MAGA Hats are all About Above the Line Thinking: Why the media picked on Nick Sandman but not Tommy Sotomayor

The MAGA hats were never part of the plan for below the line liberals, their intention was to rob Americans of hope through victimization techniques taught in public schools and to gradually take over the world. Literally, that has been their plan, so it was quite shocking to them when Trump ran for president and started making the MAGA hats a rally cry that robbed from liberals their hopes and dreams of a below the line life where they could hide from the glaring eyes of expectation and competency. It didn’t surprise me that the media made so much out of Nick Sandman staring down some old hippie type who called himself an Indian at a right to life rally, and tried to make the whole event into a white power type of thing to demonize the MAGA hats that Nick and his Catholic school classmates from Covington Kentucky were wearing. But what did surprise me is that over the same weekend Tommy Sotomayor, a black man wearing his MAGA hat got into an argument with a Hooters waitress and his video went viral, but none of the news stations covered it, even though YouTube had over a million hits on the video. People saw it, but the story didn’t fit the narrative that the below the line types were trying to create. Black people were not supposed to support Donald Trump, let alone run around wearing MAGA hats. And that caused problems that compounded into even more destruction for the liberal ambitions for controlling the world.

Donald Trump’s MAGA hats have become a symbol of above the line thinking, in much the way that wearing a suit and tie to a meeting filled with loser types sitting around with holes in their jeans and untucked shirts. It’s a behavioral representation of an idea for thinking above a problem rather than below. The efforts liberals have to use victimization as a means to advance a way of thinking is obvious below the line efforts and that was why that guy beating on his little drum claiming to be a “Native American” was propped up to be a victim of white privilege and due for some measure of respect just by his ancestral relationship to a group of people the left has sought to exploit to advance their below the line concepts for the entire human race. Nick Sandman because he was a white teenager from a Catholic school was instantly supposed to respect the rules of engagement and apologize for his very existence upon just seeing the Indian who moved in to confront him knowing that the progressive politics of Washington D.C. favored his intentions even if violence did break out. Nick was the villain just for existing and he had the audacity to wear a MAGA hat to a right to life rally of all things.

Tommy Sotomayor is a guy who goes around looking for controversy and he did provoke the situation at the Hooters restaurant after the black waitress confronted him about his MAGA hat. In spite of the obvious attempts at social grandstanding the point was well made, here was a black man with a group of other blacks standing up for their right to wear a MAGA hat and the effort was completely ignored by the very hateful below the line media. They couldn’t handle a black man fighting for the right to wear a MAGA hat in a story that was obviously much bigger than the one Nick Sandman was involved in. That story with the Covington Catholic kids made every news wire and radio station announcement across the country with stunning coordination, yet Tommy Sotomayor was ignored, essentially because he was a black man on the wrong side of the below the line progressive argument. It was a very interesting thing to watch.

Nick Sandman did a very good job in the aftermath of the ordeal, he is obviously a very above the line young man. He reported the death threats that his family had received since the news outbreak and other terrible threats that came his way which we all recognize as the type of bullying that our society has learned in public school where below the line victimization is taught to the masses for the obvious end result of reshaping the social structure from looking above the line toward problems, to living below. The whole narrative reverts back to the notion of white toxic masculinity being eradicated from the social sphere so that below the line thinking can be nurtured and a new power vacuum would be created for Democrats to fill as a perpetually tearful class of people crying out for more government services extracted from even higher taxation. The MAGA hats were never supposed to give young people like Nick Sandman hope just as the right to life types were supposed to have all legislation ripped out from under them and have their hopes of a society that valued life removed. These elements to the eyes of below the line Democrats and European progressives were never supposed to come to fruition. Even if a Republican did win the White House at some point in the next decade it would be someone like Jeb Bush who could easily be steam rolled over by below the line thinking. There would never have been a MAGA hat revolution otherwise.

But then there are people like Tommy Sotomayor and Kanye West who proclaim that the MAGA hats have given them power and the fortitude to stick up for themselves as individuals and as blacks. The shockwaves of that social movement is something that Democrats can’t deal with because they thought they had that whole demographic locked up into a victimization summation and that all blacks would stay there and be happy collecting their government services, and would keep voting Democrat. Instead they are wearing their MAGA hats out to Hooters and picking a fight with the establishment itself blowing the progressive narrative completely out of the water and you can know that it is very painful for them because of the silence. Progressives have no answer for it in any of the 30 to 40 people from the Democrat side of things running for president. They have nobody like Trump, and they have no message like MAGA hats to start a revolution toward above the line thinking as opposed to below.

