Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 362

Butler County’s Judy Shelton and her Contributions Toward Donald Trump: Meet ‘The Viewers’–keys to expanding the Republican Party base

Many times I have pointed out the burgeoning issue of how weak establishment Republicans are. They are holding the party down creating an insurrection within the GOP that has directly led to the present circumstances. Here in Butler County, Ohio, considered by many to be one of the strongest bastions of Republicanism in the country, I have been extremely displeased with the GOP. Judy Shelton and her kind on the Central Committee have purposely attempted to push Tea Party elements out while dragging donors to the political middle of the debate—away from capitalism more toward socialism. So long as area Republicans receive their invite to the socialite Patti Alderson’s latest charity event, most have been willing to play along—except for 25-30% of the party. For them, they get left behind, and people like Judy will declare publicly, that it was her goal all along. Those dissidents can either go along to get along—or they won’t have a seat at the table. What those short-sighted thinkers have always missed is not that they needed to move to the political left to cater to voters—the Bernie Sanders socialists—but to pick up voters in that 25-30% range who often just refuse to vote for Republican losers. Case in point is the two women below who emphatically are showing their support for Donald Trump. These are voter demographics that are untapped by current Republican strategies.

After the GOP Debate on Fox News and the fallout thereafter toward Donald Trump by establishment types, mystification engulfed the party in a similar way that has been evident in Butler County by Shelton and Alderson. Pundits loyal to Republicans just don’t understand what all the hype toward Trump is. Even Glenn Beck—who just recently attacked Grover Norquist and declared that he was done with the Republican Party has been extremely critical of Trump. Apparently Beck wants a Jesus Christ type figure who will soft talk the nation from the brink—which is about as realistic as hoping that Peter Pan will teach us all to fly. There is no basis in reality for such a hope. It makes a fine fantasy, but is not very practical in the realm of strategy.

I am certainly part of that 25-30% who will vote against Republicans if they are not conservative enough. As Beck has pointed out before, during the American Revolution, less than 30% of the population advocated in favor of the elements of the War of Independence. Yet America earned its way on the backs of that minority, and the same holds true today. The masses do not know the best answers. It usually comes from the minority—the clear thinking, and passionate. Republicans do not need so much a big tent pandered to every special interest group—blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc., it needs to reach within those groups those 30% who just want to win. Clearly by the evidence of the two Trump advocates in the above video, there are two demographics present that are very passionate about Donald Trump. Republicans could have those voters if only they’d embrace the possibility of being a winner.

This should be easy. What happens to the local NFL team when they have several seasons of losing efforts? That team usually has a hard time selling-out tickets—because people in America have a hard time supporting losing efforts. They will be loyal to a certain point, but clearly want to see a winner on the football field. The moment that an NFL team turns it all around and becomes a winner again, fans go crazy. Fans will do just about anything to be near a winner—and they will spend their money emphatically on winning efforts. When an NFL team is winning, ticket sales are up, beer and hotdogs concessions are through the roof, and memorabilia jumps off the racks in retail outlets. Winning is very good for an NFL team’s achievement of financial success.

Republicans have not been winners. They make promises but are weak to follow through. They have a reputation of being like Yosemite Sam in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons continually outmaneuvered by a Democratic rascally rabbit. They have been made fools of since the days of Ronald Reagan, and they wonder why they don’t have more supporters. You have to win something to maintain enthusiasm in the Party. Elections aren’t enough. Currently Republicans have the House and Senate and what have they done with it? Nothing. Republican leaders on Capital Hill are still being outmaneuvered by Barack Obama—and that doesn’t sit well with the elements of the Republican Party who want to support a winner.

Judy Shelton in my home town has manipulated the Central Committee with manipulation by busing in voters for hard votes and worked against that hard-line 30% with open harassment and extortion to protect John Boehner from internal challenges within the GOP. That is as stupid as telling a football player on an NFL team that their job is secure, all they have to do is show up on Sunday and collect a pay check, win, lose or draw. That is not how things work in reality. Performance is expected, and the Republicans for two decades have done little else but talk.

