Nancy Pelosi is such a Below the Line Person: Why neckties matter

Like all typical below the line people Nancy Pelosi was leaving Washington D.C. again over the same weekend that Trump provided a path forward on the border wall funding and ending the government shutdown. It was also happening has she left on her plane at Ronald Reagan airport that the Robert Mueller investigation denied an element of the Michael Cohen testimony, so the news wires were on fire with speculation and below the line theories. George W. Bush was delivering pizzas to federal workers amid the shutdown and made calls to end the politics that were causing the shutdown, however everyone including the former president showed vast ignorance as to what was the cause of all the issues, and understanding that it wasn’t politics, but rather below the line thinking that was fleeing responsibility at every juncture that was the real villain. And President Trump was behaving like the leader we all expect him to be in the middle of it. The issue wasn’t one of politics, it was about true intrinsic values and whether people were operating above the line or below.

What is the value of a necktie for men, a nice Trump tie for instance, one that costs over $200? We live in a time where neckties are not common in most office environments, but I have decided to go against that curve, I wear one every day—although usually I’m the only one. There has been a trend to wear in business an open neck polo shirt or even a button up with the top button undone, but no tie because it was essentially a measure to appease the below the line people and make work and business environments not so intimidating. To me the neck tie represents at least an attempt to indicate that as a productive individual that I am going to function as an above the line person. It makes it much easier for other people to understand where you are coming from when you dress to indicate that you are an above the line person. Intrinsically, Donald Trump understands this notion and the Trump brand including neckties serves as a backdrop to above the line thinking, which is well-known in business, but not so much in the realm of political theater. It should be noted that Donald Trump always wears a tie in nearly every media picture ever taken of him. This is because he understands this idea which was proposed in The Oz Principle. Not that neckties indicated that successful people were in the room, but that above the line thinking was needed more in the business world for it to succeed. Now that Trump, who had been very successful in business had decided to mix that thinking with the political world it was having an impact and his above the line thinking was challenging even the basic assumptions of the previous order, and people really didn’t know what to do with it.

In the case of the Mueller investigation, a couple of things are going on, the friend of my enemy is my friend kind of thing has taken the edge off quite a lot, but still Trump’s nomination of William Barr was a very above the line type of thing to do and it shows just how smart President Trump really is. While the media is questioning every little thing that Trump does as being mean-spirited and laced with malice it is only from their below the line perspective that they make such comments. Their hatred of the President comes from their desire to remain unfocused and hiding their evil behind chaos. But Trump has ripped away their covers causing them to hate him, and he really doesn’t care. Trump finally has a real attorney general who will prevent law and order from being influenced by below the line thinking. The law is the law and even people wearing neck ties are prone to evil, but stop the influence of below the line thinking into the realm of law and order it looks that William Barr will be able to do that and this decision on Friday night to comment on the nature of the Michael Cohen case is the first step. Law and order should always be above the line and that clearly was not the case at the FBI during James Comey’s management, and of course there is great fear from the below the line people that they will be discovered if above the line perspectives return to Washington politics, but so what. It needs to happen.

Corruption and putting up with it is a very below the line aspect to human nature, and the crimes of our moment are clear. Nancy Pelosi has been playing her part in it and she has no desire to really take Trump up on his challenges and to solve anything. The purpose of the chaos is to hide the malice that has been always there, so the hatred of Trump is like that of a child hiding under their covers and being mad at their parents for ripping away the sheets and telling them to go to school even if they don’t feel very good. Being liked isn’t important, but being right is, and to determine right from wrong requires value judgments which have been missing. Even to the point where our modern culture has attempted to influence our business methods in not even wearing neckties in public so that below the line slobs can hide themselves in society more effectively. By not allowing such a thing to go on, Trump has made himself the most hated person among below the line thinkers but what does he care. Life goes on whether or not the below the line types are participating.

Leadership is an above the line concept. Flying around vacationing in Hawaii while budget problems loomed, or traveling to Puerto Rico to hang out with lobbyists while the government was shut down were very below the line things to do. Then wanting to take a government plane to a tour of Europe during the same period shows just how below the line Nancy Pelosi truly is. Her only real desire was to gain the seat of Speaker, but she wanted nothing to do with the real responsibility of holding that seat because of her below the line thinking. That leaves her completely vulnerable to negotiating with an above the line thinker who doesn’t grovel at every little press pun. He can play them better than her and has been during the entire shut down leaving her looking really bad. But that wasn’t on purpose, it is just a byproduct of a below the line thinker standing next to an above the line person, the two aren’t equal and do not need to compromise with each other for the benefit of politics. Politics itself needs to come to grips with the true nature of this entire issue, below the line people do not mix with above the line, conflict will occur if these elements are present. And we can’t run a country with it being run by below the line people. So there isn’t anywhere from the below the line types to go, except to either get out-of-the-way, or be run over. That’s the way it is in business, and that’s the way its going to be in politics. Nature demands it, and so, thus it must become as such.