I have several MAGA hats and I love them. They are some of the best hats that I’ve ever had because they represent to me the efforts of a president who has a desire to make America an above the line country again instead of a country of victims and despots looking for pity over every little sin in the past. The young man Nick Sandman obviously wants a shot at life-like anybody else and his MAGA hat is that hope. That same hope resides in a black man like Tommy Sotomayor and Kanye West. I’m sure there are lots of Hispanics and Indians who also love their MAGA hats because they understand that the notion of making America great again means that the country is heading above the line in its expectations instead of below where the filth and excuses reside. And that is what everyone who is below the line hates about the MAGA hats and why nobody covered Tommy’s Hooters experience. Because the truth is quite the opposite from what the media tried to create out of the Covington Catholic story. Once the facts where well-known, the evidence was not in the favor of the below the line Democrats and their ambitions for destruction all over the world.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Morality of the Wall: Sex trafficking and the desire to destroy western civilization through illegal immigration, drug use, and sexual perversion

Of course, the Democrats won’t take the deal President Trump offered to reopen the government and secure funding for his border wall, but he had to do it anyway. As I we have been talking about the battle is about politics or even ideology at this point, it’s about above the line and below the line thinking. Above the line thinkers are responsible and self-determined while below the line are victims and always looking for reasons not to do things. Nancy Pelosi’s goal in winning the House Speaker job back was purely for the title. She has been and is currently action like many incompetent people who get into a seat of power, as a below the line thinker the position hasn’t helped her. She magically hasn’t become competent suddenly. Her ability to swing a gavel hasn’t put great wisdom and leadership into her abilities like so many in this world believe. But Trump knows all that and he acted accordingly while she was out-of-town yet again. When a leader who thinks above the line is in direct conflict with an incompetent below the line person, the loser below the line never has a chance. Even though she will avoid this proposal the way Democrats always do, Trump’s strategic movements will reflect favorably on the Republican party and the shutdown can continue well into the future at the expense of the Democrats, because people can see the startling difference and how the two sides act under pressure. Trump has done a very good job during this crisis.

I think in the wake of Trump’s Saturday broadcast we should go a little deeper onto the morality of building a wall. As below the line thinkers of course misery loves company so the whole open border strategy that has been globally implemented held considerable attractiveness to the likes of Nancy and her radical Democrats who at this point might as well be call socialists. The cover is off that Trojan horse, so why dance around the subject. Because many supporters of the Democrat party are below the line thinkers they don’t want the responsibility that comes with being an American citizen and what goes on around the world quite openly these days. Forget about the political rhetoric for a bit, one of the most evil things going on in this world right now is human trafficking, and President Trump brought that up during his speech. There is a huge market for smugglers and other criminal minded to smuggle people across the Mexican/American border for the opportunity for freedom, which sounds like a well-intended enterprise until you understand the reality.

Many years ago, some very bad people decided that they would use their power and influence to shape the world toward communism. Just because people have money and power doesn’t mean they are above the line thinkers. Bad, below the line people can acquire power, and often do. And they decided that the world needed open borders, that women needed to step out of the home and into the work place leaving their children vulnerable to state-run educations. The concept of a family was going to be redefined by the state and in the ashes of all that ambition many sexual fantasies would be fulfilled which of course was the fuel behind the ambition to start with. If you step into the mind of a typical globalists you will find extreme sexual perversions to be the norm, pedophilia, under age sex with both girls and boys, bondage, homosexuality and group-oriented sex orgies. Under all the activity was two basic intentions, the desire to redefine the human race by robbing their intrinsic motivations and instead seeking their place within the state, and to pull them there with the typical stick and carrot temptations of puberty. This catapulted many below the line thinkers into their late adulthoods with a deep desire to justify their sexual illnesses with massive sexual perversions that were driving all state activity. It is safe to say that much of our political world has been filled with these below the line types and they rule the way Nancy Pelosi does, so to her the behavior is normal. Only to people who are above the line thinkers is the behavior reprehensible and even considered vile.