Donald Trump may be a lot of things. He may be all over the map politically. He may have liberal views and some Alex Jones level conspiracy beliefs. As I’ve said, he’s not a conservative in the way that I am, that is for sure. But—who is? I like Carly Fiorina, I like Ted Cruz, I like Scott Walker. I’d vote for Ben Carson in less than a second, as he best represents my own political philosophy. I love that guy. But in this aggressive global environment with all the political theater going on, who of that bunch has a chance of withstanding the onslaught of harassment so evident throughout the world encapsulated by Socialist International. Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums and pushing for open socialism. Who among the Republicans can take that on but an unapologetic capitalist who is driven by a self-centered desire for narcissism? Narcissism and vanity are considered faults by the Republican Party, particularly local apologists like Judy Shelton. But winners tend to embody some elements of narcissism—because it is that which often propels them toward perfection—or at least an attempt to be better day after day.

Republicans like Judy Shelton work so hard behind the scenes with the assumption that the Party is bigger than the individual, which actually goes against the premise of conservative values. No wonder there are splinter groups erupting behind the establishment—she should have known better. Instead of acknowledging that trend, she has fought against it doubling down within the party ranks and insisting on unyielding support of John Boehner who has done nothing in his time as Speaker of the House but lose to Obama. It’s an insane premise that could only be constructed by establishment politicians who are way too comfortable with their social role within that system. Because of people like Shelton, and there are many like her all across America, particularly within the Beltway, voters often just stay at home unwilling to cast a vote for a loser—whether they are Republicans or Democrats (socialists). CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW and clarification. Judy Shelton’s support for Boehner with a track record of failure, and also of John Kasich who has turned toward big government and declared that St. Peter will welcome good Republicans in heaven because they have pandered to the poor as a party will not win anything but elections in the future. Republicans are do nothing losers who have been beaten in policy by Democrats over and over again, and are defeated people—politically.

Americans love winners and they will support a winner even if the circumstances around the victor are shady. Of course a clean winner is always best, but look at the apologists for Tom Brady. Nobody wants to believe he or the Patriots cheated their way to so many Superbowl victories because people love a winner—however they win. Nobody wants to wait until they die to have victory—which is the public policy essentially of John Kasich. People want a winner now or sooner, especially Americans. So it should not be a mystery to the political pundits that Trump is doing so well even with all the usual tricks used to knock him off his pedestal. He’s a winner and people are willing to overlook his faults because of it. What Republicans would discover if they stopped listening to loyalists like Judy Shelton from Butler County, Ohio is that new voters, perhaps even some from the other side would vote for Trump as a Republican just because he has a reputation as a winner. New demographics would be created in the wake of such a move, many of them very passionate about their representative, such as the two women above. Nobody is doing videos like that for John Boehner, or John Kasich. Judy Shelton is only able to keep support for those two by twisting people’s arms behind their backs and busing in degenerates with the promise of a free meal during Central Committee meetings. For those who accuse Trump of smoke and mirrors tapped off with dishonest diatribes against the establishment, it is the suspicion that worse is occurring behind the scenes, and they’d be correct. Those 25-30% of Republican voters have not been passionate about the Republican Party for years. They are passionate now, because they sense a winner in Trump, and they want to see victory for a change—not just in elections won, but in action taken day-to-day. Trump represents victory and for a large percentage of the Republican voter base, a sleeping giant is erupting that people like Judy Shelton didn’t even know about. Because those Republicans want victory more than a free meal to buy their vote in Butler County.

Rich Hoffman  CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Competent Carly Fiorina: Meet the woman who shut up Chris Mathews

I liked Carly Fiorina before the Fox News debates, but often thought she was too soft and repetitive on her position against Hillary Clinton. She did predictably well in the debates, which I was impressed with. She’s definitely a woman I could get behind for president. I like her a lot. But I wasn’t sure she was aggressive enough to be president until I saw her handle Chris Mathews after the debate, in an interview where he tried to peg her down with specifics. She not only provided specifics, she actually did it so well that Mathews conceded to her as time ran out. It was a very impressive exchange respectfully done, but most importantly, effectively implemented.

Cara Carleton “Carly” Fiorina (née Sneed; September 6, 1954) is a former business executive, and current Chair of the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360.[2] Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks to become an executive at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent. As chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005, she was the first woman to lead one of the top twenty U.S. companies.[3]

In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer.[4][5] Following HP’s gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off thousands of US employees. However, [6][7] by the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than both companies together had before the merger.[8] As of February 9, 2005 HP stock had lost more than half its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector.[9][10][11] On that date, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman.[12][13]

After HP, Fiorina served on the boards of several organizations and as an adviser to Republican John McCain‘s 2008 presidential campaign. She won a three-person race for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate from California in 2010, but lost the general election to incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.[14]

