Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 348

‘The Art of the Deal’ versus ‘Rules for Radicals’: Trumping Democrats and their lock on the media

 

The answer is an easy one, as much of a killer as Russia’s Putin is accused to be, is he really guilty of crimes if nobody is around to bring forth the evidence.  It’s the old tree in the forest analogy, if it falls down in a forest and nobody is around to hear it—did it really happen?  When politicians destroy evidence revealing their guilt, did they really commit a crime?  That is precisely the accusation that George Stephanopoulos leveled at Donald Trump after the New York billionaire received unsolicited praise from the current leader and former KGB operative.  In the following interview, Trump did a fabulous job of turning the tables on Stephanopoulos who is the premier news man at ABC—owned by the Disney Corporation—who is a long time Democratic insider very close to Hillary Clinton.  It could be argued, successfully, that the Clintons are every bit the killers that Russia’s Putin is—yet they have been very successful in harassing witnesses, destroying evidence, and outright denying all accusations against them no matter how guilty they were—yet Stephanopoulos felt that the vague evidence against Putin was more than sufficient.  But when that same rational was leveled at his friend Hillary Clinton—by Trump, the same criteria was not honored.  Watch closely.

And that ladies and gentlemen is what we are up against.  In the past, Republican presidential candidates allowed themselves to be regulated into a media corner that the Democrats controlled.  No matter how strong their message was, it would never be heard correctly because Republicans simply didn’t market themselves in the hostile environment that is considered today’s media—largely controlled by people like George Stephanopoulos—flaming liberals who are activists against traditional America.  Republicans didn’t go on the late night comedy shows, they didn’t do media interviews on MSNBC, or CNN—they didn’t do Good Morning America—and they stayed away from George Stephanopoulos knowing that the table was tilted out of their favor.  That allowed scum bags like Hillary Clinton to cruise through political mine fields without harm knowing that the people conducting the interviews where her type of people.  It’s been a nice little game that Democrats have controlled completely for over twenty years now.

Trump completely changes that game in a way that nobody knows how to control.  Trump will go on any show at any time and argue with anybody. While he avoids fellow conservatives like Glenn Beck because the popular radio personality has been against Trump from the start and Trump knows there is nothing he can gain by granting Beck an interview because of the hit pieces that would follow—when it comes to Democrats in the media, Trump shows a willingness to engage them all in debate—and he’s successful.  For any Republican to hope to win the White House they must be able to enter the arena of the Democrats and be willing to do shows like The View, and Ellen and meet liberal arguments head on without surrender if they ever want to win a national election.  The Karl Rove methods are old, and have not been successful.  The Bush Family reign on politics is over—they did not do a good job, and now it’s time to push them off the stage for a new kind of Republican—one who is actually successful—personally.

After watching that interview between Stephanopoulos and Trump, it is clear that Hillary Clinton is in big trouble.  She cannot win this upcoming election crying about unfairness, or sexism.  Trump is far too smart to fall for that sentimentally.  I have been telling Republicans this for years, sometimes you have to call a latté sipping prostitute what they are and expose them.  It’s not hard, but a candidate has to be willing to face the ridicule which has protected the opposition for far too long.  In such a case the recipient has no choice but to call Trump a bully because they have no defense against what is being dished out against them.  Hillary Clinton has too many skeletons in her closet to win the White House and Trump is the only Republican in the current field who has the ability, and will to expose them.

No other Republican presidential candidate has the ability to meet Democrats on their controlled turf—they can’t go on George Stephanopoulos’s show and duel him in the manner that’s required-because they simply don’t have the self-confidence, or media persuasion to perform the task.  Ted Cruz does, but his voice just doesn’t command the presence required by television and radio to project strength, which isn’t his fault—but it just won’t do in the 2016 political climate.  Perhaps in the future when the rules have been changed, but presently, the media world is stacked against him in a way that prevents mainstream media platforms from working in his favor.  Trump takes away Hillary’s strength, and that is her ability to commit crimes and have the media hide those acts from the public.  In 2016, Trump has more media command than Hillary, and that is the most important aspect of the upcoming presidential race.  But what’s more important than that, Trump is more than willing to duel with people like Stephanopoulos over ANY issue.  Trump always believes he’s the smartest guy in the room and is never intimidated by degreed journalists or Rhoades scholars—so he never gives away the high ground in any kind of debate—and that is big trouble for people who have a lot to hide like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton cannot win an election against Trump without ruining her career.  Everything that she’s worked for during her entire adult life is in jeopardy with Trump—and you can see it in her face already—it is her worst nightmare to come to the end of 2015 with Donald Trump as the Republican front-runner.  She cannot survive the daily attacks on her character and her insider politics.  She is much more vulnerable than Jeb Bush was and once this presidential race moves from just Republican primaries to a general election, the numbers will dramatically favor Trump.  The only reason polling does not favor Trump versus Hillary in a head to head election presently is because Hillary has not been in the cross-hairs.  Trump has left her alone letting the email investigation percolate in the minds of the electorate for the opportune time to exploit.  Once he locks down the Republican nomination and there is only Hillary Clinton to worry about—Trump will expose everything making a complete fool of the Democratic presidential hopeful.  The usual stories about rich white men maintaining the office over the first woman president will not be enough to win in 2016.  Trump knows how to overcome things like that—because he can work the media in a way that nobody else can.

Looking back over Trump’s career he just loves to fight, and he has shown a tendency to take on giants.  Back in the 80s he was one of the most influential owners of the USFL professional football league.  They used to play in the spring while the NFL played in the fall.  Trump wasn’t happy taking a back stage to the NFL, so he convinced all the other USFL owners to take the NFL to court over anti-trust charges.  And they won their case against the NFL.  Eventually the USFL fell apart leaving the NFL to return to its monopoly status, but Trump led the charge and showed no fear during the entire endeavor.  Trump was at the time in command of players like Herschel Walker, Jim Kelly, and Doug Flutie—players that would later dominate in the NFL.  Even after the lawsuit victory which denied USFL owners financial awards as part of the settlement leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, Trump was able to unload his contract with Walker to the Dallas Cowboys.  Jim Kelly went on to take the Buffalo Bills to three playoff appearances, and Doug Flutie became a superstar.  Trump has a long track record of dealing with very tough people—the smartest the world has to offer.  He also is personal friends with dominate athletes and hard nose franchise owners.  Taking on Hillary Clinton for Trump is like sneezing out a bacterial virus.  It’s no effort at all, but it will make a lot of noise and leave quite a mess.

Comparatively, Hillary has no track record of personal achievement.  She has been a manipulative second-hander her entire life.   She and her husband Bill have only had success because they’ve managed to cheat their way through trouble.  CLICK HERE FOR EVIDENCE.  Hillary cannot win a presidential run playing things straight, and Trump will force her to try.  That’s when he’ll have her and she knows it—and George Stephanopoulos knows it.  Trump is a different kind of person.  His book, The Art of the Deal is an innovation over the favorite book of Democratic strategy, Rules for Radicals.  It literally “trumps” the Saul Alinsky tactics that Hillary Clinton has used since she was in college.  Trump is her worst nightmare and there is nothing a single Democrat can do about it in the media.  They cannot strop Trump because it really comes down to the rock, paper, scissor relationship of strategy.  For Hillary, her Rules for Radicals are ineffective against Trump’s Art of the Deal.  And she cannot win.  By the time 2016 comes to a close, she’ll be lucky if she can ever show her face again.  That for Republicans is the best news we’ve had in several decades—and is truly something to look forward to going into a new year.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Company Out of Ideas: The embarrassment of Disney and it’s second-hander employees

As this article blasted onto the World Wide Web Matt Clark and I were hosting a podcast giving the Disney Company and the makers of the new Star Wars a large dose of tough love.  And they deserve all the criticism and then some that we broadcast.  We are in a new day of media, unlike the days of old.  Disney does not control everything—they are in fact experiencing a contraction period as their media empire is feeling the effects of small media types like Matt Clark and I who are not bound by contracts or addictions to swag buying our loyalty at any price.   Quite the contrary, Matt and I have both been huge fans and supporters of all things Disney for many years now.  We offered our endorsements out of real passion, not purchased manipulation—so that relationship was built on trust.  People like Matt and I were the best assets a company like Disney could hope for.  Out of our own free will, we cheered on their behalf in small ways that often avalanched into big market impressions by sheer opportunity.  But, what they are doing with their theme parks—regarding toy guns, and what they have done with Star Wars is really inexcusable.  They are free to take any position they wish, but Matt and I as fans are also free to reject their product and to let people know why.  Disney counts on word of mouth to maintain their strength of their product marketing, but it can also work against them.  And because of their betrayal of key fans like Matt and I, they asked for it.

It was the first time in my life that a soundtrack to Star Wars arrived in my possession and I was not in a hurry to listen to it.  I bought the soundtrack because I love John Williams and have most of his music, so I bought The Force Awakens out of respect.  But I have yet to open it and the film has been out for over a week as of this writing.  I just have no appetite for anything regarding Star Wars presently, which is a big shift for me.  It was only a short time ago that was playing Star Wars: X Wing Miniatures and was sitting in a swing on my front porch waiting for new products to arrive in my mailbox.  I enjoyed immensely reading about all the different characters and playing in the galaxy that George Lucas created.  By the time that The Force Awakens ended, nearly everything I loved about Star Wars was destroyed like a Death Star blasting away the history and life of an entire species in just a moment.  It was one of the only real bright spots I saw on the horizon of our cultural mythology, and Disney had purposely destroyed it.

We’re not talking about stupid people who work at Disney, or Lucasfilm.  Kathy Kennedy had been around Spielberg and Lucas for decades and if anybody had learned to make a great movie by their apprenticeship, it should have been her.  J.J. Abrams is a great director.  Industrial Light and Magic—is the best special effects house on the planet.  Everything in their tool box was great to make a new Star Wars film.  It seemed impossible to screw it up.  Instead, what happened was that they proved emphatically what I have been saying about the metaphysics of quality over the years.  A committee of people do not surpass the singular vision of a strong individual leader.  As bad as many proclaim the George Lucas prequels to be, or his special additions, they were vastly better than what Disney came up with considering all their incredible resources.  There was no excuse, yet they failed miserably.