South of the American borders as Marxism has destroyed those economies it has been the fantasy of the corrupt globalists because the only thing there really is to do is to have babies and flood the American border hopefully to overwhelm the system and destroy the American Constitution. And in the process mothers are willing to sell their children into the slavery of human traffickers just for the hope of their kids ending up in America with a shot at a better life. In that process 1 out of 4 girls are routinely raped, so much so that their mothers give birth control pills to their daughters knowing what will happen along the way. But believe it or not, young boys are the most lucrative targets, as dirty old men thinking well below the line are seeking most what’s missing in themselves by robbing children of their intrinsic motivations and scarring the children for life. It’s all part of the plan.

In the great book by Daniel Pink called Drive, he explores some surprising aspects of human development and what really drives people to do what they do. One thing that is quite clear is that most human beings are born with intrinsic motivations to be self-directed and autonomous, and if left to their own devices, to grow up and become wonderful above the line thinkers. But self-directed people motivated intrinsically are hard to control if you are a below the line thinker from the old world so the scheme is to actually ruin people as they get older, enter puberty and are more prone to the stick and carrot motivation lifestyle that leads to below the line thinking. You see, goal-oriented motivations make people less productive than intrinsically motivated attributes. Look at a typical six-year-old kid and they are usually self-directed and soaking up all the learning they can get. Take that same child at age 14 and suddenly sex is on their minds all the time as biology has taken over making them prone to stick and carrot goals, do this and do that and you get to have sex. Then once they have lost respect for that process, they have become sexual addicts for life since there is no way to stop it once it starts. The governments of our world understand this on a conceptual level and it is the heart of the open border concept—the intention is to hold mankind to this basic animal level behavior so that they will remain all their lives easily controlled below the line thinkers. And in this relationship, pedophilia to them is a moral endeavor because it feeds this unity across the world. Destroy a person’s mind and intrinsic motivations getting them to think disfunctionally about sex and they will be controlled all their lives as below the line thinkers.

The Democrat strategy as it has been shaped by their donors, wealthy contributors like George Soros and many, many others is to accelerate this conduct of destroying people’s intrinsic motivations and making them into stick and carrot below the line thinkers all their lives, so the sex, the rapes, the child trafficking is all part of the plan. The illegal drugs are intended to poison American society and to rob thought from entire generations which is happening currently, so Trump is correct, the whole thing is a humanitarian crisis. But to Nancy Pelosi, she doesn’t want to think about her responsibility to that crises because her party is committed to perpetuating it. As below the line thinkers, they are committed to making more people that way. It is their party platform if you really get down to it. So this fight isn’t just about political ideology, it is a fight between good and evil, evil being below the line, good being above. It’s about preserving intrinsic motivations as opposed to growing up as addicts of stick and carrot rewards where no matter how much you reach for goals the stick is placed just beyond your reach all your life by unseen controllers who operate within the political spectrum. And the carrot is usually sexual in nature and can never be filled through an entire life. And when a 55-year-old man buys a sexual slave from one of these smugglers coming across the American border from Mexico the robbing of intrinsic value from the child is encouraged, not thwarted because the goal from the beginning is to take away hope so that only the world’s governments can provide safe haven and thus provide those thus employed to have all the power in the world and to gain the ability to hold the sticks that are meant to control us all—all our lives. That is what is at stake and what this fight is really about.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Nature of Intrinsic Value: Why Nancy Pelosi comes out looking like a phony while Trump does genuine

Its one thing to identify below the line thinkers and to associate them with losers, but what’s needed is to understand what makes them the way they are. Why are they losers just for thinking in a negative way aspects of their existence which brings everyone else down? A few great examples are the current teacher’s strike in California, the government shut down and the Nancy Pelosi desire to keep Donald Trump from giving his State of the Union Speech in Congress. Can anybody imagine what would have happened if Republicans controlling congress had not invited Barack Obama to give the State of the Union speech? And that’s kind of the heart of the matter, losers are people who are functioning all the time below the line, and usually the reason they are in that position is because they have lost their intrinsic value for the things they do in life. People who only do things for money for instance are creepy because we recognize that they are not driven toward accomplishments that are aligned with their intrinsic values for their part in economic activity.

