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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Two Bits of Advice in the New Year: The nature of leadership and political parties

I haven’t had a chance yet in a while but I plan to attend a West Chester Township Trustee meeting to confront a lap top loser who has been going around and trying to paint me as some kind of caricature of detriment to the Butler County GOP. This loser actually had some rationalization to indicate that I was the cause of embarrassment to a political party, which is to say a club of people who lend support to each other for elections and the ability to manage local affairs. In truth, anybody would be lucky to know me and unless someone is outperforming me in some manner of life, anything they say is fear-based illusions which brings us to a greater issue which will become a theme for me. Because to really solve problems it’s not enough to just point out where the errors are, you have to change the circumstances that cause those errors and that is something I do at many levels. And the byproduct of that change is usually anger. People thriving off a present system of chaos do not want to change and when someone comes along that represents change of any kind, deep resentments and hostilities always follow. There is nothing new there. If something I’m doing causes consternation among those happy with the way things are there’s usually a good reason. But my personal policy is not to let things go unsettled, and I certainly won’t when challenged by some loser who wants a political party to remain like it has been in the past when its clear improvements are needed in the future.

Whether in politics or business there are many people when groups of activity are considered who function below the line of positive thought and they are the causes of a need for change. It is baffling for instance that anybody would hate Donald Trump as much as they do for president. I had to get gas on New Year’s Eve ahead of 2019 and saw prices had dropped to $1,88. That by itself should be enough for people to love the President, but good performance is not what losers in the world want. Losers in this case are below the line thinkers, people functioning from perpetual negativity. What they fear most in the world is that some motivated person will come along and change everything for them, forcing the bar to be raised in expectations. So good people, since people, smart people, any people who by their very nature force others to improve themselves by default are hated. There is nothing they can do to change that reality because it goes against all the nature of human behavior.

We were all taught incorrectly in our government schools that we should spend a certain amount of time nurturing our relationships with other people no matter how dysfunctional they may be. For most the basic skills they learn in those formative years stay with them the rest of their lives. When there is a problem, they don’t first think how to solve the problem, instead they turn toward the social peer groups for support and whatever needs to be fixed languishes in purgatory waiting for leadership to come along and change the circumstances. But that never happens because leadership is not a group created attribute. Leadership can be channeled through people but it is not created by groups of people. It doesn’t come from the masses, it certainly doesn’t come from political parties. When political parties get together to raise money for a candidate or to strategically put up challengers for an upcoming election, the people participating could be said to be managing their objectives. Leadership happens when someone gives a motivating speech which pulls the objectives of everyone together for a common cause, it doesn’t happen as a default condition of group activity.

But like any group association where the members know the rules and have made sacrifices to their lives to live within them, the last thing they want to hear is that all those rules don’t matter and that some change in the form of leadership is challenging the order they have come to trust as a reality. They fall in love with the rules of conduct in group behaviors not because that conduct is good, but because they have come out on the plus side of it. In elements of the Republican party such as this loser I mention, they want a nice structured political group where the characters at play are controlled, the policies keep a progressive lean to them which has been there since the 1960s in America and any challenge to those assumptions are to be destroyed. For a normal person the value of the relationships in the group are their reason for being a part of the larger organization. But in my case, I just want things to work. So I could care less who says hi to me or who invites me to this or that. I go to things sometimes when invited if there is a good reason to go, but typically I don’t have the time. From my view, the relationships are irrelevant, they don’t do anything for me because I like to see good things happen and that usually means stepping over bad people who are in the way of something, so making friends never is my objective. Surprisingly, such a position makes far more friends than enemies because people like above the line people on an individual basis, but they find them repulsive in regards to group objectives.

As we step into yet another year, I have decided I’m not going to sugar coat little things like the criticisms that come from losers functioning from faulty positions when change is needed from a current approach. Regarding the GOP in Butler County I have watched many positive changes occur over the last decade and the results have made it better. Not just better for me, but better as a tactical political party. It doesn’t matter to me who gets mad in the process because making friends is not the objective, being successful is, and if losers think they can continue to contaminate success, they are living in a world that will be crashing down around them.

