Hoffman Laissez Faire: A new style of management for the 22nd Century

The issue was not settled by Douglas McGregor from the MIT Sloan School of Management when he came up with Theory X and Theory Y concepts on how to utilize workforce motivation.  Rather constant innovation is always needed to push the boundaries and to refine previous thoughts until something new is revealed that nobody on the face of the earth has seen before.   Particularly, I have always disagreed with Theory X and have always found Theory Y to be entirely too relaxed.  So I spent the last 17 years refining a style of my own which was inspired by two people I consider to be some of the best leaders in history.  One is the football coach Sam Wyche from the Cincinnati Bengals and later Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the other is Claire Lee Chennault.  The football coach invented new aspects to an old game and was involved in developing Hall of Fame talent like Joe Montana, Warren Sapp, John Lynch and Derrick Brooks.  The other essentially prevented Japan from taking China during World War II—all by himself.   However, both men suffered from history as Theory X and Theory Y types have written the history books not sure or outright resentful of the success of their betters, which I have always found immensely interesting—actually I have been obsessed with that cause and effect.  This has prompted me to create my own management style which was developed to explain the conditions of the two leaders indicated.  I call it Hoffman Laissez Faire and I have just concluded a multi-decade research project that proves its dramatic success which I will explain the value for with some context.

In the United States, essentially created by the economist Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” concept of economic motivation and development, laissez fair capitalism is the best method of creating not only wealth for a country, but an entire race of people.  Since laissez faire capitalism scares 90 percent of the population who are not functioning from a proper personal value system that allows for that brand of economic motivation to manifest, it is important then to look at the various modes of personal management that drives people in their daily lives to understand why.  Most people live their lives in the easy way taught to them as children, the authoritarian system of Theory X which comes to them first from their parents—which they never escape.  That is the reason for the 50-year-old over-weight office employee who begins planning their lunch the moment they clock in for the day who is as productive as a flat tire shredded on the rim of a beat-up old car.  They have been taught Theory X management styles and accept them to the point that they no longer think from their own input, but from others.  In their homes, their parents controlled their first thoughts, and then it was their jobs.  So of course they vote that way and elect politicians who do the same things.  It is unreasonable to expect a company full of Theory X employees to vote in favor of a United States President who advocates laissez faire capitalism.  Rather, they would likely find socialism more appealing, because it most represents Theory X management styles.  So to fix the nation of America you cannot start at the top, but at the level of people’s personal management styles and fix that before any hope of a democratic republic can have hopes of success.

Theory X and Theory Y are models of the type of employees that managers may encounter in the workplace. These models are used to prepare tactics and protocols on how to deal with employees to maximize production and profit.

According to this theory, type X individuals are inherently lazy and unhappy with their jobs. Therefore, an authoritarian management style is required to ensure fulfillment of the individuals’ objectives. These workers need close supervision with comprehensive systems of control and a hierarchical structure is needed with tight controls at every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program, and will avoid responsibility. According to Dr. Kumi Mark, if organizational goals are to be met, ‘Theory X’ managers must rely heavily on the threat of punishment to gain employee compliance. When practiced this theory can lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision and a punitive atmosphere. The ‘Theory X’ manager believes that all actions can be traced, and the responsible individual needs a direct reward or a reprimand according to the action’s outcomes. This managerial style is more effective when used to motivate a workforce that is not inherently motivated to perform. It is usually exercised in professions where promotion is infrequent, unlikely or even impossible and where workers perform repetitive tasks. One major flaw of this management style is that it limits employee potential and discourages creative thinking.

‘Theory Y’ managers assume employees can be ambitious, self-motivated and exercise self-control. Employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties and for them, work is as natural as play. They possess creative problem solving abilities, but their talents are underused in most organizations. ‘Theory Y’ managers believe that given the proper conditions, employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility, exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing their objectives. A ‘Theory Y’ manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. Many people interpret ‘Theory Y’ as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close reading of ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that ‘Theory Y’ managers are more likely than ‘Theory X’ managers to develop a climate of trust with employees required for employee development. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the tension in superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This environment would include sharing of decision-making so that subordinates have a say in decisions that influence them.

Then of course there is Theory Z which came as a kind of off-spring in management evolution.  It’s a name for various theories of human motivation built on Douglas McGregor‘s Theory X and Theory Y. Theories X, Y and various versions of Z have been used in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development.