In 1980, Fiorina joined AT&T as a management trainee and rose to become a senior vice president overseeing the company’s hardware and systems division.[25]

In 1995, Fiorina led corporate operations for the spinoff from AT&T of Lucent, reporting to Lucent chief executive Henry B. Schacht.[26] She played a key role in planning and implementing the 1996 initial public offering of stock and company launch strategy.[27][28] Later in 1996, Fiorina was appointed president of Lucent’s consumer products business, reporting to Rich McGinn, president and chief operating officer.[28] In 1997, she was appointed chair of Lucent’s consumer communications joint venture with Philips, Philips Consumer Communications.[29] It was dissolved a year later after garnering only a 2% market share in mobile phones and losing $500 million on a revenue of $2.5 billion.[30] Also in 1997, she was named group president for the global service provider business at Lucent, overseeing marketing and sales for the company’s largest customer segment.[31]

During her time at AT&T, Lucent, and afterward, Fiorina was regarded by many as being the first woman to head up a Fortune 20 company, and to have overcome the metaphorical “glass ceiling“.[32][33][34]

Hewlett-Packard (HP)

In July 1999, Hewlett-Packard Company named Fiorina chief executive officer, succeeding Lewis Platt and prevailing over the internal candidate Ann Livermore.[35] Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in stock, a $3 million signing bonus, a $1 million annual salary (plus a $1.25–3.75 million annual bonus), $36,000 in mortgage assistance, a relocation allowance, and permission (and encouragement) to use company planes for personal affairs.[36] She became the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company.[3] Fiorina immediately became a highly visible chief executive and remained so throughout her tenure at the company.[37]

Fiorina proceeded to reorganize HP and merge the part she kept with PC maker Compaq.[37] Although the decision to spin off the company’s technical equipment division predated her arrival, one of her first major responsibilities as chief executive was overseeing the separation of the unit into the standalone Agilent Technologies.[38] Fiorina proposed the acquisition of the technology services arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for almost $14 billion, but withdrew the bid after a lackluster reception from Wall Street.[39] Following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the PwC consulting arm was acquired by IBM for less than $4 billion.[40] Fiorina instituted three major changes to HP’s culture shortly after her arrival: a shift from nurturing employees to demanding financial performance, replacing profit sharing with bonuses awarded if the company met financial expectations, and a reduction in operating units from 83 to 4.[36]

In early September 2001, in the wake of the bursting of the Tech Bubble, Fiorina announced the merger with Compaq, a leading competitor in the industry. Fiorina fought for the merger, and it was implemented despite strong opposition from board member Walter Hewlett (the son of company co-founder William Hewlett) and 49% opposition among HP’s shareholders.[41][42] Hewlett launched a proxy fight against Fiorina’s efforts, which failed.[43] The Compaq merger[44] created the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped.[45][46]

Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program.[47][48][49][50] Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while “America is the most innovative country,” it would not remain so if the country were to “run away from the reality of the global economy.”[51] Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation.”[48] While Fiorina argued that the only way to “protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States],” her comments prompted “strong reactions” from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs.[52] In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina’s tenure.[6][53] In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call.[36]

Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors,[36][42] and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian “The HP Way” work culture and guiding philosophy,[36][42][54] which she felt hindered innovation.[36][55] Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed “widespread unhappiness” and distrust,[36][56] and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.[36]

During Fiorina’s time as CEO, HP’s revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies,[57][58] and the rate of patent filings increased.[58] According to reports, however, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP’s net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period;[57] the company’s debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD;[57] and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.[57][59] In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period.[59]

Resignation from Hewlett-Packard

In early January 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board of directors discussed with Fiorina a list of issues that the board had regarding the company’s performance.[60] The board proposed a plan to shift her authority to HP division heads, which Fiorina resisted.[61] A week after the meeting, the confidential plan was leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[62] Less than a month later, the board brought back Tom Perkins and forced Fiorina to resign as chair and chief executive officer of the company.[63] The company’s stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day.[64][65] Many employees celebrated her resignation.[36] Under the company’s agreement with Fiorina, which was characterized as a golden parachute by TIME magazine,[66] and Yahoo!,[67] it was reported she had been paid slightly more than $20 million in severance.[68]

https://www.carlyforpresident.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_fiorina

