Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 336
April 4, 2016
Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman on WAAM Radio: Trump will be better than Ronald Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt
You might have heard the show live, but if you didn’t, you can catch it again by clicking the video below–Matt Clark had me on his WAAM radio show in Ann Arbor, Michigan essentially to defend Donald Trump’s statements about the three functions of government. As far as I’m concerned, Milton Friedman was the advocate who last did the best work of clarifying such things for our Constitutional Republic and he defined it like this; “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. And it should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government– in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” I explained to Matt that I thought Donald Trump was trying to get to this definition under pressure, but could only manage to say “security, security, security.” He went on to say that health care and housing were functions of government which of course erupted a controversy from the #NEVERTRUMP people. Of course those #NEVERTRUMPs think they are the gatekeepers of conservatism, so they lashed out against Trump. After the radio show a listener sent Matt and I a tweet reminding us that the three responsibilities of government are the duty of the Fed Gov and its officers to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the USA.” So obviously there was no answer Trump could have uttered which would have pleased everyone. Listen to that broadcast here:
I personally don’t care if Trump understands Milton Friedman’s philosophy on the role of government. As I have said previously, I don’t look for a leader in a president. I don’t need anybody to lead me around; I just need someone to manage things in the government. Trump I know will hire someone like Friedman to guide him once he’s in office—that’s how Trump is able to do all the things he does. He doesn’t sit around studying constitutional law and all the details of number crunching—he hires that stuff out in his companies. Trump relies on gut instinct after others present him with information to navigate through tribulations and his potential presidency will be unlike any other in American history—and I’m fine with that. I see Trump as the anti-Teddy Roosevelt—as a means to undo all the trouble that the original “Rough Rider” unleashed so many years ago from the White House.
Roosevelt and his descendent Franklin brought the emerging stages of communism to America through progressivism, a movement that ironically started in Wisconsin through the labor unions. Roosevelt didn’t understand how money was made as he was born into a wealthy family and was a second-hander who was a sickly kid. He fought through his limits and empowered himself to be a larger than life personality who ended up on Mt. Rushmore. His achievements were unparalleled and he turned out to be one of the great presidents. His contributions didn’t fall neatly into conservative and liberal, but he managed to get a lot done that was both good and bad for our nation. Teddy really started the whole trampling all over the Constitution thing showing all future presidents how to by-pass congress and do whatever they wanted without the natural checks and balances that are present for a reason. Of course Barack Obama is the latest rendition of that original corruption over 100 years later—it’s the kind of stuff that has made the Netflix show House of Cards so compelling—because it provides insight into the kind of thinking our modern presidents utilize when dealing with Capitol Hill. Frank Underwood is a combination of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and even George W. Bush—but all this precedent was essentially started by Teddy Roosevelt—the path to hell is always paved with good intentions—from the point of view of whoever is doing the paving.
Watching Trump over the years he has been very successful at taking failed government projects and returning them to private sector influence—cutting costs, and shortening delivery times in the process. He has done this kind of thing many times actually, and it is obvious to me when hearing him speak, such as the night of the CNN Town Hall talked about in the WAAM discussion, that Trump intends to return many of the tasks of government currently to the private sector. When talking about health care—which is out of control—our national debt, our jobs, our infrastructure—just about everything really, it started with Teddy Roosevelt and his war against monopolies. Government has stuck its nose into virtually everything since dramatically paralyzing our economic growth and overall national effectiveness. For instance, I have said many times that the executive order that Kennedy signed making public sector jobs able to unionize is one of the largest drivers of cost that is out there consuming our national resources. A simple recantation of that one executive order would save billions of dollars in potential financial loses and performance effectiveness. Of course Trump can’t talk about anything like that on the campaign trail and when people try to extract specifics out of him, he certainly can’t say things like “I’d like to rescind Executive Order 11491.” Right now, some labor unions are actually backing Trump, and they really need to—for their own good. But when it comes time to make the hard cuts and do the job the correct way—undoing over a century of mistakes effectively by the executive branch and the congress which has eaten out of its hand like royalty, there will be a lot of angry people.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59075
Whoever the president is in 2016 will have to make major cuts to the way business is done in Washington while hoping that a crack team of Carl Icahn types can renegotiate trade deals around the world to keep programs like Social Security floating into a new America growth period—where the United States has GDP growth between 7% to 15%. That is what Trump has in mind, but he certainly can’t say it to anybody—because somebody in the world will be severely pissed off at him. There is no way to make everyone happy. So it’s best to be obscure and to let the chips fall where they fall. Whoever is president will face criticism that is unparalleled and I’ve only ever seen a personality like Donald Trump who could endure the pain of it. That’s why I think only he can do the job.
The White House is a step down for Trump. It will be hard for him to live in a box and to be under the constant scrutiny that being president will entail, and he knows that. The guy is a deal addict, and it just so happens that the best job in the world for someone like him is POTUS. At his age after doing everything that he’s done around the world and all the success he’s managed to acquire; only a job like POTUS poses a challenge to him. I don’t think he wants to be a king, and I am confident that his egomaniac persona is an invention of his to provide insulation to a soft center that he lets few people see. He promises to essentially undo what Teddy Roosevelt started using the same methods only going in the opposite direction. I would hope that by the end of the Trump years that America would have the same opportunism that it did as a capitalist society in 1880. 1980 for my money wasn’t that great. Reagan did dust off the hat of capitalism, but he was hardly a bastion of conservatism. He contemplated communism for a time and most of his social positions were an act. I would not point to Ronald Reagan with the reverence of the second coming. He did a good job, but for me—not good enough. Trump could do better.