One Theory Z was developed by Abraham H. Maslow in his paper “Theory Z” and the other is Dr. William Ouchi’s so-called “Japanese Management” style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s. The third was developed by W. J. Reddin in Managerial Effectiveness.

McGregor’s Theory Y in contrast to Theory X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, and Theory Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs.

For Ouchi, Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job. According to Ouchi, Theory Z management tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction.

Ironically, “Japanese Management” and Theory Z itself were based on Dr. W. Edwards Deming‘s famous “14 points“. Deming, an American scholar whose management and motivation theories were more popular outside the United States, went on to help lay the foundation of Japanese organizational development during their expansion in the world economy in the 1980s. (CLICK HERE TO READ MY OPINION OF DEMMING)  Deming’s theories are summarized in his two books, Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, in which he spells out his “System of Profound Knowledge”. He was a frequent advisor to Japanese business and government leaders, and eventually became a revered counselor. Deming was awarded the Second Order of the Sacred Treasures by the former Emperor Hirohito, and American businesses tried to use his “Japanese” approach to improve their competitive position.



Abraham Maslow, a psychologist and the first theorist to develop a theory of motivation based upon human needs produced a theory that had three assumptions. First, human needs are never completely satisfied. Second, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction. Third, these needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970).

  1. Physiological need
  2. Safety needs
  3. Belongingness and love needs
  4. The esteem needs –self-confidence
  5. The need forself-actualization – the need to reach your full potential

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory helps the manager to understand what motivates an employee. By understanding what needs must be met in order for an employee to achieve the highest-level of motivation, managers are then able to get the most out of production. Theory X, Y and Z all play a role in how a company should manage successfully. Theory X and Theory Y were both written by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who is believed to be a key element in the area of management theory. In Mc.Gregor’s book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960), McGregor describes Theory X and Theory Y based upon Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where McGregor grouped the hierarchy into a lower order (Theory X) needs and a higher order (Theory Y) needs. McGregor suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees, but better results could be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than Theory X (Heil, Bennis, & Stephens, 2000).

All those methods are insufficient to the modern task. The two great leaders I mentioned previously, Claire Lee Chennault and Sam Wyche were using something else which I would term a unique variation of laissez faire management styles.  The laissez-faire leadership style is where all the rights and power to make decisions is fully given to the worker. This was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The laissez-faire style is sometimes described as a “hands off” leadership style because the leader delegates the tasks to their followers while providing little or no direction to the followers. If the leader withdraws too much from their followers it can sometimes result in a lack of productivity, cohesiveness, and satisfaction.[8]

Laissez-faire leaders allow followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the completion of their work. It allows followers a high degree of autonomy and self-rule, while at the same time offering guidance and support when requested. The laissez-faire leader using guided freedom provides the followers with all materials necessary to accomplish their goals, but does not directly participate in decision making unless the followers request their assistance.

This is an effective style to use when:

  • Followers are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.
  • Followers have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.
  • Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used.
  • Followers are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should NOT be used when:

  • Followers feel insecure at the unavailability of a leader.
  • The leader cannot or will not provide regular feedback to their followers.[9]


Obviously a society who is trying to have a laissez faire form of capitalism needs voters from a democratic republic who function best within a laissez faire form of personal management.  And in tomorrow’s article I’ll elaborate more how and why this form of management is far superior to all the other methods mentioned within this text. My Hoffman variation to the laissez faire system is not casual, as one might imagine it to be, or misdiagnosed from a distance.  It’s rather intense, but it never robs people of their merit or emotional investment in the task at hand, which is incredibly important.  It requires the manager to be uniquely good and diverse at many levels to understand the emotional climate that employees need to function within to fully utilize the gifts of their productivity. These definitions are important before moving into the more advance notions of laissez faire leadership which I will do in the next article on this topic.  This article is but a foundation to begin building upon so that everything that comes next can be referenced correctly to the curious mind.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Fight Du’a Khalil Aswad Deserves: Facing down evil from collectivist cultures

To learn more about the background of this article read my work on the Troubadours by CLICKING HERE. It was the Troubadours who stood for the first time against thousands of years of human desire toward collective salvation to challenge the orthodox and suggest that a person marry someone their heart picks as an individual, not as an arrangement for the benefit of a society. For instance, it was and still is commonplace throughout the world for a family to arrange the marriage of their daughter to another family for political fulfillment. That political arrangement has value among collective assumptions. The girl is supposed to share her bed not with someone she chooses, but with someone society chooses for her represented by her family’s desire to fit within the cogs of that social wheel. The Troubadours challenged that notion and eventually those ideals evolved into what would become the United States. But this isn’t that kind of story. It’s a much darker one that illustrates the face of a great and terrible evil.

