When you get a Head Shot, Take It: An analysis of the 2019 election

Hindsight is always 20/20 and I think a lot of people did some really good work in the various school board races and school levies that were on the ballot. Everything from the scandal at Lebanon schools where the levy was rejected in May then it was right back on the ballot here in November to the governor election in Kentucky where Matt Bevin lost largely due to the mad mom teacher’s union types. Or the local school board issue in my district where the incumbents won and the needed Republican vote from James Hahn fell short. He did well, but not well enough to knock off Julie Shaffer, the longtime union endorsed candidate, and stooge for contract negotiations. But the summary and what we can learn from this election is something I’ve been saying for a long time. If you get a chance to take a head shot, take the shot, metaphorically speaking of course. When you have the kind of dirt that there was on Julie Shaffer, use it. And we should have.

I’m a little rough in these kinds of things, I think of politics as war and the opponents as our mortal enemies. I don’t see the exchange as a pinky out exercise of politeness where the enemy kills you with kindness every time. That’s not a game I’m interested in playing. And many times, during this campaign that was my advice, but I understand why people didn’t take it. They still want to believe in a system that they’ve grown up with. They aren’t ready to see the education system for what it really is. They have hope that I’m wrong about it all, and for that I understand. As my wife said many times over the last few months, she likes a lot of the opponents and thinks they are nice people. I would say to her, and anybody else who said similar things, “what makes them dangerous is what they think when nobody is looking, when the lights are out. How they think and the content of those thoughts are what make them so dangerous. It’s not the smile on their faces when you shake their hands or listen to them in a polite debate.”

I said more than once during this election season that Julie Shaffer could walk naked down the middle of the street and still get 5000 union votes no matter what. So to beat her it was going to take getting a little dirty, because the union plays dirty. Look at the Bevin case in Kentucky. You must match their zeal, or they will win every time. It probably would have been better to stick Jim next to Lynda closer instead of worrying about whether or not we’d lose both of them. Jim needed more name recognition and some bigger splash stories. Votes after all went for the candidates voters read about here and there over time. They didn’t have enough information to change behavior at Lakota schools, so they voted for what was safe.

A lot of people hoped that the proof that the Lakota school board had been involved in an extortion case with a local developer, and the proof of that evidence being released with a letter would help pro-business candidates like Jim get enough votes to win. He had a respectable showing, but the issue was too complicated for most voters to understand. Most voters don’t own businesses even if they do appreciate them. Voters need more meat and potatoes, not gold bricks. The gold brick may be far more valuable, but if nobody knows what to do with it, it’s just a hunk of metal. The other side has the “children” narrative, so any opposition to them must be just as powerful and something people can relate to. Once you start talking over their heads you may not lose voters, but new ones won’t be inspired to get off their couch to vote. The labor union and their families were, because they want a nice big paycheck off that $100 million surplus.

I don’t normally do Facebook because I think its an evil data collection service that is geared to low intelligence induced people, but it is the center of most social commentary. And several people sent me Facebook postings of election activity and in reading them and the comments of many people it was amazing how deceitful people truly are. And that’s where I draw the line between good and evil. Most of the people I know in politics are good people, and in the business community. They want to do the right things in spite of the climate they are trying to do them in. I do want to help people like that because I like to see good win out. However, there are people who are truly evil, and they work in the school system and they have no idea why I would think of them that way. But they are and they should feel some pain for their villainy. Now I have defined that evil in many places, including some of my own published work in addition to these millions and millions of words. It’s not a definition a lot of people feel comfortable with, but its there, nonetheless. Its not hard for me to come to the conclusion that in politics sometimes when you get the head shot, you should take it. The one who flinches is usually the one who loses. The other side has no problem with taking a head shot, and that is why they win. Voters vote for winners good or evil. They vote for who they think will be victorious and as a candidate, if you are on your heels, they’ll pick up on it and it will show in the voter results—most of the time.

The only thing holding Republicans back is niceness. They are nice people who truly want to do the right things. From my experience, they don’t deserve many of the attacks thrown at them, and too often, they are the ones who end up on the defense for something they never did. The public education system is not only built by the worst of the villains, but its whole purpose is to make more of them which is something everyone should come to terms with if they ever want to fix it. At Lakota, things will stay the same for now, but to improve it, we needed that third vote. For the other regional fights that went in the wrong direction, well, that is always part of the plan when there are union backed candidates on the board spending the money like there is no tomorrow. And what they are teaching kids isn’t what we might call education, its something far worse and much more radical.