I noticed that Donald Trump did not go after her in the way he might otherwise—before the whole Megan Kelly thing erupted. I’d guess that is because he is looking at her as a running mate, which would be the best of both worlds. Trump understands the showbiz side of politics, which shouldn’t be the case, but is a brutal reality of any campaign. The left doesn’t play by the rules, and Republicans continue to lose because they don’t understand the theatrics well enough about how the left beats them. Trump is destroying that political model as we speak—which I am very happy about. Carly is a more traditional manager, and ultimately is more of what we’d all like to expect out of a President in the White House. But I really think she, and all the other candidates as well, need Donald Trump to reset the political field on both sides with his bombastic behavior. The political process needs Donald Trump, but I am very happy to see candidates in the field like Carly Fiorina emerging so strongly. She is a wonderful breath of fresh air.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

No Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat: The Debbie Wasserman Schultz silent admission

Let’s see, how many times do I have to say, “I told you.”  I’m really not one of those guys—the I told you so types.  But I did.  I did, I did, I did say it many times in many hundreds of thousands of written words and radio broadcasts.  Years ago when I looked at the public education system in my home district of Lakota and identified correctly the cause of the continued tax increases and ineffectiveness of the education institution to teach young children to grow up to be good Republicans, I stated rather emphatically that it was socialism that was being taught in those education institutions.  Of course there was backlash, a lot of it.  But that didn’t make me wrong.  It was just inconvenient knowledge that nobody wanted to think about.  Time has proven me absolutely right, which has been revealed by the Bernie Sanders campaign for president in 2016.  Finally!  My friend Matt Clark talked about the issue on his Saturday radio show recently (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN) and it was a topic of countless deliberation on the news networks, which was quickly drowned out by the Fox News debate, but when pressed, Debbie Wasserman Scultz couldn’t tell Chris Mathews what the difference was between a Democrat and a socialist.  The reason she couldn’t was that there isn’t a difference.  It’s simply a name change.

To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property.  In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions.  They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases.  The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy.  They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.

But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that.  To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations.  Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.

Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept.  Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive.  Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative.  Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds.  They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control.  If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them.   That is because they are functionally socialists.

Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks.  All those developments are in competition with one another for validity.  For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road.  Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc.  The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area.  Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer.  But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city.  That is the beauty of free market capitalism.  The same mentality should be applied to education.  There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others.  Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars.   But that’s not the system we have.  Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars.  The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games.   There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe.  If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.

Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth.  They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit.  They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power.  That is socialism.  That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was.  She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.

The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense.  When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior.  It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party.  But the terminology is historically accurate.  Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school.  Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior.  That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference.  Because there isn’t one.  When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism.  The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes.  It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with.  Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it.  They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own.  I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble.  I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.”  Because they didn’t listen when they should have.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Real Life Howard Roark: Donald Trump’s quest to bring value to the “Pronoun I”

As I listened to the ongoing fallout from the Fox News Presidential debate that set historic records with more viewers than watched the World Series the volatility surrounding Donald Trump continues to erupt.  I find it personally fascinating because what Trump is doing is something I have been pushing for a long period of time.   Ross Perot didn’t have quite enough in the emotional tank to pull it off in 1992, or in 1996.  Ron Paul never did much more than come away from his presidential campaigns than represent a near retirement old man with more warning than bite.  Other than that, there really hasn’t been anybody to shake things up the way Trump has, except for classic Clint Eastwood films.  To do the job, the person has to enjoy the fire, understand the value of the “Pronoun I” (click to review), and the candidate has to be the smartest guy in the room.  It takes a lot of gusto to stand in front of the world and declare that nobody out-thinks you.  Trump for all the smoke, fire, and explosions seems up to the task which gives me hope that he may be the one. 

I’m not talking about a politician like the ones the world has become used to.  Rather Trump is much more reminiscent of the type of office seeker that we would have had stepping purely off the pages of Ayn Rand’s two great American novels, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged—both personal favorites of mine.  As I read carefully the statements about the exit of Donald Trump’s campaign adviser Roger Stone in the wake of the Megan Kelly feud, I noticed something distinctly different about this round of controversy.  Trump is moving into uncharted political waters which Stone was clearly not comfortable with—and Trump recognizing it, is pressing to move on with the methods that have given him success.

The system is set up to protect itself from individual merit.  Stone, Kelly, Bill O’Reilly even Roger Ailes of Fox News are members of the system.  Glenn Beck years ago tried to press against that system, and he is currently doing a good job with his own little network, The Blaze, which I listen to every day.  But Beck never really survived his run-ins with George Soros or his expulsion from Fox News.  When individuals push back against the system, they tend to be destroyed in the process.  Along comes Donald Trump who has made his living by underlining the pronoun I.   His 1987 book The Art of the Deal is a great book about a very passionate man who comes across larger than life because as he says, if you’re going to think, you might as well think big.  But before you can do that you have to truly know who you are as an individual, not as a member of the collective and Donald Trump clearly knows who he is.