It was hard for me to admit how terrible The Force Awakens really was, so I know other Star Wars fans will dance around the issue for months.  But in the context of years, they’ll slowly realize just what a travesty this latest Star Wars film was to a franchise that many loved.  And it was all consciously done by Disney; they watched the screening of the film and thought they had a great product.  They sold it to the world as their best work and it clearly wasn’t.  It was essentially a fan film made by a second generation of spoiled brats, who had hitched a ride on the coat tails of greatness as perpetual second-handers. Yet nobody noticed within all of Disney’s organization—that is alarming.

It was difficult for me to accept the recent Mad Max film, because in the original, Max had a little boy who was killed by a gang of thugs. In the updated version it was a little girl.  I was willing to overlook that slight change because the film had the original director in George Miller and the film was a dramatic improvement over previous installments.  But it was distracting.  If the movie hadn’t been great, I would have felt toward it the way I do The Force Awakens.  Characters matter and once an artistic entity offers it to the public for consumption, they have an obligation to maintain those characters to their audience.  If they violate that trust, they risk alienating their audience to the characters they’ve created.  Star Wars over the years—Lucasfilm through their publishing arm—did a great job of nurturing their characters along with a sense of continuity.  For instance, a character in the novel Rogue Planet which took place well before the Prequel films appeared as a major character in Star by Star which took place many years later—like 50 years in Star Wars time, and that character had traces back to the Jedi, but lured Jacen Solo to the Sith through mental torture that lasted over many novels.  It was then no surprise that Jacen became a feared Sith Lord.  It was a set-up by Lucasfilm so that the mythology they created could be enjoyed by fans across multiple platforms—movies, books, comics and video games.  You could always trust that most of the Star Wars content was following some kind of ultimate timeline.  So when The Force Awakens borrowed all those elements but changed the names cheapening the stories told before, the whole mythology fell apart instantly.

Then it becomes even more shocking that given all the material the filmmakers had to use, that Disney couldn’t even create a single original thought worthy of a movie.  Everything in Force Awakens is borrowed, from the comparison of the Lord of the Rings plot driving the lightsaber quest to find Luke Skywalker hidden on a remote island—to a third Death Star (this time called Starkiller Base).  Every act of The Force Awakens is nearly copied from A New Hope—the movie comes across as a remake of Robocop—or Total Recall.  The big difference is that there aren’t any memorable moments of wisdom in the new movie to solidify the content. At least in Phantom Menace there are lines of Jedi wisdom—in A Force Awakens, there is nothing—astonishingly.  The filmmakers robbed the Expanded Universe of content and the original movies, and then passed it off as an original work of art disgracing all the good minds that did create new plot devices in past installments.

It wasn’t that long ago that I bragged about Star Wars having an essential conservative moral to their stories.  After all, in the novels, Han and Leia, as well as Luke lived somewhat happily ever after.   They did save the galaxy many times, but they had fun together doing it.  There was a lot of pain, but there were a lot of laughs and they all did it together, loyally.  In the later novels, right before the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney, a new Sith order had imbedded itself into the Galactic Senate of the New Republic and had begun to subterfuge politics into a New Sith Order—and they had the entire media under their thumb.  They were actually magnificent stories done on a huge scale, and Han, Leie, Luke and the Millennium Falcon and some of the children of the primary characters were rising up to become easy stars in their own way.  One of the greatest characters in Star Wars was Mara Jade who was an assassin who worked for the Emperor in the original trilogy and eventually became Luke’s wife.  They had a son named Ben who was a great character.   In Force Awakens, they named Ben after Han and Leia’s son who is the ultimate villain, Kylo Ren—essentially Darth Caedus from the Legends series.   I could literally go on and on.  If The Force Awakens had made a superior movie to the books, all could have been forgiven.  But they didn’t.  Instead the butchered the story in a very disrespectful way.  Han Solo, not in a million years would have walked out onto a bridge with no sides and confronted a bad guy—even if the bad guy was his son.  He NEVER would have done it.  He might have said, “hey kid, I’m going to blow this place up.  I love you—now get your ass out of here.”  But he never would have lowered his weapon and pleaded with him to come home like a guilty father trying to rescue a child from jail.  What Disney did was disgraceful.

I have a pretty good idea what’s at work here, so they deserve the ridicule.  Star Wars has been something I have valued, and these idiots just butchered it—so they get what they get.  Disney was more interested in making a progressive film than a good installment to the Star Wars saga.  They were intent to push out the conservative values of the founder, George Lucas—who these days is a flaming liberal.  But while he was building his companies, he was very conservative.  Disney as a company expected to rip-off and re-write the stories and outcomes away from conservative viewpoints to much more progressive perspectives.  This is why The Huffington Post and The White House love this new Star Wars and why people like Matt and I hate it.  Disney has declared war on conservative America and that has never been clearer than in their new Star Wars film.  I didn’t want to believe it was possible, but it is.  And just because I’m a fan doesn’t mean that I’ll give liberalism a free pass just because they put the name Star Wars on it.  If anything, that makes it more worthy of attack, which Matt and I are relishing in—and will continue for what Disney has done to something we both have valued for many years.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Disney’s Crusade Against Toy Guns: Hiding behind terrorism to appease their progressive base

Terrorism and the problems coming from it are the fault of a federal government that has failed to do its job.  Most of the terrorist incidents in America over the last twenty years are the direct result of a failed government to do what they were supposed to.  Yet their reaction is always that we should give them more government as a result of their incompetency, which most of us realize was a stupid thing to do.   Then of course comes the next debate as to private companies having to protect themselves due to the ineffectual policies by the government to hedge against terrorism.   People like me think an expansion of the Second Amendment is the needed result, whereas progressive organizations—like Disney believe in gun confiscation and more intrusions of personal liberty.

I am a long time fan of the Disney Company.  So it pained me greatly not only to see that they made such a terribly progressive Star Wars film but that they have announced that they are getting rid of toy guns within their parks.  For as long as I can remember Frontierland was a place where a child could buy a toy rifle and a coon skin cap as a memory of their Disney World visit.  But not anymore.  Regretfully, Disney as a company has let the liberal persuasion of capitalizing off government mismanagement marginalize their impact on the minds of our youth by pandering to gun grabbing politicians covering their own fallacies—purposely perpetrated, or by default—with gun censorship.  I would go so far as to call the following announcement entirely un-American:

Disney announced that metal detectors will be installed at the entrance to Disneyland and its Florida theme parks starting Thursday. The enhanced security measures will also ban adults from wearing masks or costumes, and discontinue toy gun sales inside all parks.

The entertainment giant announced the changes quietly Thursday, saying they were not based on “any single event,” but were intended to help security personnel and to make guests feel secure.

The portable metal detectors will be positioned beyond the “bag check” area at Disneyland and Walt Disney World parks in Florida. Security personnel will randomly select some visitors to pass through the magnetometers as part of a secondary screening.

The company also announced that it will beef up the deployment of police officers contracted to help with security around the parks. At Disneyland, that means beefing up patrols by the Anaheim Police Department. Disney did not give details about the scope of the expansion.

Disneyland will also increase patrols by explosive-sniffing dogs around the parks and related properties, such as Downtown Disney and its resort hotels, the company said.

The ban on masks and costumes will apply to all guests over 14 years old. And the company will no longer sell toy guns inside its parks, or allow guests to carry toy guns with them, regardless of age. Spokeswoman Suzy Brown said the company banned the toy guns “to avoid confusion or distraction for our cast members and security personnel.”

The rules are an apparent response to recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. Disney’s overseas parks will also enhance security, in accordance with recommendations from its experts at those locations, the company said.

The new rules are included on the company’s Disneyland Resort Park Rules page. “We continually review our comprehensive approach to security and are implementing additional security measures, as appropriate,” Brown said in a statement.

A Universal Studios Hollywood spokesperson said the park is testing metal detection as well, but doesn’t sell toy guns.

“We have begun testing metal detection at our theme park,” the spokesperson said. “We want our guests to feel safe when they come here. We’ve long used metal detection for special events, such as Halloween Horror Nights. This test is a natural progression for us as we study best practices for security in today’s world.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disneyland-other-parks-install-metal-detectors-ban-toy-183956756.html

Here is the hypocrisy of Disney, take away the guns and cannons from the Pirates of the Caribbean ride and see how many people line up to ride, or see the movies.  Take the guns out of Star Wars and see how much money the films make.  Even though the gun was taken away from Woody in Toy Story, at least he had the holster.  Guns and their application are a huge part of what has made Disney as a company successful in the past, and is at the heart of their continued success.  Taking a stand against toy guns falls right in line with the rest of progressive leaning insurgents from teachers to politicians who are suspending children in public schools for wearing Star Wars characters holding guns on their clothing—in an attempt to change Americas love for firearms—culturally.  One of the largest entertainment companies in the history of the world is taking a position against guns not for fear of terrorism, but to solidify the progressive plans of their friends and allies on the liberal side of politics.  And it’s disgusting.

Walt Disney would be rolling over in his grave!  Frontierland was intended to keep people from forgetting about their heritage in America—which revolved around the gun.  The Disney Company has shown at many levels within a day of each other how radicalized against American tradition they have become.  The Force Awakens was clearly a liberalized version of Star Wars—the most obvious one yet.  In the film again regarding the space cowboy Han Solo there were occasions where he borrowed Chewbacca’s bow caster and was impressed by the power it exhibited.  All Han Solo fans know that he prefers a powerful pistol which he’s often seen holding in promotional pictures.  It is impossible to believe that as long as he’s known Chewbacca, for over 60 years–that he’s never had a chance to fire that weapon before.  Likely there was a decision by the filmmakers to show that Solo appreciated “native” weapons to advance the progressive platform sympathetic to “native” cultures instead of imposing a particular viewpoint on others—it is a small world after all.  It could also be that J.J. Abrams or somebody else just wanted to see Han Solo shoot Chewbacca’s gun in the film.  But because of Disney’s behavior about guns and progressive acceptance of cultural values conspiracy theories are bound to flash across our minds.