But it will take a leap of faith from the American electorate to get there. Trump is a unique opportunity that we should not pass up. He requires us to think differently about what the POTUS means to us. Trump I don’t think cares one bit about the pomp and circumstance of White House life. He’s been there and done it. I really don’t think he’ll waste time entertaining European and Canadian socialists posing for pictures to maintain an executive branch image. Trump has all that now, he doesn’t need the White House to give it to him—and that makes me trust him even more. I think a Trump White House will be the hardest working in history. Everyone can say what they want about Trump’s conservatism, but prior to Wisconsin, being down ten points to Ted Cruz, Trump did seven rallies over three days there trying to win. The guy works his ass off, and I’m certain that he will put in 12 to 15 hour days in the Oval Office seven days a week. I really don’t think we’ve ever seen anybody like Trump even trying to get into the White House. He will work hard and he’ll hire the best people that’s out there to fill the details of what he needs. So as I said on Matt’s show, I don’t care if Trump knew by definition the three functions of government. He was close enough—it’s all about security of individuals and their property—from either foreign or domestic enemies. He passes my test—everything else is a formality. I’m ready for a Trump White House because I don’t think we can afford anything less. The next POTUS has to have the courage and personality to undo all these progressive mistakes and it has to happen now. We are beyond second chances. Really, it’s already too late. Trump is the only hope we have. Argue with me now—that’s fine. But I really don’t want everyone to tell me twenty years from now that they should have listened to me. Because by then it will be too late—and I will have been right—of course. Listen now, save your nation, tell me later that I was right—cry at your country’s funeral. Watch the videos above for full context.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 3, 2016
‘Pee Wee’s Big Holiday’: We have a lot to thank Paul Reuben for–see it on Netflix
This might seem strange to some, but I love the concept of Pee Wee Herman. It was quite a lot of fun for me to watch the first Pee Wee film in over twenty years on Netflix called Pee Wee’s Big Holiday. It’s an exclusive for Netflix but has shown in a few theaters across the nation. Pee Wee to me is such a wonderful character. I get a lot of joy out of watching Paul Reuben play an adult who essentially never entered puberty. His Pee Wee character is a fantasy look into what we all might look like if we never stopped being children—which most of the time I think is a shame—that we all do grow up. I can say that my first daughter was literally born while watching Pee Wee’s Playhouse at the hospital in 1989, which my wife and I never missed together. We looked forward to every Saturday so we could watch it together. During that particular episode she laughed really hard. There were no doctors in the room at the time as they were waiting for her to dilate, and my daughter was born. I actually had to hold my daughter’s head to keep her from falling out into that little bag that is supposed to capture all the afterbirth. Ironically it was that same daughter who was doing a photo shoot of me and we were finished for the day and had a rare afternoon together with only me, my daughter and my wife all in the same place when I noticed a Hollywood Reporter article about the new Pee Wee movie. So we sat down and literally watched it the moment that Netflix put it on their site. It was one of the rare joys I have had in a number of years, I simply loved it!
I suppose this little proclamation requires a back story. It has become a consistent observation that when a major social character who has the public eye out-lives the requirements of whatever system they are a part of, strange stories emerge to destroy their careers. For instance, when Brett Favre was having a hard time retiring from professional football, stories about him sending pictures of his penis to females emerged to force him into retirement following a scandal to knock him off his pedestal. Payton Manning was going through something similar; he was on the fence as to whether or not to retire when a story emerged from his college days attacking his squeaky clean image with sexual imposition. The clear message to Payton was, “get out while you are on top so we don’t have to tear you down.” The college story which had been kept under wraps for over two decades was a warning shot, and Payton wisely listened. Paul Reuben had dominated 1980s comedy during a vibrant Reagan era and had outlived his shelf life. This will just let you examine how much things have changed in just a few decades dear reader.
After the movie that essentially got Tim Burton his big directorial break, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure came out in 1985 both Paul Reuben and Tim Burton launched themselves into successful careers that were wildly imaginative—and boyishly playful. Reuben from 1986 to 1990 did a children’s show on Saturday mornings called Pee Wee’s Playhouse which featured Laurence Fishburne and many others on the smash hit—which was the show that my first daughter was born to. In 1991 Paul Reuben was noticed by a sting officer masturbating at an adult movie theater and was arrested. Paul Reuben offered to do a charity spot for the local police to make the whole incident “go away” but the press got a hold of the story and it essentially destroyed the career of Reuben and his Pee Wee character thereafter.
Toys “R” Us dropped the Pee Wee Herman toy line and CBS stopped airing immediately Pee Wee’s Play House and the character was effectively wiped off the map. Within months Paul Reuben was forced into hiding disgraced. Of course over the next ten years as the Clinton’s moved into the White House that same media effectively destroyed the office of president by letting out all the sexually charged secrets of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By the end of the 1990s masturbation in a movie theater was the least of our worries and with the advent of the Internet and home video markets, pornography exploded into virtually every home. Masturbation was normalized and no longer taboo—in fact it was encouraged by teachers of progressive society. If Paul Reuben had been arrested just five years later, his story would have died before it ever got started, but forever after Pee Wee Herman had been established as a pervert dangerous to children.
Boldly Reuben appeared in Batman Returns which of course was one of the original superhero films that launched this modern era we see today from Warner Bros and Disney. Tim Burton loyal to Reuben because of their friendship from the set of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure cast the actor to play the father of the villain “The Penguin.” Ironically on the modern television show Gothem, Reuben reprised his role from that 1992 film playing the father of the modern Penguin. One thing that I greatly admire about Reuben is that he has been very tenacious—he has stuck around and fought his way through obvious discrimination to make a living for himself—even though the parts offered to him were greatly limited ever since that original arrest. Reuben tried for years to get his Pee Wee character up off the mat and back out into the media world and he just couldn’t get any takers. Nobody would touch it.
However, in 2015 because of the wild success of video streaming to give Hollywood a run for its money in production values, Netflix announced that they would take on the Pee Wee character once again giving Reuben a second chance. They shot the short picture which I’d call essentially a remake of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure—only without all the special effects—and it was released in 2016 as an exclusive on Netflix. So I was quite proud to be one of the first to sit down and watch it. I have not laughed that hard in a long time. Even at 63 years old Reuben played the eternally youthful Pee Wee perfectly. It was a wonderfully innocent film full of fun and laughs.
