Tag: security

Dumping Biden’s Autopen Executive Orders: Destroying the silent insurrection by institutional manipulation

From a position of principled dissent, one must assert: it is both appropriate and necessary for President Trump to rescind the executive orders and other instruments signed by President Biden via autopen. This move is not a partisan slight against Biden himself—instead, it’s a justified protest against the institutional apparatus that hijacked executive authority during his presidency.

Trump’s decision signals a break with what has become a “fourth branch” of government. Bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and political operatives effectively commandeered presidential power behind the scenes, wearing its cloak while burying proper accountability. If MAGA goes silent—if it ceases to challenge the corruptive center of institutionalism—that deviation will be permanent. The people’s voice, once quieted by the elite through procedural manipulation, seldom returns.

Rooted in ancient traditions, the MAGA movement echoes the Teacher of Righteousness dissenters described in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls: insurgents who arise whenever authority no longer serves its constituents but rather entangles them in webs of venality. These protestations are not aberrations; they are hardwired into human nature and political life. Revolts are rhetoric, yes—but when discourse fails, and trust is broken, they become relentless, even righteous rebellion.

This moment is not historically unique. We are neither living through an aberration nor an anomaly—we are participating in a time-tested cycle of institutional decay and public backlash. Unless actively disrupted, this cycle does not correct itself. It requires decisive, uncompromising change.

Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning in 2020, it became a vehicle for global actors to consolidate control—governmental, financial, technological—and push bio-political frameworks that were as deadly as they were deceptive. Millions perished under directives engineered from the top. Those who operate these levers today are leveraging their power to set conditions for continued control—some of which may require enduring Trump another three years, or at least until 2028.

Biden did not genuinely win control—an elaborate maneuver of autopen, election doubt, and pandemic-induced panic that carried over into his administration. This isn’t about policy disagreement; it’s about the subversion of election integrity and democratic process. The Republican moderates—the power brokers in both parties—are complicit. They reap the financial rewards of insider governance even as they masquerade as safeguards of free enterprise.

The result is a system in which corporate power is maintained not by competitive markets but by governmental decree. Industry giants lobby, they legislate, and they leverage regulated advantage into an immovable monopoly. This is neither capitalism nor democracy—it is centralized privilege.

Trump was placed in office to correct this—not because of policy disagreements but due to the growing realization that the system had mutated into an oligarchy, one that served the same servile beneficiaries from Washington to Wall Street.

But removing Trump in the middle of the purging process transformed what should have been a transitional restoration into something dangerously uncertain. The institutionalists within government, sensing their loss, have regrouped. Joe Biden is not a break in continuity—he is an extension of their covert agenda.

Consider Biden’s record: 162 executive orders in four years—an aggressive use of unilateral powers and far above average relative to modern presidents12. Nearly 41% were revoked by Trump within days of resuming office. These orders spanned everything from invoking the Defense Production Act on electric vehicles and biotech34 to mandating federal minimum wage increases4, forcing climate policies4, and rerouting federal dollars into union apprenticeship programs34.

The extraordinary scale and scope of these unilateral actions—used to circumvent Congressional approval—highlight why the MAGA movement fears complacency above all else.

The autopen controversy, then, wasn’t accidental. Biden’s use of an autopen—a device that mechanically reproduces signatures—became the focal point of MAGA’s alarm. Trump asserts that some 92% of Biden’s signed actions were processed via autopen and are thus inherently invalid 56. Among those, suggestions range from presidential orders to pardons, including those granted to Fauci, General Milley, and members of the January 6 committee 78. Critics argued that such coverage without the President’s direct signature was illegitimate—even perjurious.

Legal experts, however, dismissed this view. A 2005 Department of Justice memo confirmed that autopen signatures are legally valid when authorized910. Courts have noted that presidential pardons need not be in writing at all. Scholars point out that once issued, pardons are inviolable and immune from revocation by successor administrations.

Yet that technical legality missed the moral point. MAGA supporters argue that legality without legitimacy is insufficient. Just because the bureaucratic mechanism parses it as valid doesn’t mean it bears democratic authority. The autopen represented the final straw—evidence that control had left the people’s hands and entered automated dominance.

And Trump understood that scenery. So he initiated investigations, revoked dozens of orders, and canceled more—drastically—by first-day cutbacks, then March 2025 revocations, then this sweeping de-autopenization3414.