The next time we do these things, just some advice, play to win, hit harder and if you have dirt, use it and crush your opponent. Forget about all this playing nice stuff. Forget the handshakes, the polite debates and the trivial nonsense. Where we did play hard, and the candidates couldn’t come up for air, victory was certainly there. But why not do that in every circumstance, especially when the issue is placed right before your feet. My wife doesn’t agree, but as I was telling her last night, morality is defined by those who are victorious. Right and wrong are largely a condition of political theater, what is truly moral or not is much more obscure, and philosophical. Its not a good person who pretends to be nice but supports an organization of anti-capitalist tyranny. The smiles and bridge building are worthless in that context. So, in the future keep that in mind, and don’t hold back so much. Play to win, and to crush your opponents so much, that they will never dare to get up again.

 

Rich Hoffman

Its all about Guns in Lakota Schools: Remember to vote for Lynda O’Connor and Jim Hahn for School Board on November 5th

From the beginning it was always about guns for me regarding the school board candidates at the Lakota school district which we are voting for on November 5th, 2019. Not so much as we use guns to shoot people, but that they sustain ourselves from people who would like to shoot us. The political philosophy being embraced or not really, points to the essential differences of the management system that is up for debate. Julie Shaffer and Ray Murray represent anti-guns on teacher’s points of view, exactly the same position as the teacher’s union and Democrats nationally. The roots of their belief system is that we should all depend on each other, flaws and all for the betterment of a utopian society lacking individual identity and trusting in the system we have invented to sustain us. As opposed to Lynda O’Connor and James Hahn who believe guns should be worn by teachers as first responders in the moment of a hostile crises and that individuals, not systems, are the keys to solving many of the social ills starting with the ownership of firearms in general.

To further break down this parody Julie and Ray want voters to trust their very flawed personalities with the lives of our children, and that also is the position of the progressive teacher’s union politically. Once anybody admits to themselves that guns are in American society, and should be in all American schools, to protect the acquisition of individual possession then the formula for all public education to teach contrary realizations is exposed and ruined forever. So of course, Julie and Ray don’t want guns on teachers, they want everyone to trust the system they represent, and to their specific roles, are terribly underqualified. However, qualification is an individual assessment, so for them, so long as they can blend into the background, their personal faults ethically, financially, and morally can be ignored.

This interpretation of guns is a heady matter that is not conducive to the lazy thinkers and mass collectivists that have transcended from the deserts of the Middle East and migrated along the coasts of the Indian Ocean during the evolution of the many oriental religions of sacrifice and collective salvation. The gun has no place in those cultures because the aim of life is not to acquire individual traits, but to get rid of them. If you study the modern liberal, that is the roots that you will find dear reader, and that is the foundation of all teacher unions and government schools. Every single one of them. And when it comes to managing those school boards with like minded people, Julie and Ray are just the kind of people they want running things, easy to beat, flawed personalities, and not very smart.

In fact, at the core of education as we all assume is the individual attainment of intelligence, after all that is the purpose of education, to acquire knowledge. But that is not the goal of government schools led by these sinister, oriental style forces. They want a breakdown of individualism and an advocacy of social collectivism where the institution is worshipped itself, not the participants. You can see that at any Friday Night Football game at Lakota. The parents in the audience watching their kids play games under the lights of an October sky will say, “we won,” or “we lost.” By attending the game, they feel they are part of the game and therefor, the institution represented on the scoreboard. Individual touchdowns by heroics are lost to the next day news so long as the school gets the credit for individual behavior. And that is the way it is with these people, and it always has been.

So to come to such thoughts is a very individualized process, and for that people arriving at such a state need guns to protect themselves from the advocates of institutionalism, whether the attackers are crazed pot smoking lunatics or Manchurian candidates seeking actual assassination to preserve the status quo. You would be surprised to what extent lazy, dull; people will fight to avoid more work and real thinking. They would truly rather kill you than to step up to the level of thought you might introduce them to with a little effort. To that proof I would offer Socrates as an example, who was poisoned for corrupting the youth of Greek society. Today instead of killing Socrates as a middle-aged man they just kill them before they ever hatch out of kindergarten. The public schools don’t want the next great philosophers, and great thinkers and innovators. They want boring people that they can control easily, and they certainly don’t want them to have guns to defend themselves with.

Ultimately that is why teachers in school must have guns and why we need school board members who support education curriculums that advocate individualized learning and will push back against the tide of state and federal mandates to the contrary. We want kids to learn in school and we want guns to protect what they have learned from villains of old oriental philosophies from eradicating that possession from their minds with the threat of death. Guns protect all individualized possessions, even knowledge. Anyone who knows history well could think quickly of five or six situations where governments, kings, or anarchists have shown up on the doorsteps of a great thinker and killed them so that society would not advance beyond the intellectual reach of the worst and most wicked. For that is the true intention of evil and the reason it is bad.

