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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

We Should Terminate all 800,000 Government Workers from the Shutdown: All federal labor unions should be illegal

One of the things I’m not going to do anymore is provide an equal argument to the inefficiencies of government, to ponder why they are so slow, inefficient and corrupt when we all know why. So why waste the time? The important elements are in identifying the problem, teaching people why its unacceptable, and correcting the situation for real in the future. And the government shutdown is one of those things that happen from time to time when reality meets the fantasy of government, and no legitimate business person in the world could look at the proposals of government and even suggest sanity. The assumptions made that people care about a government shutdown are preposterous. The rate of pay is also preposterous, many of the 800,000 jobs who are not receiving a pay check over the government shutdown would be eliminated in the private sector due to business needs anyway. Much of the demand is artificial. When I hear Democrats trying to pull on our heart-strings that those 800,000 workers are not able to pay their mortgage or their car payments and that we should be willing to toss away billions of dollars and re-open the government just so they can do so, I hear the efforts at lunacy only. It’s an insane proposal that they are making. The government shouldn’t be opening to accommodate those 800,000 jobs, those jobs should be eliminated. They should seek new jobs in the growing economy and in the private sector. That is the real issue, yet nobody has come close to addressing it.

For so many years on this site I have provided instances where government workers make a lot more than private sector workers, on average. Where CEOs do make millions on occasion, average government workers functioning under a socialist labor union are artificially inflated by their wage rate. True market conditions do not have a say in the matter because the money is stolen from the tax payers and distributed insanely to their work force, who often are extremely inefficient. In private business there is a kind of subculture of what we call “fix it men and women” who go into an organization and straighten them out in all matters of production, and the companies thrive as a result. The current replacement for General Mattis as Defense Secretary is Patrick Shanahan who was a “fix it man” at Boeing. The assumption was that General Mattis, or “Mad Dog” as they were calling him was a far superior candidate because of his military service while Shanahan wouldn’t know what he was doing. In reality the situation is quite the opposite. Private industry experiences where lean manufacturing techniques are applied to increase the efficiency of an enterprise are far better than a military general who learns authority driven process controls and constant yielding to authority, for which politics often is the typical holder of power.

The problem with Mattis turned out that he was a “mad dog” as in he turned out to be a Democrat. You don’t always know this about people until you get to know them but that left leaning political philosophy comes with it inefficiency and apathy by the nature of their existence. It’s easy to talk a good game about how to remove troops from the Middle East or the perpetual war in Afghanistan, but after a few years of no results and asking why, that is when the Democrat side of people come out, such as with terms like “compassion,” “troop strength,” and “we’ll solve the problem next year.” Only government can get away with such below the line thinking, in fact government was entirely constructed to give below the line people a means to make livings and compete in the world. In all my years of doing lots of things with government I seldom find above the line people working among their below the line ranks. OF course, by using such terms I’m referring to The Oz Principle, which is a fairly famous book on business management and the types of people who contribute to productive enterprise, and those who must be overcome.

For days now regarding the government shutdown and the replacement of Mattis as the Secretary of Defense and putting the private industry guru Shanahan in charge, Democrats have continued to insist that we all had an obligation to the inefficiencies of the past, that we shouldn’t even ask if the 800,000 workers missing out on a paycheck during the shutdown were even needed. Of course, they aren’t, we could discharge them tomorrow and nobody would even notice. So why do we have them, just to pay them a pay check? And why are there any government unions attached to these workers saying anything about anything? All government labor unions should be made illegal, immediately. They only drive up the costs to tax payers without any added benefit. A lot of times “fix it” people in private practice have to go into a union shop and break up the command that “the people” have over management and to reinvigorate management to engage with employees in ways that offset the benefits they get from a labor union. It can be tricky business, but the job gets done and organizations most often live happily ever after. But in government no such thing ever occurs. The unions run everything and there is no real management of anything. If there was one thing that people in Washington D.C. really hated about Trump it’s that he is a manager functioning from the White House. Government workers don’t want management or any expectation of success, they just want their overly high paycheck and to use it to live a life of unrewarded excess, meaning they live large, but they didn’t earn that right. Which is how they end up corrupt.