Instead of slowly weaning America off firearms in their entertainment productions, why not go all the way and take guns out of their films and television shows completely?  If you want to know the truth, Disney, the reason that The Lone Ranger flopped at the box office was largely because Tonto was the featured character and The Lone Ranger gunfighter aspect was greatly reduced so to appease the progressive activists.  Americans wanted to see the gunfighter shooting guns, not flopping around in the film until the very end.   So instead of taking guns out of the parks and hiding behind reasons of terrorism prevention to sell it to the public, why not just declare to the American public that as an organization you are against guns?  Disney won’t do such a thing because it would have an impact on their bottom line.

The policy is pathetic and further evidence of how far the company has fallen from its roots of preserving traditional American values.  The rest of the world is welcome to share in those values, but it should go without saying that American culture is the best, and it’s up to companies like Disney to communicate those values in a way that helps other cultures adapt aspects that might help them be more fruitful.  It’s not Disney’s job to try to alter the advancement of American culture back to the ways of the lowly European history—the gun grabbing losers of progressive tendency.  Further imposing restrictions on their park visitors with bans on “toy guns” when much of their revenue is generated from “guns” is disrespectful, and intolerable.  And let me tell you this dear reader.  It is well-known that I love Disney World and the surrounding parks affiliated with their company.  But this will change my plans for many years.  If Disney as a company will take a stand against guns like they have over this latest issue—I won’t plan a trip in the near future.  I many abandon it all together as a future vacation destination.   I will not spend my money on such a company.  And there are many people like me who won’t either.  It’s a pretty bad move on their part.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

 

France is a Socialist Country: Understanding the intent of Four Horsmen and climate change arguments

I recommend that you watch this documentary called the Four Horsemen by Ross Aschcroft, who is an English director whose provocative film shown below evokes how the modern-day Four Horsemen continue to ride roughshod over the people who least can afford it.  It provokes a new kind of socialism that is supported by young Millennials like the group Anonymous and the Occupy Walls Street protestors.  It essentially is a repackaged hatred of capitalism that represents European socialism attempting to spread to every corner of the world, particularly in America.  It’s important to understand how the attacks on American enterprise come, how it’s being sold, and what the history of it is.  When Obama and French president François Hollande celebrated their climate change agreements in Paris recently the communist strategy behind their emphasis was not reported by the press and to those who don’t know any better.  Films like the Four Horsmen sound like reasonable suggestions—just like climate change might seem reasonable on the surface.  But it’s not reasonable, and many Americans don’t understand how deep the roots of socialism run in Europe—and how politicians in the United States have sought to mimic much of what they’ve seen there in American policy.

France is not a capitalist country that represents the values of the “west.”  It has a very long history with socialism and they are quite open about it.  Here is a bit of the history of France and its political system which was quite evident in the Four Horsmen film.  Of course the point in exhibiting this information is to show how France has influenced all of Europe, particularly Great Britain and liberal filmmakers like Ross Ashcroff.   The Socialist Party (French: Parti socialiste [paʁti sɔsjaˈlist], PS) is a social-democratic,[4] centrist political party in France, and the largest party of the French centre-left or center-right. The PS is one of the two major contemporary political parties in France, along with the Republicans. The Socialist Party replaced the earlier French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO) in 1969, and is currently led by First Secretary Jean-Christophe Cambadélis. The PS is a member of the Party of European Socialists (PES), the Socialist International (SI) and the Progressive Alliance.

The PS first won power in 1981, when its candidate François Mitterrand was elected President of France in the 1981 presidential election. Under Mitterrand, the party achieved a governing majority in the National Assembly from 1981 to 1986 and again from 1988 to 1993. PS leader Lionel Jospin lost his bid to succeed Mitterrand as president in the 1995 presidential election against Rally for the Republic leader Jacques Chirac, but became prime minister in a cohabitation government after the 1997 parliamentary elections, a position Jospin held until 2002, when he was again defeated in the presidential election.

In 2007, the party’s candidate for the presidential election, Ségolène Royal, was defeated by conservative UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Then, the Socialist party won most of regional and local elections and it won control of the Senate in 2011 for the first time in more than fifty years.[5] On 6 May 2012, François Hollande, the First Secretary of the Socialist Party from 1997 to 2008, was elected President of France, and the next month, the party won the majority in the National Assembly.

The PS also formed several figures who acted at the international level: Jacques Delors, who was the eighth President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1994 and the first person to serve three terms in that office, was from the Socialist Party,[6] as well as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund from 2007 to 2011,[7] and Pascal Lamy, who was Director-General of the World Trade Organization from 2005 to 2013.[8]

In 2014, the party had 60,000 members.[1] In 2012 the party had claimed 173,486 members.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)

 

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (French: [fʁɑ̃swa mɔʁis mitɛʁɑ̃] ( listen); 26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was a French statesman, who served as the President of France from 1981 until 1995. He is the longest-serving President of France and, as leader of the Socialist Party, the first figure from the left elected President under the Fifth Republic.

Reflecting family influences, Mitterrand started political life on the Catholic nationalist right. He served under the Vichy Regime in its earlier years. Subsequently, however, he joined the Resistance, moved to the left, and held ministerial office repeatedly under the Fourth Republic. He opposed de Gaulle‘s establishment of the Fifth Republic. Although at times a politically isolated figure, Mitterrand outmaneuvered rivals to become the left’s standard-bearer in every presidential election from 1965 to 1988, except 1969. Elected President in the May 1981 presidential election, he was re-elected in 1988 and held office until 1995.

Mitterrand invited the Communist Party into his first government, a controversial move at the time. In the event, the Communists were boxed in as junior partners and, rather than taking advantage, saw their support erode. They left the cabinet in 1984. Early in his first term, Mitterrand followed a radical economic program, including nationalization of key firms, but after two years, with the economy in crisis, he reversed course. His foreign and defense policies built on those of his Gaullist predecessors. His partnership with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advanced European integration via the Maastricht Treaty, but he accepted German reunification only reluctantly. During his time in office he was a strong promoter of culture and implemented a range of costly “Grands Projets“. He was twice forced by the loss of a parliamentary majority into “cohabitation governments” with conservative cabinets led, respectively, by Jacques Chirac (1986–88), and Édouard Balladur (1993–95). Less than eight months after leaving office, Mitterrand died from the prostate cancer he had successfully concealed for most of his presidency.

Beyond making the French left electable, Mitterrand presided over the rise of the Socialist Party to dominance of the left, and the decline of the once-mighty Communist Party (as a share of the popular vote in the first presidential round, the Communists shrank from a peak of 21.27% in 1969 to 8.66% in 1995, at the end of Mitterrand’s second term, and to 1.93% in the 2007 election).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mitterrand

To many left leaning political people capitalism is what America is, where corporations are the targets of crony deals between politics and free enterprise.   The bar of understanding has been set so low that capitalism has been defined as the mess that currently makes up the Washington beltway.   This is largely because we have allowed Europe—specifically the socialism of places like France to define capitalism as a definition allowing film and television producers in love with Paris and London to create the standard understanding of money’s measurement in our culture with films like Four Horsmen.  But socialism and communism did not go away during the McCarthy Hearings, or the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It is quite alive and well, and being taught in our local schools, in our media, and in our admiration for the Europeans by a class of people in America who really don’t understand capitalism—particularly pure capitalism without the crony aspect.

It is important to understand history and to know that as far back as most people alive today can remember, France has been a socialist county.  It must be understood that when there are climate change discussions in Paris that it’s not protecting the environment that they are after, it’s more of building sympathy for proposals like the ones expressed in Ross Ashcroff’s film Four Horsmen.  These are not people who want a free market economy, they quote Plato in the film, but ignore that it was Aristotle who built the philosophy of American politics and economy. And that for America to work correctly, Plato’s prehistoric socialism must be eradicated and replaced with competitive environments full of inventiveness and productive enterprise rooted in profit.  It is to understand that before a true indulgence of the market forces at work can be comprehended proper definitions for things must be clear.  And clearly the kid Ross Ashcroft missed the mark as do many.  That is because they were bred to believe that Europe is still relevant and that their long history with socialism is the standard of the day.  But for us in America, we need to sever that relationship until places like France get the clear message—that they are entirely on the wrong path and are destined for continued failure.  The only way they can hide that failure is by sabotaging through any means possible the economic power of the west, and the productivity of free enterprise.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Dump Disney Stock Now: The mistakes made on ‘Force Awakens’ will compound the failure of ESPN

On a day where every media outlet in the world is declaring the new Star Wars film an earth shattering success, I’ll take a little pride in being the only one to point at the doom on the horizon.  In a lot of ways I’ll admit hope, as often does happen—more than you’d think—that some executive at Disney will read what I write here and make the market corrections needed—and save the only company in the world truly dedicated to family entertainment.  But they won’t.  Disney is not run by a strong CEO like it was when Walt Disney ran the company years ago.  It’s now run by committees of people—and within those committees are people who seek such a management method because they lack personal courage.  Without personal courage and risk, the market potency of a company and its products surrenders box office appeal, and ultimately profits.  That is essentially what is wrong with the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens.  As much as I wanted to like the film—and still do in fact—the business side of my brain sees more alarms going off in the cockpit of this starship than it can withstand.  Destruction is imminent.  So I’m headed for an escape pod before the entire thing falls apart.  If you have Disney stock, you should sell it right now because the value will tank very shortly and it will never recover.