I have been going through old notes of late to solve current problems that were conquered long ago, but in the wake of current circumstances, have great meaning. In that regard I have been thinking of Daniel Pink’s work in the great book Drive, which explores the relationship that people have with intrinsic value versus carrot type motivations. For instance, since many people wonder about it, this blog site is an intrinsic state for me. I love writing, but I do it for free to the public because the value of it personally exceeds what anybody would pay for it. This leaves my motivations a mystery to people who are still functioning from the point of view that financial rewards are the only reasons that people do what they do. In that book Pink uses the example of Microsoft building a fantastic encyclopedia with many of the great minds of our day as paid contributors. I remember that project, I loved it. But along comes Wikipedia which has unpaid contributors building the whole thing and that business model beat over time the Microsoft encyclopedia concept. As the Internet has matured it has unlocked much more of mankind’s intrinsic desires than the predictable modes of thinking that preceded this current revolution. These days YouTube videos done by amateurs are outperforming large feature films and television broadcasts because the intrinsic value is undeniable. When people do things because they love them, it shows and people quickly gravitate toward the passions that come from those products.

To put it in a more proper context, currently there was some controversial comments by Donald Trump about the nature of Nancy Pelosi continuing to get a check from the government during the shutdown. The reason it scored points with people was that people understand President Trump is intrinsically invested in the job as president. He is currently not taking a salary and when the Clemson football champions came to visit the White House Trump bought them all hamburgers out of his own pocket which set off a firestorm of anxiety. Trump in the eyes of below the line losers had committed the worst kind of crime, he had blown their cover story all these years. Nancy Pelosi would never dream of giving up her salary as Speaker of the House because she is not functioning in her job from the perspective of intrinsic power. For her the financial compensation and the power that comes with it is very important to her, because she is personally lacking intrinsic value, so the monetary compensation is a motivating tool for her. But as we know from the book Drive, typical carrot type motivations are not the driver of human behavior in a positive way, in fact, it usually gets you worse results because intrinsic value is pushed out of consideration making the overall product produced inferior, and too expensive. On the other hand, Trump loves his job and it shows, his intrinsic value as President is something people can relate to, especially in this modern age where intrinsic value is being unlocked in the increased freedoms that technology is bringing us. You don’t have to go through the New York publishers if you want to be a writer in 2020. All you have to do is have the intrinsic value to do so and a site like this one will outperform a typical news and opinion site by a factor of 1000s because the paid writers aren’t doing what they are doing out of intrinsic value for the subject.

That’s why teacher strikes these days have lost their power. We are living in a time where education can easily be done online and by less than human resources. A striking overpaid teacher only demonstrates to the public that they don’t have intrinsic value for the children in their care which is a major turnoff to any voter. Many people these days may be photographers, artist or independent researchers due to the freedoms that online activity and smart phones have given them. While they may have jobs that pay them money and thus their bills, their real intrinsic value is often in their recreational activities. National Geographic may not be paying them to be elite photographers, but modern photo taking is made much easier allowing people with an intrinsic desire to photograph the world to do so without all the special skills that used to be required and the path to a paycheck that used to be associated with that endeavor. Intrinsic value has always been there, but it has only been recently where technology made personal preferences much more of an option that humans started expecting those choices to be part of their everyday lives.

When it is wondered why people are more interested in their smart phones than in the real world with real people in them it’s because the customization that is afforded to modern smart phone users gives people more intrinsic options than the real world typically does so its more interesting to them. People more than ever are driven by intrinsic needs more than financial ones and that is an aspect of these government shutdowns that just isn’t being covered. People don’t have much sympathy for workers striking or marching in protest because they aren’t getting a paycheck because it shows a victim status of below the line thinking which in the new age of intrinsic motivations is increasingly a negative impression. If someone is off work or not getting paid, then they are free to do what they really enjoy, and that is what the public sees more and more. That’s why Trump was popular in spite of the government shutdown while Nancy Pelosi comes out looking more and more phony, because she is functioning from motivations that are not aligned with intrinsic value. It’s good to get paid for the things you do, but if you are only doing them to make money, people are quick to think of such people as a phony because they have options in life to exhibit intrinsic value, but instead of functioning from that vantage point, they are complaining about what they don’t have and why they don’t have it. And nobody likes that type of person which is a newly identified condition of our present circumstances.

Rich Hoffman

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

Professionals are Predicting a GDP Loss over the Government Shutdown: I think not

It is interesting that many investment firms and others connected to the financial world are predicting zero GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019 due to the government shutdown. I am not so sure that will be the case, in fact, consider what might happen should we discover that GDP growth remained at 3% to 4% in spite of 800,000 government workers stuck in limbo over the budget problem between the Trump White House and House Democrats who are refusing to make any concessions on a border wall. Gas prices are lower than they’ve been in years, taxes are lower and money is flowing quite robustly. If the GDP doesn’t fall as many are predicting, what would that do to future leverage that Democrats have over government shutdowns? What would happen once people realize that the government working or not doesn’t affect them very much and where it does, new methods of service should already be in place to prevent a loss in services.

