illegal drugs which I would never do under any circumstance. But I’m not going to give any of my enemies any knowledge of what I know about medicine and how to overcome attacks to my body from either genetically modified viruses or nanotechnology, let’s just say that. But I know more than most people could imagine and that condition will remain. However, for a while, I was concerned and actually considered that if I got it wrong, I may have ended up dead. So things got pretty serious. Yet when faced with the worst of it, going to the doctor was not an option, for contextual purposes.

There are times and places for doctors, but the system is so corrupt that I will avoid going even in life and death circumstances. I would trust myself more to come up with a solution than a doctor. Doctors as they are now are designed to take a sickness and extend it so that people lose their individuality and independence turning to drugs instead of their own immune systems and that is the dark little secret to the medical profession and why Democrats and other progressives want universal healthcare. They don’t want to fix people, they want to make more people’s lives dependent on the healthcare industry for which government seeks to control. It’s a very malicious plan.

As I explained to my daughters at the height of my own sickness, if a doctor had the ability to diagnose my condition then they would find prostate problems, cancer cell counts that were high, spinal alignment trouble, heart pressure problems and many other factors for which they would attempt to advise prescriptions to remedy. Most people would follow their recommendations to their own graves. As I told my kids I wasn’t ready to surrender any of my personal independence to drug companies and would rather die in the process, which I almost did a few times. But that’s how serious I was about it. As I have said many times the entire medical industry is turning toward regenerative growth, and it is there that I turned to solve my own problems, and likely always will. It works, it’s not a bunch of hippie science but in using what our bodies have their entire lives to stay healthy. I trust my immune system to fight off anything. If unusually genetically modified assailants come in contact with it, then sometimes that immune system needs a boost, but ultimately, that immune system needs to stay fighting ready all the time, and to be healthy. Our modern healthcare industry unfortunately seeks to destroy that trend and make adults more dependent on drugs than their own systems and that is the real terror that is behind the progressive universal care fantasy that is being championed by today’s Democrats.

By accepting universal healthcare for all it would be like accepting a dial-up telephone as the end of technical innovation for the medical industry. Instead of pushing for the next iPhone in technical breakthroughs where people weren’t just treated for being sick, but to restore them to complete health so that doctors and medicine didn’t have a monopoly of control on their lives is the trend that is trying to be born. With more political involvement the desire from Democrats is to prevent that opportunity because their ultimate desire is to use the medical industry to control the population, because like open borders, when they control whether or not people will live or die, that tends to have an effect on the ballot box and so far I haven’t heard anybody talk about that aspect of this argument. The Democrats don’t want to save people with universal healthcare, they want to control them.

As I provided in my personal example, I’d literally rather die than give up that personal freedom. I do not trust the medical industry to have my best health in mind when advising me on critical health issues. I’d rather take care of it myself which should say a lot. I’m by far a paranoid person, but I see a trend in medicine which indicates very below the line thinking. As an employer I am not impressed with a doctor’s note from an employee that does not come to work. I have to honor it legally, but it certainly changes how I feel about the employee as an option of investment for the future. And I exercise my rights to have such an opinion. Doctor’s don’t run my life in any way, they don’t tell me what drugs to take, what surgeries to have, or how productive I’ll be. And I am certainly not open to giving them more power with a guaranteed government backing for their industry with universal healthcare. I think that is the dumbest idea in the history of ideas for an industry that needs much less bureaucratic elements and much more innovation. People need to be restored to health not dependent on more government and the current health care industry does not fix people properly, and that is the heart of the conversation, not a right to something that is bad for you to begin with.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Losers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: More reason to keep the government shut down

More and more the only way to really describe the current political condition in the world is by above the line thinking and below the line. The Democrat response to President Trump’s border wall case made on national television on January 8th, 2019 was as below the line of anything I have seen in many years openly. Usually these types of negative, loser types conceal their intentions much more carefully, but not anymore. The Democrats empowered by what they think is a big victory in winning the House in 2018 are moving toward open socialism, which I have been warning about for many years. I remember when many below the line people in the Republican party thought I was being dramatic and even embarrassing in pointing the matter out with my bullwhips and YouTube videos, and my novels and media interviews. Back then many conservatives were reading from conservative publications that were caught in the grand socialism story themselves, and they thought they were too high brow to consider such a thing. But I saw it because to my perspective all the thinking was below the line, victimization and consolation of one another through group affiliation, both in Democrats and Republicans. Party politics for such below the line people wasn’t for some tactical implementation of political philosophy, it was for their own sanity maintenance. And like any below the line thinker, they seek to remain there and do not want to be challenged into any other concepts, even if reality dictates the necessity.