Out of all the possibilities and horsepower of Lucasfilm—with all the talent at their disposal—they as a company elected to treat their long line of New York Times bestselling novels like a story treatment for a Hollywood movie.  The writing was on the wall when they released the comic series The Star Wars two years ago by Dark Horse comics justifying their decisions to mine the expanded universe and re-write it putting their committee stamp on the material proclaiming that what they did was better.  Rather than sit down with a good writer like Lawrence Kasdan is and have him write completely new material, like he did for the Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lucasfilm under Kathy Kennedy decided to make a reboot of A New Hope and populate it with what the “Star Wars Story Group” thought was the greatest hits of the long series of novels which had been produced carefully with George Lucas over two decades.  When they released the comic series showing how the original Star Wars script had evolved over time and necessity they were trying to justify what they were about to do hoping to sell their work as authentic.  What they did was infinitely disappointing.  At that point in time I had been buying all the comics and books I could get and was reading them all.  But when I realized what was happening, I just stopped waiting to see if Disney would do as I feared and just mine the stories that meant something very wonderful to many of the hard-core fans, or if they’d actually continue the story into new territory—which for me was the only justifiable option.   They picked the most lazy path possible at a great insult to the fans who kept the market value of Star Wars alive for so long.

The Force Awakens of course made a lot of money—it shattered records that Hollywood may never see again.  There was tremendous pent-up multi generational desire to see a new Star Wars film. So everyone who could went to see the movie over its opening weekend.  If I didn’t know better I would have thought it was a good movie–it had all the elements present, but it was clearly missing something.  That something was the conviction that a risk taking proprietor brings to a project—a leader who has put their reputation and soul on the line to make a product which clearly marked the first two Star Wars films—was missing.  The makers of The Force Awakens were happy young people writing stories from the comfort of Lucasfilm employment and the politics of the very progressive city of San Francisco.  Like spoiled brats driving their dad’s Mercedes out for a night at the country club to socialize at a charity function thinking they were saving the world—they made Star Wars: The Force Awakens without taking any real risks and mining the material of risk takers who came before them hoping that nobody would notice.  I did, and so did many other hard-core Star Wars fans upon leaving the theater for the first time.  When the fun dies down and these fans will think about what they’ve seen, Disney will find that they now have a dreadfully divided audience because of their choices which will dramatically affect the market share potential of all the future Star Wars films.  It will hurt their book sales, their merchandise, and their box office take for all subsequent films.  What they essentially did was brought Star Wars down to the level of the latest Star Trek movies—or the Avengers films.  They might make decent money, but Disney executives are planning on insane money—and they’ll need it to survive—because other aspects of Disney’s business portfolio has been wavering in these changing economic times.

Here’s how the Hollywood Reporter announced the pending doom on Friday December 18th as The Force Awakens opened to hungry fans across the world:

Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens made $57 million domestically Thursday, enough to set a record but not to satiate Wall Street’s fears over Walt Disney’s television business.

In midday trading on Friday, Disney shares were off 4 percent, twice that of the broader markets, as the conglomerate was the topic of at least two negative research notes in the past two days.

On Friday, BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield downgraded Disney to “sell” and put a $90 price target on the stock, suggesting it will fall about 17 percent in the next 52 weeks or so.

“Even The Force cannot protect ESPN,” Greenfield wrote, accusing management of “overpaying for sports rights based on overly aggressive multichannel video subscriber projections.”

Greenfield says Disney’s cable network operating income will shrink in fiscal-year 2017, causing total Disney operating income to be flat.

He also says Disney damaged its long-term prospects for cable in general “by aggressively licensing content to SVOD platforms such as Netflix to prop up near-term earnings.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walt-disney-stock-tumbles-as-850171

While the numbers look impressive at first glance, because of the changing market of the other business interests, such as ESPN and how cable subscribers are dumping their subscriptions in favor of Internet service for their smart phones the media empire of Disney is too reliant on Star Wars to save it from the downsides it’s facing.  The Marvel movies are beginning to fade as the newness of them is wearing away.  By the time Captain America: Civil War hits in 2016, the franchise will be in clear decline as a box office force.  The savor was always going to be Star Wars—and now they’ve screwed that up dividing the fan’s loyalties between a re-tread and the authentic novels.

It is always dangerous to base a movie off a book, because the reader often sees things differently than a film’s director.  As long as a movie producer stays close to the source material, often things are forgiven.  But regarding Star Wars, where the franchise was kept alive with cooperation between Del Rey publishing and Lucasfilm in close contact with George Lucas approving story details the novels were like the Bible and took on a meaning that Disney obviously didn’t understand.  After all, they had been re-writing great literary classics for years, so they had no problem changing things around to suit their market appraisal for the films they wanted to produce.

By insisting that the movies were cannon and not the books which were designed to connect the original movies with fresh material ultimately created by individual authors under the guidance of Lucasfilm—the creative team behind The Force Awakens assumed incorrectly that fans would forgive them.  Some will, but not everyone, and for Disney to succeed in this venture they needed everyone.  And when the smoke clears around The Force Awakens, they won’t have everyone.  And that means financial doom on the horizon within the next five years for Disney as a company.   Bob Iger will leave the next CEO at Disney with a terrible burden and there will be no recovery from it. With other aspects of the company losing money, such as ESPN based on inflated sports contracts, it needs a new explosion in growth which Star Wars was supposed to bring.

The Force Awakens felt like a small movie after reading about gigantic events in the novels over the years.  The sheer scale of the Star Wars novels would have had enormous production costs to duplicate on film.  I’m sure Lucasfilm made the decision to do what they did on The Force Awakens based on the vast number of characters that were in the Star Wars novels—which ultimately brings up the question should a novel be cannon or is the movie a superior product?  I clearly think what is written in a novel is the cannon in every case.  Movies are dumbed-down versions of books.  I can’t think of too many books that were made into movies that were overshadowed by the film version.   Star Wars started as a fresh movie experience, but it evolved into a literary journey which became much more powerful than the original films.  Lucasfilm made the mistake by trying to reverse that trend, and make a movie by committee instead of individuals and throwing out parts of the series which were too big to project on the silver screen.  Rather than trying to do that, they watered down a product that millions had fallen in love with and banked Disney’s future on the result.

Taken by itself Star Wars within Disney will hold its own financially.  The films will do fine, the merchandise will be respectable, and the other intellectual work will likely still sell for years to come.  But because of where the company as a whole is, with ESPN failing, the Avengers movies in decline, and the lack of new musicals coming from their children films every three years-Disney has serious problems.  It would have taken all the Star Wars fans to save them—and they clearly don’t have them all.  The Force Awakens proves it.  That problem won’t show itself immediately, but will begin to show up in their repeat business numbers within a month of the release.

Kathy Kennedy should have known better. On Twitter the Star Wars people put out a tag line when The Force Awakens opened showing Han Solo and Chewbacca in the Millennium Falcon declaring “we’re home.”   They were clearly marketing Harrison Ford’s return to the role of Han Solo to push the box office numbers over the top.  I replied to Kennedy’s tweet the reality of what I felt.  I said,” Yeah, we’re only home for the funeral.”  It was stunning to me with all their build-up that they killed off Han Solo, so to me, The Force Awakens became like going home to a funeral to visit family you hadn’t seen in a while—and likely may never see after.   We all knew that Han Solo would die in the movies at some point in time, but in the books he was still performing heroic acts 45 years after A New Hope, so if they had not gone back in time and killed off Han Solo and could have kept the heroics of his novel adventures intact in the canon, it would have been much more digestible.  Instead they not only killed Han Solo, but the best that hard-core Star Wars fans had fallen in love with–an epic story on a truly galactic scale.  What they gave us in The Force Awakens was the death of a favorite character and a highlight reel of the novels—stories we already knew—all chopped up and spit out with new names and a much smaller frame of reference.   Then to insist that an inferior product was the new canon spelled huge problems for the future of Star Wars which will compound into a much worse situation than what Disney is seeing currently with ESPN.   And I wish it wasn’t the case, because I love Disney and really wanted it to succeed.  But they made all the mistakes that they shouldn’t have—and arrogantly stood by those mistakes to the bitter end.

I don’t know if there is a way that Disney could fix the situation now.  I’m afraid it’s too late.  But maybe there is a way they can appeal to the hard-core fans before things get out of control.  They should try for the sake of everyone—mostly themselves.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Winners Aren’t Losers: Donald Trump’s childrens book and primary presidential platform

Actually, I’m getting a little tired of people assuming that I’ll wake up at some point and realize what Donald Trump is—and will change my mind and vote for someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.  I listen to Glenn Beck nearly every day, and also Pat and Stu and have heard people like them bash Trump for the last six months—assuming that fans of Trump are somehow asleep and will one day wake up to find they voted for a monster.  I have watched Bill O’Reilly try his best to pin point Trump supporters with a simple explanation such as “they are angry voters who just want to bust up the establishment. “  I have put up with these types of people like I would the banter of children who don’t know any better.  But let’s make something very clear—extremely clear.  I know what Donald Trump is and what he might do.  I understand his motivations—clearly—emphatically.   And I’m certainly not stupid, naive, or in any way enamored with disillusion.  I know the good and bad of Trump—I have done a lot of research into him since I started supporting him and I want him as president now more than ever knowing what I do.  I want him specifically for the reasons shown below on the Jimmy Kimmel Show where a new children’s book was revealed about Trump called Winners Aren’t Losers.

Here’s the deal, we’ve had 16 years of really bad, and stupid presidents—people who clearly weren’t intellectually up for the job.  Republicans had the embarrassments of George W. Bush and communists had the academic politics of Barack Obama.   Before that we had 8 years of scandalous Bill Clinton and before that 4 years of a New World Order do gooder George Bush #41.  They were all terrible presidents and they have embarrassed America to the world.  Congressmen have lied, cheated, and enriched themselves incredibly over the last two decades to the point where people have lost faith in both parties.  Our government does not function—at all.  The people running it are terrible and have been well before Trump vocalized it.  I want a private sector candidate, someone who will sell capitalism to the entire world and can fight for it.  Socialism is the #1 problem in the world right now—it touches in some way or another every major problem we are facing presently in the world—everything from ISIS to college tuition prices.  The fix for most problems globally start with a moral justification for capitalism and advocates who won’t waiver from it.