Guns are about preserving what we teach to individual students so that they can live and carry out the products of their understanding. Not in just saving their lives for the sake of one more statistic sitting in the stands of a football game cheering for the institution when they could be at home reading a book and getting smarter. The goal of a school should not be to accept the perverted sexual understanding of the most obsessed mind with the basic functions of reproduction, but to teach them to think beyond such primitive cravings, to the point where we don’t even think about being transgender, but what is the state of life outside of the universe, or multiverse. It is up to the education system to teach to think beyond limits, not to hold everyone under them.

And that is the subtle message of this election, Lynda O’Conner and James Hahn stand for guns and the protection of individual possession of knowledge, Julie Shaffer and Ray Murray aren’t even smart enough to ask such a question, so they don’t want to be left behind by smarter people than they are, rather they want to keep guns out of the schools, and instead keep the topics of conversation on transgender bathrooms and how to blow $100 million by paying teachers countless amounts of money then asking taxpayers to subsidize their failure at some future time. By voting against guns in schools and in society, anti-gun personalities like Ray and Julie stand with the original masses in disregarding individual behavior in favor of collectivism. And when you see how Ray and Julie have led their lives, you can understand why they are so eager for such a position.

Rich Hoffman

Pot Smoking and Ray Murray: The school board candidate who wants to shoot teachers if they have a gun

The Ray Murray I knew back in 2011 was nowhere to be found at the VOA Miami University debate on October 22, 2019 for potential school board candidates. I always thought Ray was a nice guy, but the person speaking at that event sounded like a drug induced lunatic. Suspicious of the things he said that night it became clear thereafter that there was a good reason. Under Case Number 0000477720 Ray looks to have been convicted of possession of marijuana and had to serve a year of probation. After seeing that, I would normally doubt that such a report would be accurate. So I checked it with two different sources and, after watching him in action and looking scraggly and worn out in ways I wouldn’t normally associate with him, there is good reason to believe it and then some. He sounded like a guy on drugs as he opened the door to scrutiny by talking about his years as a Chicago police officer and a champion for transgender politics. He painted himself for an election to be a virtuous person, but reality has something else to say.

Here is the problem with electing people with serious issues into a budgetary position, once they are compromised, whether it is in several broken marriages, drug use, being a cop and being scared of being shot at, people like that tend to side with the worst that our society produces. While its fine to feel sorry for them, and if they find meaning in life in a church by becoming some definition of a pastor, we should cheer them on for recovery. But we should not sit them down and ask them to control a budget of nearly $200 million while sitting on a cash surplus of over $100 million. If we did, we should expect all that money to go up in smoke just like any other pot smoking loser. Compassion is one thing, endorsing failure with elections however is something else.

I would go further and say that anybody who does drugs of any kind, even drinking is a cause to not vote for someone onto a school board. And Ray isn’t the only one guilty of this kind of scandalous behavior. I would say that his partners of liberalism on the school board have done far, far worse. Should we talk about it, well let’s just say, we don’t want to embarrass their children, although I would argue that honesty dictate that we should. When we vote for someone to represent us on a school board, or a trustee, commissioner, representative, senator, anything, we need to know what we are voting for. If we decide we want to vote for flawed people, then that’s fine. We shouldn’t be surprised when those flawed people get bad results, but at least we know what we are voting for. If Ray needs help with drugs, lets get him help. But that doesn’t mean we should put him in charge of millions of dollars.

Compromised people tend to look for redemption in public acts, which is why a lot of liberals are dangerous. People like Ray Murray and Julie Shaffer are so compromised with embarrassing things that they have done in their lives that they are looking for redemption with elected office, and they are using taxpayer funded resources to cover their weaknesses. Because they want compassion for the ways they have lived their lives, they are quick to support topics like transgender policies so that they can hide in the crowd and get redemption. They vote in favor of the teacher’s union because they need a cover story of friends to hide their own weaknesses behind with a big banner above their heads stating that nobody is perfect, lets show some compassion for the downtrodden. That sounds fine coming from a church pew on Sunday, but in the world of money, finance and education, it has no place. People who live their lives clean and don’t drink themselves into oblivion or smoke a bunch of dope to forget about all their problems in life, should be in charge of things and have the public trust. And if they get caught doing bad things, we may not blast them out of a cannon and forget about them. We may give them a second chance at life, but certainly we wouldn’t elect them to a board to handle a multimillion-dollar budget.

Being likeable isn’t the same thing as being logical and cool headed when tough decisions need to be made. One thing that must be considered when we are talking about school board candidates that have shown mental instability, and drunkenness and smoking pot or elements of both conditions, is that upon election we give them a badge to get into any building within Lakota. If they are depressed about something who is to say that some drug dealer selling them a bag of pot won’t get a hold of that badge and use it to get into any school building on a rampage of violence, the kind of potential tragedy that we have all been talking about. What was it that Ray said at the debate, that if a teacher had a gun, he would want the police officer to shoot the teacher? Yes, that’s what he said, does that sound like a person who has it all together? Yet his only answer to the problem is to trust the system, yet what if one of these loose cannon school board members ends up drunk and passed out somewhere and someone gets a hold of their badge so they can get into any school? No matter how much we spend on security, you can’t prepare a school to defend stupid and reckless behavior on behalf of the school board members.