In a book store you can find countless books on how to make business work better, but not a single book on how to make a government job more efficient. That’s because we have allowed the government worker to become insulated from reality. And since they have no competition, they actually think they can stand in front of us and declare how important they are when 800,000 workers are suddenly out of a paycheck and demanding to reopen the government. I would say to them, consider those jobs gone. Those 800,000 should be getting private sector jobs and moving on in life instead of waiting around for the government to reopen. If we really wanted to solve the problem of government inefficiency, we would start behaving in such a way and get rid of these ridiculous labor unions which only exist because the tax payers are forced to fund them due to no other options available. Its like being forced to buy a car from General Motors while the quality is terrible because the employees are smoking pot on every break and don’t care about the product. We have government workers who are just as bad and they are in that 800,000 number, and technically they shouldn’t have a job. Their labor unions have made management of their positions impossible and made them too expensive for what we get in services. And this government shutdown finally reveals the truth of how little we really need them. Which is why Trump needs to hold out for his border wall money. People need to know that all these government positions weren’t really needed to begin with. And instead of reopening the government just so they can get a paycheck, we should eliminate their positions all together. And this is one way to do it.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Shut Down the Government: We don’t need most of those employees anyway

Shut down the government, do us all a favor. What they are talking about shutting down if a budget resolution isn’t reached is essentially a much-needed layoff of employees that aren’t needed anyway. They call them in government “non-essential” employees because the world continues to spin whether or not they are at work. They aren’t needed. And the last time this happened where an actual shut down occurred the parks services was cut so national parks were closed as a unionized extortion tactic meant to put pain on the public to provide political support for their cause as well. To that I say shut them all down too. The government shouldn’t be in the park business anyway, turn them over to private control and get the government out of the way at the Grand Canyon, the Smoky Mountains and elsewhere, shut them all down and turn over management to private enterprise, as they should have always been. It is amazing that after all these years there has never been a Republican who could withstand a shutdown showdown with the lowly Democrats. Not even Newt Gingrich managed to be successful during the Clinton years. Bill Clinton easily waited out Newt and Bob Dole while he carried on an affair with Monica Lewinsky instead. It was no skin off his back and Republicans came running back to him within a few weeks, and Democrats have had the high ground on the argument ever since. That is, until December 11th, 2018.

Of course I fully support President Trump’s efforts to shut down the government and to take that power away from Democrats. Most of the government workers effected do not vote Republican anyway so why not do it? What is there to lose by sending home employees the government doesn’t need anyway. All essential functions will continue to operate so where is the problem? Any small government advocate should be very excited to see such a thing happen. After all, there isn’t any better way to shrink the size of government than by getting rid of the people working in it that you don’t need. Once people realize that a government shutdown really doesn’t affect them then they’ll move on to something else, so why not do it?

I’ve never liked government employees. I know a lot of people who do work in government and they are to my judgment lazy people who are too slow in life to really advance the human cause. I put up with them out of kindness, but when talking to them and discovering their values they disgust me. I can’t wait to get away from them generally. It doesn’t matter if they are F.B.I. agents or just clerks at the BMV. They are what I term slow people lacking ambition, which is why they work in the protective umbrella of government services. The pay is artificially good because it isn’t set by any kind of market value giving wages an artificial ceiling that can’t be supported by reality and the requirements for performing a task are nearly nonexistent. The postal worker who spends most of his day drunk and off work because his liver is so polluted from all the years of drinking that he’s now sick all the time still gets a raise. It’s a pathetic system that only people in government benefit from.
These are generalities of course. It could be argued that every military service person is a government employee and we all know that we are supposed to salute them for their willingness to die for us at every juncture. Some would argue that the military is essential personnel that is negatively affected by government shutdowns, but to that I’d say we accomplish more around the world with contracted work. That is where the real dirty stuff happens anyway, not the front-line soldier sweeping a mine field in some hostile land who probably shouldn’t be there to begin with. It’s the soldiers of fortune who do the real work most of the time, and they get paid. Believe me, they get paid well—and during a government shutdown, those signatures still get made.