The Constitution is not being followed now.  It should be, but a Constitutional purist like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will not stand a chance against the K-Streeters—and that is the grim fact.  America needs someone who loves to fight those factions without fearing anything.  There isn’t a single politician ever to hit the scene who has no fear like Trump.  He’s not afraid of the mob, of killers from Mexico, of government surveillance, of terrorists threatening his family, of boycotts, protestors—of the media.  He’s not afraid of anything—he could care less about the Bilderberg parties, or the “illuminati.”  He doesn’t fear any money men—he doesn’t have to worry about some billionaire cutting his nuts off and denying his family an income.  He is above all that, and he loves to fight and argue and make deals.  He’s my kind of guy.  He doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke.  He’s a loner with great charisma who loves his family.  His kids are great.  And so were his parents.  Donald Trump is a great example of the American dream.

I don’t care about his bankruptcies.  I know why he did it, and he learned very important lessons from those experiences.  I also don’t care that he’s had three wives.  I know why he did what he did.  He pushed and pushed and pushed and the bankruptcies, the wives and the incredible controversies surrounding him through much of the 90s would have been enough to crush most people.  But Trump worked through it without jumping off a roof, without ever losing himself, and without ever surrendering.  He fought, and fought, and fought until all his enemies were pushed aside.  And on the back side of it he was even better because of it.  Now he’s a legitimate billionaire, not just one in debt buried in assets that could evaporate with a housing bubble.  He’s legitimately wealthy, and as self-made as a person can be in the mixed economy that we all inherited from years of socialism trying to poke itself into our lives from beyond our shores.   If Trump screwed people over, if he made mistakes in judgment such as he did with the tenants in Central Park South, he learned from them and is much better for it.  What he has learned is exactly what to say and when to say it.  In deal making you have to perform verbal faints to test your opponent to see what they have and when they’ll use it.  When you are fighting people who believe that the end justifies the means, you better have a response to whatever they throw at you.  You can’t fight them like some Red Coats from the Revolution—all lined up and orderly so that snipers can pick off everything headed their way.  You have to be unpredictable, you have to verbally joust, and you have to out maneuver them with sheer tenacity at times.   Ultimately you have to be willing to face every problem alone, and Trump flourishes at that.

An even more qualifying condition is that you must have somebody as president who knows how to surround himself with the right people, and that those people have to love to take junk and rebuild it.  Trump loves to fix old things and turn them to gold, and his friend Carl Icahn comes with the deal.  He’s worth $21 billion dollars largely because he’s a corporate raider-he turns around failed companies and makes them into winners.  The biggest loser on planet earth right now is the mismanagement going on in the Beltway which has people like Icahn liking his lips.  Even though Trump and Icahn are billionaires, they don’t really care about the money.  They only care about the score that the money represents.  Icahn doesn’t spend money on stupid stuff—he just likes to fight and to win.  He looks for fights so that he can win.

I’ve said it many times; the first priority is that we have to get management under control in America.  We have to solve our fiscal issues first.  Then we can make the Constitution a priority.  Without a solid winning national philosophy, the masses of a democracy will not support a freedom oriented Constitution—second-hander types will always look to rewrite the founding documents to allow them to legally loot others.  So the first priority is to put money in the pockets of a majority of the country so that they will support the American Constitution.  Otherwise, we are fighting a losing battle.  People will not follow a philosophy of freedom unless they are financially secure and can enjoy that freedom.

What Trump does best is make other people feel good about the things he does.  It doesn’t matter what he says, but why he says it.  America needs to hear how good it is, and that winning is our value system again.  And it needs someone to say it that won’t back down from a media that wants everyone to get a conciliation prize just for showing up.  America needs to focus on winning at everything.

I would think that Glenn Beck and his followers would understand the strategic necessity of putting these types of people in the White House.  Every generation has their specific challenges.  George Washington had his challenges, Lincoln had his, Reagan did as well, but there is no correct way of doing anything.   You take what you learn and apply it to all future problems.  The more a person has lived and the more they’ve seen—especially under pressure, they better they are to solve problems in the future.  And I know of nobody anywhere who has stood against the fires of life the way that Trump has.  America needs a deal maker and a cheerleader.  It doesn’t need another ideological failure who comes into public office with a lot of big ideas but falls short of accomplishing anything because they don’t know how to sell it to the public, and can’t work the media to their will.

There is zero chance that Trump loses to Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing in Trump’s history that indicates that he would do anything less than destroy her completely in a head to head election.  Only Trump could out talk and out maneuver Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.  You wouldn’t put Ted Cruz or somebody else up against ol’ Bubba, history shows that they’ll lose.  If they can’t do better against Trump in the primaries, they won’t do any better against Clinton.   So my decision to support Trump for president is not locked in illusion.  I’m not “asleep,” and need to be woke up.  It’s just that I see more clearly what others will eventually see.  And each week there are more people coming to the same conclusion, and it’s about time.  In this particular game, Trump is the best bet and we are lucky to have him.  It would be my strategic hope that he would pave the way for 20 years of a capitalist oriented society that would get back to our roots of Constitutional law—someone who will pick Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas and stand for traditional America instead of the progressive crap that we have now.  Beck thinks of Trump as a progressive—and he’s wrong.  Trump has progressive beliefs because he’s a New York guy, but he ultimately is a deal maker who knows smart money from bad—and to see that—there has to be conservative roots to understand the value.   Of that, there is nobody better than Trump in this election or any election in history.  I’m voting for Donald Trump because I want America to win, and I do trust him to do that much.   Because winning is important—it’s much more important than most people acknowledge.  And Trump has a hunger for winning that I understand.   That is why I am voting for the New York billionaire.  I don’t care how someone plays the game—I care that they win.  Those idiots who say that winning is not the most important thing in the world don’t know what they are talking about.  It is because of those types of people that we have all the problems we do now.  So it’s time that we stop listening to them.

I expect to win at everything I do.  Winners are not losers.  The idiots running our government now do not represent me.   They lose too much and it’s time to change that.  Most of the idiots who believe that Trump is not suited to be president also believe that empathy is one of the most endearing human traits–like the born again Christian Glenn Beck–or the Beltway political addict Karl Rove–who hopes that everything he has ever studied and loved will remain intact through this election cycle.  That is the reason we get the same rejects over and over again in the presidential cycles.  Empathy is fine for church on Sundays or Holidays when loved ones gather for Christmas dinner, but winning is more of a priority–because without it, empathy is worthless.  Without winning, we all become like animals fighting over the same piece of meat.  With winning as a priority, even when people lose they win because competition drives a culture forward and allows the best of what they are to provide leadership by default.  In such a culture that leaves us all much less to have empathy about–and is a higher quality trait.  So it’s really stupid to value empathy over winning or to vote for anybody but Donald Trump for President of the United States.   If anybody really wants to win as a nation, you must have the best people on the job.  And the way to figure out who the best people are is to see who wins or wants to win the most.  Then you have your President.

Watch the videos above for more evidence and testimonials.  I even included a hit piece against Donald Trump.  I’m OK with everything he has done because his overall goal was to win, not to get style points for being empathetic.  Empathy will make a superpower into a muddled mess, like it is now.  Winning makes you more like Donald Trump.  Sure you have a lot of enemies, but life on a daily basis is so much better–and far more interesting for everyone–even those who lose.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Benefits of Second Call Defense: Information and Christmas wishes from the sheepdogs of the shooting industry

 

People seem surprised when they find out what a nice service Second Call Defense is, and the kind of reassurance that it offers to shooters as they conceal carry.  Several people of late have signed up for the service upon my recommendation and they are enjoying the benefits.  Second Call Defense is a very respectable organization affiliated with the NRA Business Alliance and they do the little details very well.  Sometimes I think readers think I’m just a blogger who puts out material in a scandalous fashion at times locked in my basement complaining daily about the state of the world.  Rather, this blog site is only about 1% of my life and in the rest of it, I am a very productive person, both in my relationships with other people, and in business efforts.  So when you use my name to sign up for Second Call Defense, good things do happen to you.  Yesterday on a website I sometimes visit to talk to like-minded people came a testimonial that reminded me how new customers of Second Call Defense are learning for the first time how using my name can provide something to them that they didn’t think was possible in a good way:.

Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 hours, 7 minutes ago

I can confirm that you get something back using Rich’s name on your application.

I chose an annual plan and just got my materials yesterday. In with everything else was a check refunding me a month’s worth of the plan cost. So thank you again Rich / Overmanwarrior.

Reply | Mark as read | Best of… | Hide | Flag | Ignore | Permalink

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/562d66c1/second-call-defense-protect-yourself-if-youre-going-to-carry

2016 will be an exciting time for Second Call Defense and its members.  Below is some information describing pertinent news updates, and providing information necessary for concealed carry holders.  Second Call Defense is a very informative group and a wonderful ally to have around.  My membership card is one of the most valuable things I carry in my wallet. I never leave home without it.  It has become something I consider more important than a driver’s license.   One thing that is important to know listed in the following information is how to take your gun with you while flying.  Be sure to follow the instructions so that you can do so without causing a lot of debate at the airport.

Exciting Changes Coming

Second Call Defense will be unveiling a new website in less than two weeks, right before the new year. The new site will be more informative for members and non members alike, and it will be designed to work well on mobile devices and be much easier to read.

In addition, they’ll be simplifying the membership options and adding great new benefits. If you’re a current member, nothing will change. Your membership dues will stay the same. And you’ll even pick up some new benefits.

Plus, we’ll have a member-only area where members will have access to exclusive content.

Make sure to visit our website the last week of December to see the upgrades.

TSA rules for flying with guns and ammo

Everyone knows how much trouble you can get into if you walk into an airport or try to board a plane with a firearm. But did you know that many gun owners routinely take their guns and ammo with them when they travel by air?