Watching the arrogance of such below the line people to keep the country hostage to such a mindset really angered me, because if you really listen to what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were saying in response to President Trump it was as bad as it gets in politics. It is they who are using the government worker shutdown as a bargaining chip. It is they who think that people will blame Trump for the loss in jobs and for the shut down in general. Don’t essentially stated that they weren’t going to budge at all, that they were clearly using this issue to try and knock the President out of office in 2020. And they are willing to go all the way with it. That’s why no matter what comes from Republicans, they are going to have to break the back of the Democrats on this shut down issue once and for all. Above the line thinking is going to have to destroy below the line thinking, there simply can’t be any other ending. Failure to do that will only get more of the behavior. There can be only a glorious defeat of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in 2019 over the border wall and the government shut down.

Any above the line thinker sees the situation clearly. The American people really don’t care about the government shutdown. It doesn’t affect them and they are too busy to care. It’s the middle of winter and people don’t care if the national parks are closed. People like me would argue that government workers shouldn’t even be tied to any of this. Airlines should cover their own security costs; the government shouldn’t be in a position to shut down anything in American commerce. Government job growth is and has been for years part of the problem. Government has inserted itself where it doesn’t belong and that is part of the issue. Government has created this below the line monster so that it could send out some of its sales people, like Schumer and Pelosi and beg to be fed like some homeless person sitting at the side of a highway intersection pulling on the heartstrings of those passing by. The leverage they seek is to not only grow government and its below the line influence, but to destroy the political order from any above the line thinking.

If you really were to peel back the onion and look at the open border suggestion that is at the heart of most of our modern media and political system, you would find that the real war is between above the line and below the line thinking. The goal is not peace and to help people from impoverished countries live better lives in America, but to overrun people in America who think above the line with depressing reminders of humanities loser mentality, drugs, cheap sex, graffiti, tattooed gang members—essentially an age of anarchy intent to send mankind back to the mentality of social order over 4000 years ago. Below the line thinkers do not like advancements in thought and they love to hide their misery behind collectivist endeavors so that is why they use politics to advance their loser state. For them they would oppose Donald Trump if he gave a speech on saving the world from hunger because they simply don’t want to give merit to any above the line thinker, because they don’t want to live up to the standard.

I learned a long time ago that most politicians don’t want to solve problems. I have the honor to know a few locally who do like to solve problems, and to live above the line, but they are a pretty recent phenomenon. I think there will be many more like them emerging in the years to come because there is a natural human desire to have their political order functioning above the line as opposed to below the line. Trump’s election in that context shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, but to Democrats not willing to accept that the movement is one of above the line thinking chose to see what they want. Democrats trying to run for office in 2020, especially for president think that the charm of Trump is that he can associate with anybody, which is why Elizabeth Warren thought drinking a beer on a social media video would gain her points with a base of political supporters. But what she and many of them are missing is that Trump’s selling point was always above the line thinking as opposed to loser victimhood and that’s what Americans wanted from the beginning. All Democrats are offering at any level is victimhood, and that is not appealing to voters.

It Republicans can hold together with that understanding of what this issue is really about, they can destroy the loser mentality that is driving the entire Democrat party, and they’ll win this government shutdown battle. Trump will have to get his border wall money from declaring a national emergency which will be risky, but he’ll have to do it because Democrats would rather die than give him anything close to a campaign promise, because they are losers and can only think in that fashion. Democrats are not for American growth and border security, they are about global assimilation so that the worst of us can bring down the best and the level of expectation for everyone be lowered to more below the line thinking, where they are most comfortable. To them they have nothing to lose because what they are fighting for is the right to be a loser and to do that, they just have to keep saying no. And that is what everyone needs to understand about this particular breed of Democrat.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.