I gave two bits of advice to people on New Year’s Eve that are helpful to any general readership, the first is that no I’m not planning to run for office when there are lots of fun things to do in business at my particular age. Politics is something I consider serving the business world, so why would I do something in the service industry, because that’s what politics is. They certainly are rulers who give power to the office holders, and all too often that is how politicians view themselves, and would like to continue. But that’s not how it is. The other thing I said was that if you are the best at something you should never have to look over your back at those seeking an opportunity to ankle bite you out of existence. If you are the best who cares what other people are doing? If you really want to be successful you should never pay attention to what other people are doing. The moment you do care, is the moment that losers start controlling your life, and there are a lot of them. They were the ones who invented many of the problems of our modern age, because they have hidden the solution to problems within the limits of peer pressure. But if you are a person who excels in the things you do, there is nothing good that can come out of such a relationships. So why yield to it. The answer is, you don’t.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Funeral of George H. W. Bush: It was a lot like the movie Soylent Green

The funeral of Bush 41 I thought was nice. I always liked George Bush the senior, and the younger, 43 as he is often termed—as people. But I do not think they were very good presidents, at least in the way I would expect out of a Republican in the White House. But I didn’t dislike them, although I remember very well how much the media did. So I shared with many the observations that the media was all too friendly toward George Bush in his death, very much contrary to what they had been during his life. That of course provoked the question as to why. As odd as it was to see the Trumps sitting with the Obamas and the Clintons and to even have Jimmy Carter there as well it was also institutionally satisfying, and it was good that President Trump attended and said nice things along the way. But the invisible strings of conformity that stirred about the entire event reminded me an awful lot of the old movie Soylent Green. Through life the people are harvested as commodities of the state, but upon their death they were ushered into the afterlife with warm music and revelry before being eaten by society itself.

The aspects of the Bush funeral which I fundamentally disagree with, and which the press and seemingly everyone celebrated was that the former president was a sacrificial person who gave his life to service for others, and now that he was no longer a threat to the order of things as a Republican, it was OK to honor him. All the attributes that were celebrated mostly are concepts that are anti-individual and pro collectivist which is the subtle undertone to the entire exercise. The message to all other Republicans by the press, the not so subtle part of their message was that if you want to be liked by the media, then the attributes of George Bush that involved self-sacrifice, service and humility are the way to get there. While those traits are largely Christian tenants of value, that doesn’t mean that the old foe of Marxism isn’t present. To understand that idea you have to understand European history and the role that the Catholic Church played on controlling so many people’s lives, in a very negative way. Then you’d have to know that Karl Marx desired to exploit that inbreed trait into the targets of his philosophy work so much inspired by Immanuel Kant. To focus thoughts on others is the way to eternal redemption. To focus on yourself is the way of the evil vices of capitalism!

George Bush was a rich man who inherited a lot of money from his father and sought to dispel the guilt that a Marxist leaning society injected upon him with service in the military, then in government for much of his life. He wanted very much to be a good man and he was, unfortunately the way that good was defined for him meant that he needed to be a collectivist. So his great wealth created a paradox for him and his extended family that was deliberately hard to negotiate. The minefield however was set up by the institutional culture for which the media represents. Their value system is subservience to the needs of the machine, sacrifice and honor as determined by the amount of sacrifice an individual makes toward the institutions they occupy.

This institutional element has become much more pronounced now in the age of Trump because so many of them are coming unraveled, and it is the source of the hatred of the current President. The odd exchange of the Trumps sitting down next to law breakers and social reformers hell-bent on taking society toward infinite collectivism was a clash of ideas that were unavoidable, yet they were brought together out of respect for a presidency that is the lead seat of American institutionalism looked at in entirely different ways. The paradox was revealed in the life of George Bush as his son George W. Bush conducted the eulogy of his father’s life and what a great job he did. While summarizing the merits of such a sacrificial being he managed to paint a picture of quite an interesting character who still sky dived late in his life and loved to watch cop dramas on television. For me I found those aspects appealing. To the institutionalists it was the sacrifice. But everyone was generally brought together by some notion of a recently deceased American president.

The media in this case are the institutional representatives that look at the life of all conservatives as bacteria in the body of collective experience. But anybody familiar with biology knows that bacteria is a useful element, its villainy is purely relative. The media hated the Bush family because they were Republicans but as the country grew away from that kind of conservative thought, the public has grown tired of the media. It was an odd thing to hear Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple lecture the world that any form of hate had no place on their platforms. As much as I love Apple products—and I do, and I know Rush Limbaugh does as well, clearly Tim Cook would view my support of the Second Amendment and liberal activism as hate speech and is suggesting that I’m not welcome to the company. But it’s not lost on me that most people who call themselves liberals, especially the creative types, use Apple as their primary functionary to interact with cyberspace. And most of them participate in hate speech. I have no doubt that if a survey of ANTIFA members were taken as to what phone system they used most it would be Apple if they could actually afford the product. Is Apple as a company talking to them?