Many think its hip and cool to have pot smokers and drunks on the school board. But its no wonder that they always seek institutional support because if something goes wrong, its likely going to be their fault and they want to always reserve the right to hide their faults behind good intentions, such as transgender support and spending that $100 million surplus on give-a-ways to keep anybody from looking too deeply at them. Of course, the teacher’s union wants compromised people on the board of education, because it makes it easier for them to defeat the board upon contract negotiations. When we elect school board members, we are electing our representatives. The teacher’s union has their representatives and they stick together. We elect ours with these elections, so why would we want to vote for anybody who has a union endorsement? We shouldn’t. Then we must ask why the union is endorsing them. Well, the answer to that is that they think they are easy to beat in contract negotiations. If you are the teacher’s union, would you rather go up against a tough business person like James Hahn and Lynda O’Connor, or some dude caught with pot or a person who can’t hold their liquor in public and ends up in compromising positions, all too often. The answer is obvious.

Its not wrong to want to help someone like Ray who no matter what has gone on in his life is at least getting up and trying to do better each day. But when there are problems managing marriages, money in his personal finances, and with substance abuse, then why should we think he can protect his badge from some malicious personality, and to protect our budget surplus. He’s ready to spend all of that $100 million over a 38-year period and to shoot teachers when cops come to a school during a mass incident if they have a gun. Ray might be a good neighbor and a nice guy to go to church with, but he clearly has trouble understanding money and cannot take a strong position on ethical decisions. Being one of the misfit toys out in the world does not make him a good representative of our school board. And feeling sorry for someone is not a qualification to make management decisions.

Rich Hoffman

‘Joker’ Movie Review: The best movie that should have never been made, Todd Phillips owns the next mass killing

My impression of the Joker film by Todd Phillips is that it is the best movie that should have never been made. It was brilliantly directed, edited, and written. The acting was fantastic. The cinematography, the soundtrack, all the technical parts of the movie were just superior. And from the vantage point of the Hollywood bubble it was an interesting insight into how they view the world, so its worth seeing. I think everyone should see the Joker, especially since it is now out there in the world. To put it mildly, I loved hating it. At the end of the film I felt as if Hollywood had slapped me in the face and tried to steal from me and I wanted to lash out at them. But I was grateful for the insight into their minds, because that was very valuable. Joker is that kind of film. It was the most articulate exploration in film of mental illness that I can think of in any movie, and it stacks up with some of the great movie classics in film quite boldly. But with all that effort to tell the story of a mentally ill person who has fallen through the cracks the way countless homeless people do in real life, the point of the movie was to insight revolution on the scale that launched communism in the streets of St. Petersburg in 1917. The film is quite bold in making that announcement and the way Todd Phillips presented the movie, it was a cry for action into other mentally ill people who are out there stuck between the cracks. He made this movie for the anti-Trump ANTIFA types and was trying to do nothing short of provoking an insurrection of anarchy in our city streets using this movie as the guidepost. The next mass shooting that happens I personally will place the blame at the feet of Todd Phillips, the writers and director of this masterpiece of chaos and destruction.

A few years ago, a movie like this would never have been made, and most studios would have inserted some logic into the director’s view of this story to protect the corporate image of Warner Bros. But in these Trump hating days of the Hollywood bubble, the producers and studio executives hate President Trump as much as Todd Phillips obviously does. When Madonna threatened to blow up the White House with Trump in it during her famous speech that got her into all kinds of trouble, Hollywood allowed Phillips, Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro to make their anti-Trump films exactly the way they wanted to without restriction, and to make a splash around the world that would put an end to elections where people like Trump were getting elected. At the end of the Joker, Joaquin Phoenix is dancing on top of a police car as ANTIFA type terrorists dressed in Joker masks are burning everything in the city streets with a mob worshiping him while all the action was in slow motion and playing to a seventies inspired soundtrack trying to tap into the hippie days of that volatile period of American history. They weren’t shy about it, kill the rich, because they have it coming.