With every revocation, MAGA restored control to the people. But letting institutional leverage settle in would have been worse. Trump resisted governing by consensus because consensus had betrayed the people. These were not minor adjustments—this was a reset intended to reassert popular mandate over administrative stealth.

But MAGA supporters rationalize: corruption must be uprooted in bulk. If parts of the system are irredeemably corrupt, small-scale reform isn’t enough. Action requires either unyielding disruption, not temporary band-aids.

Looking ahead, that disruption must be institutionalized. It cannot rely on Trump alone. Political seats must be won—governorships, Congress, school boards, city halls—to institutionalize disruption.

Look at the midterms and below: they are won not by playing nice, but by embodying the fight. MAGA must not compromise away the only movements capable of checking deep corruption at its root.

Yes, Trump governed as though working within the system would tame it. But the system used that effort to reassure itself. Civil servants nodded in his face, only to conspire behind his back.

We saw the phenomenon in COVID policies, ending that contradictory presidency. Those pushing pandemic mandates operated beyond democratic oversight—unelected experts, bureaucratic rule. It took an insurgent presidency to expose the duplicity.

Now, Trump fights back by reclaiming the instruments of executive power—by drawing lines in the sand, and by vociferously naming those who conspired in executive hollowing.

If he retreats now—if MAGA shrinks in the face of institutional backlash—the effort is for naught. As Jesus said: A house divided cannot stand.

But if MAGA rallies—if cities and states choose representatives willing to enact true reform—then Trump’s disruption becomes permanent. That means a crackdown on conspirators, a legal reckoning for the autopen cabal, and an end to post-hoc presidential puppeting by hidden staffs.

Statistically, the number of executive orders matters. Biden averaged ~40 EO’s per year1718—a pace far above average, and far above what would be sustainable if the presidency were not treated as a governing elite office. Removing the excessive orders flipped control from institutions back to voters.

Yet the statistics also warn that Biden’s focus on memoranda, including national security memoranda—a bladeshot form of autocratic bypass—became a hallmark of invisible governance. Often, a memo could usurp statutory authority or declare an emergency under concealment.

This leads to election security.

After 2020, mistrust was deep. Pew reported that only 58% of Trump voters trusted that the outcome would be clear after counting, and 92% believed the result should be known within days19. Meanwhile, nine out of ten voters overall prioritize preventing illegal voting. That’s trust based on process, not rhetoric.

But trust evaporates when systems are vulnerable. Since 2020, 92% of local election officials reported enhanced security measures in 2021. That heightened security owes to both increased systemic threats and widespread mistrust.

MAGA’s claim: if the institutions are deploying executive power without transparency—or are altering election governance through memo rather than law—they steal not merely ballots, but trust, legitimacy, and authority.  Trump’s aggressive stance on revocation isn’t mere revenge. It’s a necessary action to preserve our republic.

For that to endure, strong, secure elections are the baseline—not tokenism. If elections are hacked or adjudicated behind closed doors, the outcome is irrelevant. No amount of EO revocation matters if the mechanism behind the vote remains under covert control.

If Trump secures seat wins in the next elections—not because of compromise but through campaign-first messaging—then the movement becomes structural, not merely rhetorical.

We fought for Trump for this structural change. We didn’t give him a mandate to play nice. We gave him a mandate to fight.

So—Go hard. Rescind, revoke, prosecute. Take out the institutional rot with precision. Shut down the cabals. If you’re going to mess with systems, do it permanently. Don’t hesitate. Strike fast.

It is time to institutionalize MAGA, not depersonalize it. If regulations housed the poison, uproot them entirely. If rival offices conspired, expose them and break them. If colluding agencies diverted funds, revoke and defund them. If secretive pardons sheltered corruption, expose them to the sunlight and eliminate their immunity.

And then, pivot—once the rot is removed—to reconstruction: a government that serves the people with genuine transparency, limited-term appointments, reformed election security, and executive power that is retrievable, contestable, and transparent.

It’s not enough to protest with words. Words are hollow if the power is in the hands of the few. Remove the instruments of unilateral control, and stand them up anew in the hands of governors, legislators, and citizens.

Let Trump’s actions serve not as a cult, but as a crucible: to temper institutions to service, not mastery.

The autopen exposes the lie. Insurgency confronts the machine. If MAGA falters, they reassert it. If MAGA stands firm, the movement morphs into stewardship.

Now is the choice—not tomorrow.

Footnotes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills, July 7, 2005.

2. Congressional Research Service, “Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations,” CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.