I have never seen or read anything from Trump that points to Ayn Rand as a source of inspiration—which doesn’t surprise me.  The characters from her novels—people like Howard Roark and John Galt were just who they were.  They didn’t point to a philosopher on the horizon as the origin of their thoughts; they just were who they were.  Yet Trump clearly is a hero from those pages whether by default, or through inspiration.  He reminds me of the kind of man Howard Roark was in The Fountainhead.  I have a lot of favorite books.  One is The Art of War by Sun Tzu.  Another is The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musahi.  Another is The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell.  Way of the Fighter is another treasure of mine written by General Claire Lee Chennault.  Most of my favorite books have something to do with combat and fighting—strategy.  Like Trump nobody out thinks me.  It would likely be a stalemate if he and I would ever come into contact with each other because I wouldn’t yield an inch to him, and neither would he.  He would likely chose to fight with verbal insults to shake me off my position whereas I tend to use many more subtle means built off many years of reading voluminous books providing me with a robust vocabulary and strategic options. That is why out of all my books one of my favorites is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because it is about these types of people, those who clearly understand themselves and know that they are the source of all material from which all things pour forth.

The Fountainhead is a uniquely American concept and was inspired by the bright-eyed young woman Ayn Rand who escaped communist Russia to work as a screenwriter in Hollywood.  Her first impressions of America were the New York skyline and the buildings which made it up erected because of capitalism.  Nowhere else in the world had such sights, and she built her philosophy of Objectivism off that vision.  One of her strongest and most explosive characters was the architect Howard Roark from that first big hit by her written in 1943.  He built buildings for that skyline and was directly inspired by the real life Frank Lloyd Wright.  Throughout the novel Roark refuses to collaborate with others on projects so to maintain his individuality, even when it costs him dearly.  Donald Trump is the closest personification of Roark that I’ve ever seen which most adequately allows for the philosophy of individuality to finally see the light of day which it deserves—which seemed to be at the center of Roger Stone’s issues.  The American presidency has been accepted by default to be a sacrifice to the collective, and Donald Trump is changing that perception rapidly much to the anxiety of those who have molded their lives to the system and are unsure of how to conduct themselves in that vacancy.

My favorite scene in The Fountainhead is not the ending where Roark becomes his own lawyer to defend himself in court for blowing up his own building. He conducted the act of vandalism to maintain his ownership of his property. The best part for me came when he was invited to be a part of a panel of the country’s greatest architects to commission a project for the World’s Fair.  Roark declared upon the invitation that he would work alone or not at all, that committees do not work.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.  I was reading the book silently in public and when I ran across that passage I shouted at the book with over 40 years of pent-up energy.  FINALLY SOMEONE HAD SAID IT!  I had to read a book from 1943 to get it, but finally someone understood something I had been trying to explain for a very long time.  Of course that type of thinking runs counter to everything we have built our political lives around—so it’s a gross violation of any form of collectivism—which human beings have just accepted without question. Roark as a fictional character challenged those thousands of years of human thinking.  Now Trump is the living embodiment of Roark—and if he can stay with his campaign, he has a chance to do something that has needed to be done since the start of America as a country—invoke a full philosophy started by Adam Smith and Thomas Paine into a fully realized explosion of thought and action inspired by an intellectual emphasis on the pronoun I.

I don’t want the system of politics that we inherited by default from Europe.  I want something uniquely American.  I want a real life Howard Roark as president—which is precisely what Donald Trump is.  Now that I’ve gotten to know Trump better through all these media escapades and watched his behavior more accurately, I think I would get along well with him.  Even after all the years that he did The Apprentice, I had never watched a single show until recently, because I don’t waste time on network television.  I’m just too busy.  So outside of his book The Art of the Deal, I didn’t know much about Trump or his empire.  I don’t like casinos, so I lumped Trump into that parasitic category of human being—a crony capitalist who was part of the problem.  But I see now something else, a long-held strategy centered on evoking pride in the pronoun I to the extent of saving America from the collectivist parasites which have embedded themselves in our political culture.  They are scared of Trump, and he is relishing in aggravating their anxiety.  Because he truly wants to save America, not just to provide an ego boost to himself.  For all of the reasons that Howard Roark refused the World’s Fair commission, to maintain his integrity and love for a country that has made him extremely wealthy, Trump is trying to save America not through more rules and regulations, or even executive order.  He’s trying to save it by invoking in the people of the nation, the spirit and power of the pronoun I.  Because he knows that through individuality and values invoked from within, America can only survive the systems which currently encumber it.   Committees never have worked, Howard Roark said so in a 1943 novel about individualism and the power of a philosophy built from it.  Now Donald Trump is in forbidden territory, and he appears ready to thrive in that task.  And for that he has my full support!

