Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 337

Photos of a Modern Gunfighter: The many benefits of a healthy passion

 

You might have noticed dear reader that I have some different pictures on my websites.  It has been a long time since I’ve updated any profile pictures and it was appropriate to reflect my new stage in life.  So my daughter at Brooke Townsend Photography.com set up a time to do a photo shoot with me and the result was some of these pictures that you are now seeing.  I have a complete life, I do a lot of things—I’ve been all over the world and done a lot of important tasks that people think are important.  I’ve raised children that I’m very proud of and I’ve been married to the same woman for over a quarter century.  By all accounts I am a very successful person bulging with skills and accomplishments that many would be envious of.  I don’t say all that to brag, but I work hard every day to be the best that I can be, and I have certainly done that.  So my daughter and I were talking about what kind of pictures to take of me—how to sum up my world views and essence into a simple photograph.  It’s not just my opinion, but those of her clients, my daughter has emerged on the world stage as a highly sought out photographer and her rates reflect the quality and uniqueness of her work, so I trust her professional recommendations.  She and I set out on an early spring morning recently to capture my essence that best represented this stage of my life and the result is what follows.

Of course I can pretty much buy whatever I want these days so it should say a lot that the possession I most love is my fast draw holster rig for my .45 Vaquero.  It is specially made and is my single most cherished item that I currently have.  With that said we focused on it for these photographs because as I said some time ago, I consider my new career to be that of a gunfighter.  Standing up for the Second Amendment, taking constitutional positions that are regarded legally as Anti-Federalist instead of Federalist—and my love of history really prevents me from any other type of career.  I like to stand up against bullies, at every level of the social spectrum—in manners of career, politics, and private life—that life as a gunfighter is really my only choice.

Being a gunfighter to me isn’t what it was during the period of the Old West.  It’s not about killing other people—it’s more of a sport, like being a basketball player, or a football star.  Being a gunfighter is what I enjoy most in this case within the sport of Cowboy Fast Draw which I practice at every day in some fashion or another.  A lot of men my age get heavy into golf—and I can see the appeal.  It can be magical to go to Dick’s sporting goods and pick out top-of-the-line golf clubs and spend many afternoons playing rounds of golf with the material acquisitions acquired through financial success.  But that is too stereotypical for me to really enjoy because so many people do it.  I need something that represents my unique life, and a gunfighter embodies my decisions much better—to the level I am quite excited about it.

My daughter did a wonderful job of capturing the light in a way that embodied how I feel about this stage.  If I look proud wearing the gun and holster rig from Mernickle it’s because I am.  For one reason or another I spent ten years planning on how I could incorporate these things in my life.  Most of the reason was that I worked too much so I didn’t have time for a hobby, or career as a gunfighter—because it takes a lot of work to do it right.  It’s the same situation with my .500 Magnum from Smith & Wesson.  I thought about those guns for a very long time and finally picked them up when I was able to make a clear decision to commit some time to caring for them as a sport.  I’m not the kind of person who just buys things to have them, then puts them on display in my home for other to look at.  I actually have to make them a part of my life.  The Mernickle holster rig is something that I plan to make a part of my daily life, so it is now a constant companion to me.  I thought about it so long that of course finally wearing it made me proud.

I think it’s a shame that firearms in general have such a negative stigma applied to them.  To me guns are all about great precision machining, and science—the combustible elements of lead projectiles mixed with gunpowder in closed dimensional quarters guided by human skill toward an intended target are the keys to their utilization.  To get an idea of what I’m talking about click the picture on the sidebar next to this article, the one where the gun is pointed toward the camera.  That is a reaction timer test that records your ability to identify a target and react to it within thousands of a second. A good time is anything in the .100 range, from the time you see the light to when you click the mouse button.  Mastering those types of skills don’t just help you in shooting sports, but in all aspects of life—because it forces your brain to think faster and to work more efficiently.  The difference between a time in the .300s and .100s is barely perceptible to human measurement—but by practicing, you can begin to feel it when you get a good time and when you don’t.  For instance, it might be remembered that I survived a very serious motorcycle crash last year.  It was only because of lightning reflexes that I managed to walk away with all my body parts and only a few cracked bones.  My $12,000 motorcycle was totaled, but I still made it to a very important business meeting an hour later because of how I develop myself though my hobbies—with an emphasis on speed and accuracy through working with bull whips for so many years.

Dedicating time toward the skills it takes to be a gunfighter has a spillover effect into all aspects of life, so I see it as a tremendous benefit.  While it might be out-of-step with mainstream thought, my gun rig with my Vaquero is my most prized worldly possession and my daughter did a good job of capturing it in our photo shoot.  I wear it all the time at home and whenever I’m in my garage, it has become mandated to always be at my side while on my property.  Whether I’m in my shop reloading ammunition, or target shooting for hours on end, my new Mernickle holster rig has become emblematic with my personality, so we are making it an important part of my life going forward—which is reflected in the pictures that will be taken of me in the future.  Guns have always been a part of my life, but they’ve always been in the background.  Now they will be very much more a part of the foreground.  As society has become more progressive, those of us who love traditional American concepts should stand up proudly on its behalf.  And that is what I intend to do with each year that emerges hereafter.

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.

Why You Should Not Vote For Ted Cruz: “Take over the world, rich, powerful, that sort of stuff” while building a North American “community”

Up until really the National Enquirer article I was not adamant that Ted Cruz should not be the presidential nominee.  But after hearing him get the endorsements of people like Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, and after Cruz actually hired a Bush to work in his campaign, then witnessing all the dirty tricks that Ted played before Donald Trump hit back—like the hit piece on Melania—I have decided that under no circumstances am I going to support any sitting politicians for President. If someone holds a political position now or ever—I will not vote for them in the upcoming election.  The political establishment is doing everything it can to protect itself from a rebellion they created because of their mass incompetence and dysfunction—and watching their behavior has made me sick of the process.  I don’t believe any of them.   It is obvious to me, and I’m hardly one who falls for disillusion and fantasy.  Yet I have many friends, several who make livings thinking about this kind of stuff—some who actually work for Glenn Beck—who say they won’t vote for Donald Trump because he’s not a conservative.  Well, I think Trump is a conservative in a very liberal part of the country.  He may not be Montana conservative, but he is certainly bold enough to call himself a Republican in the very blue state of New York.  People can argue and debate all they want, but Trump has a wealth building track record that you can see and touch.  Cruz does not.  Instead you get conspiratorial information about Ted Cruz when you do a little digging—and it’s not good—like the following videos. Watch them all then decide if you really believe that Ted Cruz is what he says he is.

If there was anything I liked about Ted Cruz it was during his filibuster speech in front of the Senate where he mentioned Ayn Rand.  Like Paul Ryan he claims to be a fan—which gave me hope for both of them really.  But then again, so was Glenn Beck—and all those people have missed the point she was trying to make.  Ted Cruz is no closer to living in the world of Galt’s Gulch than Jessie Jackson and now that he is being pressed as one of two front runners—his story is breaking down.  This is why we have a long primary season and why running for president is so difficult.  Everyone has to be vetted and we need to see how these people act when they start sweating.  Cruz has not done well.  Even if he didn’t cheat on his wife with five women—he didn’t do a very good job of stepping out in front of the story.  His body language was obviously implicating him behind the tough talk.  He came across to me like the kid seen in the below video who blamed Donald Trump for putting teeth marks in a chair.  Trump because he is the political outsider—is a convenient punching bag—and Cruz’s team uses dirty tricks too much against him in a passive aggressive manner.  They played dirty with Ben Carson, and several others as well.  Then when they tried to appeal to Mormons in Utah with Holy-roller ads using a naked Melania to smear Trump, it was obvious to me that when pressed as a possible president, Cruz would behave in the same fashion.