The kind of little fight that Trump had with the liberal progressives Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is precisely why I voted for the President. I don’t want a bunch of back slapping and “getting along.” I want someone who will sit in the Oval Office and fight on my behalf. Not some wishy-washy get along loser like we’ve had for several decades now who lets inferior government workers run all over them in the form of the Democrat party. These calls for civility in public discourse are the same idiots who want the game to continue because they profit off the chaos in some fashion or another. The government should never be such a large employer and there is no way at this point to create incentives for nonessential people to leave government work unless it becomes a destabilized employer anyway. We all know that there isn’t any management in government work so what hope of reform is there unless we have more of these government shutdowns. We need to get those people affected into some other line of employment and what better way to do it.

What is most disgusting is that during a shut down most of those affected workers will get paid anyway for sitting at home on their asses. Not right away, but once the shutdown is resolved, they get a check whether or not they have done anything which is a disgusting system that only government could come up with. Government is the ultimate socialist experiment which by its nature avoids proper market adjustment conditions because the entire system is built of sentiment, not necessity. People seem to forget that France is and has been a socialist country for many years. After weeks of protesting taxes on gasoline prices to protect the environment on a made-up global warming initiative designed to incite panic among progressives, and thus foolish legislation and artificial tax collections, the President of France Emmanuel Macron proposed a raise for all workers of 100 euros and an exemption on overtime pay as well as social security for retirees. How did he come up with that number? Those labor costs aren’t set by any market circumstances, they are an artificial reaction to an artificial problem and all that does is inflate the value of labor costs for the entire country. How can a government just set a wage price to appeal to a bunch of protestors running around the streets of Paris overturning cars and burning garbage cans? The answer is he can’t, not without destroying the economic value of what France produces. This is the problem with all governments who set prices with the failed socialist notion that such things are best managed in such a way avoiding market realities.

It should be extraordinary, but it was and I hope to see a lot more off it where President Trump has these open fights with congressional Democrats. He’s doing essentially what I’d like to do and I voted for him to do just such a thing. And for the record, because everyone keeps saying it on all sides of the argument, we do not have a democracy in America. A bunch of thugs can’t just run around the streets overturning cars and vandalizing street signs and get a raise. We have a representative republic. We elect people to do jobs for us and that is how Trump was elected, even though the government system still refuses to accept that premise and have been working very hard to erase that election. But that’s the system we have and more fights like what happened in the White House over the funding of the government and the funding of the border wall need to occur. Additionally, we need to shut down the government more often so to push people out of that work that we don’t need so we don’t have to pay them for “nonessential” work. What a preposterous notion—paying people for things we don’t need as a nation just so that the government can count itself as a major employer. That is not the way of a capitalist nation, only a socialist one, and it should have never been introduced into the American concept to begin with. So people shouldn’t cry when it goes away. Shut down the government and move on to the next topic.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

How the Kardasian’s Saved Their $20 Million Mansion from the Wildfires: Decentralization of all services is the trend of the future

I don’t know much about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. Celebrity gossip and trivial nonsense is a massive waste of time and I contribute nothing to that enterprise. I did recently learn that I liked Kanye West because he has emerged over the last few years as a Trump supporter. Other than that, I know they are celebrities and they make their mark in the world on social media. They are of course rich because they serve a role in society of making regular people occupied with foolish behavior so they won’t truly look at the world as Democrats attempt to steal even more counties in California for the House of Representatives, flipping those previously conservative seats. While crimes occurred people marvel at the Kardashian sisters and their beauty and controversy and forget about the low bar nature of their personal lives, which seems to be the only goal of magazines like “People” and other tabloid acts. But I did hear something interesting involving Kim Kardashian and her husband, that they avoided having their $20 million dollar mansion destroyed by the California wildfires in Hidden Valley by employing and maintaining their own fire department. Honestly, I had never heard of this but learned that out of all fire departments in existence a small single digit percentage of them are privately employed. But any would be something I’d consider an extraordinary revelation.