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The “Vagenda” of Megan Kelly Against Donald Trump: Why progressive women are sometimes fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals

Rupert Murdoch may have been pandering to his Fox News journalists by saying that his friend Donald Trump needs to learn that running for president of the United States is “public life,” but he’d be wrong.  For some reason everyone believed that they were going to put a guy like Trump on center stage with 24 million people watching on television and that they were going to pin him down with some hit pieces pandering to the mythical “war on women,” and that they’d get away with it.  Sure Donald Trump had called some women in the past “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” but he does the same to men.  Women don’t have special rules of behavior if they truly want to be “equal.”  When Megan Kelly brought up something Donald Trump had said on his television show, The Apprentice about a woman looking good on her knees, she was the one who stepped in it on live television.  Trump did what he was supposed to, he didn’t back down—instead he went on the attack like he said he would leaving many including Red State editor Erick Erickson baffled.  Shortly thereafter Erickson disinvited Trump to a weekend event because of the feud that had widened between Trump and Kelly.  Trump of course responded to the Erickson actions by calling him a “weak and pathetic leader.”  I’ve been telling Republicans for a long time that if they want to beat the progressive left, and the right, you have to hit back when attacked.  And if they hit you with a blunt stick, you need to come back at them with something much harsher.  In a war of words, that is certainly the case.  Megan Kelly clearly had a “vagenda” against Trump from before the debate, and she got it thrown back in her face—which she obviously didn’t expect.  In an equal world, females don’t get to dish out attacks then hide behind their femininity for protection.  Progressives have advanced their position for too long using this tactic and it’s about time that someone calls them out on it.  And Trump did much to my satisfaction.

As everyone who reads here knows, I am well aware of this “vagenda” where progressive types attempt to disarm men from their opinions using the weapons of femininity to attack while expecting no return fire of aggression—because they are women.  I am proud to say that I have maintained a position over the years consistent to the one Donald Trump is exhibiting now on a national stage and I have been trying to get other Republicans to listen for quite some time.  But they are afraid of that “vagenda,” so they always have backed down.   I know how Trump feels when people who should have courage back out of events because of comments he made in response to Megan Kelly after the debate by saying “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes.  Blood coming out of her whatever,” which immediately provoked Erickson at Red State to cancel the Trump appearance.  Well, Trump created an event of his own in response—which was the correct behavior.  But the “vagenda” strategies are the last resort of progressives who use their sex to disarm men into maintaining a status quo.  I have said plenty of things on my own under similar circumstances.  Here are just a few examples which were well documented in the Cincinnati media market.  I said of school levy supporters:

“Their husbands roll them over at night and insert their manhood into these women of the bedroom and hundred-dollar bills find their way into their purses. The women don’t know what the man does to earn the money, nor do they care. They are busy saving the world one child at a time with howls of safety and more regulations as they rush to the polling places at election time.”  Remember that, and also this, “crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they plot against me with an anger only estrogen can produce.  The progressive mode of attack they use to protect their positions which cannot withstand scrutiny is to attack people like Rush Limbaugh whenever he says something they believe they can use against him in an emotional argument. Conservatives typically are terrible at playing this game with progressives because they tend to operate on a belief system rooted in the truth. So they can easily be attacked because if they cross the line, they feel bad about it, and that guilt is used against them to change their behavior in the future.”