3. Federal Register, “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden,” 2021–2024.

4. Pew Research Center, “Public Confidence in Election Integrity,” October 2020.

5. National Association of Secretaries of State, “Election Security Measures Post-2020,” Annual Report, 2023.

6. White House Archives, “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump,” March 2025.

7. Brennan Center for Justice, “The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority,” Policy Brief, 2024.

8. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance,” GAO-22-104, 2022.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 Mortality Data,” 2020–2022.

10. Congressional Budget Office, “Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies,” 2021.

11. Department of Homeland Security, “Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure,” 2023.

—

Bibliography

• Brennan Center for Justice. The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority. Policy Brief, 2024.

• Congressional Research Service. Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations. CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.

• Federal Register. “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden.” 2021–2024.

• Pew Research Center. “Public Confidence in Election Integrity.” October 2020.

• U.S. Department of Justice. Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills. July 7, 2005.

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance. GAO-22-104, 2022.

• White House Archives. “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump.” March 2025.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “COVID-19 Mortality Data.” 2020–2022.

• Congressional Budget Office. Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies. 2021.

• Department of Homeland Security. Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure. 2023.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Thank Goodness Kristi Noem Thought to Ask the Question: We don’t have to take our shoes off at the airport anymore

Thank goodness Kristi Noem thought to ask the question, because many things in government are just like this.  Someone comes up with a stupid rule, and we end up following it for the rest of our lives without question, even though it was dumb to begin with.  And that was certainly the case when it came to the security measures that were implemented after 9/11.  Our FBI and CIA didn’t do a very good job in detecting a terrorist cell within the United States training to fly planes in Florida, but not caring to land them, and our security got caught napping, so those terrorists were able to get onto commercial planes and use them as weapons of war.  And the crises of that moment made people clamor for corrective action, which human beings most often overreact to.  And the Department of Homeland Security was created, giving us the TSA, and the dumb policy of removing shoes at the airport while going through security.  Now, over twenty years later, it hasn’t saved anyone anything, but it has certainly cost a lot of time and misery.  And until Kristi Noem was put in charge of Homeland Security and asked everyone working there why we were still taking off our shoes at security checks, nobody had an answer.  The only thing they could say was that we were doing it because we had always done it.  Never was the question asked whether we should be doing it at all.  Thankfully, Kristi Noem, due to the weak reaction to that question, changed the policy, and we no longer have to remove our shoes at airport security checkpoints.  It’s a significant step toward addressing many issues that amusement parks have already identified.  An overreaction to security to cover the impediment of actually doing the job the first time is a dumb idea, and it’s good to see that policy go.

It has been terrible to deal with the security procedures since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  The entire creation of the unionized TSA has been a disaster, making traveling by plane a miserable experience.  I try not to do it unless I have to travel overseas, because essentially it takes all day to travel.  I never feel comfortable arriving at the airport less than two hours before a flight because many things can go wrong, especially at security.  Nobody is saying that we don’t want security on flights.  However, it’s the kind of overcompensation that we see with the TSA that’s the problem.  Private security would be much better than unionized labor, which often fails to perform effectively in any field.  There is plenty of technology these days that can detect bomb making equipment just through a quick scan.  We don’t need to take off half our clothes through the demeaning process of vulnerability in front of hundreds of other people.  This idea of stripping away your identity into a near locker room vulnerability is just dumb and lazy.  And it never made us a safer society.  It just made us feel that way.  If people just did their jobs the first time, many of the well-known terrorist attempts that we know of on airplanes wouldn’t have happened.  However, these days, the technology is so advanced and intrusive that there’s no need to take off all your clothes to board an airplane.  With domestic flights, and I fly out of Cincinnati, if the destination is east of the Mississippi River, it’s much better and faster to drive.  And because of that, think of how much money airlines lose because of the TSA rules.