Of course Cruz wants to debate Trump one on one—it is his strongest aptitude.  Trump would be crazy to fall for the invite—to give a competitor a chance by playing to his strength.  That is not how you win competitions conservatives—you must exploit the weaknesses of your rival—you don’t prop them up.  Cruz is a great debater on policy and all the things that politicians talk about.  But what has he done in his life that says he could do anything but talk?  We’ve heard the talk before and look where it’s gotten us.  No, we need now a man of action and I don’t think there is a single one in public office these days within the Washington D.C. culture who can do the job of president.  There are a few here and there around the country that gives me hope for the republic, but not enough to matter at the federal level yet.  We are in a gunless rebellion right now.  Instead of casualties and collateral damage we are seeing people lose or gain their careers.  That you could say is a more humane way of dealing with insurgents who have failed at their jobs of running the country—and they neurotically respond as if they’d rather die than just lose a social status.  But this rebellion has to happen.  We either take back our country through an election or we do it with some militia organized force—but things cannot continue as they have.  And what I’ve seen out of Ted Cruz is that he’s part of the system—not fighting against it.  Even if Cruz did love the novel Atlas Shrugged—being married to the spouse that he has now would prevent him from acting philosophically from it—which makes him no more effective in government than one of the Bush presidents or the worthless senators like Graham.

Then there was Cruz’s little speech about strong women as he defended his wife Heidi from the wrath of Donald Trump after Ted threw the first punch.    Not that women have to be barefoot and pregnant, and must spend all their time in the kitchen caring for their families to have value, but Cruz did not sound very conservative to me.  There is this whole metrosexual revolution of men who do cooking for their wives and share in the domestic tasks like doing laundry that are derived from the whole progressive push to make everyone equal, and Cruz like a lot of men are a part of it.  In human society the only real differences between men and women are those regarding the sexual roles—that really is it.  If we all placed our brains on a table and took away all the physicality, only then would we truly be equal.  But with physical bodies, we have roles on earth that point straight into the bedroom.  For instance, most women like to take the submissive role in sex, and therefore, they like to pamper their men with domestic obligations—but only if that man has went out into the world and conquered it in some fashion—with either a big paycheck, or in protecting the family from some disturbance.  Men and women must respect each other, but the roles they play in their family life are like foreplay to what happens in the bedroom.  In the most biologically primal fashion that directly leads to a happy sex life, women like to know that a man is changing the tire on the family car and the man likes to see his woman cooking the dinner he worked so hard to put on the table.  That respect leads to a healthy sex life of mutual fulfillment.  In this modern age of high divorce rates and mousey men who share all the cooking and laundry duties with their wives—they don’t understand why the women in their lives don’t want to plop up on the hood of their car in their garage and have spontaneous sex.  It is because the women don’t respect men who endorse all those beta male attributes.  Of course there are exceptions—and some people make it work through sheer will—but biologically we are all wired the same way through our physical bodies—and so long as we live on earth together—those rules apply to everything we do.  Trump understands those rules—Cruz certainly doesn’t and you can see it on Heidi’s face—she is suffering.  Most women in Heidi’s position use career to substitute the closeness they lack with their husbands.  These days’ women have been taught from little girls that this progressive method is the way they must conduct their lives—so they usually enter marriage confused as to their roles within the family.  But just a note to men in general, if you have to get your wife drunk to want to have sex, you are screwing up your romantic life with her.  Men in that situation need to change things for the benefit of the woman.  Society won’t acknowledge this problem, but it’s quite obvious—and it is destroying an entire generation of relationships.  Ted Cruz came out in his chastisement of Donald Trump sounding like a silly soccer dad justifying his own personal failures—and it was certainly pathetic.  It wasn’t presidential, and it certainly wasn’t “conservative.”

That of course brings us back to Donald Trump and the Cruz supporters who declare that the New York billionaire isn’t a conservative.  Trump is rich and he didn’t get that way giving away money.  He has a happy housewife at home taking care of his family.  Trump is pro gun, pro border security, against Common Core, and favors lowering taxes with an aggressive plan that might actually work.  He is decisive and a natural leader and never backs down from a fight.  What’s not to like?  And he has a track record of accomplishment both good and bad–we can see what we are buying with him.  With Cruz, who says he’s the ultimate conservative—what do we really know?  Because when you peek under the hood there is a lot not to like—he’s underpowered, feminized, and all talk.  The holes in Cruz are showing.  If he’s a true conservative then we are in a lot of trouble.  Because he does a lot of things and holds positions that are quite contrary to true conservatism—and you can see that in his campaign.  And now that too much has been said, there is no going back for me.  If the Republican Party does not embrace Donald Trump I’m done with them.  If there is anybody but a pure independent from the political establishment in the White House—then I’m done with the process and will turn from elections into Sam Adams.  Look people, I’m not a Constitutionalist—I think the Hamilton version of the founding documents was entirely too liberal.  I’m an Anti-Federalist by that old definition and if there is movement in the Constitution—it won’t be more toward a socialist state like Obama presents as an option—it will be further to the right—the way that Thomas Jefferson always intended.  Because only in that manner can we get to what we were supposed to always be in America—and Trump is the means to get there.  Cruz is just more of the same.  We don’t need another scandalous preacher from the White House.  We need someone who knows how to manage others—something no politician has shown me they are able to do—because they just don’t have the skill set to accomplish the task.  Ted Cruz has been nothing but a public servant his whole life.  He’s hardly an outsider.  He’s simply sold himself that way—and I’m not buying—under any condition.  The Glenn Beck types are wrong.  They need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged.  Cruz isn’t any of the characters in Atlantis.  He’s at the table with Wesley Mouch.  Actually, Ted’s wife is—while the presidential candidate is doing the dishes.

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.

Why America Loves Melania Trump: When you see a beautiful woman–thank her for the tremendous contributions to a free society

 

In the political left’s insistent pursuit of “equality” there has been one group of people consistently cast out in the debate which needs to stop.  Personally I notice this discrimination all the time and I think it’s disgusting.  The same people who perpetuate this disgusting form of discrimination are the same people who tell us that everyone is equal and that we should make no judgments—that all sexes and their preferences should be given audience to the table of respect. It’s so bad now that we are actually having a debate in some places as to whether a person identifies themselves as a man or a woman in regard to which bathroom they use.  It doesn’t matter if those people are men, or women—all that does is whether or not they “feel” like a man or a woman.  As President Obama went on his South American tour of socialist countries trying to pave the way for an “American Union” which will demand that all countries within it function from the same economic engine—for instance Canada is being run by a socialist recently elected, Cuba is communist, Mexico is socialist, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and most of the smaller countries around them are all various degrees of socialist—the United States has had the burden of financially carrying all these countries from falling over the edge of civilized advancement.  It could be argued that socialist based countries if they did not have the United States helping them would plummet into an archaic based society regressing back to a nomadic culture.  We see it in the present day Middle East, all across Africa, and of course Asia.  Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that this most disrespected group of people within the United States could be responsible greatly for the reaches of capitalism around the world and are therefore tasked with saving many lives just by their very existence.   I am talking about beautiful women of course—it’s time we stop discriminating against them and to treat them with the respect they deserve.

http://www.gq.com/story/about-those-nude-photos-of-melania-trump-from-gq

http://www.infowars.com/obama-theres-little-difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/

I have been thinking about this topic a lot on the back of the obvious degradation toward Melania Trump now that her husband is the obvious front-runner who will battle Hilary Clinton for the White House.  The formula is quite simple really, men like Trump—“A type” personalities who work hard and like to hear the praise of their victories, love beautiful women.  I mean, who doesn’t.  Love aside—because without it a marriage is pretty miserable—but nobody wants to share a bed with someone who looks and feels like a potato.  Women don’t like sleeping with a man who is grossly over-weight and men really don’t enjoy it.  When you are successful and have accomplished more than those around you, it is a good feeling to get out of a car at a big event and have a beautiful woman draped on your arm.  It lets people know that you’ve done something to earn her.  Beautiful women in American culture are the goddesses of capitalism—they encourage the nerdy pimple-faced twenty something who can’t get a date on a college campus to invent something—so that they can share their bed with a beautiful woman.  The sum of such a transaction usually means economic expansion.  When men learn that the way to get “hot chicks” is to become rich—they work very hard to do so.  It is great for capitalism.  It could be said that beautiful women drive the American economic engine that saves the world from itself.  Men work hard to have beautiful women, and women work hard to look like beautiful women—the net result is that America makes money that carries everyone else through taxation.