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-3137-lakota_anti_tax_spokesman_booted_for_derogatory_re.html

I’ve been there and am proud of Trump for sticking to his guns.  It’s about time someone does what he’s doing.  Women are not a collective group.  Progressive women are seeking to “change” America into something I don’t want, and they aren’t going to get away with it without being called out.  For my comments the usual tactic was used of distance, isolation and a media attempt to paint me as a “fringe” guy.  The hardest part for me was when some of my associates pulled away from me while I was on the air of a large radio station defending their position for them.  I managed to do well on the radio show, and thereafter.  But I have a policy that if people behave like a vagina, then they invite upon themselves for what happens to those sexual utilities during mating practices—and that’s what happened to them in the wake.  For me, my numbers went up on the blog, I sold more books, and I even had people stopping me at gas stations volunteering to pay for tanks of fuel out of thanks.  I get asked at least once a week to run for some elected office—which I don’t do, because I’m too busy, too young in my opinion, and I have no desire to be a public servant—owned by the “public.”   In all honesty, I’m rooting for Trump more now than ever because I’m hoping he will change the definition for what is expected out of a public servant.  I’d love to see more people like him entering public office who wouldn’t be demeaned by the expectation of being a public utility to a bunch of careless people who just want a punching bag for their own slanted lives.   Trump as president could do a lot of good.  With his attitude who is going to beat him in a negotiation over arms, prisoners, economic policy or global pride?  And after years of America suffering under the “vagenda” of feminists, that’s exactly the kind of president we need to straighten out the mess of decades of policy that soft bellied politicians have given us.

It’s OK to say you hate “vagenda” driven feminists.  Some of them are disgusting people, some are fat pigs, and are disgusting animals.  We are not obligated as men to pander to those idiots just because they offer the gateways to sex.  When it came down to it, the men who pulled away from me during my escapade did it under pressure from their wives and community friends who played right along with the “vagenda” of the feminist movement.  I tried to tell those men that women—normal women—don’t like the “vagenda,” but that they have been taught that they have to support it with a collective unification. Men over time have been taught to fear those who possess vaginas because the “vagenda” behind their actions are not defensible.  Men fear that they won’t get sex unless they play along.  Wrong.  I have said it time and time and time again, women love 50 Shades of Grey because they don’t want to live the “vagenda” in their bedrooms.  Sure they might utter such nonsense socially, but with the door closed, there are reasons they throw their panties at rock stars and tuck themselves under their sheets reading the latest E. L. James novel.  That is the secret; most women hate the “vagenda” as much as men do, they are just afraid to say so publicly because society has shouted them down when they showed the inclination.  They don’t like the “vagenda” of Megan Kelly, not to the core of their essence.

The result of the war with Megan Kelly and Donald Trump is that the billionaire investor running for president will increase in popularity. The Fox News stunt to diminish Trump backfired in a dramatic way and Trump’s popularity will increase among women.  Just like the immigration issue in America will be solved once Republicans learn that by supporting capitalism you give immigrants what they came to America for in the first place, respect for themselves with a good job, and money to care for their families—women don’t like the “vagenda” of progressivism.  When it comes to supporting Trump, they may not announce it at the dinner table to their families—because they feel guilty, but they will throw their panties at Donald Trump at campaign events just because the man has so much confidence.  Women—normal women—not “vagenda” driven despots, love confidence and they will throw their support behind a candidate who exhibits that behavior with the same recklessness that they will throw themselves at Gene Simmons from the rock band KISS even knowing that he’s a disgusting old man who has slept with over 4,600 women.  I understand it, and have experienced it firsthand.  Trump understands it too.  And because he’s running for president on a big international stage that is watching his every move—soon the world will learn that hard lesson which they have avoided for such a long time—that people are sick of the “vagenda.”  Megan Kelly came out as a villain in the debate because of her commitment to the “vagenda.”  And Donald Trump was launched into the orbit of a rock star, and that was not the intention of Fox News.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Unconquered Donald Trump: Results from the first GOP presidential debate of 2016

I think Donald Trump had a bit of a “crap this is real” moment leading up to the first Republican debate for the presidential race of 2016 on Fox News, but he quickly recovered—as I expected him to. It started civil, but quickly escalated into what we expected from Trump, aggression, boldness, and a very short fuse in regards to incompetence. And that’s why he’s ahead in the polls, and why he continues to dominate. People are sick of the other types of politicians who were on the stage with Trump. We’ve seen them before and they don’t have what it takes to fix what’s broken in Washington. At its heart, what is broken in the Beltway are politicians and their propensity toward greed. Only a person of great wealth can resist the temptations of K-Street and as well-intentioned as some of the presidential candidates were during the debate, I think their time is in 2024, not 2016. If I were interviewing all of them for a job, I would give the presidency to Donald Trump overwhelmingly over the other candidates for two simple reasons, he’s used to getting things done on his own and he can resist the temptation of power—because he already has it.