There is nothing wrong with looking at the human species and criticizing its evolution—we have minds and were meant to think and question the nature of things. Saying that, I think it’s a mistake to surrender our innocence as children to the barrage of hormonal ineptitude that we find after puberty—where biology takes over and we become a sexually based species. I can’t help but think that this world would be so much better if we just took sex out of it and could interact with each other the way children do—innocently and full of inquisitive playfulness. For context, I approach everything I do in life with playful optimism. I just steered a multimillion dollar project to completion using a playful approach that kept everyone’s creative juices flowing without pretension through a very hard project with lots of technical complications. So I clearly understand the benefit of Pee Wee Herman as a cultural character in our complex society and there is something very important about him—which was an invention of Paul Reuben. We should all thank him for his philosophic contributions to the essence of our very foundations as human beings.
If you get a chance to watch Pee Wee’s Big Holiday, you should do it! Its great fun, wildly original—and innocent. I don’t think there was one sexually provocative innuendo within the entire story. It was very much the kind of movie a 6-year-old child would have made, and I mean that as a compliment. I wish more youthful innocence would find its way into the adult consciousness because when I look around at my contemporaries I see defeated people—people who gave up their childhoods and retreated into biological entities of procreation and easy marketing for product placement. What Reuben has done with his Pee Wee character is very hard—he has maintained a youthful playfulness that most people lose at age 11 and kept touch with it well into his 60s. And I admire him for it. Now, if you don’t mind “I’m going to let you let me leave.”
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
God Bless Dolly Parton: Send this to all the socialists, cross-dressers and detriments of liberty
Sometimes it can feel pretty overwhelming what’s against us. So for a little refreshment watch this from Dolly Parton. God love her.
Do us all a favor and send this to your favorite socialist loser and cross dressing bastard. They have a right to live, but not to change our nation from what it was, to what it’s becoming.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 2, 2016
Chicago Teacher Union Protest–AGAIN: How George Lucas has failed by adopting socialism as an ideal society mechanism
It was just a few years ago that the Chicago Teacher’s Union had a strike that lasted for quite a while and now those radical, socialist, ungrateful, overly paid baby sitters are at it again walking off the job completely for one day to protest state funding—which does not exist—and giving 400,000 students no place to go but libraries, churches and other “contingency sites,” while their parents slaved away at a job to pay for college which is often the intellectual final nail in their youthful coffins. Sadly, as much as teachers—especially those protesting in the streets of Chicago stopping traffic and being an extreme nuisance and burden on society—the kids were let down by every adult in their lives. Their teachers were socialist activists, their parents too busy to stay home and care for them, and the media missed the entire point of the whole matter. People wonder why kids grow up so stupid, why they become activists themselves for Bernie Sanders socialism—well, they learned it in their public schools—socialist brothels of intellectual destruction and left-winged propaganda. The March 2016 one day strike by the teacher’s union in Chicago was one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen this year—and it should be a lesson to all what we’ve allowed to happen.
I say it quite a lot and have for quite a number of years—children would be far better off if parents just left them alone at home playing Playstation or Xbox all day instead of going to the socialist oriented public schools that our nation has given us. It’s a hard reality most people can’t get their minds around—because it’s such an inconvenient truth—but we should have always known what was coming, as the whole operation was ran by a giant public sector labor union. The only real goal of the teacher’s union has been to make students into left-winged radicals. Luckily, not everyone grows up to become a socialist, and not all teachers individually are bad people. There are many in that Chicago protest crowd who likely have no idea what socialism is, or understand what their role in this whole debacle has been—but history defines it for us and shows the direction we are all headed.
As this protest raged there were some startling statistics about the demographic nature of a future America by 2050 which came out. Leftists are absolutely addicted to diversity implementation—mixing different cultures together to change the nature of constitutional law within the United States which is how labor unions and other progressive groups always intended to overthrow America without firing a single shot in a second, un-named revolution. So their emphasis has been on skin color, sex, sexual preference and lots of other superficial aspects not even encompassing the essence of what makes a human being human. They see public schools as melting pots of diversity raising children to have no barriers to sexual attitudes, acceptance of those who “look” different than they are, and completely ignoring actual behavioral characteristics because they have misidentified the key ingredients of a successful society.
Even though I have said many good things about the filmmaker George Lucas he obviously has lost his way over the years—probably because he attended too many democratic fundraisers and the politics of San Francisco liberalized him over time—but the “bearded one” has called Chicago his adopted second home. He loves the progressive nature of the city which he considers doing important work toward achieving a more “fair” society. This is one of the main reasons I no longer like Star Wars. When Lucas made the first films—back in the 80s, they were quite good and had characters that would have been most at home in an Ayn Rand novel. This is partly because Lucas believed much about the world at the time that I do now—best exemplified by his truly great film, THX-1138. But after a divorce that he never really got over, hanging around democratic socialists within the Hollywood community that finally embraced him after many years of trying, then biologically changing in his later years becoming increasingly liberal as his testosterone levels dropped off—he is unrecognizable now and his films reflect his mental status. Now Star Wars is about “diversity” more than it is about throwing off a tyrannical regime hell-bent on destroying individualism. As great as Lucas was as a businessman and filmmaker, he now fails to identify attributes that have contributed to the complete failure of Chicago to operate as a responsible city. As a city it is unofficially bankrupt, living off tremendous debt. When the current mayor finally leaves—who has been extremely progressive all along—the next person will have a huge mess to clean up and that will likely lead to a similar fate as has been witnessed in Detroit. The lines between a capitalist society and a socialist one have been blurred to the point that nobody any longer understands—even our most “educated” and most artistic—like Lucas.
What’s the point of teaching children anything if what they are learning in public school is socialism? The argument is from the left that compassion for others is the most important thing in a human society. They believe as many of those Chicago protesting teachers do, that social equality is more important than individual gains—which is why the teachers are protesting the state to bestow upon them more tax money extracted from private property and thrown in their direction. They have become happy little socialists in the same way that Bernie Sanders has gained in popularity. Kids supporting the socialist presidential candidate will tell you that their reasons are to gain access or debt relief from their college tuitions—which they have been told will be free. Yet the teachers and professors within those professions often push up and over the six figure salary territory after obtaining tenure. The left-leaning advocates for public schools, including college, have signed up their lives to the cause of socialism because the pay was so extraordinarily good. Average people like these teachers couldn’t hope to make so much money anywhere else than they do in the teaching profession. Yet the debate against my position has always been that teachers are valuable people giving wisdom to the next generation and that without them society crumbles. Well, I’d say with them society is guaranteed to fail—without teachers—strictly on their own—kids have a better chance of succeeding in life. That is how destructive socialism is to individual minds.