I have been a tremendous critic of public employee tax payer funded centralized organizations culminating with the Senate Bill 5 that Sharon Jones and John Kasich tried to get passed back in 2012. I went all in even though it was dangerous supposedly to piss off your local fire department, police and teachers who were all targeted in that bill to break up the collective bargaining agreements they have as public employees to suck off all our tax money in extraordinary ways without any real management to control the out of control costs. When their obvious banter came back to me that only they had the courage to run into a fire or toward danger while I slept well at night my response was to call bullshit. If I see danger I run to it every time. I love danger, actually I’m obsessed with danger—I go looking for it ever waking hour of my life, so what they were saying to me just didn’t stick. They were doing what they always do as public employees, they tried to use sentiment and a natural fear of danger to asset that we should pay them infinite amounts of money for their public service. Then we are supposed to worship them in every parade and memorial ceremony. And if you feel differently they really develop a bad relationship with you, almost like they’d love to teach you a lesson for daring to challenge their role in society.

I’ve had the same fallout with teachers. When I questioned their ridiculous budgets at my home district of Lakota I had some of those union activists approach me and declare that I couldn’t teach their classes because the effort was too hard. My response to them was that I’d be happy to take them up on that challenge. In fact, I took it even higher, I volunteered to teach four classes all by myself to prove my point, which nobody took me up on. I was quite serious about my proposal. I’m not one of those people who will say, teaching kids in a class is too hard, or that charging a gunman as a police officer is either. And in fighting fires, I think it would be fun to save people and put out fires. I wouldn’t think of it as work, more as a human obligation. So I’m not one who thinks there is great value in those occupations. I think there is value in the tasks, but as large labor unions attached to tax payer money, I think there are better ways to do it.

I’ve often said about teachers that the decentralization of information these days has made them pretty irrelevant. Once children learn to read, write and do math, the public education system pretty much just drags out their baby-sitting service for the next ten years mostly ruining the ambitions of young minds in the process. And police have their role, but more guns in the hands of responsible people is the real answer to crime and punishment. But I never really considered fire fighting as an option to decentralization. I can say that when I’ve been in situations to put out a fire, I’ve always done it myself. And some of them were quite big. I’m not a call the fire department and stand outside and wait kind of guy. I never have been and I never will be. But they do have good equipment and expertise in basic medical care that saves lives, so I have sympathy for their efforts as first responders. They fix a lot of cut up people and people who suffer heart attacks and that can be a tough job to show up at a site and have people always in a state between life and death. But do these people have to work for an international labor union and do they have to be centralized in a community?

So we’ve heard so much about the California wildfires, and how they are destroying so much property. We’ve heard they were caused by global warming and other gods of disaster by liberals who still think that rain dancing and wearing the severed head of an animal as a mask is a viable option to solving problems of drought. And we watch on the news as constrained resources fight these massive fires that just spawn out of control. But then we learn that the Kardasians had their own fire department who built a fire break around their property and kept the fires from destroying their home. Why does a constrained resource have to be so, why can’t such services be decentralized so that quick action can be taken when danger arises? If you can afford it, why limit yourself to a constrained, publicly funded service? Seems kind of dumb to me and obviously most of the wealthy people who lost their homes in places like Malibu could have done the same. Instead, like a bunch of idiots they evacuated and let the professionals do the work of letting everything burn down because they were trying to fight fires everywhere at once and doing very little to actually solve the problem.

This Kardashian example is just another glimpse into the correct future, where public utilities are decentralized, where every home generates its own power, where every home can get anywhere in the world from their driveway, where even food is brought to your door without the added complexity of having to waste time going out and getting it. Already information has been decentralized in our relatively new phones which are essentially not just communication devices with anybody in the world any time of day, but are vast libraries of information and surveillance right in the palm of your hand. I often think of my iPhone as being as powerful as a typical television station was as I grew up. That is also the trend for all these public services. If you have the money, why not have your own fire fighting department to protect your property? It makes sense to me.

But that of course isn’t the message liberals want people to hear. They want more centralized authority and they use these positions, police, fire departments and teachers to make their arguments for more government that they control. But if they were so effective, California wouldn’t burn to the ground the way it has. Most of that damage was quite avoidable and the Kardasians proved it. While the fires were hard to put out, their path can be diverted out and away from valuable property. But because their efforts were too centralized, places like Malibu just burnt to the ground leaving a bunch of celebrities to stand crying in the streets and reminding America why more centralized authority was needed in all fields of endeavor. That is until the Kardasians showed that the whole thing really has been a ruse to sell more socialism from the beginning and that is a very important observation to consider.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.