One of the reasons Barack Obama has such a problem with his open support of gay rights and Islamic radicalism when it would appear that the two factions are completely opposed to one another only joined together by the sympathies of a sitting American president, is because both subjects share a deep love of collective salvation at the core of their social value system. Islamic radicals have such extreme views of women, religion, and money that they actually kill known gays in their culture without any remorse. Obama as a champion for gay rights should condemn those Islamic extremists, but he can’t because he shares with the radical Muslim and the gay, a love of collective salvation of which communism and socialism are natural offshoots.

Collective salvation is where individual rights are superseded by the rights of a collective whole, where majority rules even if that majority is made up of complete idiots. It doesn’t matter to a collective based culture because their value salvation comes from collective acceptance. Those types of societies are what America has always stood against, because of their very nature. And the roots of that evil from the perspective of American value was never more evident than in the brutal killing of a beautiful young woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad. This story is a few years old, and newer examples could be found as early as just a few minutes ago somewhere in the world. But this poor woman has always broken my heart. I want so desperately to help her, because what happened to her was absolutely abhorrent. Following is a bit of the story as it was reported to the world along with a link to the source material.

The killing of Du’a Khalil Aswad is shown in the included videos. Up to 1000 men from the Yezidi Kurdish community of Mosul killed a teenager who’s only crime was running away to marry a Muslim man whom she loved and for possibly converting to his religion. For four months the girl had been given shelter by a local Muslim Sheik. It was reported that in the last few days her family persuaded her to return home, convincing her that she had been forgiven by her parents and relatives for her mistake. In a short mobile video clip which appears to have been taken by locals, the girl is seen being ambushed on her way home by a group of up to 1000 men who were waiting for her to return; the men killed her in the most brutal way possible, by throwing large stones on her head. The following clips show that while she is alive and crying for help she is taunted and kicked in her stomach until someone finishes her off by throwing a large stone on her face.


In spite of the brutality of that episode and obvious evil of killing the girl, the vilest aspect of it was that the community of 1000 men with the obvious endorsement of her family felt they had the right to destroy her life to protect the collective will of her village. That is the reason there were only a few arrests, that went nowhere, because the entire society was in on the killing—with either their stones, or their silence. It is because of this dangerous brand of collectivism that America has the Second Amendment, and is the reason that there are more guns than people in the freest country on earth.

If young Du’a Khalil Aswad had been carrying a gun, those maniacs would not have been able to harm her. There would not have been an ambush in the streets and her young lover might have had a recourse to assist her. But the culture that killed the young woman is a barbaric one, not just in their 12th century belief in religion and economics, but in their commitment to social collectivism, a trait that the Troubadours long ago abandoned, for the betterment of the human race.

A woman should have a right to marry whom she wants, to build a family along the lines of her desires and to raise off-spring under that independent philosophy. And if anyone stands in her way, they should be destroyed—because nobody should. No woman should have to endure what Du’a Khalil Aswad did. There is nothing she could have done that was worth that kind of insult and horrendous death.

So dear reader, you think about that when you hear Obama preach about equality, or hear some left winged loon speak against the Second Amendment. Even though American liberals think we should accept people who prefer anal intercourse over a vagina, they also think we should take a few notes out of the pages of the loons in the Middle East, people who think they have a right to kill poor young women for doing nothing but falling in love with a man outside of their social circle. I personally have NO tolerance for that kind of thing, and I am more committed than ever to helping poor people suffering under collectivism such as young Du’a Khalil Aswad was. Social collectivism may be the preferred choice of the modern academic, but they are all wrong, and dreadfully out-of-step with the direction of humanity. It was the Troubadours who put a stake in that European practice changing forever the direction of the human race. The rest of the world hasn’t yet caught up, but those who escaped from that life after centuries of trying settled America. And that fight will not die, let me tell you that. There are a lot of Du’a Khalil Aswads out there; they die every day just as she did. And they shouldn’t. They need our help, not our silence.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

John Kasich Running For President: All the good things I have to say about him

As many know I have a lot to say.  Every day I write multi thousand word articles about topics that are on my mind.  So of course I have to comment on John Kasich, whom I once awarded as Warrior of the Week right here on this site.   He just announced he’s running for president of the United States.  I’ve met the guy personally, and he’s from my state.  So let me articulate all the reasons he should be president with my voluminous command of the English language and prodigious writing ability.