People don’t talk about it as much as they should. Think how much money Homeland Security has cost airline companies by being such a pain in the neck that people don’t buy plane tickets.  It’s a massive opportunity cost.  Before the creation of Homeland Security and the introduction of the TSA’s overly restrictive rules, many airlines had significantly larger hubs.  Delta operated a central hub that served numerous destinations from Cincinnati well into the 1990s.  Because flying was easy and not so intrusive, people chose to do it.  Once they turned the experience into essentially a locker room at the YMCA, it has cost airlines a lot of money in lost opportunity cost.  Some of the low-cost carriers have found a way to adapt somewhat.  However, the experience of flying has deteriorated significantly.  If you want to dress up and go somewhere to show the best version of you to the world, you don’t fly in a plane.  Because it’s such a demeaning experience.  And for a long time, amusement parks were just as bad.  However, they have recently upgraded their scanners, and as a result, they wave everyone through much faster.  The scanners can practically see through your clothing, leaving nothing to the imagination.  But at least you don’t have to strip down almost naked to go through security.  We live in a society that needs to do things faster, not slower, or safer.  We need people to do their jobs better the first time, and everything would work so much better.  And to Kristi Noem’s point, nobody had even thought to ask the question, “Why are we doing this dumb thing?” all this time.  When the answer was, “because we have always done it.” 

The convenience of flying and getting somewhere far away quickly has become a ridiculous compromise of personal merit, and it never should have been.  The airport’s safety policies have ruined the experience of traveling with others because people often show up in their pajamas, knowing that their travel day is going to be intrusive and demeaning. When you pay that much money for something, it shouldn’t feel the way it does.  It should be fun and rewarding.  People should dress nicely when going to the airport.  By default, due to excessive regulations, airports have become unpleasant places with excessive security, ineffective communication systems, and dirty and uncomfortable seats.  And the staff treat the whole experience like you’re lucky to be there, rather than being grateful that you bought a ticket that funded all their jobs.  The concept of prioritizing safety over profits, when in reality it was always laziness that was the real problem, has made owning an airline too complicated and a draining experience for customers.  And if not for Homeland Security and the TSA specifically, we’d have many more consumer options in airports that are much better for us than what we currently have.  And most of the time, it always starts with asking the right questions from leadership. “Why are we doing this dumb thing?”  And when nobody can answer it, you eliminate the policy.  Thank goodness, because of Kristi Noem, we no longer have to take our shoes off at the airport.  And hopefully, we can roll back many other misguided ideas that were implemented in haste to make people feel safe, when the reality was far from the case.  In all things economic, whether it’s amusement parks or airports, faster is better, and more options are always preferred.  And we don’t want dumb, mindless rules to ruin economic activity that should bring us joy and opportunity.  Just because lazy security guards don’t take their jobs very seriously and have to be turned into a union-led monstrosity to give an illusion of effectiveness, the truth is very far from it.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Scam of Cyber Security: What’s the rush for all this technology–who benefits from it–not us

Each week I have a lot of people trying to waste my time regarding cyber security, and I’ll say here what I say to all of them.  I don’t trust computers, I think it’s ridiculous to put so much private information online, and I can live quite well without it.  Cyber security is a scam, like many things from institutions today.  The same people who will likely hack your computer and steal your information are the same people who are telling you that cyber security is the only way you can survive in the future.  This is the case with Microsoft from the 90s.  People realized that Windows-based systems were particularly vulnerable to viruses.  Then, of course, to operate Windows, you would have to subscribe to some anti-virus software to use the dumb program.  It’s still that way primarily, and it all comes down to a scam.  Ironically, this is precisely how Bill Gates has inserted himself into the world as the Health Minister, he helps unleash viruses so that you have to buy the vaccine he is behind to control all of society.  If a company is talking about cyber security, they are telling you that their software isn’t ready for prime time and that the only people who benefit from it are the bad guys in the world.  The most secure thing to do would be not to use their software if they find that they, as a company, can’t provide that level of security for their customers.  My policy is to keep as little online so that some propped-up villain can’t hack it.  If these systems aren’t more secure than they claim, why use them?  The only people benefiting from all these cybersecurity methods are those making the software. 

All the two-way authentication methods need to be faster.  If you have to slow down your life as much as these modern companies suggest, then all the tech gadgets are worthless.  It’s regressing our culture, not making it better.  With all this concern over A.I. hackers and hackers having easy access to our online activity, why are we making ourselves so vulnerable?  The only people benefiting are the one-world government types who want to funnel all information into a centralized source so they can control us.  Technology isn’t helping the rest of us improve our lives.  Increasingly, we are finding that we must wait for technology to catch up.  I hear from many IT departments worldwide who essentially think it is permissible to slow down their companies and their opportunities for production because they believe that cyber security is more of a priority.  I had a case recently where I was working late at night on multiple projects, at around 1 to 2 in the morning, and suddenly my computer went into a mandatory update.  I didn’t tell it to, it assumed that at the late hours, I would be sleeping, so it went into an update mode that took well over 15 minutes.  The computer figured I had all the time in the world to sit around waiting on it to do its stupid thing.  But I didn’t have the time.  I tossed the computer across the room and turned to the old-fashioned way of doing things, with sheets of paper and raw calculations written upon them.  If technology doesn’t speed my life up and make it better, then it’s an enemy.  It’s that simple. 