In socialist countries or repressed cultures such as the one that Melania came from—upward mobility in society isn’t possible with just good looks.  You have to know somebody to become successful because of the nature of their “managed” economies—or you have to sleep with someone and hope that you can become something more than a mistress.  Unfortunately once a woman hits 30 years of age, they are usually thrown to the curb in those types of countries.  Most beautiful women in socialist and communist countries are sacrificed at a very young age and never make it to midlife because they are forced to capitalize on their beauty when they are young just to survive—which is very much the case in Vietnam, India, and China—attractive girls work in the sex trade—get abused and end up in terrible situations by the time they are old enough to be mothers themselves.  It’s really a terrible and vicious cycle.

Melania Trump is someone who I greatly respect.  She left Slovenia on a hope and a prayer to become a fashion model and could have easily have been like any other beautiful woman around the world and fallen into bad hands.  Lucky for her she met Donald Trump who greatly appreciated beauty and capitalism and the two started dated which gave her a bit of a refuge from the predatory fray of using her looks to make a living.  Trump was dating her at the time that he loaned one of his private jets to GQ to have Melania take nude pictures aboard it chained to a briefcase.  Trump honestly wanted to see the pictures as did most men.  When Melania got out of a car with him at social events it let everyone know that he had made it in life—especially when all the men who compete against him have seen his wife nude in GQ.  At the time he didn’t know if he wanted to marry her or not, they were just dating.

  After spending time together they eventually decided to tie the knot and marry because she had become more than a sex kitten for him—she became a partner—and that has been great for everyone.  There are few places in the world where Melania could have risen to the top of the world in such a short period of time but in the United States.  Now as a beautiful woman she is poised to be one of our best spokespeople for capitalism from the White House as a first lady.  Sure she used her looks to land a billionaire to her bed.  Some women trap men into marriage by getting pregnant, or some other form of bondage.  There is nothing wrong with a beautiful woman advancing under a capitalist system and becoming fabulously wealthy and successful using the natural gifts they were born with.

I know quite a lot of people with a great deal of money, and most of them have what is considered a trophy wife.  Most of these guys over the years have been developers to some degree and have to attend a lot of charity social events—just like Donald Trump does.  They spend a lot of their life trying to make buildings appealing to consumers and are often very concerned about appearances—so naturally as they try to build up their brand it helps them to have a beautiful woman on their arm.  Women judge the successful competence of men based on the type of mates they attract, and of course men figure out where they stand in the peaking order of the human race based on similar factors.  When a man sees another man married to a beautiful woman he usually thinks—that guy is more endowed than me–that guy is more successful than me–or that guy is tougher than me.  When you are a powerful person you need to gain that leverage over a rival so that when you have to negotiate with them they are already thinking they are inferior to you—so for the powerful developer—or otherwise successful person enriched under capitalism—having a beautiful woman who you are married to that is twice your age younger says a lot about where you are in life—and it gives you a better seat at the negotiating table.

Looks are just one element to a good marriage, and honestly as you get older and sex becomes much less important, you want a good friend to share a bed with of the opposite sex.  But a lot could be said about the value of beautiful women and their upward mobility within capitalist cultures which drive the economic engine of our entire civilization—and I don’t think we give them enough credit.  Melania is a classy young woman and I think she deserves a lot more respect than she has been getting.  The socialists among us know innately what it would mean to have Melania in the White House, so they are in a panic driven fury to demean her in every way fashionable.  But what has been exposed in the process is the gross hypocrisy of the political left and their discrimination against beautiful women in capitalist societies.  Their attraction to socialism after all is that they don’t want to compete with Melania and other beautiful women for attention. They want an “equal” society where beautiful people are just as abused as not such beautiful people—and that equates to substantial degradation in human achievement—but at least they don’t have to feel bad about themselves.  I think it’s time that we end such thinking and recognize beautiful women for the hidden gifts they bring to all of us.  When you see one, make sure to let them know how much they are appreciated.  They are people too, and we should treat them with the respect they deserve.

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.

Proof of a Global Communist Agenda Exposed: Alex Jones and his March 2016 show in full

They are lucky in a lot of ways that in America, we have the 1st Amendment.  Because the outrage is protecting them from those of us who are fully awake.  We are shooting words in an open marketplace instead of bullets.  It is obvious that many on the political left and establishment right don’t like the rebellion that is currently occurring, because not enough people are complying to sustain their formulaic plans.  But, too bad.  I will never submit to their way of thinking.  It’s just not going to happen.  If given opportunities  to compete in the marketplace of ideas, I’m happy to use that method to fight them with debate.  But if that goes away, I’m happy to do it in other ways—and I can assure everyone, that compliance with the current conditions is not an option.  To understand what I’m talking about, do yourself a favor, listen and watch this Alex Jones broadcast from Friday March, 25th.  While you are working in the garage on this nice spring day, or around the house, listen to this very good report—its three hours long.  I don’t agree with all of it, but it is quite good at detailing the fight we are all facing.  Don’t be asleep, it’s time to get up and go to work.  Join me on the battlefield.

And do a friend a favor and send this to them to help them wake up as well.  If you want the evidence of what Jones is saying, I have written millions and millions of words providing the proof.  Just look up any topic in the search bar on the left and you’ll find the evidence to substantiate what you are hearing.  If you doubt any of this remember that last night, the same day as this Alex Jones broadcast, Bernie Sanders–a socialist–filled up a 15,000 seat baseball stadium in Seattle.  The communists are rising, and the only defense there is against them–are us.

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.

Bill O’Reilly’s Question about Donald Trump: Defining a divided party and why Glenn Beck has lost his mind

Bill O’Reilly asked an important question when he wondered why members of his network, Fox News were so divided over Donald Trump.  The same could be said about the different between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—who are the clear front-runners in the 2016 presidential race. The divide is unusually deep because the two candidates properly represent the philosophic divisions that are taking place within the Republican Party.  As much as hard-core establishment supporters would hate to admit it, Ted Cruz represents what they seek in a president, someone from within their political ranks that is a person of faith who gets their guidance from prayer and deity submission—religiously pious.  They also hold that the presidency is America’s version of royalty, and they that take that oath of office very seriously.  Trump on the other hand represents the fighters, the businessmen who have bent over backwards to one too many regulations–the financially independent—the self starters.  Trump appeals to people who turn toward themselves first for an answer before soliciting government help or prayer to a deity whom has never physically manifested in a logical way.  That last type of conservative has never really had a candidate—they have held their nose and hoped that they might get lucky because options were limited—which is often not how they do most things in their life.  But with Trump, they finally have someone running for the White House who thinks like them for a change.  To confirm my statement just read the linked article from Glenn Beck about why no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and you’ll get the gist.  Glenn Beck whom I used to like—has lost his mind.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274267-glenn-beck-no-real-christian-supports-trump

Personally I liked that Thomas Jefferson answered the door to the White House in his night robe.  I liked that Teddy Roosevelt skinny dipped in the Potomac River—just a century ago.  I liked that Andrew Jackson would target shoot from the White House grounds.   I’m not big on formalities and in regard to the President of the United States—I feel as Jefferson did, as an Anti-Federalist, such tokens of ordainment should be cast away in America and dropped from assumption.  We should go out of our way to strip away formality anywhere we can in regard to the White House, not increase it.  We don’t elect a king, we elect a public servant—and we should treat them that way.