The belief in public schools is that individual achievement is vile and that group associations are vastly more important because equality between all parties is utilized—and taught. The position of the “left” is that individual conquest is only for the physically, and intellectually strong and that it is a “caveman” mentality which society should overcome. What they forget is that advancements in society are not induced by “fairness” but by hunger. For instance, with as much money as our American civilization has poured into public schools and colleges, kids have not statistically become more intelligent. If you talk to anybody under 30 years old today—you’ll see quickly what I’m talking about. Most young people have been deliberately intellectually handicapped by the public school system to make the best and brightest no better than the sluggish and stupid. When you build your society around the weakest links, you obviously will get a weak society—which is why socialism is so detrimental to any civilization. Teachers have been unable to increase their effectiveness around the world no matter how much money has been spent on them essentially because their emphasis is on “equality and group assimilation” as opposed to individual achievement. In a capitalist society, not everyone can be rich, smart, and powerful—but everyone has a chance to if they work at it. The net result of that effort and success then benefits all of society. There is no way to blend the two together. George Lucas tried with his Jedi concept in the Star Wars films—but had to rely on mythical superpowers to blur the lines of what any human could possibly achieve. Essentially Lucas like most on the political left turned toward Plato’s Republic as justification for their philosophic society—in the case of Star Wars, the Jedi are the council of wisdom that governs society without any individual desire. If a Jedi does let personal desires drive their needs, then their superpower attributes become dangerous to society at large and the organized mass of collective consciousness will desire to have a rebellious overthrow of the renegade individual—that is essentially the message of the movies without the Han Solo element added to the plot. I always liked Han Solo because he was an Ayn Rand conservative that functioned so well to keep saving everyone and advancing the Star Wars story. But without Han Solo, Star Wars is just another examination into Plato’s Republic—which is the opposite side of the coin of Aristotelian logic for which Ayn Rand associated and evolved her thoughts on the matter.
All this contemplation about how we arrived at National Socialism without realizing it is good for understanding how a bunch of overpaid and ungrateful teachers from Chicago ended up in the streets demanding even more money than they are already being paid to essentially destroy the lives of the students they were supposed to be teaching. Politicians looked at that protest and shuddered at all the voters who had nowhere to take their children because nobody does the job of parenting anymore—leaving the task of raising children to the state. So when the teachers wanted to protest to show the world how much power they had through “collective bargaining” they had a monopoly on the children and used them as extortion pieces. That is the “compassionate” side of George Lucas’ ideal society, and the ultimate failure of the entire political left—especially those who have bankrupted the once great city of Chicago. I’d encourage you dear reader to watch all the videos shown above for more information and proof. It’s not an easy admission, but it’s one that we all need to grapple with. Public schools are not good for our children. They might someday become that way if the right market forces were applied, but in the state they are now, they are detrimental to our children. Kids would be safer and their minds kept more intact if we left them alone at home with just a T.V. and a video game system. They’d learn more about capitalism there than in school, and in American society—that is what they should have always been striving towards. These problems will continue until our society recognizes the source of the problem—that it is socialism that drives these large teacher unions and they do not have our national sovereignty or our American economy in high regard. By contrast they wish to continue to extract wealth from the haves, and redistribute them to the have-nots as if the mechanisms of productivity were a finite resource not driven by capitalist invention.
To prove it, each one of those teachers should have been fired from their jobs and replaced. Children would not notice, and the parents would see no drop in scholastic performance, and that is the big secret that the teacher unions are terrified of. It’s only a matter of time before we have to call their bluff—because the money isn’t there for them. Chicago isn’t alone in their debts—most of America is going through the same crises. Only when we finally do—and break the back of the teacher’s union and get their left-leaning political influence out of our schools and the Department of Education can we hope to reverse the trends we are seeing today—a nation slipping into socialism at an alarming rate. Personally, I’m not willing to fund our own destruction. How about you?
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
The Good Women That Support Donald Trump: Who said that Ted Cruz didn’t have “game?”
These are my kind of girls. Who said Donald Trump didn’t do well with women? Ted Cruz does well with women, but not in the right way—sounds like he has serious problems—which Diamond and Silk do a wonderful service to break down for their viewers.
What was that Glenn Beck said about Ted Cruz—he’d drop him in a minute if any of these sex stories was true—but that he didn’t believe Ted had any “game” with women? Hmmmmm, sounds like Ted has more game than he let on. What are you gonna’ do now Beck?
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 1, 2016
The World War Against Donald Trump: What we can learn from Ferris Bueller
It is quite stunning that more people don’t understand what Donald Trump is to the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Some of what I am about to say will require some additional information and review, so CLICK HERE for the start of that understanding, as well as all of the following hotlinks for further substantiation. The typical run for POTUS has established in the American electorate certain memorized hot points largely shaped by the media and the political class to always protect themselves from outside insurgents. Was I concerned that Donald Trump didn’t know the three primary functions of government with an answer “security, security, security” then further created a problem for himself by declaring that healthcare and education were the next priorities? No, I wasn’t. He gave a typical response of the everyday American who really hasn’t been a part of the political establishment—and has thrown money at politicians his whole life to purchase what he needs to get done to ensure his success. He gave a slightly better answer than the average businessman hanging out on a golf course. Does that make him out-of-touch? To people who spend their whole lives studying constitutional law, worshipping the integrity of past presidents like a king, and insisting on having a POTUS that rivals some European royalty—Donald Trump is a nightmare of bumbling irrational statements. But what I see is a down to earth guy who gets most of his information about the world the way the average cab driver does—and he’s clearly grounded—remarkably, untouched by pretension by being a “political insider.” To me, the weaknesses he is coming under fire for are his strengths. I want to see someone totally different in the POTUS role—and I want private sector influence instead of political experience. I want competent people managing the government, not a political class.