Yet I saw in it beyond the brilliance of the story to the real mental illness of the Democrat Party itself which was on full display. The story of the Joker complains about inequality and government funding for mental health to extreme degrees, and quite effective from their liberal perspective. I will say not to embarrass her, but my wife cried hard at the end of the movie and she spent a considerable amount of time talking to the theater attendants about how she couldn’t believe that people hated America so much as the filmmakers of the Joker. They of course were kids and had no idea what she was talking about. But she couldn’t stop herself. The hatred shown in this movie was just too much for her and she couldn’t believe people were so deranged from reality. Most people I observed left the theater not in such a state as they were better at concealing their feelings, but they weren’t happy. One of the best examples of that mentally ill view of the world was where Zazie Beetz’s character knocked on the door of Arthur Fleck’s apartment wanting to know if he was following her around the city stalking her. She was a very pretty woman and the fantasy of the left is that such a young lady would be in such a dire straight and even asking out such a loser as Fleck on a date. In the real-world Sophie Dumond would use her looks to land a nice mate with a good job, not some stringy haired loser without any money. In the real-world beautiful women like Zazie might care about people like Fleck, but they certainly wouldn’t date them. The movie Joker is filled with these little idealistic homages that if analyzed correctly show the true insanity of the movie’s viewpoint.

Every liberal assumption about the world was revealed, an extreme hatred of the rich, the need for social programs made by exploring not only the mind of Arthur Fleck but his tragic mother Penny Fleck. And the film goes on to essentially say, there are more crazy people in the world than the rich, contrite, sane, and we outnumber you. Only in reality the mob at the end of the movie comprised of thousands of protestors all dressed in clown masks and in real life, it would be a fraction of that amount. Most of those dumb kids would be home playing Playstation, not out performing Antifa violence. And that radicalism certainly doesn’t have any power to flood over into outside the city limits where space allows people to get away from the rats of mismanaged cities and liberal policy failures. Like the Joker’s girlfriend in the movie, the hope for a mob is just a fantasy, in real life only the real losers would be participating, which is the future of ANTIFA, the Trump impeachment attempts, and the election of 2020. It all makes sense to Todd Phillips and his filmmaker buddies from within the Hollywood bubble. Joker is for them the Democrat fantasy unleashed, and it is good for the rest of us to see it so that we can know how they think.

Even though much of what is in the Joker is interesting, and a fantasy from the liberal point of view, the call to hate filled action cannot be mistaken. To try to hide such intentions behind a comic book character and to call it as a “character study” is beyond reckless. I think people will die because of this movie and violence will become standardized, even justified by real life Arthur Flecks roaming around out there in the world who watch this movie, put on a clown mask and kill people by saying, “you have it coming.” Because you’re rich, beautiful, or even sane and that because they want a world of equally insane people, they have a right to kill you the way the Joker did. A movie like this is dangerous because there was no good guy there to stop the Joker the way that type of insanity is handled in a traditional Batman film, even as it was in Suicide Squad where Batman made a small appearance in the film. This movie had the future Batman only as a victimized little boy, the Joker was unchallenged, and presented in a very romantic fashion that mentally deranged people would certainly find attractive. And I felt it was all very intentional, and an attack on me personally as an American. And for that, I’m just a little pissed off. Yet, happy to see a truth through film that was not quite so obvious before I saw this movie. Its nice to see how the enemy thinks and by his own actions, Todd Phillips made himself an enemy of America with a sheer hatred that not even many terrorists would feel. Which made him the perfect director for this diabolical work of art that is even more vicious than maybe he even intended but was truthful in all its derangement. While its true this movie should have never seen the light of day, it ultimately has, and you should see it. It is what the political left has in mind for our world, and we should all know the truth of that ambition.

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

Americans Love Their Guns Far More Than They Love Their Government: The cost of a Beto O’Rourke gun buyback

I consider even the proposition insulting, but looking at it practically, the ridiculousness of the Beto O’Rourke gun buyback on just “assault weapons” would cost about $20 billion. The amount of money it would take coupled with the manpower of performing the task is by itself staggering. And assuming that most people would cooperate, because they always do, there is a percentage of those who wouldn’t who would make the endeavor impossible. For the greatest military in the world and with trillions of dollars spent, the culture change in Afghanistan and Iran have not changed much. The targets in those conflicts went into hiding and the military struggled to root them out. A gun buyback in the United States would be no easier. It would cause a major civil war and is as impractical as anything ever proposed by government because it attacks the central premise of our entire legal system. Guns are what make America great and there are many, such as myself, who would never support a government that confiscates guns to hold their power.

I am not a fan of the mantras “come and take it” and “over my cold dead hands” because it assumes that we are daring a powerful entity to attack, and assuming that they would win by sheer mass of effort. I never intend to die in such a conflict, or that I am not the superior force. There are over 300 million guns in America and the peer pressure right now is to force retailers like Walmart and Dicks Sporting Goods to pick the pro government confiscation side, and to tax ammunition and to shut down manufactures within America to cut off the supply. That is the Beto O’Rourke view of the world where centralized governments could even garner such power. And they might in the cities where Democrats have ruined the prospects for growth and good human conduct. But outside of the highway loops, and out into the farmland between cities, I know those people well, and let me just say something. No military on earth could take the guns away from those people. And a lot of people would die in the process.