We also need a president who makes decisions based on their life experiences and the use of cold hard logic.  I don’t want a president who gets his decisions from “praying.”  For instance, let’s look at the reasons that John Kasich decided to expand Medicaid—which he did in Ohio against an amendment to the Constitution passed to protect residence from the grips of Obamacare.  Kasich claimed when he went against voters and the Ohio legislature that God told him to expand government so dramatically when pressed by reporters.  Well, screw that.  We didn’t elect “God” to run our public offices.  With all the bad dreams and insanity that goes on in any civilization it is difficult to tell God’s providence from the claws of insanity.  While I can claim many similar stories of providence—as miraculous as Andrew Jackson’s assassination attempt by the unemployed painter who tried to kill him with two guns—that both misfired—I don’t make decisions based on providence or the hope of it.  You can only make decisions based on what you know or see.  If God decides to help out, that’s fine.  But such an ill-defined character cannot be a part of any strategic plan—because there isn’t enough evidence to count on such things.  You don’t think with your heart—you do with your head—and having faith that things will just work out is not enough.  When faced with a problem I want a president who works through it, not one that sits at the side of their bed and “prays.”  I don’t care what George Washington did—if he prayed less and acted more—he probably would have won more often.  If you want to pray, be a preacher or volunteer at church.  If you want to lead a nation—come to the table with self-reliance.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jasonahart/2013/06/19/gov-kasich-god-wants-ohio-to-expand-medicaid/

Kasich, the closet liberal that he turned out to be could have misread his inclinations.  We as a voting public have no way to know if what Kasich said about God’s desire is true or not.  God did not have a press conference with us and tell us to expand Medicaid.  And we didn’t elect a “leader” to be some ancient go-between between God and man in the form of a priest holding some kingship based on the merits of “godly access.”  This is exactly why we were supposed to have a separation between church and state—not one where the church runs the state.  If people want the church to run the state—as Glenn Beck seems to—you might as well sign up for communism.  Capitalism requires self-reliance and logical thought—not altruistic sacrifice to divine will.   The worst time to make a decision of any kind is after a bad dream where some figure speaks to you in the form of some disembodied spirit.  The even dumber thing to do is to assume that the voice is “God.”  It in all actuality could be anything—some ghost from the past, some vengeful demon, some inter-dimensional terrorist—or it could be the lingering effects of an emerging insanity where deep-seated insecurities manifest into a mythological story played out among the brain’s neurons.  You never know.  When we elect a president, we elect a manager and we expect that person to make hard decisions based on reality as we can observe it.  That is the best that we can do given the limited scope of our human senses.

Then there is this ridiculous notion that the presidency should be beneath earthly squabbles.  I watched Republicans for well over thirty years play the moral high ground game and lose every time—especially George W. Bush.  He thought the office of the president was so elevated that he could not, or should not answer his many critics.  Well, that was the old alcoholic coming out of him, and the kid who was in the Skull and Bones society who participated in embarrassing hazing rituals.  When you are elected by the people for the people—you don’t surrender yourself to the political left by becoming a punching bag—using the “high office” excuse to mask internal fears.  You don’t sit in the White House on my behalf and make yourself a “pussy.”  You are expected to fight when attacked and to represent the constituency that elected you into office.  The office is not a higher authority than the people who put you there.  That kind of thinking leads to kingship—and we should not think of an American President as a king or as royalty.  He’s just a manager.

Just a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to shake Donald Trump’s hand.  I could have certainly had him sign any of my books–easily.  But I didn’t do either—even though I love the guy for president.  He’s on a job interview as far as I’m concerned and I’m the boss.  The boss doesn’t seek autographs and tokens of friendship from the people they employ.  Given that, if President Obama broke down in front of my house and needed to use my car jack or even the phone—I would tell that bastard to get off my lawn.  I wouldn’t shake his hand; I wouldn’t be getting a selfie to show that I had managed to get my picture next to a “powerful” person.  To me he’s just another person and in the case of his actions—he’s conducted his presidency as a domestic enemy that any constitutionally minded person is sworn to protect the nation from.  Needless to say, I will never shake the hand of president Obama under any circumstances.  He doesn’t rule over me, he doesn’t make decisions on my behalf, and he is a proven incompetent that has not earned the right to shake my hand.  And to be fair, I feel the same way about George W. Bush—he blew it.  I don’t care that he made some mistakes—but he was a lot like Glenn Beck—a former alcoholic who turned to “God” to straighten out their weak lives. I don’t fault them for their mistakes but they are smoking crack if they want to tell a person like me—who has never been addicted to anything, who doesn’t drink, has never smoked, has never done any drugs of any kind—who even avoids pain killers for surgery or at the dentist—and assumes that they have some place between me and the everlasting.  Give me a break!  They are not qualified to be in that position, and really, I can’t think of a single person on earth that is—even religious leaders.  If they have my high standards on personal living, I might listen to them—but short of that—forget about it.

Ted Cruz is way too much of a “god boy” to me.  I don’t want someone in the White House praying for answers.  I want someone who can extract answers from reality by sheer will.  I don’t want someone who will only enter the Oval Office with a jacket and tie on.  I want someone who will work there for 14 to 16 hours straight if needed to accomplish whatever task is on the table.  And I certainly don’t want a king—but I equally don’t want a self-sacrificial lamb that is willing to be plucked apart by the political opposition.  So to answer Bill O’Reilly’s question about Donald Trump there are still too many Republicans who want a president for all the wrong reasons—all the types of things that George W. Bush represented—meekness, sacrifice, divine providence-and policy concocted by voices from God which in all actuality were their addictive pasts calling out to them to return to the bottle.  For all those reasons I support Donald Trump—he’s a self-starter, he’s never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, and while he’s respectful of religion—he tends to guide himself before seeking the council of some otherworldly creature.  That’s good because I don’t have to worry about him waking up and starting wars based on dreams he’s had about “weapons of mass destruction,” or expanding Medicaid because God told him in a dream to help people.  I just want someone to do the job as president for the first time in the modern era.  I don’t want a king—I want someone to do the job—and I certainly don’t want a politician with ties to any lobbyist.  The deep divide over Donald Trump within Republican ranks is that not all conservatives quite understand what they want out of a public servant.  They know what they’ve had and are basing everyone on those examples.  But to me, what we’ve had was never good enough.  And the answer is not in more of the same—but in an entirely new direction.

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.

Lyin’ Ted’s Sex Scandal: The fire behind the smoke of Super PAC investment–spilling the beans

Let me say this, I don’t like Heidi Cruz.  I felt that way before the Cruz Super PAC went after Melania Trump recently.  From what I’ve seen about Heidi she reminds me of all the school levy supporters that I have called latté sipping prostitutes in the past.  I tend not to trust people who are too religious because to my experience there are skeletons in their closet that they use religion to conceal.  I also don’t trust people who hide behind children.  However, when Roger Stone was talking about the percolating sex scandal on the Alex Jones Show a few weeks ago concerning Ted Cruz, I wasn’t all that surprised.  When a man or woman has power, members of the opposite sex do try to seduce them as a lottery ticket toward advantage.  When you are a senator and working with a lot of young people—and you are middle-aged on top of the normal temptations, it is not hard to imagine how something scandalous might happen to Ted Cruz.   But when the National Enquirer came out with a major five woman scandal in their latest issue they either put themselves in a serious libel situation, or there is fire behind the smoke.  Given where things are in the presidential race and the premise of the Cruz candidacy—the pure-hearted Christian conservative that is Glenn Beck’s second coming—this revelation provides insight that needs to be explored further. 

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/94574273-8-things-you-need-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-sex-scandal

I wasn’t going to say anything, but what the Cruz people did—in a roundabout way with the Super PAC in Utah made me mad.  It was a holier than thou presumption that either means Cruz is pure as snow—which part of me has hoped that he was—or he was using religion in the same fashion as so many ministers have–to hide their sexual antics.  And all this would point to Heidi Cruz—there is something not quite right about her.  I don’t want her as a first lady.  Ted Cruz has seemed too good to be true, which usually means he isn’t.  So it will be interesting to see how this story plays out.  I don’t put a lot of trust in the National Enquirer, but apparently this story has been on ice for several months by multiple sources and it was only the Enquirer who took the first step to break it.  Given that the information was first discussed by Roger Stone over a week ahead of this announcement and that one of the women is Katrina Pierson—who is a Trump spokesman, it looks clear that Donald was willing to be a gentleman about the issue until the line was crossed with Melania.  And I don’t blame him a bit. 

I had been watching the Netflix show House of Cards and was enjoying it, except for the sex.  There was just too much sex in it for me.  I finally turned it off when Frank Underwood played by Kevin Spacey and his wife had three-way sex with their treasured Secret Service agent.  It wasn’t just two guys on a girl, it was guy on guy sex and that is something I won’t support.  However, the sex in the show is there for a reason.  People want to see it, it reflects their desires, and is very much indicative of Washington D.C. culture.  There is a part of me that hopes that this Ted Cruz sex scandal is all smoke, and if it is—I hope he sues the Enquirer into oblivion.  But there is something about Heidi Cruz which tells me that it isn’t—and that Trump was alluding to that when he defended his own wife against the Super PAC ads about Melania. 