The harassment of the Bush family by the media over all the years created Donald Trump. George W. Bush and his dad and brother took a terrible beating needlessly by just the same kind of people who tend to buy Apple products, the Hollywood left, the media culture, the hipsters and saggy assed getto thugs, the drug mules who cross the border then claim that America owes them something as illegal immigrants. It was their collective ooze for which the media pronounced was civil conduct and once George Bush the senior was laid to rest, it was OK to pay respect to him in that sacrificed state, as an essence of life to be consumed by the masses, a throw back to the days before there was a Donald Trump in the White House, rather than the man who loved his wife dearly and was a damn good father to his kids. There is a lot very evil about the process, the way that all the good things about George H. W. Bush were punished and all the bad things about him adored. It was quite an interesting paradox which comes from a society that has a schizophrenic relationship with itself. It was very clear to me, that the institutions of our modern life values death and consumption far more than productivity and effort. And that is the hard lesson that was very much on full display at the funeral of the 41st President of the United States.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Decline of Groupthink: Lakota schools, Stormy “horseface” Daniels, and Leslie Stahl getting her ass handed to her

That article I wrote previously about the V.I.P. pass at the Trump rally in Lebanon had to be done to set up something far more sinister in need of explanation. It’s at the center of everything we are dealing with presently and is at the heart of how evil is spread across the world. It starts with little innocent things and ends with truly tragic circumstances and is something we’ll have to really fix as a civilization before we can truly Make America Great Again. When we talk about “again,” there was a time when Americans had it together. Unfortunately, we didn’t have yet the status of the world’s most powerful economy to match it, and it didn’t last more than a few years before ancient grudges and social traditions jealously conspired to make themselves the center of attention again. But when it is asked why people love Donald J. Trump so much and why he feels he must do what he did after he won a lawsuit against Stormy Daniels by calling her “horseface” it is this kind of corrosive thinking that Trump has been fighting and people who are smart and aware of it see the possibility of such a person sitting in the White House and what he can do for the kind of American swagger that most of us crave to have—except for the people who want the opposite, like that lady in the media I had previously discussed. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. You could see all this on full display when President Trump gave an interview recently to 60 Minutes where he skewered Leslie Stahl rather unceremoniously by letting her know that she, or nobody else in the media was the president. He was.

Lakota schools had one of their “community conversations” hosted by the progressive Jeff Stec to discuss school safety. This is one of those expensive consensus building activities that they are conducting in that public establishment to avoid what the Trump administration has proposed, and that is the arming of teachers to make them first responders in case a gunman attacks one of the 22 buildings in the district. Lakota has a math problem, they have only hired 19-armed security personnel to protect kids which means the resource officers have to rotate around to cover all the schools. A potential gunman won’t know where they will be or when, so that type of risk is considered appropriate to the gun hating administrators at Lakota who think its more important to continue their position of weakening the Second Amendment, ignoring President Trump, and holding the entire education system to the kind of learning that causes much of this mess for the benefit of their political affiliations. Jeff Stec’s specialty is in consensus building exercises, what we have called in the past The Delphi Technique. After years and years of this type of consensus building we as human beings arrive at what we accept as a reality. The media of course maintains that reality and people growing up in our society have three typical choices coming out of the government education system and arriving into adulthood, as its designed now. They can join the military, they can join college or they can dig ditches or other manual labor jobs that offer little prestige socially. All those traditions involve some means of breaking down individual thought and processing people into a kind of group think. Some people fall through the cracks and become people like Donald Trump, but they often don’t arrive so late in life so confident and able to function independently. That is why the media despises Trump so much, because they see their job as maintaining that social order, not rebelling against it. Yet Trump’s movement is all about freeing people from that process so a tremendous amount of resentment is forming along the social norms of our culture. Leslie Stahl represented the social norm, President Trump was supposed to play the timid office holder that was about to lose his majorities in the House and Senate, so he was supposed to play nice. Instead he gave them the opposite.