The trick is simply to follow the rules outlined by the Transportation Security Administration:

You may transport unloaded firearms in a locked hard-sided container as checked baggage only. Declare the firearm to the airline when checking your bag at the ticket counter. The container must completely secure the firearm from being accessed. Locked cases that can be easily opened will not be accepted. Be aware that cases that are supplied when purchasing a firearm may not be appropriate for securing the firearm when flying.

Firearms

Comply with regulations on carrying firearms where you are traveling from and to, as laws vary by local, state and international governments.
Declare all firearms, ammunition and parts to the airline during the check-in process. Ask about limitations or fees that may apply.
Firearms must be unloaded and locked in a hard-sided container and transported as checked baggage only. Firearm parts, including firearms frames and receivers, must also be placed in checked baggage and are prohibited in carry-on baggage.
Replica firearms may be transported in checked baggage only.
Rifle scopes are permitted in carry-on and checked bags.
All firearms, ammunition and firearm parts, including firearm frames, receivers, clips and magazines are prohibited in carry-on baggage.

United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, firearm definitions includes: any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, or is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; and any destructive device. As defined by 49 CFR 1540.5 a loaded firearm has a live round of ammunition, or any component thereof, in the chamber or cylinder or in a magazine inserted in the firearm.

Ammunition

Firearm magazines and ammunition clips, whether loaded or empty, must be securely boxed or included within a hard-sided case containing an unloaded firearm.

Small arms ammunition, including ammunition not exceeding .75 caliber for rifle or pistol and shotgun shells of any gauge, may be carried in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as described in the packing guidelines above.

Newsflash for unarmed Americans: We gun owners don’t carry for you

by Jeff Knox

This is an editorial dealing with the difficult issue of whether gun owners should intervene to stop a crime that does not directly involve personal self defense. While Second Call Defense believes this can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, we also think the point of view expressed in this article makes sense for most people with average firearm and self defense skills and training. We touched on this issue in a previous post titled   Should you use your gun to stop a crime?

Like many Americans, I frequently carry a gun. I’ve done so for over 30 years without ever laying hand to it in need. Professor John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center reports that some 12.8 million people, over 5.2 percent of the adult U.S. population, are licensed to carry a concealed handgun. In addition to concealed carry license holders in all 50 states, seven states require no permit at all for concealed carry, and 40 states have few restrictions on carrying as long as the gun is visible.

On top of that, as I have reported recently, there appears to be a growing trend among people who routinely carry a firearm to also routinely ignore signs that tell them they can’t. It is a growing form of civil disobedience that puts no one at increased risk of death or injury. As the number of concealed carriers grows, violent crime continues to fall. This doesn’t prove that more guns equals less crime, but it irrefutably proves that more guns do not equate to more crime.

Unless you live in one of the extremely restrictive states like New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts, any time you are on the street or anywhere that does not have controlled access, with metal detectors and bag searches, etc., there is a fairly high probability that someone nearby is legally carrying a gun. But they are not carrying that gun to protect you.

A popular essay from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman divided humans into three categories: “Sheep,” “Wolves,” and “Sheepdogs.” I would suggest that Lt. Col. Grossman left out an important fourth category: “Porcupines.”

My wife is neither “sheep” nor “sheepdog,” and she certainly is no “wolf.” She is a “porcupine,” harmless and docile if left alone, but ferocious and dangerous if threatened – even more so if her progeny are threatened. She would choose flight over fight every time, if flight is a viable option. But if flight is not an option, she has the tools, training and mindset to win the fight.

Our nation’s convoluted laws on self-defense and liability also force all but the most dedicated “sheepdogs” into the role of “porcupine” as well, making “porcupines” the most prevalent variety of armed citizen. We won’t passively stand by while the wolves have their way with us or our families, but neither can we take responsibility for protecting the “sheep” from the “wolves.”

Certainly, most people who carry would take action to help someone in need if there was an opportunity to do so and there was no obvious alternative – and while many of us would probably prefer to characterize ourselves as “sheepdogs” rather than “porcupines,” the reality is that protecting you, your spouse, and your children is your responsibility, not ours. You should also be aware that protection of you and your family is not the responsibility of the police, either. The courts have conclusively ruled that the police have a duty to protect only the public at large, not individuals.

Those of us who have a natural inclination toward being “sheepdogs” have some pretty significant disincentives to acting on those inclinations. Not only is it physically dangerous to intervene in a violent situation, it is a legal minefield that in most cases must be navigated in a matter of seconds. While laws and jurisprudence protect police from prosecution and civil liability, and while some protections exist for individuals acting in defense of themselves and their families, there are few shields for someone acting on behalf of a stranger. Armed citizens who intervene in situations where they or their families are not in imminent danger place themselves at significant risk of prosecution and civil penalties.

We also tend to be keenly aware of the fact that any error involving a firearm can be devastating and permanent. Violent encounters usually happen quickly, and they can be very confusing. It’s not always clear who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy.” Anyone who has ever been through a quality personal defense course has been cautioned to avoid deploying a firearm or engaging an aggressor unless there is no other alternative.

In any shooting situation, there are two key problems to deal with. Problem One is survival. Problem Two is dealing with the legal and emotional fallout from solving Problem One. Ending a life can be emotionally devastating, and the legal consequences can destroy bank accounts and quality of life as surely as being gravely wounded.

For most of us, there are no legal repercussions for running away. In the real world, this means flight is better than fight. Our training, and often the law, dictates that if we’re enjoying a movie when a homicidal lunatic starts shooting people on the other side of the theater, our first responsibility is to get out and away, especially if our family is with us. If we’re in a college class and we hear gunfire from the next building or a classroom down the hall, we, just like our unarmed classmates or students, should evacuate or “shelter in place,” not head toward the gunfire.

This approach is galling to many gun owners, especially those of us with a natural inclination toward being “sheepdogs.” We would rather fight than run. We would rather put ourselves at risk than allow evil to go unchecked. But regardless of the level of training and skill a person has, the multiple layers of risk that are inherent in any shooting situation stack the deck against playing the hero unless there is no other alternative.

Both sides of the debate over bearing arms have a tendency to relegate armed citizens to the role of “sheepdog,” but that is a role the law and prudence won’t let us accept, though some of us will try despite the obstacles. For the most part, we are “porcupines.” We are armed for defense of ourselves and our families, not for you and yours. In a worst-case scenario, one of us might be present and save your life in defending our own, but don’t count on it. We don’t carry for you.

©2015 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

From all of us at Second Call Defense, we wish you and your loved ones a blessed holiday season. Stay safe and remember, even during the holidays, day and night, we are standing by to help you the moment you call our Emergency Legal Hotline.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Force Awakens’ Killed off Han Solo: Why the prequels were a lot better and how Disney blew it

Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssed off, that is the feeling I have walking out of The Force Awakens.  

Sadly, the news I was so excited about three years ago regarding the new Star Wars film is tragic—the worst of what I feared might happen, did.  Taken by itself, The Force Awakens is a very good movie, the acting is good, the special effects everything that you’d expect, the directing, the writing all very good—then there’s the music by John Williams—upper level wonder.  Unfortunately for Disney, Star Wars is much more than one movie now and Disney did exactly the wrong thing.  Like rumored, they abandoned the Expanded Universe and they killed off Han Solo in the first movie of a three-part trilogy which was my favorite character.  While on the business side I can understand why they did—Harrison Ford was 73 at the start of The Force Awakens, so it’s not a bad idea to start planting the seeds for future characters.  However, killing off Solo without having the context of the greater story developed over the last two decades is extremely problematic for the Star Wars franchise.  Here’s why.

About 15 years ago a super Star Wars fan was talking to me about the novels that came out every few months and wondered why I wasn’t reading them.  I explained that if the books didn’t come straight from the mind of George Lucas that I didn’t consider them part of the Star Wars canon.  However, the novels leaned very much on the character of Han Solo and his marriage to Princess Leia and their three children Jaina Jacen and Anakin.  So figured I’d give the books a try.  I had tried the Thrawn trilogy by Timothy Zahn and couldn’t accept it, but decided to try again with Vector Prime.  It was a great book—although Chewbacca died—and I was hooked.  I have since read most of the Expanded Universe novels which have greatly over-shadowed the original movies in sheer content and emotional story arcs.

I thought there was a whale of a story developing at the end of Apocalypse involving The Abeloth and that The Force Awakens would be about that massive galactic conflict—which would have been great.  Disney could have given the hard-core Star Wars fans what they wanted while giving a new generation of fans what they wanted.  The old characters could have faded out leaving the new very strong character of Jaina Solo to have filled the boots of her father nicely—and that would have been appropriate.  Everyone could have had what they wanted out of Star Wars.  But that’s not what Disney did with the help of J.J. Abrams, and Kathleen Kennedy.  They thought they knew better than all the minds who had been guiding the Star Wars stories through three decades of New York Times best sellers so they screwed with the story with a progressive agenda which was the worst of my fears.

If they had stayed with the Expanded Universe storyline, they could have still had a Latino lead character, a black character and a strong female lead to reach all their target demographics.  But they did more than that—they weakened Han Solo considerably and made him a self-sacrificial parent who threw himself on the sword of Kylo Ren at the end.  He and his marriage to Leia obviously went bad and the kids were damaged leading to his son (Ben) turning to evil.  Suddenly the very strong characters of the Expanded Universe were modernized into dysfunctional parents who had screwed up their children and felt guilty about it.  At the end of The Force Awakens, “General Leia” is alone with no signs of family—except the daughter Rey to find out who she truly is.  This is probably the most disappointing aspect of The Force Awakens—in the novels the son of Han, Jacen falls to the dark side over many books and his intentions were always good.  Han stayed with his wife for many years and they had a pretty good family life.  Han was always a rock solid person in those stories giving Star Wars geeks the father figure they didn’t have in real life—and it worked well in a mythological way.  The daughter Jaina was the new light of the next generation—The Sword of the Jedi.