What Trump has that nobody else does is the ability to hire better people than him for a job, which is how he’s made most of his money. He has raw instincts about people who gives him tremendous leverage over someone like Ted Cruz. Cruz would be someone who Trump would hire for a staff position, but Cruz would never be in a position to identify and establish a similar criterion. Trump hires people, listens to them, and then formulates his objectives—so he doesn’t need to know all the details. He pays other people to do that. His job at the front of the train is to make important decisions at the proper time with the courage to actually do it. The current political order is stuck in a “static pattern” of what is considered normal behavior whereas Trump is mostly a “dynamic influence.” His very presence is changing the entire way that politics is run and those profiting off that “static pattern” are justifiably terrified of it—so they are throwing everything they have at Trump trying to drag him into their “static pattern” value system. Those static patterns consist of very rigid party guidelines on both sides—for Republicans, a calculated approach to abortion, a party established position on Israel, taxation, and healthcare. Essentially, the beliefs of the typical Republican candidate are formulated by the party instead of the actual beliefs of the candidate. Trump jumps into things, tests the water, listens to people then figures out what will work without thinking about any group affiliation. He is not prone to group assimilation which makes him far superior to any other offering.
The political establishment expects its presidential candidates to adopt a “static” position that they can then build a party around. Trump is so “dynamic” that things could change in a moment’s notice. Anybody who has witnessed any success in their life understands that one of the biggest attributes of success is a dynamic presence that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and formulate them toward the original objectives. Politicians often can recite all the party positions but are statically welded to Capitol Hill politics and can seldom ever do anything that they promised on a campaign trail. So Trump figures, why waste time on things that might change completely within a year from now. It’s a pointless exercise. He knows what we need to do, and he has a track record of success—and he will find the right combination of resources to implement it. Genius can’t yet be plotted on a chart and no college has figured out how to teach it—so Donald Trump is something completely outside of their static understanding. That certainly isn’t his fault—it is the failure of the static system that we have all become addicted to.
That static system now to protect itself is looking at the statistics and noticing that there are a lot of people lacking a college degree that support Donald Trump and those same stats are not prevalent with other candidates. College trained people have a tendency to support static patterns because after four critical years in college learning what those patterns are right after high school, from the ages of 18 to 22—the final nail in the coffin for a lot of people is placed toward all future dynamic influences. I have been to college, my wife has to—I even spent a few years living on a college campus—and let me tell you dear reader, I hated it—because I am by nature a very dynamic personality. I relate to Trump because of that dynamism. To put it in terms that average people can understand think of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which is a popular 80s film featuring Mathew Broderick, that most everyone understands. Ferris was an example of an extremely “dynamic” personality and he would likely grow up to become like a real life Donald Trump if he were allowed to be free enough to survive the static systems that imposed its will upon him. When I was a teenager, I was very much like the character of Ferris Bueller in that movie and I did impulsive things like he did all the time—and I always managed to come out on top no matter how dire the situation. People loved and hated Ferris Bueller for all the reasons that they love and hate Donald Trump. He doesn’t always know how or why something will work, Trump simply wakes up in the morning meaning to achieve success in whatever it is and he uses his dynamic personality to overtake whatever static imposition is in front of him.
So the reason that the people who lack college degrees—or those who live in rural areas support Trump is because they have not been conquered yet by the static pattern progressivism that has been imposed on college graduates and the urban settings which often force people to concede their natural desire for individual integrity. Nothing about Trump fits well into a debate format or the media driven talking points. He is best when he is clashing with static patterns with great dynamic authority and bravado. Trump has slipped a bit lately in the polling because he was trying to fit his personality to the static pattern of the Republican Party—as the head of it. He backed off the thrusters to show that he can be more “conciliatory.” But he shouldn’t, he needs to just do his thing and stay as dynamic and unpredictable as possible. If Cruz wants a debate, Trump should accept the challenge but to demand that it be done on ground he controls, such as Trump Tower’s lobby in New York. That way Cruz couldn’t say that Trump is chicken when in fact all Trump is concerned with is being pulled into the senseless static pattern of Cruz and the Republican Party which has actually given us all these problems. Cruz is a great debater, but his key weakness is that if he can be taken off his “Holy Roller” persona and beaten into submission with sheer force—especially in the surroundings of a person who has had actual success in life–Cruz could be embarrassed beyond recovery. The press conference with Carly and Cruz over the sex scandal showed a major weakness in the Cruz façade which will be exploited sooner or later.
But the trouble between Trump and everyone else is not that the billionaire is “stupid” or his supporters. It’s just that we know that Trump is a needed injection of dynamic persona that is desperately needed in our political system. Just as I’m hoping that Warren Davidson, my new congressman holds to his values when he gets to Capitol Hill, I have watched all this before and am always disappointed by the results. I stood shoulder to shoulder as a major supporter of Rob Portman when he ran for office. I knew him as a normal guy that would go out to eat with me after a debate. He blew it after years in Washington. And John Kasich went from a Tea Party darling to a softer version of Hillary Clinton. He is a major letdown. Actually, I could go on and on for quite some time naming politicians just like Ted Cruz that showed lots of promise when they were running—memorized all the things that the media wanted to hear, then turned around and was just a terrible representative. I don’t so much blame them as people—I blame the static nature of politics. It needs a major infusion of dynamism to change it forever.
Now that Trump has shown what’s possible, every celebrity who thinks they can will try running for president in the future. The party system is essentially over—and that is a good thing. Within the decade we will likely get stars like The Rock running for president and major rap artists who have the money and celebrity to gain media attraction on a daily basis. Four years ago Mitt Romney wouldn’t hardly go on any talk radio shows or cable shows—not even Bill O’Reilly—because he feared being knocked off message. He certainly wouldn’t do Chris Mathews—who is a flaming progressive. The whole abortion topic is something Romney and every other presidential candidate for the republicans would have avoided with diversionary tactics. Trump has forced all these candidates to do these shows to compete—because he is so confident himself—even when he steps in it—that he can find a way to come out smelling wonderful. That is why all these static pattern addicts hate Trump so much, but also why he has such strong support from an electorate that recognizes that the static system of politics that has nearly destroyed our country needs a major infusion of dynamic influence. Now that the dynamic influence has wrecked the previous static patterns—for both parties really—there is no going back. The Republicans either embrace Trump or they will get worse in 2020 and 2024. Celebrity will be the new criteria for better or worse.