Anyway, back to Lakota, under Jeff Stec’s leadership groups formed of 5 to 6 to meet and discuss ideas and questions for the moderator, in this case Stec, to discuss with the whole audience of about 55 people. The people in the group were students, board members and those with children in the schools. There were a few citizens from outside those social groups as well, but not many. By the time all the talk had occurred, only 4 or 5 people favored guns on teachers while the rest of the group was against the idea. Therefor Jeff Stec’s “community conversation” could then report that Lakota schools was against the arming of teachers as this statistical sampling suggested. But of course, there is more at work here than just talking to people and taking a vote, and it shows up in how the media does polling, such as the many mistakes they make in regard to President Trump. When human beings become socialized they are reluctant to act outside the parameters of group acceptance. For instance, if 7 people go out to eat together individuals will be more inclined to behave as the group does than what their personal preferences may suggest. Maybe two of them aren’t hungry at all and are on a diet, but the other five are getting large meals with a soda or a mixed drink. The other two are going to be inclined to break their diet so they can actively participate in the group activity. They do not want to do anything that might make them isolated from the group with too much individualized input which might cause them to be castigated. That is how consensus building happens and it is the method of the Democratic Party, and has been for most of this past century. We learn the methods in our government school system then spend the rest of our lives typically trying to escape from it, mostly without any success. That is until a Donald Trump comes into our life and inspires us to think for ourselves again.

That is what the media is struggling to do with Trump, put him on his heels and make him that lone voice that nobody wants to listen to. They isolate individuals from the group so that they can control them emotionally. That’s what happened to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News and even Alex Jones, they were removed from the warm blanket of public approval by having their content banned either for sexual harassment accusations, much like was attempted with Brett Kavanaugh, or they were edited by their conduct against the social norm. Just this past week I had a similar experience. I get good numbers on my blog, but for well over five or six years I have been banned by all the social media sites. I don’t care because I write so much that it gets out anyway, but it happens often. Well, this week I saw just to how much of an extent. The systems that shadow ban me went down for about 45 minutes and in that time, I had 400 hits on my homepage from search engine results in that duration. As soon as the system was back up, those numbers dropped off the map completely and were back to normal, about 20 to 30 per hour. Again, just like in the consensus building of Jeff Stec, or the motivations of the media, or the shadow banning by the big tech companies, their goal is to shape the public toward a social norm that they set.

When Trump said to Leslie Stahl that she was not president, this is what he was talking about, and part of what Making America Great Again means is that his administration is out to make people great again, as individuals. That process is in direct violation to everything liberal society believes, so of course their faces are melting. But they never had a right to attempt to change the message. Just as in the case of the Lakota gun issue, just because 55 people determined that school resource officers would be enough and that no decision on arming teachers was appropriate doesn’t mean that guns in schools isn’t the answer. But what it does mean is that the means of allowing people to arrive to that conclusion as individuals has been tampered with. The social norms that we have all been programmed to respond to are getting in the way of proper decision-making. But Trump’s appeal that is growing is that he is changing that and the gate keepers of our social norms, the media, Hollywood, the political structure of our elected offices hate it. But with the midterms coming up quick and polling going the opposite way that liberals would like to see, it is evident that a major change of social norms is on the horizon and it will be quite shocking to all those who have made their livings as those social restrictor plates. And I will cheer quite loudly as those advancements are made.

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

Omarosa the Dog: The context behind the comment

It wasn’t black people or a group of women who decided to record General Kelly and apparently others in the White House situation room, it was Omarosa Magnigault Newman. Various political groups identified through peer politics were not responsible for her illegal actions in breaking a confidentiality agreement with her employer. Therefor when Donald Trump called her a lowlife dog he wasn’t calling all women a dog or even black people. Yet that was the defense thrown up to defend the former White House staff member who was given a job out of kindness when the president showed his anger at having someone who had been close to him betray him for a climb at her own brand of celebrity. Trump’s term as Omarosa “the dog” is purely out of hurt and intended toward her as an individual. People say Trump should have known better and never given her such an important job to begin with, but I understand what he was trying to do. He liked her and wanted to give her a chance at something really respectful, and she fell short like a lot of people do, and it disappointed him. Sure he could have hired a more polished person for that position, and she should have considered herself lucky for even having the chance. But Trump was also trying to think outside the box and when things work, they work wonderfully. When they don’t, sometimes you get a Omarosa.

At the heart of the criticism of her is her blatant disrespect for the opportunities that she only obtained by riding on Trump’s coattails. A person like her will never amount to anything if left to her own merits so Trump being the eternal optimist that he is thinks he can fix anybody. That is a trait that I share with the president and is one of the reasons I like him so much. He’s willing to take chances on people the way a poker player will make bets even if their hand is weak, because they believe if they stick with it, that things will turn in their favor. It takes guts to take someone you know isn’t going to get many opportunities in life and give them a shot at the big picture. From my own experience such things fail about 80% of the time, but when they work 20% of the time really good things usually happen so the payoff is most of the time worth it. But you have to be willing to have failures, to make some bets that won’t lead directly to a payoff.