………………………………………I can’t think of a single good thing to say in support.  He lost Issue 2.  Gave Obama everything he wanted.  And he was one of the first to tag Ohio to Obamacare.  He shouldn’t be running for president…………………he should be running from angry voters.

Only in Washington!

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

John McCain is a “Survivor” not a “Hero”: Why Donald Trump is right yet again

I had to write the article yesterday about the Metaphysics of Quality because an understanding of that is needed before understanding why Donald Trump was right about John McCain.  I watched the full interview with Trump at the 2015 Family Leadership Summit on July 18th 2015 and saw the context of the McCain comments and I can say that they weren’t at all out of line from my own opinions.  The firestorm that followed against Trump is because he hit a particularly raw nerve in established thinking, that just because a veteran served in the military that they are automatic heroes.  But there is more to the matter and Trump boldly announced that just because John McCain was captured as a POW for 5 years during the Vietnam War that it didn’t make him an automatic hero.  Trump declared that he preferred people who weren’t captured for performance evaluation, and thus the nerve.  Watch the entire interview in the pre-pundit context.

I remember when it was fashionable to ridicule serviceman returning from Vietnam by many of the same types of people who now seek to exploit veterans for their own advances toward collectivism.  You see, here is the process, a young person joins the military—goes to boot camp—has their individual identity stamped out of them by a drill sergeant—then they are rebuilt into a team player within the chain of command structure which the government controls.  This assimilation into a collective unit is what government progressives like John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama live for.  They would like to see that happen to all Americans starting with pre-school children.  As adults this madness leads to Deming type thinkers at the back of the train.  CLICK TO REVIEW.  Old hippies and war protestors like Hillary have joined in the public praise of veterans to use them to sell collectivism as opposed to individualism.

Trump is clearly a front of the train guy—vastly different from a typical politician.  He looks at the do nothing McCain who lost the 2008 election because of his passivity and has decided he doesn’t care for the guy.  Being a veteran doesn’t give McCain a pass to be an idiot for the rest of his life living off the reputation of his 5 years spent in captivity.  To Trump’s mind, and mine as well, McCain would have been far more effective if he hadn’t been caught to begin with, because it made him a liability to the United States strategically.  McCain was a pilot who was shot down over Hanoi during a bombing mission.  He was then captured, tortured and suffered lifelong physical limitations.  To an A-type personality my first thought was that even with fractures to his right leg and both arms, he should have done what he needed to do to avoid capture—or escape by any means necessary instead of staying captive for five and a half years.  Knowing now what we do about McCain it is likely that his natural inclination toward passivity is what kept him prisoner.  An A type of personality would have escaped, or died trying—so there is reluctance to call someone a hero just because they suffered.

However, to the modern progressive, sacrifice, suffering and service to causes outside of individual motivation are what they are trying to sell to the world, and the American serviceman is ripe for that exploitation.  Not to mention a fellow progressive who is one of their members in the Republican Party who has been instrumental in bringing conservatives more to a centralist position on most social topics.  The Beltway political system is using veterans to preserve their static pattern way of life which assumes that people are heroes if they give up their thoughts and individuality in service to Capitol Hill.  Trump is questioning that rationality which set off a firestorm of controversy.  Reporters after the event lashed into Trump with a fury that defied reason—their assumption was that McCain no matter how effective he is, no matter what kind of quality person he is, is a hero because he was captured and tortured.  That all his actions for the rest of his life would be forgiven because he was a war hero, meaning that any critical assessment of McCain was off the table—that’s not how reality works.

The cause of the ridicule of McCain from Trump started because of comments the progressive senator made about the 15,000 people who attended Trump’s rally in Phoenix, Arizona.  He called the Trump supporters “crazies” which was an establishment desire to set the parameters toward acceptable behavior, because Trump’s support was growing well beyond the control of the GOP.  That is the essence of the fear that the Beltway has about Trump, which he will not be able to be controlled by anybody, because he’s already a billionaire, so he can’t be bribed by money.  So they have to try to build public consensus against him—and they started by calling his supporters “crazies.”  Standard back of the train behavior.  Trump then felt he had to defend his supporters which he did by questioning the performance of John McCain over the years, starting with his military service.