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-mistresses-cheating-claims/

Further angering me was the finger waving Ted Cruz calling Trump a sniveling coward for attacking Heidi.  There are obvious problems with the Cruz marriage and that does not give Ted the authority to preach to Trump or anybody else what’s right.  His campaign continues to have these kinds of scandals, where third-party participants do hit pieces on his behalf that have been downright dirty.  At least with Trump, he’s out in the open about the things he does.  Ted hides and now it looks like we all know why.  If he can’t keep things cleaner than this during a campaign just think what he and his wife would be like in the White House.  Even after Cruz’s little public refute of Donald Trump—the presidential front-runner was extremely quite on Twitter not posting  anything for over 20 hours as this story developed.  That tells me everything I want to know because that hasn’t happened over the entire six month history of Trump’s run.  Why tick off all of the Cruz supporters when Ted let them down himself?  The reason is that this is more than smoke.

After hour 20, this is what Donald Trump said about this issue, written 34 minutes prior to this writing:

Donald J. Trump
34 mins ·

I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it.

Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.

I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again.

– Donald J. Trump

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.

Communism in America: Rush Limbaugh’s shock at Chris Cuomo’s sentiments behind the Democratic Party

If I wanted to, I could probably have a pretty successful career in talk radio.  I do occasional guest spots here and there and have in the past made talk radio a big part of communicating hard ideas to people.  But, on the front end, it doesn’t pay much money until you build up a syndicated show, and honestly, I don’t have time for that.  It is one of many things that I have as a substantial talent wheelhouse that I enjoy.  With all that said it does sometimes surprise me that I say things well ahead of the curve before mainstream audiences are prepared to understand them.  I don’t listen to the big talk radio people every day—sometimes I go years without listening because I am busy with my own things—but independently—often—I come to conclusions at the same time as many of the big names—like Rush Limbaugh.  That gives me often a feeling of self-satisfaction in knowing that the things I often say are on target—and not some random thought barely dangling from reality.  If I say something, then a big name talk radio guy says something similar—arrived at independently—it is a good sign that you’re on the right track.

But I felt a little sorry for Rush Limbaugh and his many millions of listeners as he played a clip from CNN’s Chris Cuomo spouting off the benefits of communism as President Obama’s rapturous trip to Cuba unleashed a pent-up orgasm from the political left toward the long-awaited day of fulfillment.  As the world burned in Brussels due to terrorism, Obama was getting pictures of himself in front of Che murals and doing the wave at a Cuban baseball game.  Obama and his supporters who have sweat sweet love for communism for years were unable to contain their excitement and were showing mainstream America what has always been going on within the Democrat party and all progressive affiliations. The sound bites and Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to it are in the above clip.  He was noticeably caught off guard by the love fest toward communism—because as a person who does nothing but analyze the news every day from a conservative view—he had underestimated the level of socialism and communism that has been percolating in America for several decades—really since the 1930s—aggressively.  The communist efforts with strategic implementation peaked during the 1960s on college campuses, and then subsided a bit by the time Ronald Reagan was elected president and went back underground for a while.  It emerged again in small doses during the Clinton presidency—for which Rush Limbaugh made his name so popular.  It went’ back underground during Bush the younger’s presidency especially in the wake of 9/11 terrorism and concerns over the War in Iraq—and other places.  But always brimming under the surface was a progressive push toward socialism then communism—it was evident in the No Child Left Behind act signed by George W. Bush, it was also in the creation of new governmental departments like the TSA and Homeland security—all ushered in on the back of mismanaged crises.  Socialism from both political parties was what led to the 2008 recession as government had been making bad loans all in the name of “equality” and bailing out companies “too big to fail.”  The American people elected a socialist in Obama because the emphasis was on “equality” not merit and the rest is history leading up to this Cuba visit—which for an admirer of communism—appears to be one of Obama’s lifelong goals hatched among his Marxist friends at the University of Chicago in the company of his friend—the terrorist Bill Ayers.

Well before I ever wrote on this site—more than six years ago as of this writing—I talked about these things.  People thought it was a bit conspiratorial. People sometimes looked at me cross-eyed and whispered behind my back often—but it didn’t change the facts.  Those who know me well understand that I’m far from some tin-hated conspiracy theorist.   I’m usually always right when I say something and if I care enough to reveal it to somebody—I feel pretty strongly about it.  It has always been a gift of mine to see right through the thick of things beyond layers of deceit to the truth which is always carefully hidden.  Most adults tell “little white lies” about just about everything and I am extremely good at breaking down reality very quickly to discover the truth of a matter.  When I listen to people say things I am always listening to what they don’t say behind the words.  To me that is the most important voice—and believe me—there are always hidden things behind all forms of communication ranging from body language to Freudian slips of the tongue by selecting certain words to use under specific conditions.  Most of the time the person speaking doesn’t consciously realize they give away hints as to what they are hiding, but like a dog whistle that only I can hear—I pluck from their depths the evidence.

Public schools have for a long time been teaching socialism—and I have always spoken out against it.  Any time a teacher tells a student such as they do starting now in pre-school—that it is the obligation of a child to “share” their toys with others—that school is committed to teaching socialism with the hope that someday that student will embrace communism and vote for some political person like Bernie Sanders or the entire city council of Seattle, Oregon.  These days most of our music is subtly advocating socialist ideals, most of our movies–especially films like the Best Picture movie from last year that I enjoyed a lot called—Birdman.  Socialism is communicated from virtually every sector of our modern society and I have been pointing it out for as long as I can remember.

It’s often easy for people to forget about the hidden messages because they like the product wrapping it comes in.  For instance with Birdman—which was a very good film that was metaphorical to the real life events of Michael Keaton who started all these superhero movies with the 1989 movie Batman—the film direction was so interesting that many of the little socialist messages were easy to ignore because the product was so entertaining.  But the movie did hit all the usual “Best Picture” categories required to win an Academy Award—it had a lesbian scene, it showed the protagonist at war with his I.D. and his collective consciousness, it attacked the nature of art valued in this case by a stage play on Broadway compared to the blockbuster status of a Hollywood film career.  The movie Birdman was very good at doing what it set out to do.  But I also noticed a little rebellion in the movie—the director clearly knew what he was doing—while appealing to the Hollywood left of the Academy—making a movie he knew they would like—he at the end tipped his hat toward capitalism.  It was very subtle, but he did it in clear rebellion of the socialist trend—and I’m seeing this more often from several Hollywood directors.  At the end, not to give anything away when Michael Keaton’s daughter looks to see if her father had jumped out of a window to commit suicide.  Instead of seeing a mangled body down below she looked up at the birds flying above and smiled as if acknowledging that her father was flying with them.  Metaphorically of course she meant to imply that he had decided to give up the ridiculous art of his theater career and embrace his Birdman heroic persona crafted by the Hollywood blockbuster culture which was the central conflict of the entire picture.  Does art mean personal fulfillment in material possessions acquired or is itself sacrificial in going to the extreme of blowing off one’s nose in front of a live audience to commit suicide on stage to show the world the extremes he would go to be an “artist?”  Michael Keaton answered the question—he became the physical manifestation of who he really was in the end even though any Hollywood leftists would obviously miss the point.  Birdman is a brilliant movie!  Watch it!

I see more film directors now than ever putting subtle messages in favor of capitalism in their films that are meant to be concealed.  It used to be the other way around, which is why the Chris Cuomo references were so shocking to Rush.  We all grew up on certain kinds of influences, and in American culture, movies and music are huge reflections of our culture so unless you know what you are looking for, it is easy to miss.  For instance, go back and watch the original Robocop and the anti capitalist messages are quite obvious—the villains are capitalists and the good guys are public sector employees.  Still a good movie—but the subtle influence shaping the elements is obvious.  Dirty Dancing had a harsh anti-Ayn Rand message, Dances with Wolves an obvious progressive dialogue that fully embraced Native American versions of westward expansion—which directly led to political legislation.  The list goes on forever really—those are just a few examples.