Looking at Trump’s White House at the Michael Cohen situation, of course Omarosa, General Flynn, even Roger Stone and Alex Jones, Trump isn’t afraid to make bets on wild people because often the payoff for one of them leads to a big treasure. But when the others fail, it looks like chaos to people who don’t understand what’s going on. If the goal of the White House was to look professional, then Trump should hire only people finely polished out of the media industry and the university system. But when Trump wins, like he did with Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Sanders, the benefits far outweigh the downside. When people are critical of Trump’s management style what they are really mad at is that he has steered away from convention always going for jackpots instead of playing the safe game and putting an emphasis on the visuals of an Executive Branch that matches the rest of Washington D.C. culture.

If you are a person with a big personality, like Trump has, you can endure disappointments. Just like in poker, you may lose a few chips on a bluffing hand, but the payoff comes when you find that real diamond in the rough and find they outproduce and outthink everyone else. It’s worth dozens of failures to find that one exceptional individual, and obviously that was what Trump was trying to do with Omarosa, and Steve Bannon. Most people can’t handle it though when they go from relative obscurity to being a respected figure around the globe, so they sabotage the efforts as a psychological defense mechanism against their own self-perception. That was clearly the case with Steve Bannon. That is certainly what Omarosa is doing and that is why Michael Cohen started to flip to the other side on the FBI case. Notice how now that the FBI is falling apart in its case against Trump that Cohen is trying to mend fences in little ways? That is the way it is with these edgy people. When they are good they are great. When they fall off the fence for which their lives are entangled, they fall hard and often break more than bones.

It hurts to put a lot of love and effort into people only to have them turn back toward decadence and the life of a loser. But you can’t often shape them into wanting to be a better person, especially if their upbringing trained them to be losers. You can hope like Trump obviously does that people will listen to you and want to be better, but you often can’t polish a turd into a diamond. Most of the time the materials just aren’t there to make it happen and the people you invest in fail. But that still doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try. If you are a person of boundless energy, like Trump is, then there is always energy to give someone a shot. Omerosa is one of those people, he should have tried, and he did. She just couldn’t hack it and when she realized it, she started recording and plotting for her own tell all book and chance at fame on her own volition. So sure, it hurts President Trump and he appropriately called her a dog for her actions.

However, his comments are not racist. As I’ve explained often, Republicans who truly believe in individual rights cannot be racist. Omarosa is being judged on her individual behavior, not her connections to any groups whether they be that of women or those of blacks. And she can’t hide behind those groups when she gets herself in trouble which is precisely what she has been doing. It is not Trump’s fault that she flew too close to the sun and had her wings melted and lost her courage for what the administration is trying to do, that she retreated to the world of identity politics where her own insecurities could be hidden behind group assimilation.

Omarosa is a dog because like that canine species of quad walking feces eating suck asses they are often happy to sit at the side of a table and eat the scraps that people throw down at them, and that is where she has retreated. Trump tried to dress her up and give her an actual seat at the table out of compassion for her, but she just couldn’t hack it. So she jumped down off the chair and started to wag her tail begging for table scraps. For Trump that is a painful realization because she could have just eaten directly from the table, but after all, she’s just a dog. Put a dress on her, give her a nice place to reside, but she still wants to act like a dog, so he called her what she showed him was her preferred conduct. And that wasn’t racist, or sexist, it was just the correct observation of reality.

Rich Hoffman

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

The End of the Democratic Party is Near: After the elections of August 8th 2018, a “red wave” is coming

No matter how you slice it, the election of Troy Balderson to the 12 district House seat was a big deal. By looking at a map of the various counties, a few for which downtown Columbus is a big part of, it is obvious that liberals have contaminated the metropolitan area, but up in Delaware County, the truth is much easier to see. Republicans are more than happy to vote for Trump backed candidates and only a very small minority of densely packed liberals are what kept the Democrat Danny O’Connor at a neck and neck race throughout the August 7th 2018 election. There are two forces that were hoping for Balderson to lose even if publicly they were saying they supported him, the Kasich members of the divided GOP and the liberals from the political left who were hoping that the young Danny O’Connor would tweak out a win and send hope into the Democrats ahead of the November mid-terms. It was only the previous Sunday that John Kasich was on television essentially hoping for a Balderson defeat because Donald Trump came to Delaware County to help push the GOP candidate over the top. That 12th District used to be Kasich’s years ago and in television ads O’Connor made many comparisons to the Ohio governor that were accurate. That’s because Kasich is not a conservative, but only in name only. And even with his attempts to divide the GOP away from Trump, the President still lent his support to Balderson to stretch out a victory.