J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan essentially took the big themes of the novels and retold the story of Jacen’s fall to the dark side moving around the names of the characters and having him confront his sister—in an epic lightsaber battle.  Knowing all that felt cheap to me.  It took Star Wars from an epic pinnacle of the highest mythological order and dumbed it down to be simply another Avengers movie.  It was fun to look at, but the content was certainly watered down from the types of bold stories that were told in the novels.  I will probably see future Star Wars movies just to see what they do and how they look—like I would a superhero type of film—the many times the Batman story has been told, or Spiderman—even Superman.  But with Star Wars, Disney had a unique opportunity to build on a massive story arc, and they screwed it up—rehashing the old by putting their own stamp on it in a way that did a disservice to the fans who helped carry the franchise for so long with their loyal support.  Clearly the emphasis by Disney and Kathleen Kennedy was to weaken the original characters from the bold embodiments of their youth into guilt driven losers in the future—which might make them relatable to a larger audience who feels the same anxieties.  Of course they had to plant the seeds of an interracial romance—which felt forced—and was distracting.  Han returned to his days as a smuggler instead of the reliable family man that he was in the books.  Luke was in hiding feeling guilt for creating Kylo Ren though his failure in teaching future Jedi—which in the books Luke had built an entirely new Jedi Order.  In the books all the lead characters were strong and determined personalities who had suffered through unimaginable sorrows, but were still people a reader could lean on and trust to do the right thing in the end.  In The Force Awakens it is obvious that the all the old characters were flawed, especially Han Solo.  This was obviously a conscious choice to make him more relatable to the modern viewing audience instead of just trusting the story the way it had evolved over the years with great success.

There has been an effort from The Alliance to Save the Star Wars Legends Expanded Universe shown at the link below to save the storyline of these movie from just this kind of misery.  But, Disney didn’t listen and they’ll pay for that.  The Force Awakens will make a lot of money, but it won’t be as much as they could have made.  They just handed the next generation a bunch of loser characters not quite sure of themselves putting an emphasis on progressive values instead of American traditional ones.  The Force Awakens is about sacrifice and the greater good whereas a theme which always ran through the original trilogy was individualism and following a personal bliss.  Han Solo as the individual always had the answers to save the Luke and Leias of the galaxy from their altruistic tendencies.  In The Force Awakens it is Han Solo that needs saving from his guilt over failing their son in ways that aren’t yet shown.  Essentially the decision to turn Han Solo from an Ayn Rand type of character into a Shakespearian tragedy was meant to erase his lineage of strength into something modern audiences could identify with.

https://www.facebook.com/AlliancetoSavetheStarWarsLegendsExpandedUniverse

http://twibbon.com/support/star-wars-legends-never-die

The result for me, and I’m sure many others, is that I completely reject these new stories by Disney.   I just came out of seeing a premier showing before it opened officially on December 18th 2015 and my sorted emotions tell me that this story in The Force Awakens is not real.  I can’t accept it as cannon.  It’s actually pretty stupid.  It represents another case of activist filmmakers trying to plant progressive Huffington Post values into a very traditional American story for the sake of unifying the world around common values.  To do that they dumbed down the American influences of individuality, and created a much more “inclusive” universe that was the obvious intent they had in making the film.  People like Arianna Huffington will love this new Star Wars.  John Wayne would have hated it.

I can deal with the death of my favorite character.  What I have a problem with is weakening their presence out of a desire to appeal to a weakened society—where movies are made by committee rather than by strong individuals.  The Force Awakens obviously understands that few people have intact families these days and that people can’t relate to the type of strength that Han Solo projected which has carried the franchise quite frankly for forty years.  They made a conscious decision to weaken Solo—hand over the Millennium Falcon to a “girl” (his daughter) and reflect the values of the present global community instead of the values of the story itself.  They cheapened Star Wars in ways that will be very costly in the years to come.  So while the movie was beautiful to look at and had many elements that are respectable on the surface, the underlining message was feeble and a tremendous disservice to the fans who have stuck with the story religiously all these years.  Star Wars had a chance to be above modern politics, but the filmmakers failed to carry it to those lofty heights.  Instead, they surrendered to the currents of modernism—and the movie shows it desperately.  The movie felt to me like a fake and something to reject—which is not what Disney wanted, I’m sure.  Forever for me, and many like me, there will always be the Expanded Universe where Han didn’t leave his wife and fail his children with some “force bending” scheme of time to save his daughter from the wrath of her brother, Han’s failed son—and the Jedi master Luke who lost his pupil to the dark side.  I’m sure there is a story of redemption in the next episodes, but by then—who cares.  Disney already screwed up the story with renamed characters and repeated themes which were already told in the novels years ago.  And in that respect, The Force Awakens fails in every way that it never intended.

The prequels were a LOT better.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Donald Trump, the CNN Debate Winner: Beating Hillary until she can’t show her face in public

It was the last Republican debate of the year and all the candidates did pretty much what they needed to by their own playbook.  There were no real surprises for anyone, except for Trump.  The New York billionaire presented himself really for the first time as the leader of the Republican Party, which was completely by design.  I saw it coming, yet apparently many didn’t.  It continues to astound me how little people know about negotiations, whether they are buying a car or selling themselves as president—Trump has been working the wires of the entire political process for several months now—and has changed the landscape of perception entirely.   On the stage in Las Vegas at CNN’s last big live event of the year before the Holidays, Trump clearly dominated—and the rest of the members of the stage looked like clear inferiors.   Some of the other candidates might win a few states in the primaries but it is clear right now as of December 16th, 2015—unless Trump does something really crazy—that Donald will be the next President of the United States.

Now, beating Hillary, everyone seems to be so concerned about that—I’m not.  I don’t even think it will be close.  In a leverage game, Donald Trump holds all the cards—all the good ones anyway—while Hillary has only a hand of Jokers.   If Trump could focus his attention on one candidate, Hillary would never hold up.  If the Republicans want to win in 2016 and for many years to come, they’ll get behind Donald Trump while he tears Hillary, and her connections to Obama to shreds starting in the summer of 2016.  I believe the lashing will be so bad of her by Trump that she may struggle to win a single state in a head to head election—including California.

A Trump presidency will be even more dynamic.  He’ll use the same methods to get bills through congress, to balance budgets, and to bring nations to their knees without having to fire a shot.  His staff will be some of the most competent people to ever hold public office and things will happen daily that nobody has ever seen before—the rate that things get done will be astonishing.  Trump will use the same methods he used to destroy Hillary Clinton, won the Republicans over to his side and work the media like his own puppet show to bring nations to their knees.  He’ll work Russia against Syria—mark my words, he’ll put Putin in his back pocket and he’ll choke off the cash going to Assad and defeat Syria without a single boot on the ground.  Iran will be forced to open up all their secrets after daily media poundings by Trump, China will be forced to level the table in their currency evaluations and denounce North Korea leaving that ruthless dictator to rot alone and isolated.  Trump will promote capitalism to Europe to save it from itself and he’ll pull most of the global billionaires into pouring their efforts of charity into the poor regions of the planet, like Africa and Brazil to pull them into the 21st century instead of the Obama strategy of bringing everyone else down.  Trump will attack the premise of global warming putting the EPA on the defensive and opening up the oil fields of the United States into becoming the world’s greatest producer which leverages against the oligopoly of OPEC.  ISIS will be a thing of the past within months because they’ll run out of money and the shadow governments behind them will be forced into hiding by Trump’s mouth.

Trump will expand the Second Amendment promotion of concealed carry around America, and will dramatically cut down on gun free zones.  He’ll probably give his own press conferences each day and will work the job around the clock like nobody has since Calvin Coolidge.  Trump will solve many of the world’s problems with his very aggressive mouth—he’ll play the high, low game of negotiation until he gets what he wants—and his abilities are clearly unmatched.  It was quite evident in the CNN debate of December 15, 2015 that he was a master of communication and negotiation.   Trump is addicted to deal making like some might be addicted to eating or sex—Trump has a mind that is alive, successful, and untouched by drugs or alcohol—his whole life.  He essentially has the mind of a child before puberty—one that just wants to play and enjoy life, and for Trump that joy comes in making things through deals.  The best job in the world for him would be President of the United States where every single day of office would be an opportunity to make big deals like he did with Trump Tower, or the West Side rail yards in New York City.   I don’t believe there is a single downside to a Donald Trump presidency for anybody—Republicans or Democrats.  I believe Trump is at his prime and can do things that nobody has ever thought possible.  He’ll set the bar for the presidency incredibly high for at least the next century and that will make us all better.

Much of what Trump has been doing is clearly described in his book The Art of the Deal.  Every trick shown in the nomination process, and all the ways that he will destroy Hillary Clinton—Trump has a track record of being so ruthless in his desire to win that she may never be able to show her face in public again.  Trump may personally like the Clintons, but if they try to put themselves in front of something he wants—he will destroy them forever.  Mark it on your calendar.  I predicted much of everything that is happening now over six months ago, and six months in the future from this writing, I can see it as clearly as the words you are reading.

Republicans have to understand—you can’t just beat Hillary Clinton and pray for the day that Obama is out of the White House.  Obama is a young man and he will be more damaging as an ex-president than he was as president.  Obama will return to community organizing and will have charitable foundations that will rival the Clintons—and he will have an international stage to continue marketing socialism to everyone who will listen.  He could do much more damage than Al Gore did after he left office.   Republicans will have to fend off internal struggles within the party, natural international challenges to the White House that comes with the job, but additionally the periphery hen pecking that Obama will have the opportunity to exert as an ex-president.  The next President of the United States will have to soak up so much media that there won’t be time for anybody else, and Trump is the only one who could do that.  Trump would beat on those former activists—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so hard that they’d have to retreat into the sunset to avoid his combative presence.  I am 100% sure of it.