Technology is not in charge, as much as the World Economic Forum people want us all to believe.  They are the ones who are creating the marketplace for all the identity theft and other fraudulent activity online.  Because they want technology to take over the world essentially, they are pushing it out upon the world too fast because they want it. It certainly isn’t beneficial for us ordinary people.  It helps them get to their cashless society, digital fraud-based currencies, and centralized control of all means of production.  That’s what they are after with their double authentication codes, where every time you are away from your computer for a few minutes, you must sign back in with passwords that constantly change.  And to work your computer, you have to have a phone tracking you all over the place so that some mindless A.I. program can call you to ensure you are using the computer.  Online banking only helps these power-hungry globalists get control of our lives, making us wait on them to get their products to work right.  But if everything is so insecure, then why are we using it in the first place?  What’s the benefit?  Those are the questions we should be asking.  We should not be waiting on technology to “work.”  I would rather deal with a person directly than some computer interface.  Call it old-fashioned, but I don’t want to mess with all that ridiculous security.  It’s not worth it to me to use some computer that is essentially spying on everything I do so that it can go to the NSA to be analyzed by hostile forces in government.  That isn’t my idea of an intelligent approach to the future. 

If these computer interfaces are so insecure, the companies putting them out need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to improve them before offering them to the marketplace.  There is no rush for most of us.  The push for computers and online transactions to become such a big part of our lives comes from the goals of the United Nations and their masters at the World Economic Forum.  They want us to be inconvenienced with their products to fulfill their dumb 2030 targets for international commerce, which takes power away from countries where they can manage them and puts it all in the hands of mindless European bureaucrats.  They are the ones who want digital currencies that they can manipulate with Modern Monetary Theory and can turn all of society into a cashless society.  So the burden for security falls on them.  Not the rest of us slowed down to a mind-numbing speed because of all their dumb technology and the cyber security needed to make it usable.  Cyber security, as it has always been, is a scam to make technology appear better than it is.  Forcing it into the marketplace has only created a new breed of criminal in the world, the hackers who otherwise would have a more challenging time stealing people’s money.  Technology makes it easier for them to prey on innocent people, which Bill Gates is pleased about.  But for the rest of us, we should be asking why we are rushing to get all this technology into the marketplace only to be restricted by its limits.  All the companies buying into this cyber security scam will find themselves less profitable and greatly limited by the slowness of technology rather than any real benefits.  If something is as insecure as computer technology over the internet, we shouldn’t use it for anything other than information.  But personal banking and business networks should be done the old-fashioned way until technology can get it together as it is now. It’s just a scam that only benefits the bad guys in the world.  And why would we want to do that?

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The Police Extortion of the Cincinnati Bengals: Communist labor unions always expect “the rich” to pay for their mismanagment

For me, and this has always been the case, there is a limit to how much of the thin blue line I’m willing to pay for. We need police in our society; we can’t function without them. We should not defund the police as Democrats have suggested. But when you are dealing with public sector unions that always want to expand government, “defund” is not an open checkbook that is beyond the reach of management. Throwing infinite amounts of money at police or any government employee is a bad idea. Society should pay for the police and to pay for them well. But not infinitely.

Traditionally, when police or fire employees insist that they always receive more money, they say, but we run into fires, we run into gunfire, so you don’t have to. I will volunteer to run into a burning building to save a dog any day of the week. I will gladly engage with a dangerous group of shooters any day of the week, any hour of the day. And I’d do it without pay because I would look at something like that as fun. So I’m not a big fan of that argument. Yes, police work is dangerous. But those who get into it understand that. It’s a privilege to wear the badge. The community should support the police enthusiastically. We should all live by the laws of our society, constitutionally supported. But the arguments of pay, such as what Dan Hils did on 55 KRC with Brian Thomas, is an exploitation of the standard union point of view, which is always communist in nature, to attempt to argue more pay in all the ways that the police unions expect it. There is a limit to what police are worth. When an FOP president makes the case from an obvious liberal point of view to a radio talk show host who is typically a small government kind of guy, it makes for an interesting debate that often hides in the cracks of our society.