Regarding the Beto O’Rourke t-shirt indicating that he plans to take away the property of the American public in the form of their AR-15s I had to respond by daring him or his campaign to wear that to a stop in Slade, Kentucky, and to see how that goes. Really it could be anywhere USA that is off the path a bit, but I know the area of Slade really well, and understand that even the old grandmothers there are very suspicious of even postal workers and census takers. Try driving into the neighborhoods of Slade with military vehicles and national guard troops with the intentions of confiscating their guns and a blood bath would be quick to follow. They would probably beat the shit out of pot-boy Beto just for wearing that shirt in their community. I think it would be very entertaining for Beto to stop by and see how things go with that shirt on at the local McDonald’s because it would be a good indicator for how it would go elsewhere in the country. It wouldn’t be good.

And that’s the real problem is that these politicians look at the world through their little bubbles of urban life, and they assume they have a bead on everyone, and they don’t. Like most Democrats they view the world in a compliant fashion without ever really considering what human beings really desire outside of their needs for safety. The typical Democrat is a helpless form of human being living as victims to the very nature of breath itself. So, they turn to government to tell them what to do and when to do it. Then politicians like Beto O’Rourke and media types from the big urban markets start believing that all people are that way, which is far from true. I would say it would be impossible to confiscate guns in America, or to instigate a buyback program that would only increase criminal conduct from thieves trying to make money from the government by stealing guns and selling them on the buyback. The effect would fail miserably.

The government foolishly assumes that we need Walmart and gun manufacturers to put a dent in those 300 million guns that we have and to stop the sale. However, as I’ve pointed out often, we can make our own guns and our own ammunition. We don’t need official manufacturers because the science has been invented. People in Slade, Kentucky and all over the eastern part of Ohio down into West Virginia just thinking of my region could set up shops in their garages that could make guns off mini milling machines and ammunition presses. In fact, they would enjoy it. The entire operation would simply move underground like it did in the days of prohibition which gave rise to Al Capone in Chicago where everyone knew he was selling booze, but the law lacked the ambition to enforce the law because they wanted the product. It would be much more severe with guns, the black market for guns and ammunition would be extensive and harder to control than moonshine. The government isn’t big enough and never would become that way to put a dent in the gun market if it were forced underground.

The only way that government can even begin to control guns is through a system kind of like what we have now where there is a little background check and the ATF has some visibility on who is buying and selling guns. Its such big business that is the only way the government can collect some of the tax money off the enterprise, and in reality, that’s the only control they are ever going to get. The government could never get big enough to make a compliant nation without major bloodshed and they could never enforce it. They can’t even control that effort in their big cities such as Chicago. They certainly couldn’t go door to door in Greenville, Ohio and take all the guns from the farmers there. My bet on any government agency that would even try such a thing is that they would just “disappear” without a trace in the middle of the night from wherever they were staying and nobody would ever see them again, or who took them. And even if they did make it to the doors of people who would never give up their guns, shootouts would ensue and things would really start to get out of hand.

The foolish nature of big government advocates like Beto O’Rourke is that they really don’t understand Americans or the love of guns. They simply don’t like those people and want to change America into something else so they have never really taken the time to understand what an American is. For the typical American it is different than any other place in the world and guns are more a philosophical element than a practical one. Most people never intend to shoot a person in their entire lives or want to be shot at. But having that gun in the house is a reminder to them that they are free and independent. The threat of taking that away from them would make a desperate and angry person, and that is what the government is not prepared to deal with. Beto O’Rourke thinks by poking the fence like he is that he can Trump his way into a Democrat nomination. But what they don’t understand, any of the Democrats, is that people love their guns much more than they do their government. And they won’t tolerate any form of confiscation. At all, and that’s more than tough talk. It’s a fundamental element to our country itself.

Rich Hoffman

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

The 25/25 Rule: Get better, don’t yield to weaknesses

A lot of the methods of business have been on my mind lately due to the work I’m putting into a new book I’m working on called the Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. In it there is a chapter on the International Journal of Production Research’s 25/25 rule and it is just another example of how the private sector is always trying to improve themselves so that they can make more money and stay relevant longer in a business environment. Yet government at any level never does and it shows in what their final products are. We joke about how inefficient government is, and people do desire jobs in the government sectors because performance standards are not part of the vocabulary, but it doesn’t take an accountant to realize that for every hour worked in a to heavy government environment that it is costing the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money because something like the 25/25 rule is not being utilized, and its very disingenuous to everyone forced to contribute to the madness through the tyranny of the IRS.