The old methods of electing a POTUS have not been effective and America needs to develop something dynamically different. I’m not looking for a George Washington to lead me to some salvation. I don’t need an authority figure of any kind. All I need out of government is to manage the resources it takes to keep the country running and to stay the hell out of my way. I don’t need the government for much. I don’t even need their protection. Them standing between me and villains likely makes for a more civil society—which is good for most people, but I personally don’t need them—and I certainly don’t need a “leader.” I want a more dynamic government that isn’t afraid to sell capitalism to the world. Trump is the best candidate I have ever seen or heard of for that very dynamic job. Like Ferris Bueller, I know that Trump can wing his way through anything—and I want someone representing our Republic to the world who has that ability for a change. And I certainly don’t want a political party in charge behind the scenes. I’m ready for a major change, and for me Trump is it. Whether he makes it or not, politics is changed forever. So Republicans if they want to survive might as well embrace it. Failure to do so or to stick to the old static patterns will lead to their self-destruction.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
March 31, 2016
Transsexual Wal-Mart Cashier at Bridgewater Falls: The audacity of progressive activists attacking family integrity
I’m not a big fan because often degenerates, welfare recipients, and the type of people who are most at home on the Jerry Springer Show populate the premises—but Wal-Mart in Fairfield, Ohio off Princeton Rd by Bridgewater Falls is finding itself the victim of progressive attack. In spite of my feelings about the place and the people it attracts, I think what Wal-Mart does is wonderful as a retail outlet. There are many more good things than bad; I’m just not a fan of the place because of the people who are often there. Take them all away, and I enjoy going there. Put me at Wal-Mart on a crowded Saturday to pick up mulch, and I’m not a happy person. But my wife is, she has shopped there for the entire time it has been in that location and it helped raise our family with food options that made it much easier for her to be a stay-at-home mom. One thing about my wife, she is intensely loyal, so she loves that particular Wal-Mart because it has been good for helping her raise her family with low-cost options over the many years. She likes the people who work there and finds their company refreshing—mostly because many of them are older people—whom she typically gets along well with. Since she is a housewife, she is able to go to Wal-Mart during the day when most people are working—and typically has a good experience.
But on March 29th, 2016 the foundations of her reality were shaken to her very core. She had been there to spend quite a lot of money, she bought most of our food for the week, some other items and had picked up a $300 pair of glasses from the optometrist. It was a hefty bill to pay and she was enjoying spending the money at a store she believed in—to her Wal-Mart represents raw American value—red, white, and blue patriotism—getting the most products for the lowest cost—lack of unionized labor and goods and services all under one roof. You can get your eyes checked, a pharmaceutical order fulfilled and have your tires changed all while you shop for groceries, lawn supplies, and pick-up wonderful toys for the grandchildren. But to her shock for the first time in nearly 15 years, she stepped up to the check-out and only one lane was open—because it was the middle of a weekday and there wasn’t a need for multiple lanes to be open—and what she found was a transsexual kid dressed in blue lipstick, short black hair, a push-up bra, and a black skirt working the cash register. She had no choice but to go through his lane and she was very pissed off about it.
For context, we choose to live in an area of the country where we don’t have to deal with derelicts like this. As a couple, we don’t go to areas of the city where gay bars are prominent; we don’t hang out on college campuses, and we don’t go to music concerts where these kinds of people are increasingly commonplace. Even though I like Key West, we don’t hang out on Duval Street late at night where transsexuals, homosexuals, and transvestites are populating every street corner on the south end. We don’t go to Fantasy Fest there—where middle-aged repressed sociopaths with above average incomes can frolic in the decadence of a Romanian orgy. We don’t watch television shows that embrace those types of progressive attributes outside of male and female monogamous relationships. We don’t want that kind of crap in our life, and we make choices to avoid it. So it was quite a shock to my wife to have to deal one on one with such a progressive disaster—a full-fledged transsexual that was so flamboyant about his imposition in our community, that he was audaciously challenging anybody to “judge” him incorrectly—because he was protected by law to be an imbecile. It wasn’t alright with her.
She endured the experience while transacting with the boy but shortly before leaving she just felt disgusted. So she proceeded to the customer service area to take back all her items and get her money back because she didn’t want to give money to a company that supported such behavior. She was appalled utterly. Of course the manager spoke to her and he basically stated that legally they were paralyzed from discriminating against the kid and that if they did, they feared a lawsuit—which I understand is exactly the case. The law handed down by Supreme courts both state and federal have given us these impositions and my wife was furious about it because now it was in her own back yard. The kid knew he was protected by law to harass the sensibilities of normal, average, good-hearted American morality, and she was fuming with anger over it. She gathered up the contact information to speak to corporate headquarters to complain then she headed to the optometrist to take back her very nice new glasses.
Luckily, the lady working the counter was a levelheaded older person who calmed her down. I won’t go into the details of what the lady told my wife—because I don’t want to get her into legal trouble—but the short story is this—the other employees working that day agreed with my wife—only they weren’t allowed to say anything about the kid. They were forced to put up with the little scum bag. By law, they have had their First Amendment rights taken away from them—the transsexual was allowed to harass everyone else, but nobody was allowed to harass him—by law. And Wal-Mart’s hands were tied behind their back while progressive attacks of middle-America punched them square in the face.