Let’s face it, much of this “no work extortion” was designed by government labor unions to make it painful for voters to not pay for government services, by attaching very static services to consumer needs without regard to economic expansion. Actually, the goal of GDP stagnation was always the hope because it forced people to continue paying taxes and extraordinary fees for government workers in an inflated fashion just because people didn’t want to deal with the loss in services. But we live in the day of the smart phone, of Amazon where you can get anything anywhere at any time. Why should government be able to impede goods and services artificially—and why should a loser like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi be able to use a government shutdown as a means of bringing the American economy to a halt?

In reality, I don’t think the world cares about the shutdown. I don’t think the GDP of the United States will even notice—in one report I heard one of the reasons given was that government workers weren’t flying around doing business and that would account for a loss in GDP. Well, with fuel prices down and more expendable income in people’s pockets, I don’t think any of those losses in government transportation is going to amount to much and will easily be offset by the civilian sectors. So where is all this loss in GDP going to come from? Government doesn’t make anything and what they do interact with shouldn’t stop productivity from happening except where they have been artificially inserted by law, as opposed to a genuine need by market forces.

As I have been saying for many years, the socialism that has been taught in our public schools is hitting a critical juncture, many of those little kids are now in the market and interacting with the world, and socialism is very much their political platform. You can see that easily by some of the new members of congress. Additionally, many of the new Democrat 2020 presidential candidates are openly socialist and talking about confiscating businesses to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who want it. They are openly talking about these things these days instead of hiding it. I think that is because of Trump’s victory in 2016, it forced the radicals working in our government to accelerate their long time plans and the same thing is happening in regard to this government shutdown. There is a race to make the final case for socialism before people discover that everything they have been taught their whole lives in public education was a lie. The election in 2020 is really the last time that socialists are going to have a shot in the United States before people realize that the economy is much better off under capitalist influence rather than centralized socialist mechanisms by incompetent insurgents.

That is after all how so many government jobs were placed in the way of the free market, to hopefully stop an economy if the government led by some conservative radical wanted to shut it down to make a point. The safety valve would be to wreck the economy and prevent conservatives from ever doing such a thing in the future. But what if conservatives stuck together and forced the revelation of such a scheme to be known with continued growth of the GDP even during a government shutdown? Then what happens? Of course, the answer is that government doesn’t really do anything to help our economy, it actually hinders it. With government out-of-the-way, the GDP should increase and that is the big secret that nobody wants to let out to the public. And with the market watchers leveraging their investments knowing the world of government and how much pain it can give them, they are saying all the things to make the beast happy and off their backs. But they know that free market forces unleashed will continue to expand the GDP of a nation, not whether government workers are there to stand in the way.

At the heart of this debate is the role government plays in the economy, socialists want to think of the government as a major employer, capitalists want the government out of their way as much as possible. That means that for the first time in American history we are about to learn to what extent the government actually plays in the economy because we have a president who actually understands economics, better than any advisors in the matter. And we’ll see how it turns out, but I’ll make a prediction, I don’t think its going to make much difference. The economy has a lot of money flowing through it, the trade deals that are being made are generating revenue for the American treasury and China is drowning currently. Instead of all that money flowing into their economy, its flowing into the American economy and that is something that the big government types just can’t bring themselves to an admission. The issue has a duel cut for them, first it shows that the communist Chinese were never as powerful as everyone had projected them to be, and second, it shows that government really doesn’t have any power. Government is not the king makers that liberals had always dreamed of, a free market system can’t be stifled when pure economics are applied.

Only when artificial constraints are placed on the ambitions of a nation’s GDP can an economy really be stifled to a zero sum. And Trump knows better than to buy that line of dialogue. He’s holding out so that the truth can be witnessed and when it is, then what? What will Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer say on that day in March and April when it’s revealed that GDP actually was not impacted by the government shutdown. What happens in the future then? The answer is that the extortion racket will lose its bite and I would think we’d all be happy for that. Except for those who want to see a government dominating all aspects of life. Their illusion will be crushed by such a revelation. That is what I’m predicting will happen, and as President Trump waits out the storm, I would be willing to bet that he knows it too.

Rich Hoffman

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

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.