The 25/25 rule essentially states that you take the 25% of your business portfolio and not focus on it so that you can give attention to all your top customers. The effort was created to attempt to give more focus on organizational support for the best of your customers and requires a judgement call. The rule also assumes that there is always another 25% of your company portfolio that can be improved with cutting out non-value-added tasks. Can you imagine a school board meeting where such a conversation would take place? The teacher’s union which really runs all public schools would be up in arms and protesting in seconds, since the goal of any employee run management is to be as inefficient as possible so that the bar of expectations cannot be lowered, just ever inflated so that the “collective” is not pressured too much in any task. That is problem number one.

Yet even in relation to the private sector I think the 25/25 rule doesn’t go nearly far enough and is a very disrespectful way to treat customers if they don’t happen to be in that upper tier of a company’s portfolio. It’s not their fault that you as a business have focus problems and need to find ways to internally prioritize effort. While I do agree that there is always 25% of an organization that could almost always be eliminated in unnecessary process flow and streamlined operations, I also think that the task of every organization is that they need to get 25% better on their portfolios, not to ignore 25% of their current load so they can focus on their best and most important customers. A top-level organization is always doing that and getting better so that they can show off their capacity to handle pressure for future state growth opportunities.

What I find happening in organizations using the 25/25 rule is that its giving bad management another tier of excuses to use until they are forced to look in the mirror and admit what a bunch of losers they are. The intent of the 25% portfolio reduction is to manage overbooked businesses with a steadier workflow, with the notion that its better late than never getting it at all. To me this is reprehensible thinking and is the nature of that particular chapter in my book. The difference between the East and the West is that winning matters and some of the parameters of western thinking that determine victory is speed and accuracy—the drive thru window with everything in the bag that you ordered—the first time through. We want it fast and we want it accurate. This whole 25/25 rule had me thinking of the bullwhip competitions that I’ve been in over the years where you are supposed to be 7’ from the five targets in the Speed and Accuracy competitions. You are timed how quickly you can use a 6’ bullwhip to crack out the ten targets. For every miss, there is a 5 second penalty. Learning to do that competitive event is a good way to step beyond the 25/25 rule and instead to focus on improving yourself by 25% not passing along your inability to some down the line customer.

We see it all the time, we’re picking up some food at a drive thru, the restaurant is obviously understaffed for the level of business they have and lines are wrapped around the building with everyone waiting on their food. Additionally, the people who don’t want to wait in that long line go inside to order at the counter, hoping to step around the mess. But standard practice in every fast food restaurant is to use that 25/25 rule to deal with such carnage, and the first thing that goes is worrying about the dining room because it is the drive thru windows that have the timers on them and is how they are measured as a successful business. Such a place could be said to have a capacity problem and the managers will blame their high call-off rates and blame the weak condition of their employees as the reason for their victimized status.

I would argue that the capacity constraints are not in the machinery, since most fast food restaurants are built to do the business, its in the high turnover and generally unreliable nature of the employees they hire that causes all the problems. I find the fault in the managers who have such a bad staff that calls off too much, or the kind of people they hired to begin with, in not determining at the interview that their employees might turn in to unreliable employees, and that the management culture allowed the employees to call off often without consequences which is why restaurants sometimes are slammed and unprepared to deal with their customer bases. Hiring the right kind of people through the interview process then developing those people through proper management practices is the key to successful staffing which then solves the capacity challenges that are not related to the equipment itself.

The 25/25 rule tends to give bad management the excuse to hide behind this measurement system and give them a victimized status to explain away their failure. “My employees called off, so I couldn’t successfully handle the customer demands.” Yet it was the reason all their employees called off that the management system didn’t deal with, which is why there is a problem in the first place. The company should focus instead on having a 25% increase in hiring efficiency where their new employees have better attendance. Or the drive thru window workers get 25% faster than the less experienced newbs. Or that you can run the whole operation with 25% less people. Those should be the targets and people who do things like that bullwhip competition that I mentioned understand that process because it simply wouldn’t be permissible to complain that the competition was too hard and that they didn’t have the speed and accuracy to compete. That is the nature of my new book, is to change the thinking about these kinds of things from a victimized status to a proactive one. If you want to do something, don’t blame the conditions. Get better, and acquire the skills needed for success.

Of course, the obvious hatred for President Trump by protectors of the status quo, the government employees who have been sucking off the system hiding behind a lack of standards reviews, or the government labor unions who have their own rules, such as a 99/99 rule. Unions are only willing to give 1% toward performance review, or a process improvement. They aren’t willing to sign up for any performance expectations because they don’t want the bar set where their lazy employees have to live up to. While that makes for a nice job for them where they get paid whether or not they actually do anything, the benefit to the end use customer is us, in that they cost too much money. At least with President Trump a part of our government is starting to think more like the private sector, and that’s the way it should always have been.