It didn’t take long for Trump to win me over.  Once I saw that he was serious, I put my chips on his card.  He is the person I’d hire for the job and I have a way of knowing things about people.  There isn’t a second choice.  He doesn’t do everything that I’d like socially, but he does share with me a personal policy of not being intoxicated, never abusing tobacco products, and he doesn’t gamble in spite of owning several casinos.   Trump is a predator who wants to win at any cost and what he leaves in his wake is truly beneficial to everyone—just walk around New York City.  Without Trump, I think New York might have gone bankrupt in the 1970s.  Instead, he amassed enough wealth to build Trump Tower and many other structures before he was in his mid-forties.  Dealing to him is the best game he likes to play, and you really can’t hinge too much on the things he says—because he’s all about leverage.  What you can bet on are the things he does.  Behind him, including his children—are many grand successes.  And for America, particularly the Republican Party—they’d be extremely wise to put that type of person to work on their behalf.  Trump owned the stage with a change of strategy that was very calculated during the CNN debate—which put several assailants on their heels with indecision.   But that’s just the beginning.  Trump has a lot more in the tank, and you can see it in his eyes that he’s ready to unleash it.  For the sake of our country—we need to turn him loose and let him do it.

It will be a lot of fun to watch what he does to Hillary Clinton over the next 6 months.  She won’t stand a chance.  She has too many secrets and entirely too much vulnerability—and Trump will expose them all with torturous detail—because he will do anything—and say anything to win, win—win.  And I—as a long time Republican—don’t just want to see Hillary lose.  I want to see her and her network completely destroyed.  And Trump is just the man to do it.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Beauty of a Mernickle Holster: Morality of gunfighters protecting laissez faire-capitalism

This is truly a special day.  Just over two months ago I was having lunch with a friend about firearms related subject matter.  It was at a decent place, and reading this, he’ll remember instantly the occasion.  We were watching the construction of The Streets of West Chester Phase II development from our window and were enjoying the progress of capitalism as it marched toward new destinations.  In my own life, I had just accomplished a major technical achievement, something that many thought was impossible and the two and a half years I spent slugging that triumph out had put a new line of thought into my mind forever.  To celebrate the moment I put a major investment into a new stage of my own personal development and decided that I would put an emphasis on a career change.  Of course nothing is sudden in these kinds of things.  The business world like a good marriage dictates that decisions are fast and solid but that movement often takes time—so you often ease into things instead of crashing through the front door.  So this new career would entail a phase-in period rather than a sudden change and it all started with something that I had been thinking about for several decades but just couldn’t find the time to commit to it—or the money.  However, I had promised myself that if I survived the technical achievement I had been working on that I would treat myself to that long desired intention.  Prior to that lunch I had just ordered a new Mernickle gunfighter rig knowing that it would have to be hand crafted and take months to complete.  But I was excited that I had finally bought it—along with other items that went with it.  All in all it was a sizeable investment for me that signified a definite change of life.  One book had literally closed and an entirely new one was starting, and I was very excited about it which my friend can testify to.

It was on December 15, 2015 that my Mernickle holster arrived and it is a thing of extraordinary beauty.  Bob Mernickle and his family starting with his wife Sherrie and two daughters Stormie and Shandrianna are in my opinion the best holster manufacturers that are out there, particularly when it comes to Cowboy Fast Draw.  To have a Mernickle gun fighting system is to have the Lamborghini of shooting sports.  When I get involved with something very specific, like the Western Arts often are I do a lot of research into who I think is the absolute best and I work with them exclusively until I think they have fallen from the top.  In my bullwhip work, I bought my whips from Terry Jacka in Australia.  With this new phase in my life I am looking to build a new skill set to compliment the old one, and to advance that intention, I needed the best Cowboy Fast Draw rig that I could get, so I ordered one from Bob Mernickle.  The day before it arrived one of his daughters, Stormie wrote me to confirm its delivery and I knew that all was right in the world.

As part of the technical achievement that I had worked through and all the pulling teeth it took to get there, no amount of money can give you back the years you lose whenever you do something that takes so much work and effort.  There are no banquets in your honor that can justify the personal expense—not for me anyway.  Success isn’t measured in the opinions others have of you for bringing them the magic of capitalist enterprise—but it’s in what it does for you personally.  This Mernickle holster and the Ruger Vaquero that goes in it represents something much greater to me which was confirmed over quite a long period of time.  It is probably the opposite reaction that people in my position would justify for the start of a new book in their lives.  The typical reaction might be condos, boats, and more exotic vacations when a plateau of professional achievement is reached, but that’s not enough for me.  I need to push myself and to smell battle in the things I’m doing—so complacency and reflection are not enough.  I need to go from one impossible thing to another in order to feel alive and entering a very competitive sport that is the fastest individual feat that a human being can perform is precisely what makes my heart swell.

Prior to this epic life-changing event I was happy with my melee weapon work for personal exercise and self-defense.   Bullwhips allowed me to practice in my own back yard and compete each year in the Annie Oakley Western Showcase in Darke County, Ohio and be one of the few in the world who could put out flaming candles with those flexible weapons using pin-point accuracy.  But that technical work that I had been doing along with my political endeavors here and elsewhere showed me a strategic undercurrent emerging that needed a gunfighter—quite literally. This led me to re-think some of my favorite childhood influences, such as Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai and The Hidden Fortress and gave me an even stronger appreciation for the cowboy arts of America’s foundation.

I have been thinking a lot about the Cowboy Way as defined by America’s evolution and the romance of the Old West mythologies which are much more sanctimonious in hindsight than they ever were in the moment—and it became quite clear to me that the gun represented laissez-faire capitalism in our culture and that was something that needed to be emphasized, and protected.  As I look back on the countless westerns that have been produced in America they all have a common thread that revolves around the use of guns to regulate a frontier society which embodies the morality of pure capitalism—which is essentially at the heart of the gun debate in our modern era to remove them from private possession.  Guns on the hip of a gunfighter represent the type of individual protection of private property that is very specific to a culture that is operating without the parental oversight of a federal government.  America had the unique experience of being able to function in a vacuum of time, when railroads allowed quick travel, guns made the playing field of human domination equal, and the innovation of one’s own endeavors could make them gloriously wealthy, or proportionally poor.   The Old West was a very competitive place, and most people ended up dirt poor, diseased, or crippled for life.  Gambling and prostitution were everyday occurrences in most frontier towns and to this very modern time still has an appeal to people in American culture because those things no matter how destructive they were personally, represents an extraordinary level of personal freedom that was unique on the world stage—and still is.

The Cowboy Way emerged as a way to self-regulate behavior as government was not all that present in Old West towns such as Deadwood, South Dakota.  Each year presently hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists venture to Deadwood for the famous Sturgis Motorcycle Rally essentially to feel the breath of the Old West and laissez-faire capitalism on their faces.  If you look beyond the decadence which is also present in Las Vegas and Times Square, New York, or even Key West, Florida—you can see a society of people too tightly cranked up looking to come unhinged for their own psychological balance.  Towns like the old Deadwood featured lots of prostitution, and gambling which were hopeful attempts by individuals to acquire private property and live well for themselves.  This isn’t at all unlike the world of Henry Morgan—the pirate of Port Royal where indulgence in debauchery was rampant to an extreme.   But the reason for it is more fascinating than the cost.  Many people died and lost their way in such environments, but those who did succeed brought wonderful treasures to the human race under capitalism.  The desire for such recklessness in personal living is that individuals ultimately want to be free of government regulations and they’ll go to extremes to shake them away.  In such an environment guns are needed to protect oneself from predators who want to shortcut the work of capitalism to get something for as little effort as possible.  In Deadwood specifically are the stories of Wild Bill Hickok who was a lawman, a frequenter of prostitutes, and one of the best known gunfighters from the Old West period.  He once killed Davis Tutt in a dual at 75 yards over a dispute of Hickok’s watch.  The dual was likely over a woman—not so much the watch, but either way it was over possession of perceived property and the gunfight was emblematic of protecting that property.  The gun in most western mythology is an affirmation of economic value, not raw brutality.  It was in Deadwood that Wild Bill was shot in the back of the head during a poker game while holding the famous hand, Aces of Eights, which so many references within the motorcycle community refer to presently.

The governing principle of these laissez-faire capitalist societies was the Cowboy Way, or at least the way Hollywood interpreted the brutality of frontier life to find meaning in it all—which there was plenty.  A code of conduct enforced by the gun emerged and it was for a time the best answer to America’s morality of capitalism.  The political left attacks cowboys and gunfighters specifically because they are quite well aware that there is something unique in the history of Old West towns like Deadwood and the historic mythologies of Wild Bill Hickok that might fuel the fires of capitalism and stop the long global march of socialism that is currently migrating unhinged everywhere in the world except for rural pockets around the United States.  For instance, you will NEVER see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota lecturing those people about morality and equality.  John McCain has attempted to appeal to that demographic class, but has not been very successful—because the Washington Beltway doesn’t understand it.  But I see it quite clearly.  The strategy to move capitalism in the other direction against the current spread of socialism is through the kind of marketing that gave rise to such mythologies and the real life actions of Wild Bill in the first place.  And behind that effort is the magic of the gun and the advantage of a very good fast draw rig.

Yes, it’s very exciting to enter a new book full of stories and adventure that have not yet been experienced.  The old one was great, but sometimes sequels are better than the originals.  Life should be like that, each and every year should be better than the previous one.   While my previous stories were mainly about motorcycles and bullwhips, these new ones will be more akin to Wild Bill Hickok.  Not the gambling or the women, but the gun fighting—there is magic in that—and promotion of an economic system that the gun represents–laissez-faire capitalism.  After my success at the near impossible the obvious next step is to build on that with a means to expand that capitalist reach.  While the intentions may not be obvious at first, it is clear that by wearing that fabulous Mernickle holster the weapons that will be drawn from it have the best chance of re-selling American capitalism to the most people under the best conditions—which of course unlocks prosperity within our national GDP that would have been previously unheard of.  And that is why that holster to me is one of the most beautiful things in the world and why I have been so excited to get it.  This is going to be a lot of fun.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707