Rich Hoffman

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

It’s Not Sophomoric: It’s a matter of life and death–Trump is their last chance at peace, I hope they take it

Trump’s grounding of Pelosi’s plane sparks political outcry” one sophomoric response does not deserve another” was the headline at Fox News and was repeated from the mountaintops of every other publication. Well, yes, of course it does. Anybody who suggest otherwise is smoking crack. You can’t negotiate with below the line thinkers who have lost their intrinsic motivations in life. It’s impossible for people of value to contribute anything useful to a loser if that loser insists on being a loser. Nancy Pelosi started the whole thing by suggesting that the president cancel his State of the Union speech because of the government shut down. This after she already poked the fence by offering only one dollar for the border wall. Then she and many in her caucus flew down to Puerto Rico to attend a play with lobbyists. She then flew back in town and tried to appeal to the 800,000 workers who weren’t receiving a pay check before embarking on another European tour while the shutdown loomed without any negotiations toward a border wall or even reopening government. That’s not how the world works Nancy. Not even close.

Of course, an eye for an eye is appropriate, it should be expected. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a loser trying to empower more losers like Nancy Pelosi to have more power than she should or deserves. As my representative in this great republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!)—(people keep calling our system of government a Democracy when that’s not what it is)—Trump is behaving exactly the way I want him to. I don’t want to be pushed around by loser below the line thinkers and for the first time in my lifetime, except for maybe when Reagan stopped the air traffic control strike—I have a president behaving the way I want him to representing me in the White House. I want someone who fights back against the loser mindset, because I’m tired of people like Nancy Pelosi playing these games and winning because everyone else insists on taking the “high ground.” Below the line thinkers cannot be allowed to rule above the line thinking with a seat at the table. When she tried to stop the State of the Union speech at the House of Representatives, she invited this response for which Trump acted perfectly.

The closet that Republicans ever game to winning against loser Democrats in one of these shutdowns was in the 90s when Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole tried to stand up to Bill Clinton. The Republicans blinked first and it was embarrassing, so much so that when I had a chance to meet Newt during the 2016 campaign, I didn’t have much to say to him. I enjoy his news commentary but generally view him as a loser because he was beaten in the 90s when he was Speaker of the House during that shutdown. My wife was still so angry over it that she refused to even shake Newt’s hand, so we are not come latelys on this topic. Republicans typically represent above the line thinking by their nature, Democrats below. The two are not equal and if below the line thinkers are led to believe that they are, then they will have leverage in negotiations every time, and Republicans will always lose because just like in mathematics if you multiply a zero by a valued sum, you still get zero. Below the line thinkers cannot contribute anything to a negotiation because their positions are always loser ones, they are always a sum of zero. They always want to spend more money, erode the Constitution more by their positions, they always want to destroy what we have so that their below the line positions can be covered by value which is constantly eroding.

Trump clearly has the right to ground her military plane for a public relations exercise when he has done the very above the line thing by staying at the White House showing that he was willing to negotiate all along with the House of Representatives over the border wall funding. And I’m glad he did it. Very glad! To my way of thinking Nancy Pelosi and her House socialists can get it this way or through violence. I haven’t written much about the new socialist radical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because I view her as just a stupid young kid. But if she thinks she’s going to rally a bunch of stinky millennials to a national gun grab and tax expansion bringing socialism openly to our capitalist nation, well she’s in for a fight much worse than just grounding Nancy Pelosi’s European vacation. And we’ll have far worse than a government shutdown. We’ll have an armed insurrection that rivals the previous civil war in this country, and a lot of people will get hurt. I don’t go around looking for violence but if these new House socialists in the Democrat party think they are going to take over our government without violence and shots fired, they are living in a fantasy world. It ain’t going to happen, let me put it that way. They can talk tough in the city streets of Seattle and New York, but step into the heartland in Kentucky and start rattling cages and empty cars will return to Washington D.C. and the Beltway types will cry into their lattés. I can promise that.

Trump was elected by me and people like me to do this very kind of thing, to stop Democrats from taking over our government and to sift out the RINO Republicans who had been giving up above the line thinking so they could negotiate with below the line thinking. I didn’t hire Trump to negotiate with Nancy Pelosi. I hired him to destroy her. Not because she’s a bad person, which she is—she’s a bad person because she’s a below the line thinker that has lost her intrinsic passions which makes her a social menace. It makes anybody functioning from those attributes a similar menace, it’s not just because she’s a woman or anything, it’s just her character. And now she is the leader of many such characters, and she has made a move against my president and ultimately me. So she needs to be slapped down and I’d go so far to say, destroyed. Have no illusions about it, below the line people cannot be negotiated with. They do not have an equal seat at the table in our “democracy.” We don’t even have a democracy. We have a representative republic and Trump is my representative. He’s been staying in the White House to negotiate wall funding and he’s not there to play games. It’s for the health and safety of all involved to listen to him because if he isn’t successful, and law and order doesn’t prevail, then people will start getting hurt. I’m not going to allow Democrats to take over my government and plant a socialist takeover of our capitalist country. How’s that for “sophomoric?


The news outlets assume that the outcome of all this is something we’ve seen before, but I would suggest not. We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of history, Republicans cannot negotiate with Democrats when one side is clearly functioning from above the line thinking and the other, below. When Democrats like Nancy Pelosi play the kind of games they are now, they need to be slapped down so hard that they can never get up again, and that is my message to the president and what I expect him to do on my behalf. If he isn’t successful, which I think he will be, then Nancy will have much bigger problems. So for her own health and safety, she needs to listen to the President and keep her mouth shut. Because the next alternatives are not good for her socialist caucus. We are not in a battle of ideas. We are in a battle of life and death—and there’s a big difference. Law and order protects them, but if they continue to attempt to erode that law and order—then there will be nothing to protect them. Do you get the meaning, “Nancy?”

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.

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.