But the pro-communist message has been spread for decades very quietly and carefully, and not even Rush Limbaugh understood the enormity of it.  Conservatives have always joked about it, but assumed that the situation was overstated in regard to Democrats.  It wasn’t.  If anything, even people like me understated it because it forced us to admit that there were domestic enemies that were seeking to topple the United States from within and that they were our neighbors, our teachers, our firefighters and other public servants—which was just too much to deal with.  It is much easier to think good of things than to admit that there might be a problem.  It’s similar to the wife married to an alcoholic where the abusive husband is in denial.  America has been in denial that the political left always intended communism—even many on the left themselves.  But now that Obama is in Cuba—Marxism has infested the thinking of the entire Islamic community and is inspiring terrorism against “western—capitalist” targets, it was too much for Rush Limbaugh to even admit.  A sitting president was in Cuba at a baseball game with a known criminal dictator as Brussels exploded with terror.  Many thought Obama should come home and address the nation.  Instead he was having the time of his life doing the wave in a Cuban crowd with a Castro communist.  It might have shocked Rush Limbaugh—and I understand it, but it didn’t shock me.  It only confirmed what I have been saying for decades.  My only reason for reminding people about it now is in the hope that they will shut up and listen in the future.  When I tell you something dear reader—you better listen.  I don’t write all these things to make money.  I do it to save the human race—because what good is money if nobody is around to use it.

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.

America Needs to Abandon the United Nations: Donald Trump’s AIPAC speech and a short history freedom’s experiment

It was the type of speech that made you want to stand up and cheer within your own home, and I did.  It was just my wife and I but it felt so good for somebody in politics to finally say it.  Donald Trump while speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington DC on March 21st 2016 trashed the United Nations especially in reference to enforcing safety for the nation of Israel.  I have been saying for years that the United States should withdraw support of the United Nations because of the lack of personal sovereignty that it intends to apply toward our own history—and given the amount of financial resources that America provides just to keep that token government operating with any kind of authority—it is clear that the UN has not appreciated it, and it has instead embolden them to believe that they are equal to the United States in global respect.

Most of the countries within the United Nations are functioning from a position of socialist or communist economic systems and thus bring very little to the table regarding financial input leaving the United States alone in providing the foundation that the entire concept rests upon.  Without America, there would be no United Nations and many believe as I do—that Roosevelt and Wilson should have left the whole concept alone and listened to the electorate way back to the two World Wars and stayed out of European affairs and their reckless warlike escapades.  The United Nations does very little good for anybody and has become a giant wealth distribution scam mainly consuming the resources of America just to survive.

You might remember dear reader the anger I felt when comic book writers proposed that Superman was going to give up his citizenship to fight for the United Nations instead of American ideals such as “truth, justice, and the American way.”  Progressive artists of the new 21st century had decided that Superman needed to be more global and that the new fight for planetary survival needed to focus on the United Nations—as if that would be our next governmental body.  I have additionally said often that the Clintons were positioning themselves to be leaders with the United Nations ushering in a new era of global government led by the socialist participants at the UN who shared membership with Socialist International.  There have been attempts by the United Nations—such as Agenda 21 to impose themselves into American sovereignty with crazy ideas like how to steer communities back into urban environments, degrading the value of private property through increased taxation, and imposing the will of the ‘state’ into the families of our youth through multiple methods, both at home and within their public educations.  The United Nations has been a joke and I urged over six years ago my congressional representative, John Boehner to withdraw American support to teach those presumptuous European aristocrats that without us, they’d be nothing—to learn their place in the global marketplace to position us for a better deal, and more sovereign respect.  I’m all for helping the world so long as they copy America and our system of capitalism.  To weaken American interests so to prop up socialist and communist nations has never been an option to me.

There are essentially three phases which defined the concept of American freedom.   The first was of course the democratic invention of a pirate republic as established between the years of 1650 and 1710.  For really the first time in known history people threw off the cloak of state ownership and declared themselves a free people as they made the hard decision to become pirates.  There was a lot of debauchery that took place, and a lot of blood spilled, but the concept of pirating as it evolved in Port Royal, Jamaica caught the eye of John Locke who wrote down his thoughts which later inspired Thomas Paine and many others to break from England during the American Revolution.  Without the Pirates of the Caribbean—literally, there would have never been a Declaration of Independence.  Pirates had shown the colonists how a free country of sovereign citizens might throw off the tyranny of a king for the opportunity to live as a free people.

Of course the Revolution in America was the result of much contemplation within Scotland and other Illuminati circles that were going philosophically down a path for which the world would never be the same.  Ben Franklin in particular, along with Thomas Jefferson drove much of that European contemplation into the new world to fan the flames of rebellion toward a free republic.  It was hard for many to take up arms against the king of England but the result was a free nation in the New World.  Once the smoke cleared and the frontier opened up mankind for the first time could look West and carve a life out for themselves using a method of economy called capitalism as communicated by Adam Smith into settling a rough frontier and allowing the best of them to become gloriously wealthy—proving the new economic theory to be more than justified by actuality.  But first the European concept of slavery had to be ended and it was by the mid—1800s. Within America a war was fought and the slaves were freed—another first on the world stage.  Only in America could a European inheritance such as slavery be eliminated with an emphasis on freedom for all people no matter what race or sex they might be.

Once the war was fought and the slaves were free the West opened up into what is my favorite period—westward expansion.  The period of the Old West was a time where government was smallest, but the foundations of capitalism were running at its fullest—and the wealth created by this period essentially pushed up the skyscrapers of Manhattan and Chicago as railroads brought back great wealth from the West to the East.  The concept of the frontiersman is a defining element of American capitalism.  Most people failed, and many died of disease and personal misery—but a few managed to give rise to a nation on the backs of individual effort.  The California Gold Rush fueled our young country with great wealth that made it the envy of the world—and it all occurred because individual people were empowered to carve out a life for themselves on the open land of the West if they dared.  It wasn’t always pretty, but it was effective and is something to be very proud of as a period of adventure and honor which evolved on the backs of the American Cowboy.

The Roaring Twenties happened when the great president Calvin Coolidge promoted capitalism with great audacity and massive amounts of wealth generated from this entire American endeavor lifted up all members of society for the first time in human history—even the extreme poor benefited.  Average people everywhere were living the kinds of lives that nobody on earth had thought possible just twenty years prior.   Common people had access to food, jobs, and shelter as the spillover of capitalism from the very top provided a new security for everyone within the American experience.  Several World Wars and other global wars against communism would take place in the years thereafter which were ultimately endeavored upon as a means to share the wealth of capitalism into countries drowning in communism—like Vietnam, Korea, China, Central America, Cuba, Mexico—and so on.

Then the audacious United Nations came in on the tail of all this work done in America—and all the blood spilled on behalf of endeavoring for personal freedom and assumed that it was their role to take control of all this activity and make the world into a melting pot of progressive value—ignoring the hard gains won in America for personal sovereignty—which was extremely disingenuous. Their version of a global government is a socialist one—and they are insisting that America give up its capitalism and embrace socialism so that they can more adequately manage us.  So my hatred of the United Nations isn’t just some flimsy conspiracy theory—it is rooted in a firm knowledge of history and understanding how difficult it was for America to arrive at this point in time.  It is also an awareness of how valuable it was for people within America to reach the kind of freedom that we have as a human rights endeavor.  Americans are the masters of freedom and human rights—nobody else on earth has done as much as we have to make people free—and equal.  People in America are equally allowed to reach as far as they dare.  There is nothing to say that the journey will be easy—but they are free to reach no matter who they are—and that is something very special.  So how dare the United Nations assume otherwise—and they have.  That is why it was so refreshing to hear Donald Trump say what he did on such a large stage.  If that is a hint into what kind of president he’ll be—he should win in a landslide!  If I was a fan of his before—I am even more so now.

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.