Everyone knows I’m not a big fan of the Cincinnati Bengals. My favorite team is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and it has been since Mike Brown fired Sam Wyche as the head coach. My support of Wyche went with him to Tampa from Cincinnati, and I have never forgiven the Brown family for that firing. They are losers as NFL owners. They run a bad organization that does not represent the city well. Sure they went to the Super Bowl last year because they have really good players. But over the years, they don’t know how to close the deal, and if they win, it’s usually because they get lucky and the other teams overlook them. But I don’t like this Billionaire Bengals talk from the FOP president, Dan Hils. I also have to remind people that every labor union in America started as a communist idea. Every entertainment union, government sector union, and union that runs some manufacturing aspect are all Karl Marx’s products. With Trump he’s a former Democrat who has opened up the tent of the Republican Party to include labor unions. In politics, there are many viewpoints, and people often don’t get everything they want. So it’s worth discussing unions’ problems with the same people who now consider themselves MAGA Republicans. With that in mind, all this talk about the Bengals paying double time and triple time for traffic staff before and after games is a perfect example of how the same people who will talk about saving money with taxes on one topic find themselves nodding in agreement with Dan Hils on the extortion racket being played out with the Cincinnati Bengals and talked about on the air as if the Bengals should pay whatever it costs for safety because they have the money and can afford to. Just because someone like Dan Hils, from the perspective of a communist police union, thinks that the Bengals are rich, does that mean they should be obligated to pay some artificial value for more traffic cops at Bengal games? 

I go to Bengal games a few times a year, and I prefer the great seats when I go. When I arrive, it’s usually where the player entrance is, so I get to see all the security they have at these games from that point of view, and there is a lot of police there—a lot of security. I tend to think that the Bengals should hire their own security for their own events. But as Dan Hils points out on Brian Thomas’ broadcast, the Bengals can’t pay for their security on a city street leading to and from the stadium. Those are city streets, and the police union has it rigged so that only they can provide traffic services. It’s the same kind of mess that you deal with at any union where tasks are placed in silos, and restrictions to productivity are also associated with the labor assigned to that task. For instance, you might have a box of pencils sitting on a dock meant for the office area. But the unionized dock workers are on a break, or have called off work for the day. Or maybe they are on strike. So there sits the box of pencils. The office people need them. They can look through the window into the dock and see the pencils sitting there. But they are not allowed to go in and pick them up so they can get their pencils. They have to wait for the union to perform the task. That is the kind of political game the Cincinnati FOP has going on regarding city streets leading to and from the stadium. Because the unionized police want a monopoly on the work, they complain that the work just can’t get done because they don’t have the staffing or the money. But the Bengals aren’t allowed to provide a solution. Or perhaps the people attending the games might volunteer to help direct traffic. They are prevented from helping because they are not lawfully permitted to perform that task. 

Spoken like a true communist union president, Dan Hils places all the blame on the Billionaire Bengals because they are rich and can afford to pay whatever the members of the Thin Blue Line require. But the Bengals’ options are to use Dan Hils unionized employees at rates of double time or triple time to pay for the mismanagement of the police force in general at whatever cost they decide. Rather than hiring their own people at $15 per hour or less to perform a task that is only worth minimum wage for a few hours on a Sunday to keep people from running into each other. And because we are politically on a path to support the police no matter the cost, someone like Brian Thomas, who is a small government guy, gets pulled into a discussion about defending a government union’s ridiculous extortion racket. And from the perspective of Dan Hils, his argument is that the Reds pay for the security, as to other sports events in the downtown area. So why don’t the Bengals pay too? Well, because the police union is forcing a customer to pay for goods and services that they control exclusively, and they expect to pass their mismanagement off as an undisputed bill, which is ridiculous. The police are great to have, but I don’t like their labor unions. I’d volunteer to help the police if there weren’t so many dumb rules that keep people from helping them. In many ways, they create their own problems by forcing restrictions on themselves and then expect a community to pay for their mismanagement of financial resources. And at a certain point, when they ask for too much, the community should just get rid of them and form their own law enforcement that doesn’t have a union attached to it. And my argument would be that it would work far better and be a whole lot cheaper. Just because rich people can afford to pay, that’s not up to Dan Hils to decide. It’s up to market values to determine, and the FOP of Cincinnati clearly isn’t interested in that kind of discussion. They are just like everyone else; they want the most money possible for the least work produced. It’s up to management in all cases to determine the value of that ratio.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business