In the future, my wife simply won’t buy anything if she has to deal with people like that kid. He shouldn’t be anywhere that customers have to interact with him. This whole episode reminded me of a trip my family took to the Mellow Mushroom in West Chester. I like the pizza there, but often find the environment too progressive for my tastes. Now since Pies and Pints has opened at Liberty Center we choose to go there for fresh pizza instead of the Mellow Mushroom just because that Liberty Center environment is much more conservative. To be honest, when I am spending $70 to $100 dollars on food I expect an attractive waitress—and by attractive, I’d like her to be a young college girl with good hygiene, speaks in complete sentences, isn’t covered in tattoos and body piercings and is well within the appropriate weight for her height. If I end up with a guy, he needs to look well-groomed, have short hair without dandruff, and speak respectively. Usually it’s not a problem, and it’s certainly not sexual—it’s just that beat up old wrecks are not pleasant to be around. Younger people are like new cars off the assembly line, and when you are going out to eat, you want to see new cars, not vehicles ready for the junk yard. If we wanted to see that, we’d just stay home. Chili’s is particularly good about having a nice mix of such people—their recruiting is obviously successful. They can’t discriminate, but they manage to create a competitive environment to weed out the undesirables. But at the Mellow Mushroom of course they get progressive kids applying because the environment attracts those types of people—and that is the biggest turn-off for me. On one occasion, we had an openly gay waiter and he drove me nuts. He was so flamboyant that I almost left—he was really pushing the whole gay thing commenting on my daughter’s clothing along with sucking up to my wife. Of course, by reading this, you can get a sense of her state of mind. She hasn’t wanted to go back there since. I have under professional circumstances, but she hasn’t. We tend to vote with our feet, so these progressive trends have an impact on a company’s bottom-line. I considered the $150 dollars we spent there that day to be completely wasted money. We would have had much more fun popping in a frozen pizza into the oven at home—because at least then we wouldn’t have some gay guy hitting on us and doing who-knows-what to our food between the kitchen and our table.
That is precisely why progressive activists have pushed to have protected legislation allowing kids like that Wal-Mart transsexual to come into our neighborhoods and assault our sensibilities, but they expect not to receive any fire back in return. They—being the progressive activists deliberately dressing up in blue lipstick and a skirt with a push-up bra to work as cashier at Wal-Mart—intend harm to the lifestyle my wife and I have chosen for ourselves. They will of course say that we are being “judgmental” and are advocating “hate speech” because the law has empowered them with such beliefs. What the legal system and the politics that has shaped it neglect is that being “judgmental” is one of the greatest attributes of living as a human being. Progressive activists and the legal system are demanding that we stop thinking and just accept these incursions against tradition, and in my family, that is not acceptable. Not at all. If scum bags like this transsexual kid want to flaunt themselves in front of our faces, there will be consequences. They don’t have a right to impose themselves on our sensibilities. If they want to do what they do, they have a right—but through competition, we must have options to avoid them. I suggested to my wife that she not shop at Wal-Mart, that she stay in places where the prices are higher and along with them, the expectations of the clientele. But honestly, the Kroger Marketplace in Liberty Township has more than its share of these degenerates shopping there—the situation is endemic to the progressive incursion cast upon us by a political class that wishes to destroy the American family. She loves that particular Wal-Mart, so she wasn’t open to that idea. In the future if she doesn’t have options to avoid people like that transsexual employee, she just won’t shop that day. And that’s the way it’s going to be. When we go out to dinner, we don’t want a bunch of silly boys prancing around like girls expecting a 17% tip with their hands all over our food—and we don’t want to exchange money with people who look like their hands are disgusting—because if they dress that way—god only knows where their hands have been. We don’t claim to be modern or hip, we don’t like these changes to the family structure of American society and short of invoking an Amish privilege toward tradition—we certainly won’t be endorsing such lifestyles under any circumstances—especially, with our hard-won money. It is a shame that companies like Wal-Mart are so terrified of the legal implications of such justified discrimination based on sound judgment. Because if there were any justice in this world—those types of things wouldn’t happen in our town. I can see them happening in places writhe with filth, like Las Vegas, Key West, and the various swingers clubs around the world—but not in a family rich environment like Butler County. The legislators who allowed such things to happen should be ashamed of themselves for not having more courage to stand against progressive activists. Because that leaves the dirty work to people like me—which is not what we hired you politicians to do in the first place—cave to the worst among us, so that the good would have to just endure the folly.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article69265187.html
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
March 30, 2016
The Socialists of California: Porter Standsberry was correct–and the west coast is the first to fall
During the last Republican convention it was a big deal that the debt clock hit $16 trillion dollars. At the time it seemed like an insurmountable number to overcome. Yet in four years since, and a Republican controlled house and senate, nothing has been done to even slow it down. Now as we approach the 2016 Republican convention, the number is $19 trillion and looks to jump to 20 to 21 trillion within a very short time—it is quickly escalating out of control and is my number one concern. You might remember the article I wrote five years ago about Porter Standsberry. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Well, it’s all happening now. Corporations are moving overseas to avoid the high corporate taxes, socialists are running for president, and capitalism is about to be sentenced guilty by the looter Washington class of public officials and know-nothing politicians. All these things have been quite deliberate—the communists and socialists have infected our political system and made decisions that are directly designed to topple our capitalists system of government with debt and excessive expectations while on the other end they have destroyed the means of production.
This has never been more evident than in the city of Detroit—utterly destroyed by socialism. Chicago is not far behind and is currently propped up exclusively by debt incurrence. Chicago doesn’t have the wealth building ability to pay their debts at the rate that they are acquiring them. But they are small potatoes compared to California—which was once one of the great economies of the world. Now it’s quickly on its way to becoming an empty husk of what it once was and now they have delivered to themselves one of the final nails into their coffin—they approved an increase in the minimum wage with a plan to get to $15 dollars per hour within a few years. Without question, based on the strength of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the West, the entire coastline has been destroyed by progressive politics greatly crippling the American economy. Now with the minimum wage hike they have fully committed to socialism which of course will deplete their once great state of its wealth quickly.
As I’ve said before, I have worked in fast food for a number of years as a second job. I understand the nature of it—and how hard it can be—and at no time did I ever consider that those positions should be paid any kind of “living wage.” Nobody should seek to make a long career out of a fast food job. They are entry-level jobs that should encourage people to improve their skills and value to the capitalist marketplace. For instance—when I worked in fast food, while other people goofed off on their breaks, I read books so that I could become smarter for better things to come. I worked many odd jobs for essentially the first 15 years of my adult life—up until about 35 years of age. Some of those odd jobs were at fast food places—like Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Frisch’s and so on. During that entire period I never wasted one single break on needless exercises. I was always reading books and trying to improve myself—and there isn’t one person from my past who could step forward and say otherwise. I learned a lot of things in these jobs which obviously helped me later on in life. No, I didn’t get paid much, but the wealth I took away from those jobs was invaluable. But always there was a hunger to do better for my family which pushed me to continuously improve.