McCain pulled the ejection handle on his Skyhawk dive bomber at 500 knots breaking his right leg in the process.  He passed out and landed in a lake nearly drowning until some North Vietnamese caught him and pulled him into the center of a nearby town.  The peasants there were hollering and spitting on him kicking him when they could.  They stripped him, his leg was broken at a 90-degree angle, and they stuck a bayonet into his foot.  They interrogated him for the next four days then declared him for dead.  McCain realized he had a major infection from blood pooling in his leg that would kill him so he agreed to give the North Vietnamese military information if they’d take him to the hospital.  They declared that he was too far gone.  It was only when they realized that McCain’s father was a “big admiral” that they took him to the hospital hoping to use him for political leverage.  McCain was treated somewhat and spent the next five years in captivity.  From the point of view of an A type personality, McCain made several mistakes.  He didn’t have an escape plan during the crash.  His survival instinct told him to pull the lever, to not drown in the lake, and to say whatever he could to keep from dying of an injury to his leg.  But at his decision gates, he could have waited a bit longer to eject after scanning the ground for nearby villages.  Once captured he trusted too much in the system as he was a soldier who accepted that his fate was up to others to deal with—even wounded, he took a passive position on his own safety which then put mission command at risk adding to the list of POWs that were being held in military areas they’d otherwise like to bomb. So strategically, McCain put the command structure of the United States forces at a disadvantage because of his capture that likely caused more death because of his natural impulse toward self-preservation.  In hindsight it’s clear there were other options, but McCain didn’t use them.  He was under duress, and surely terrified.  But what made him a hero?  He just wanted to live.  That doesn’t make one a hero.

Is a kid who doesn’t know what they want to be when they grow up a hero because they are willing to trade freedom for security by joining the military as a young recruit?  Are they heroes because they show a willingness toward sacrifice—because they were taught that in their basic training?  Are they heroes because they accept orders without question letting other people do their thinking for them?  And if they get into trouble like McCain did performing a mission that some bureaucrat came up with at a command bunker, are they heroes for trying to stay alive?  These are legitimate questions.  The political class wants to believe they are heroes for serving as congressman and senators, but in reality they are ineffective leeches who enrich themselves off the political process.  McCain is one of those people.  He had an unfortunate thing that happened to him, and he’s trying to cover up the many follies of his past with the awards of his desire to stay alive—which is human and quite natural.  There’s nothing exceptional about wanting to stay alive.   But in the real world where people like Trump live, he measures success off performance, not sacrifice.  And under that lens McCain is a failure and not very heroic.  Just because something bad happens it doesn’t make you a hero.  Escaping and bringing back intelligence that would win the war would have.  But just lasting from day-to-day barely alive doesn’t.  It just makes you a survivor.

McCain all through his capture was very concerned about the other POWs who had been there longer than him getting home first.  He to his very heart and soul thought of others over himself, which is what progressive society wishes to see.  Trump wouldn’t be that way, and neither would I.  I could not have stayed in a prison for over five years waiting for the war to end.   I would have had to find some alternatives.   But McCain believes in the static systems of the political orthodox, which is still a problem with him.  He may be a good man relative to the politics of the Beltway, but is he a hero?  That is a matter of definitions and who makes them, and whether those definitions come from the back of the train, or the front.  In the end, McCain gave the communists what they were looking for, a confession of guilt that was beat out of him after years of torture.  He had hit his breaking point and nobody can really blame him.  That makes him a survivor.  But a hero—only in Washington politics could someone conclude that.  Donald Trump was right again.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Gun Grabbing Obama: Attacking America from within by first disarming them

The communist oriented Democrats have been “community organizing” vigorously on the heels of the infamous June 2015 Supreme Court rulings going for what they think is the conservative jugular in the final year of Obama’s flamboyant rule as a socialist dictator.  Over the weekend I received several emails from them advocating fundraising and liberal activism.  Below is one such example from the Obama camp specifically targeting guns.  Here’s what it said.

Friend —

We’ve had to come together as a nation too many times to mourn after horrific acts of gun violence. And right now, it’s not good enough simply to show sympathy.

We need to acknowledge that there’s more work to do — that these tragedies have become far too commonplace. This is a conversation that folks need to have, and organizers like you are the ones who will move it forward.

People across the country are stepping up, and OFA supporters and volunteers are working to prevent gun violence state by state and city by city — join their fight today.

As we take the time to heal in the shadow of this most recent tragedy, we have to ask ourselves what more we can do as individuals and communities to prevent guns from getting into the hands of dangerous individuals.