 

 

A Guide To Dealing with Trump Protesters: Taking lessons from the great film classic, ‘Dirty Harry’

Now that he’s obviously the most serious Republican contender for the White House, the protests against Donald Trump have escalated dramatically.  It is the last-ditch effort of all statist minded people to use collective protests to demonize individual effort.  We see it in labor union disputes over collective bargaining agreements, we see it in boycotts of businesses by liberal groups—look what they’ve done to poor Sea World, and we see it in politics—when change agents want to have an impact on culture—they use the mob to protest effort to essentially stop progress.  It has been the playbook of the political left for many years and was most effective in the Soviet Union during the early 1900s as Marxists used protests to usher in communism.  Ever since, especially in the 1960s, Marxists have turned to protest to stop management of any given issue for the purpose of pulling the Overton Window continually to the political left.  No Republican except for Ronald Reagan has effectively stepped beyond the reach of protests leaving conservatives in the United States defenseless against the Marxist strategy so explicitly outlined in the Karl Marx book, The Communist Manifesto.  Now the frustration among those left-leaning insurgents is in a near panic mode as they have run up against a Republican candidate in Donald Trump who seems to love the conflict and his supporters who know that this is the best shot they are likely to get in their lifetimes to stand their ground against the Marxist sympathizers are fighting back.

It is unlikely that CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC along with all the network outlets think of themselves as Marxists.  Their college training and public educations disguised the political philosophy behind Democratic politics and otherwise liberal thinking—so unless they understand history—they wouldn’t know. Most news reporters and news anchors lean-to the left—even Bill O’Reilly—compared to mainstream America—so they have a natural sympathy for the efforts of the protestors against someone controversial figures like Donald Trump.  But Trump, being a master communicator knows exactly what to say and how to say it—especially on camera.  If he needs to use three syllable words, he does it.  If he needs to use four letter words to make his point—he does that too—and so far he has been able to withstand everything that the political left has thrown at him.  He is the new brand of ironside that is unsinkable as Republican candidate and his supporters are eager to rush to his aid to help him through the gauntlet.

Before the Trump rally in West Chester, Ohio recently a friend of mine and I were in the front row just at the corner of a townhall style event.  Trump was literally 11 feet from our seats and between us were two layers of Secret Service.  I was seated on the aisle and my friend was just across it from my position.  We joked that if protestors were going to try to rush the stage, they would have to get through us—because we were best in position to stop it.  Sure enough, two protestors about 15 minutes into the Trump event came down the aisle and were coming right by me.  I looked them in the eye—there were two of them, a woman carrying a Bernie Sanders socialist sign and a guy behind her trying to chant down Trump before the crowd had a chance to react.  They were approaching the stage.   Looking at them both soaking wet they might have weighted about 200 pound together, so it wouldn’t have taken anything to throw them like a Frisbee out of the place.   I looked in eyes of a guy just behind my friend who was about 6’ 7” and was covered with tattoos who wanted to eat some red meat—he was ready to decimate somebody to protect his presidential candidate—his emotional investment.  Trump was in no danger.  I knew a Secret Service agent had moved just a bit to my right so he wasn’t standing in front of me—out of courtesy to me–so I knew he would easily have control of the situation.  The protestors came right up and stopped next to me and quickly law enforcement grabbed them and removed the two quickly. I could have easily grabbed the two, and made the news by justifiably protecting Trump—but there was plenty of security and there was no need for the audience to get into the mix.  The protestors were clearly in the wrong and the law was clearly on our side.  If I had grabbed them as a civilian, things would have gotten a little murkier, so my friend and I stayed out of it—for the most part.

The trick of the protesters—which is to them a self-sacrificial enterprise—they wanted to get arrested—they wanted to get beat up—they wanted to become victims so that they could advance their cause.  They intend to use guilt to leverage against their opposition.  Lucky for conservatives in this case—Donald Trump does not feel guilt—so he continues on in spite of their efforts.  The protesters are essentially doing exactly what the Scorpio character was doing in the great cop drama by Clint Eastwood way back in the early 70s, called Dirty Harry.  Scorpio was the villain of the movie and Dirty Harry had gained leverage on him by following him all over to harass him—keeping him from committing more crimes—which liberalized laws had prevented him from being charged with.  Scorpio paid a person to beat him up so that the blame would fall on Dirty Harry—which is exactly what happened.  This freed up Scorpio to commit more crime until finally Harry essentially quite the police so he could shoot and kill Scorpio after the left leaning terrorist hijacked a school bus full of children.  Protestors especially at Trump rallies are after the same kind of thing.  They can’t beat the message—so they want to get beat up so they can extract sympathy and get the light off their Marxist antics.

It’s not that so-called-blacks, Hispanics, or any other progressive voting blocs are bad people because of the color of their skin or that “white America” has an aversion to their place in American culture—it’s that their foundation beliefs about how a society should be run has been shaped by Marxism.  The left uses these voting blocs as weapons of insurrection to become change agents from capitalism to socialism.  That is clearly understood by a majority of the American people—especially in the flyover states.   Until Trump there wasn’t any mainstream defender against that act.  We remember how John McCain in 2008 defended Barack Obama from conservative pundits who used with emphasis of the middle name Hussein to point to a possible Islamic connection.  McCain lost that election–embarrassingly.  We saw Mitt Romney come out swinging in one debate and obviously had Obama on the ropes—then in the next backed off over guilt over his wealth, his hiring of women, and the perceived notion that in the last debate—he attacked a black man as president over allegations of racism.  Mitt Romney lost.  Now Trump backs down from nothing and people feel invested to defend him when he’s attacked—and that is understandable if the context of what has been against American culture is clearly understood.

However, the best way to beat the protesters is to let the Secret Service do their jobs.  Use your brain.  If protesters are just carrying signs and making a ruckus—let the police come and take them away.  If they bring weapons and intend to do harm, that is something else.  Quick action is necessary to delay trouble before the police can get there.  But if they are just blocking roads, and making an ass of themselves, let the police and the cameras do the work.  Don’t give them the sympathy they seek to invoke change.  The worst thing that can happen to these Marxist sympathizers in both the media, in politics and in the protesters themselves is that a Trump rally happens at all—the fact that an unapologetic person like Trump is speaking on behalf of the flyover states is something that hasn’t happened since flight was invented.

 It’s a big deal to have Donald Trump as a candidate doing what he’s doing—and I love that it makes so many on the left infuriated.  Now they know how I’ve felt for forty years of watching elections—welcome to the club!  The best way to beat them is to consume them utterly with ineffectiveness.  The rallies need to go on.  Just don’t fall for the Scorpio trick.  If you need to review that old cop drama just watch the clips above.  It’s an old movie, but some things never change and those old Clint Eastwood films were very good at painting a picture of the kind of politics that shaped the 60s, 70s, and 80s which documented properly the Marxist movement in America by insurgents who wanted to change it.

If you are at a Trump rally, let the professionals handle it—unless you can determine that the bad guys really intend harm.  In my case it was easy.  Those two protesters in West Chester weren’t a risk.  But you can bet I weighed all that out in the 1.5 seconds I had to make the call as they moved toward the stage where Trump was speaking.  If they are just yelling and holding up signs, they are harmless and Trump has a right to throw them out of his private event.  So let that process happen.  But if they intend harm, like that guy in Dayton clearly did, then a further step of prevention may be necessary.  These are bad people—treat them as such and tread carefully.  Understand what their objective is, and keep them from having it.  Don’t fall for their tricks because they will get worse.  We have to have this fight now.  Failure to have this fight might mean a much worse fight later.  Save lives—let’s get this over with.  The right people need to win for a change.

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.