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

Failure is Never an Option: Trump is right, bad companies blame the tariffs, not themselves

I’m glad President Trump said it, its true, badly run companies are using the tariff war with China as an excuse for their poor performance. I agree with him. That is usually the case any time an organization is caught performing bad, they will use any excuse to hide their own behavior. In public school systems they always blame the unfunded mandates of the state, or the allocation of the state money, but what is usually the case, its their lazy union employees who are the cause of poor performance and the unwillingness of the school boards to fight them. In the private sector the same kind of blame game goes on, only in business there are constant exercises in management review that exploits the real problems. Not all companies, in fact most companies, are not well run so price increases due to the China trade war or long lead times from suppliers is an easy target for losers to blame for their own problems. So, it was good to see that we finally have a president who has run businesses, and understands how things really work, instead of some out of touch politician who believes everything advisors tell him.

Good management is to close gaps when it is obvious that they need to be closed, such as in the trade deficit with China. For all the bellyaching that is made about how bad the trade war is hurting farmers in America, Trump has moved $16 billion collected from the realignment of the new tariffs on Chinese goods and sent them straight to the farmers since they have been targeted by China. And as Trump pointed out, there are many more billions of dollars that we are collecting now that we weren’t before, so the farmer issue in losing to China isn’t even a consideration. And neither are the complaints where price increases are being blamed by the tariffs. As far as revenue collection, the United States is making money. As far as supply chain management, companies always knew the risks of doing business with a communist country, and they should have had contingency plans. That they didn’t says a lot about the kind of companies that they are, lazy and unprepared, so the tariffs are an easy target for the incompetent.

Almost before the trade war started between Trump and China I heard business insiders starting to blame the poor condition of their supply chains as an excuse to either push out lead times or jack up their prices. But if they were actually a well-run company, they would have already thought about those things, even a year out and they would not be affected by a trade war with China. Blaming the tariffs for anything is the first sign of people who don’t know better, and are bad managers of the elements of their life which interact with business. Before Trump came along nobody said such obvious things so we should all be grateful that Trump is willing to take on big communist currency manipulators like China but also the big companies in America who love to hide their out of control management on politics. Most of the time, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

Every organization that runs a budget, whether it is the large government schools of nearly every community in North America or a large corporation like Apple, they are expected by reality to produce and to do so well. The challenges that come along whether its unfunded mandates or the supply of metals are tasks that all management is supposed to deal with. Nobody wants to hear excuses; they just want results and that is ultimately the value that companies bring to their markets. An excuse is not a value, it is simply a means to explain away failure. But from my perspective, and this has always been the case, failure is never an option.

I was very encouraged the other day; I was at a stop light and a large tractor trailer pulled up alongside me. On the trailer was a company motto stating, “failure is not an option.” I thought to myself, there is a great company. Any company or organization that puts that as part of their branding is at least trying to avoid the blame game of failure that is part of their business. Someone is always failing them, the question is, will they accept that failure or overcome the imposition? A company that does not accept failure but simply moves on from it is one that is trying to be successful. But a company that says, our business is hurt by the tariffs with China, or the interest rates that are at play, or we are having a hard time hiring people because everyone is on oxycontin these days, those are all loser statements. They may have roots in reality but accepting them for poor performance is detrimental to any organizational behavior.

A great football team doesn’t stop trying to win if their star player goes down, or if the referees call a bad game against them. Those things might actually cause a team to lose, but blaming those elements are loser statements. Accepting that failure is the first step in losing and any company that blames things for their poor performance is acting as a loser, and not taking the steps that success requires. To win at anything overcoming barriers to success are expected. If a company doesn’t have the talent to do so, or the will to do it, then failure may happen. To explain their inadequacy to their share holders and other carriers of the public trust, they might blame tariffs or supply problems. But in all honesty, it was their job all along to overcome whatever opposition to success that there was, and to win the game, whatever it may have been. When people say that “it’s not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game,” they are partially right. How you play the game is all important in whether or not you will experience success. But even in that popular statement are the seeds for failure planted. It implies that even if you lose, if you played a good game, then you are off the hook. Bad companies have become very good at looking like they are playing the game well with lots of nice charts and excuses, but ultimately it is how you play the game, and whether you win or not. Nobody likes second place. Everyone loves a winner. The goal is always to win and to overcome impediments.

Excuses are for those who are lazy or stupid, incompetent or up to no good. I often decry labor unions because they are often to blame for a company’s lack of management, or the organization as a whole of something like a public school where the inmates run the asylum. Management at these places often throw their hands up and say things like, we failed because none of the union workers wanted to work the weekend, or we had a strike and couldn’t bring in raw materials. But what they are really saying is that they have no control of their business and weren’t thinking far enough ahead to have contingency plans. Such companies are blaming the tariffs for their poor performance and they make Trump a target for their failure, but in all reality, they own that failure. And nobody else.

Rich Hoffman

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