The lack of movement in Congress on this issue is incredibly frustrating. But their refusal to act won’t stop progress. Because of organizers like you, states like Washington and Oregon have introduced successful restrictions on gun purchases, like common-sense background checks.

No single reform will eliminate violence. But we can’t give up, or act like this is some kind of new normal. We have to make progress where we can, and OFA and other groups have a real path forward.

There’s much more to do — so join OFA in working for it:


I’m not giving up, and I hope you won’t either. Every voice is important.

Thank you,

Barack Obama


Remember, progress to a progressive is elimination one by one of the Bill of Rights, and the gun is highest on their priority list.  So defend the gun by sending a nice message to OFA and let them know how you feel.  Communists want a disarmed America for obvious reasons.  It’s your job dear reader to make sure they don’t get their way.  Send this article to everyone you know and make sure to take action and defend your rights—or you will lose them.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Rich Hoffman is Running for President: The bad is no longer protected from the good

I made the announcement during my show on the Clarkcast over the weekend that I am running for president of the United States, along with a little single cell creature newly discovered on the Jupiter moon of Europa. Of course I was using a little metaphorical humor to convey how ridiculous it is that there are so many people running for president in 2016, and the number is still growing. I’d say the cause of that effect is that president Obama has been so terrible, and lowered the bar so low, that now everyone believes that they too could be president and gain the ability to rule the world.  That’s what happens when a standard is lowered to a level where common people with an average background gain an ability that should only encompass the best and brightest minds produced within the United States. Also during the June 20th show I covered Matt Clark’s secret mission which he called in to surmise. I then spoke about my history with bullwhips a bit, gave some statistical analysis about the perceived gun violence in the wake of the South Carolina church shooting, and introduced my friend Gery Deer to talk about the upcoming Annie Oakley Western Showcase in Darke County, Ohio. It was an entertaining radio show that can be heard in its entirety below. Following the clip is the rough script of the show to make navigation easier for sections you may want to hear again.

Radio Show WAAM Saturday June , 2015 1 PM WAAM Talk 1600  734-822-1600

5 min — Matt Clark’s secret mission update

8 min – Nice to hear from Roy Hill at Brownells as the extreme left seeks to exploit the Charleston, South Carolina church.  After nine people were killed by Dylann Roof, Obama immediately sought gun control.   The progressive elements of our society were quick to point out statistics from the United Nations indicating that 81,300 nonfatal injuries and 31,672 deaths a year involve guns, which are 308 shootings every day. That sounds truly terrible—yet context is conveniently left vacant. There are approximately 32,000 deaths a year by automobiles and yet nobody has a press conference that declares that we should get rid of cars.  What’s worse is that a whopping 44,000 people die every year from some form of drug overdose and the president supports more of that type of behavior even getting behind efforts to decriminalize it. Isn’t that hypocritical? Of course it is. The drama around the latest shooting rampage has nothing to do with the loss of innocent life—it’s all about building a case against guns so that Americans might be convinced to give them up in favor of some measure of safety. The Fanned Flames of Racisim: Barack Obama’s role in the South Carolina shooting” at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom.com

10 min – My history with bullwhips

17 min — Soft break

20 min – 30 years of history with bullwhips including movies, business instruction, and self-defense.  Lead in to my relationship with Gery Deer and the Annie Oakley Western Arts Showcase—home of the bullwhip fastdraw—invented in Ohio.  2015 event on Saturday July 25th.

30 min — Hard break

35 min – Introduction to Gery Deer – Gery Deer is the closest person I’ve ever met to a real life Bronco Billy. He has a background that is white-collar; he’s a writer, a television producer, a computer technician, a college graduate well versed and quite comfortable in professional settings. He’s been on America’s Got Talent and done films as a material supplier for projects like The Rundown. He also runs the only bullwhip studio in America from his home where he teaches the art form to students. He’s also a bit of a geek, and attends sci-fi conventions with boyish enthusiasm. But at his core he’s a western performer and vaudeville musician.   His band the Brothers and Company performs most weekends of the year and is a throwback to yesteryear with their compositions. He’s a very unique person who fits best in a motion picture screen rather than real life.

38 min – Gery conversation on the phone.

47 min — Soft break

50 min – Stories of the Annie Oakley Western Showcase and roots back to the stuntman great Alex Green.  Talk about the 2015 event, who, what, why, when, and where.