Superman, Batman, Zach Snyder and ‘The Fountainhead’: How to define a Trump supporter

With all the press over the new Batman vs Superman movie the director, Zach Snyder told The Hollywood Reporter that one of the next projects he’s working on is an updated version of The Fountainhead.  The faces of nearly everyone in the liberal community of media and entertainment nearly melted off.  Snyder is a highly respected film director and is at the top of his game.  But it doesn’t surprise me that he and a growing contingent of Warner Bros. directors and screen writers are showing themselves as Objectivists—Ayn Rand’s philosophic dispute against Kantian collectivism.  It’s no secret that I was very supportive of the film makers of Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a successful cliff note to the great American novel—Atlas Shrugged.  That book is what America is all about and could have only been written here by our culture.  Ayn Rand was onto something with her work and I personally think The Fountainhead is one of the greatest novels ever written and I’ve read Finnegan’s Wake—and I understand it—just for reference.  Finnegan’s Wake to me is probably the greatest novel in the history of mankind as far as its scope—but within it there are way too many Kantian limits.  Ayn Rand takes away those limits and delivers us to a time before Plato and Aristotle’s great debate—to a time when mankind was contemplating that it was not the gods of Mt. Olympus who ruled the universe, it was the minds of mankind.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-v-superman-married-creative-874799?utm_source=twitter

This is extremely important to understand because the candidacy and potential presidency of Donald Trump is the kind of story which might be a sequel to one of those Ayn Rand classics—he is a clear combination of characters from both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Trump’s popularity is very similar to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels even to this day nearly 60 and 70 years after their release.  Atlas Shrugged is the most reviewed book in the Library of Congress behind only the Bible for a reason—people are curious—but the life around them built largely in the summation of Kantian philosophy doesn’t assimilate well to what they feel in their heart and souls.

I know people from every side of the argument regarding Donald Trump.  I know the Glenn Beck Tea Party types, I know hard-core Objectivists, and I know traditional Republicans and I see their difficulty in understanding Donald Trump and his supporters.  Some of them like Glenn Beck and even Ted Cruz are staunch Atlas Shrugged supporters—they love Ayn Rand—yet they don’t understand her—because religion clouds their thinking on the philosophy of the matter.  Ironically, that is their same aversion to Donald Trump—that he’s a godless heathen who lives for himself counseling only himself not seeking the advice of God in times of crises.  Trump declares that he relies on his own mind to make decisions—which is a very Ayn Rand type of thing to say—and Beck along with Cruz followed by a contingent of Tea Party supporters are frazzled by such a proclamation.  Establishment Republicans hate Trump because he isn’t Kantian enough—meaning he doesn’t think in a Platonic fashion deep enough for them.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES)  Then of course Objectivists aren’t sure what to think.

Not long ago I compared Donald Trump to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead and Objectivists sent me private messages concerned about my sanity.  They declared that Trump was not ideologically pure enough to be an “Objectivist,” and he certainly wasn’t the hero Howard Roark.  But a real life examination into the way that Trump has lived proposes a direct comparison.  Trump has always had a very Roark-like certainty about hm.  I don’t claim to be an Objectivist.  Personally, I think mankind is at a stage where we need to deep dive Rand’s thoughts expanding on Aristotle’s original concepts—but perhaps either going back to a time well before Greek philosophy or into a new period that mankind has never been before.  I am personally concerned with flushing out these kinds of thoughts over my years.  I see Objectivism as a first step in that process and Ayn Rand was certainly onto the scent.  However, Rand’s books were relatively simple-because they are exploring complex concepts and needed a host of adult characters to drape those concepts off of—for instance, there are no children in Rand’s books, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged—which makes it easy for the characters to act on their authentic natures.  The world is neatly aligned in a way that represented Ayn Rand’s time period and her personal decisions which was to not have children with her husband and to carry on lavish affairs of her own with other men and force her husband to watch essentially.  In the end Rand was a bit broken-hearted with some of her decisions and it hurt her following regarding Objectivism.  That doesn’t mean she was wrong—it just means she wasn’t completely right.

I think the life of Donald Trump would be a sequel to Ayn Rand’s classics—and I think his third wife Melania is the key to his present success.  I think Donald Trump fits right into the pages of Rand’s heroes with John Galt and Howard Roark and that is essentially why people are so bothered with his presidential candidacy.  Objectivists would obviously disagree, but they share with most religions an almost sanctimonious relationship with the purity of Ayn Rand’s characters that they have become Holy figures to them similar to religious fanatics who insist that the life of Jesus Christ as it was written in a book 1700 years ago is testament to the precise way that we must all live today—and that the interpretation provided over the years and nurtured along by Immanuel Kant followed by many others—like Karl Marx would formulate political philosophy around the values of altruism.  Donald Trump was a great person before he met Melania—but after she became his Lady of Tubber Tintye.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She was his hero’s journey much the way Dagney was brought to such a figure in John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.  In that case Galt was the type of treasure found in the classic story of The King of Erin and the Queen of the Lonesome Island.  In real life, Melania was the treasure that Donald Trump found and what we have today is a presidential candidate who has successfully completed a hero’s journey equivalent to a classic novel and he is here to bestow upon mankind the boons of his adventure.

While many people think their version of reality is the correct one, the established political people have their Kant, while Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and their Tea Party followers have their Bibles and the Ayn Rand at war within their very souls trying to fit a square peg into a circular entrance.  Conservatism to many of these people means “obedience to God.” The education class has their Marxism—which was formed by Kant to proclaim that Trump is too stupid for the right to “rule” because that is how archaic they still think of mankind—as a species that needs to be ruled over by an aristocratic elite.  And Objectivists hate all of the above, but they don’t think of Trump as equivalent to John Galt or Howard Roark.  Yet to know Trump through his many years of work, he is clearly willing to stand his ground for the authenticity of his creations, like Roark did at the end of The Fountainhead.  There aren’t any other people on earth in any positions of authority or wealth that have ever done as Trump is doing now—and that is to risk it all for a chance to fix everything for the sake of American authenticity.  He’s not retreating from the world the way that John Galt did to let the system collapse on itself the way that Ayn Rand suggested.  His stand is a much more masculine one—and one not yet defined by any art or literature—at least those known in establishment circles.  Donald Trump is the next step in that eventual evolution.

Trump supporters have been lied to and manipulated by all the groups mentioned above, religious groups, political groups, activism groups—everyone, and they still see things sliding into an abyss.  They have been told that they are bad because they are a particular color, that they are bad if they think well of American sovereignty, and that they are bad if they aren’t willing to give the skin off their very backs to those too lazy to make their own way in life—and they are the majority.  People like Trump were allowed to the table of power so long as they brought their check book, but they weren’t invited to help fix anything.  For Donald Trump I think love brought him full circle and into this political theater and the instincts of the American people understand it in spite of what everyone is telling them.  Trump has great love for his wife, his children, and of course himself.  People don’t comprehend it yet, but they know to trust it because literally everyone else has let them down.

From what I know of the new Superman movie with Batman, the debate is going to be precisely what I have been talking about.  Superman represents the type of Ayn Rand hero that evolved under American philosophy—essentially Objectivism.  Batman represents the law and order of a Platonic society—which migrated from Kant to Marxism riding on the back of organized religion—all denominations.  Can Batman simply let society fall in line behind a man who is superior in every fashion—and could destroy the world if he cared to in a moment?  That is the theme of the new Zach Snyder version of Batman vs. Superman—arriving in theaters soon as of this writing.  But filmmakers must make their livings looking five years into the future to anticipate the trends of that future time.  Given Trump’s impact on the world of politics it does not surprise me that Warner Brothers is looking to Snyder to provide an update to The Fountainhead.  Even though many might fight the words I’m saying about Trump today, our civilization will be looking for answers in the years to come and only Ayn Rand has offered a plausible explanation into the nature of Donald Trump so far in the entire history of the world. 

 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche before Ayn Rand likely started the chain reaction—but prior to them in all of known history only gods of some mystic realm held such power of mankind.  It was the job of human beings to appeal to the egos of their deities.  Trump is not that kind of offering.  He is something else that nobody has ever seen before in politics—or philosophy—and Trump supporters feel innately that they can trust it—because they still hope that its possible in America to step beyond the shackles of Immanuel Kant—even if they’ve never heard the name before—and live their lives as free people for the purposes ascribed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels.  Zach Snyder as a filmmaker has his hands on that pulse—and is working on The Fountainhead to show it to us for later analysis.  For decades in the future we will still be coming to terms with this time period—and it will be through our art that we understand what has happened.  In hindsight, we’ll be glad that it did.  But we will rely on art—as we always do—to define it in our lives—even if the Trump train is moving too fast now to do anything but vote in favor of that gut we have in our stomachs.  That is the very definition of a Trump supporter.

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.