Without that motivation to step away from fast food, a lot of talent in America is sure to be wasted. Getting paid so much money for the entry-level workforce weakens all the market mechanisms which make capitalism so successful, which of course is the point of progressives who have been advocating the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage. Of course if the minimum wage is set at $15 then all the jobs upstream from fast food will have to increase which is how the socialists have always planned to attack the American economy—by striking at the profit of corporations for the good of the “people” as if they had equal ownership of the means of labor.
The unintended consequence is that companies like McDonald’s will either downsize and further automate their operations lessening their reliance on labor, or they will relocate to some other area of the country that does not have such hefty financial burdens toward their profit margins. Every video game player should understand this concept. Without some measure of profit—whether its points gained, or trophies won in competition with others—there is little incentive to play a game or open a business—if there is no profit. Human beings are driven by profit. As an example—I am a big fan of the Assassin’s Creed video games. There are lots of ways to “profit” in those games—as you succeed you get to open up new areas to explore, you get achievement trophies to share online with the friends in your network, and of course you earn upgrades to your playable character. Every Silicone Valley geek understands how this works—yet they have a hard time applying these lessons to real life—such as in politics. The same young people who will play an online game for 24 straight hours trying to grind it out to earn bonuses—will stand on a street corner protesting McDonald’s for a minimum wage hike without understanding that they are weakening the game of life for which we all live by. In their minds the two worlds are separated by fantasy and reality—but in the human mind—they are one in the same.
No video gamer wants their achievements and hard work penalized so some newbie can just come into a game like Assassin’s Creed and instantly be as good as everyone else. They are expected to work hard to earn the right and respect of everyone else. Well, the same holds true in a capitalist society. No top executive wants to see some snot nosed kid step directly into a corner glass office in a high-rise firm who hasn’t fought and earned the right to be there. And no straight out of college kid should earn $6 figure salaries unless they’ve done the work to be the top of their field of endeavor. By giving fast food workers an instantly high minimum wage—they are penalizing all those in life who play the game of capitalism hard and create all the jobs for which socialists are so eager to give away for free.
The net result will be fewer jobs in California, higher prices because of the lack of competition, and a general gradual lessening of their global economic prowess. The benefits that so many Californians take for granted today, such as having a McDonald’s down the road for a quick coffee and a breakfast will evaporate the higher that the minimum wage increases rise. McDonald’s will automate and implement those new devices into their stores to protect their margins—which is the lifeblood of their company—it’s not to serve society—it’s to make money—to earn points in the capitalist system. Then what California will end up doing along with socialist Seattle is force McDonald’s to reduce their staffing levels all across the country minimizing job opportunities—not increasing them. For the guy like me who just wanted to earn a little extra money and experience—those jobs may not be available if McDonald’s has to drop their minimum staffing levels from 6 or 7 employees to 3 or 4 to maintain their current margins. Once they develop a formula in California for dealing with the increased costs—they’ll implement that strategy to every store they have around the world.
So it is very sad to see that California took the plunge further into socialism. But I did tell everyone a long time ago that all this was coming—and we know what it looks like—and what impact it has—yet they did it anyway. It further prevents our national GDP from ever having a chance to overtake our massive debt with increased productivity. It certainly puts us all further in the hole—which was always the strategy. How does that make you feel America? It should make you VERY angry.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
Donald Trump Wins the Presidential Nomination Easily: Ted Cruz womanizing story gets no traction because there’s no money in it
It is surprising that this video hasn’t had more airtime. Obviously the #NEVERTRUMP people are salivating at an opportunity to pounce on Donald Trump after he effectively took off for a week to rest and welcome the birth of his latest grandchild. Cruz moved up on him in Wisconsin and the media thinks they have him cornered finally and can knock him out of the race with a gauntlet of criticism that has been unheard of in American politics. Meanwhile, this Cruz story is pretty important. There is obviously something very diabolical going on. If the guy cheats on his wife and is claiming to be a “Christian” this is a big deal. Carly jumped in entirely too fast, and Cruz is giving off the entirely wrong body language to be innocent. He never answered the question which is pretty bad.
Look dear reader, Donald Trump even if he doesn’t win states like Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, Oregon and several other places still wins easily with 1237 delegates by June. He may not even need to win California to get those delegates. I’ve done the math. Donald Trump would have to have a major meltdown to lose. Granted, the questions at this stage get harder and he has a lot against him—literally at every turn. But even if he only does “OK”, he still wins the nomination without a brokered convention pretty easily. If Trump keeps his swagger, the nomination is his.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-republican-primary-poll-20160327-story.html
The media wants people to believe that the whole presidential race is closer and more dramatic than it really is. They want Trump to keep working hard to win the nomination because it makes them all a lot of money having him on the news every night. So if they can delay it, they’ll do what they can to keep him in the news until the general election against Hillary begins. They would like a solid eight months of Trump ratings to generate several years worth of cable news projections. The Cruz story is going nowhere because there is no money in it. But for voters, they should be asking hard questions about Ted Cruz. He doesn’t have a chance to win as president, but he is a sitting senator and a Tea Party favorite. If he’s a cheater we need to know. Watching that video of Cruz and Carly indicates that something is very, very wrong.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
March 29, 2016
The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference
I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.” To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative. I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.) Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative. A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster. It’s not the fault of women. But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition. Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.
I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids. I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort. Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.
In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work. I know this because he’s a friend of mine. Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition. He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative. In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.
I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice. But I do judge them as lacking conservatism. There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy. I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes. Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing. It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity. Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs. When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built. That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.
Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement. They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated. The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism. Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.
When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial. They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement. But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures. A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village. That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty. This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump. When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important. The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism. Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur. But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them. And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.
I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be. But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren. The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen. Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass. But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.
So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism. Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.” I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves. The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence. They are mistaken.
Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue. If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment. If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes. But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards. I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News. The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow. These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism. And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality. Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives. But they are not. Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great. Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper. The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming. Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else. And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage. Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism. All it really is, is embarrassing.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