58 min — Exit to the top of the hour

imageAfter the show Matt sent me a picture of his view as he listened to the show from his hotel balcony in Hawaii at 7 AM in the morning. He had a nice little beverage there along with his laptop listening to the live broadcast from WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan over the Internet which I think is far superior to the old days of raw tower power. You get a much better signal over the Internet that goes much, much further. In this case the reach of WAAM was easily heard halfway around the world in real-time. As a host for Matt’s show I did it from my personal radio studio at my home while Derek at the home studio several hundred miles to the north worked the dials. All three of us worked together to put on the show you just heard from different places separated greatly by distance which I thought was a powerful breakthrough in radio. I know that The Blaze Radio is also doing something similar—and this is opening up a new frontier along the lines of talk radio. No longer are regional limitations necessary in talk radio. That means that those with the best message can now get it out no matter where they live and can reach audiences in every corner of the world without any restriction so long as they have Internet access. That is exactly why the FCC is trying to stick its nose into the Internet. It’s a very powerful tool for the crafty—and government hates it for that reason. Government intended to use the Internet for the opposite reason—as a population control mechanism—and yes porn is a form of population control. But people like Matt and the good people at WAAM are using the Internet to save the republic one broadcast at a time, which is why they put me on for a few weeks to advance the cause. It won’t be the last time I host a show—I’ll just say that.

A few years ago Darryl Parks at WLW radio told me that this was where radio was going, which meant that big stations owned by Clear Channel were in trouble. Back then there was some talk about me doing some weekend work at the Cincinnati juggernaut WLW—but there were some management changes, and reluctance on my part to get involved in that kind of thing. I am a very busy guy, and taking time out of my weekend to go down to the station to broadcast from a studio is just too great of an imposition. When they fired my friend Doc Thompson I had no choice but to pick sides against management and the rest is history. The station has been reducing its employees since then, and Lisa Wells filled the spot that I might have covered on Saturday mornings—hoping that a female might expand the station’s reputation from less of a sausage fest. But it really doesn’t.

Matt Clark asked me to guest host for him months ago and took measures to set me up at home with a complete studio so I could do the show from my home in Liberty Township, Ohio. That meant that I could do all my normal tasks and only block off an hour and a half to do Matt’s show—which was fine with me. I didn’t even have to live in Ann Arbor to be in the studio. Matt helped me set up a room in my house with a remote studio that worked just fine to produce what you just heard. Back in the day, such as at WLW, you’d have to drive to the station which is in a big building in Kenwood, park the car, go up one of the two elevators to the top floor, go through the sales office, walk down a hallway that is at least a 100 yards long, then camp out in the studio to do the show as the producer gave cues from behind the glass. It took me about a half hour to drive to the station, and an additional 15 minutes to park the car just to get to the studio. Then after the show it was the same amount of time to get back home. That in itself is an hour and a half of dead—unproductive time that I don’t have. Then you have the actual radio show which can be anywhere from 1 hour to 3 hours. A good part of the day would be completely consumed.

With the Clarkcast I was able to do my normal activities right up until the moment of the show. I went to my personal home studio, contacted the station producer, and he piped me in and off I went. After the show, I was back to what I was doing immediately. The total time was nothing more than a long telephone conversation and of a very little time impact. And Matt was able to monitor in real-time from the other side of the world. That is the power and reach of modern radio. It was fun, informative, and successful. We’ll definitely do it again. Because the world needs saving—and due to the power of the Internet, we can reach further more often than we’ve ever been able to before—and you can bet dear reader that we will continue to use those tools to preserve our republic well into the future. These tools allow the best and brightest to be heard so in a lot of ways, the bar has been removed so that many vindictive producers who control radio broadcast towers can no longer monopolize the airwaves protecting the bad from the good. In a lot of ways modern radio is seeing the opposite effect of the presidential race. Obama is so bad that he now has many challengers to his legacy because he has made the job look all too easy. Radio too is now decentralized—but now the very good can step around the big stations and get their message to the public without small-minded programmers getting in the way. And thanks to WAAM, we have all taken our first steps into a larger world.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Businessmen Should Be President: Why to vote for people like Donald Trump

If one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results—then why do we continue the insane practice of electing lawyers, community activists, and attention seeking actors to lead the United States? Government is supposed to be a management system that controls costs and divides properly tax payer resources. Yet they continue to fail, over and over again—because most of the idiots in those positions are incompetent for the job. So why does a majority of the establishment bulk at Donald Trump’s declaration for presidency? He is one of the most successful people in the world and would likely be able to do everything he said in the below Bill O’Reilly interview. Why not try him out, what would the United States have to lose—its respect? That’s gone already. The question is who would be most able as a future president to manage the despicable situation we are in currently in the United States with a successful turn-around, a person with a proven track record of success, or just another parasitic government employee?