Most of the Ohio race was a show, a divided GOP, a desperate Democratic Party with no ideas and only Trump derangement syndrome to fuel their voter turnout, much of it was early voting that mysteriously seems to always favor Democrats. Is there tampering, probably, but in the end, Republicans showed up in the suburbs of Columbus to defend their turf in an August election and it put a victory on the map for Trump backed candidates going into November. It was a close race only because it was an August election. November will bring out more from the GOP while the same old losers who voted for O’Connor will show up to a diminished result. There is not going to be a “blue wave” of Democrats that are going to retake the House and Senate in Washington D.C.

Donald Trump remains the premier “get out the vote” energizer politician in the country and the Democrats have nobody like him. In spite of what Frank Luntz or any other GOP pollster thinks in the traditional way at looking at election result data, a one-point victory is a one-point victory, especially when that turnout for the Democrats is largely regulated to the inner cities. That is not a growing voting base. In the other counties that surrounded Columbus that made up the 12th District it is all red, just as much of the country is. Where are all these blue votes going to come from that people on the other side hope to see? They aren’t there.

John Kasich said a lot on his ABC ‘This Week’ interview by coming out immediately and talking about how GOP women he knew weren’t going to vote for Trump in the Tuesday election. He insisted that women thought that Trump was bad for the party and that the GOP was divided because of it. Well, he was and continues to be wrong. GOP women might tell the governor things to make him happy, but when they are pulling the lever in the election booth, it’s for Trump. It’s kind of like a husband asking his wife why she’s looking at another man, and she says something like, I thought I recognized him from somewhere. The woman says this so not to hurt her husband’s feelings because she’s really thinking about more horizontal ideas with that other man, because her husband is boring. GOP women love Donald Trump because he’s confident, disruptive, and powerful. He is the rebel with a cause, and the instinct to like Trump is pure biology and logic. Nobody wants to hurt John Kasich’s feelings because he has turned into a Democrat. Most women especially in public talk and sympathize with Democrats, so its easy for Kasich to mistake what they tell him. But in their heart they crave the rebel with a cause they can believe in, and they will show up 100% of the time to vote for the president’s picks.

Much of what has been said by Democrats and people who are Democrats but wear the name of Republican next to they’re name—like John Kasich have been simply evoking their hopeful utterances. Their opinions about Trump are out of jealousy, not factual information so their statements end up corrupted by desire instead of reality. The hope that a strong showing by O’Connor means that there is a “blue wave” coming is only the cries of an inferior team grasping at their last breath as a major political party. What is going to happen after November’s elections and the GOP holds the House and Senate? What will their storyline be then? Having nothing as a platform and not being able to outwork Donald Trump, what do the Democrats have to show dominance as a party about to take over Capital Hill? They have nothing but some dying networks like CNN, MSNBC and some old liberal newspapers. They have tech companies like Facebook, Google and YouTube that are now so desperate that they are taking down people like Alex Jones as a means to stall out the populist movement ahead of the elections. If they weren’t worried about the populist message, they wouldn’t be resorting to censorship. These are not the methods of a winning party. When the opposition starts cheating, and trying to manipulate the facts—when they try to arrest members of the President’s election team and his immediate family to scare him away from a re-election by using the tools of the Deep State to destroy all opposition it is because they know they can’t win a direct election fight.

If Democrats thought they could win in November they wouldn’t be attacking people and threatening violence as they are now. They are calling for violence and harassment of GOP members because they know they are losing and have nothing to offer as a political platform. All they have is the inner cities, they cannot make any political movement in the suburbs and the proof was in the results of a weak election turnout in an August election in Ohio. It was their best chance to take a seat, but they lost anyway and nothing about that shows strength for a “blue wave.” Rather, it is the opposite that they will be seeing. When people ask me what I think will happen in the November elections I think it will be the end of the Democratic Party, not a “blue wave.” I’ve been talking about this for a long time, that the Democrats as a party will come to an end. Well, I think this is how it will happen. Once these November elections happen and Republicans hold most of their seats, perhaps even gaining some, there will be nowhere to go and no hope to be obtained for the future. The Democrats will be finished as a party and their vast corruption cases that have been suppressed for years will suddenly overflow the news, because people know a loser when they see them and once the potential for power is lost, the boot lickers will sing, and the party will never survive. And that’s very easy to see at this point.

Rich Hoffman

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