A few years ago I was involved in a resistance against tax increases at my local school district, and my solution was to put more business oriented people on the school board to solve the problem—people who really knew how to rub two sticks together and make fire in the world of business. My group proposed a few candidates that were heavily criticized because it was thought that only touchy feely big spenders who would cave into the teacher’s union for the benefit of the “kids” were the only ones qualified for the management of millions of dollars of acquired property tax revenue. I was told that business people were not qualified to run a school district. It is the same crap that is now being said about Donald Trump, that a rich billionaire does not have what it takes to be president. The conventional wisdom seems to point that incompetent, emotional, and populists make better leaders, yet they fail at everything they do. Whereas someone like Donald Trump, who has a track record of success is unqualified? That simply makes no sense—at all.

Given the constant school funding problems where management of resources is completely vacant, and the utter failures at every other level of public service, why would there be any suggestion of any other type of person sitting in the chair of an American president—other than a businessman? The answer is of course what every public labor union knows across the entire country, and that is that chaos is easy to exploit. So long as there is no management of a situation, then those employees can acquire all the money stolen from tax payers then use safety concerns and children to extract more. It’s a scam that virtually everyone in the Beltway is guilty of—especially the media. They are all pigs at the trough and they can never get enough, and they know that if someone like Donald Trump is watching the books that the slop in that trough will dry up forever. And that scares them to death.

Given that understanding, Donald Trump is belittled for his competency, and relevance—as those ill prepared to be leaders are placed on pedestals. It is a sure blueprint on how to destroy a country. Put bad leaders in charge of good leaders and the effectiveness of any organization is destroyed leaving exploitation by the wicked to be the mode of the day. I’m not a huge Donald Trump fan. He doesn’t treat women the way I would like to see, he’s more arrogant than I think is appropriate, but he’s successful, and anybody who is successful understands what it takes to be that way. Our political system needs much successful types if our republic has any hope of surviving. I’d vote for Donald Trump not because he’s a good person, but because he’s competent. In business, I’d probably get along well with Donald Trump. During a dinner conversation, probably not—but at least I know he has a desire for success as president.

The American presidents over the last two hundred years have had a variety of backgrounds; most were attorneys, or military minds of some kind. Few have a real background in business—and isn’t it time that someone have a clear understanding of what capitalism is all about? What better way for America to help the world with foreign policy than in teaching them the merits of capitalism—how to become rich themselves. Who better to advocate that than Donald Trump presently?

That is another aspect to this whole issue–governments love socialism—they love to be in charge through group consensus. They do not like capitalism at all, and they hate people like Trump because they know first that they need the money of the rich to get elected, and second they hate being reminded that it is the rich who are really in charge of everything—because that’s the way it is in a capitalist society. Trump has no respect for politicians, because they are not productive people. They don’t build wealth, they rob from it. They are anti-capitalists.  So why on earth would we ever consider voting for such a person—yet half of the Republican candidates and all of the Democratic candidates are just such people—progressives at best—socialists at worst—all advocates of looted wealth redistributed in the spirit of fairness as determined by corrupt people.

Specifically, the American businessman—the good ones, tend to make good leaders just by surviving the vetting process. Those who are successful are far more qualified than some human resources slug from P&G to run a school board, or a community giveaway artist like Obama for President. A business person like Carly Fiorina—whom I would also vote for in less than a second—has proven success as leaders—and are therefore infinitely more qualified to be responsible for trillions of dollars and billions of human lives. A community activist or school teachers are not qualifications enough for such a task such as what Woodrow Wilson used to be. Presidents and other representatives in our republic should be proven business people who have a working knowledge of capitalism and the actual cause of job creation. It isn’t politicians—its people like Trump.

So why not Trump? Why not a billionaire who has made money in global markets and knows how to read and assess a situation from different cultures? Could he possibly do worse than Hillary Clinton—who has a proven track record of failure and only has her lack of genitalia as a reason to vote for her?   I think not. Things won’t change in America until we get back to making bold decisions and acting in a dynamic fashion. Doing the same old failures of the past and copying after Europe won’t get us there. But Trump could—so why not?

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.