It was stunning really to see how the progressive left covered the debate leading up to the event. The new strategy from the left now that Trump is a serious candidate is to call his supporters dumb. One reference I read from someone at NBC on Twitter was that Trump’s supporters tended to only have a high school education or less—which is supposed to be a considerable insult. Many of those same types said the same things about Reagan, so Trump is in good company. But I found the statement interesting.

Progressives love college because they have the institutions filled with professors who are foot soldiers of recruitment for their cause. Progressives can’t wait to get young people alone from their families and on campus so they can take the bright young minds of America and steer them further toward liberalism. So yes, they encourage kids to go to college so they can get their hooks into the minds of the young without the influence of their parents around to protect them. These days the years between the ages of 18 to 22 destroy most of the potential lives of a large portion of our population with instructed progressive viewpoints preventing most college graduates from ever getting up off the mat once they’ve been knocked down upon it. People who have not been so defeated in their lives may in fact lean toward Donald Trump for that very reason, because they are not yet defeated people, and see in the billionaire a similar person also undefeated. But it has nothing to do with a lack of intellect between those who support Trump, or don’t. It has to do with whether or not those voters function from a defeated personal position, or still have fight left in them.

Trump was clearly the smartest guy on stage at least from strategic intellectual nimbleness. I couldn’t tell Megan Kelly either how I would force Mexico to build a wall, just as I couldn’t describe to someone how I would sell them a new car. People who are good at things can just do it. People who have made great livings at making deals are just good at such things. They can’t explain those types of things to the unskilled, the conquered, or naive. Most young people are conquered by one of two ways, through their military service and the rituals of basic training, or through their college experience. I think both have tragic ramifications to the mind nurtured through most of their lives toward individualism. I have watched many bright young people have their lives destroyed during the college years. Girls who were saints in high school, who practiced abstinence while at home with their parents to monitor their activities are some of the first to be conquered in college with cocaine habits given to them by men looking to exploit their relative freshness—lifestyles conducive to the college experience. I have been to college dorms, particularly freshman housing and witnessed a lot of nudity, smelled a lot of drugs, and watched young people give their lives away to indulgence for which they are permanently damaged—for the rest of their lives. Colleges are progressive utopias of intellectual destruction.

But not all kids are destroyed in college. Some actually excel, and Donald Trump was one of them. If a person survives the experience, they can actually be toughened up to a point where progressive influence cannot reach them. They are a rare breed, but they are very resolute in their decision-making. This is the kind of fire which forged Donald Trump. And it was obvious with him on the stage at the debate. Candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz might be more lawyerly astute to be president, but that’s not what America needs right now. It needs someone who knows how to hire the right people, and Trump excels at that because as an unconquered person, he is able to spot others who are also of the same mind. And that is the key to solving America’s current problems. We don’t need anther lawyer or the smartest guy in the room. We need a guy who is unconquered and can staff the White House with similar types who are better at tasks than he is.

Anyone who understands management knows that they key to being good at it requires the constant recruitment and nurturing of those who are better at specific tasks than you are. A proper manager has to have a lot of general knowledge so they can speak to lots of people about their specific tasks, but they don’t get lost in the weeds, because that’s what they hire other people to do. They don’t have to be everything to everyone. They just need to know how to recruit and maintain enough knowledge to maintain those relationships. Specific knowledge on investing might be great for the field of making money, but it is useless in the understanding of arms negotiations. If a person is great at one and not the other and they happen to be president, then their administration will be lopsided in one field, and deficient in all the rest. It would be Trump’s job as president to find the best people to fill all those fields, and he’d have to have enough general knowledge to nurture those relationships with some sort of direction. But it’s not his job to perform all those jobs. So to answer the border question regarding Mexico with specifics, it’s not Trump’s job. He has no idea. But he does know how to hire the best people and recruit them to his cause, and that is how he’d perform the task. However, it’s impossible to explain such a thing to people not skilled in leadership.

But that’s the world we are living in. It is run by college graduates and military veterans who have mostly been conquered in some fashion or another. They confuse intelligence based on the scale of compliance that they have endured as opposed to the unconquered types who possess natural leadership ability. Sometimes that leadership lasts through the vetting process most young people endure through their post high school years. A lot of the time natural leadership carves their own path completely free of the gate keepers and orthodox thinking shaped by progressive social programmers. And they just excel, just as Trump did as a young man. And they do as presidential candidates because winning is just in their nature. You can take such people and bury them with impossibility, but they always find their way out of trouble and turn mud into gold—because they are part of the select few who are members of the unconquered class. Trump is certainly one of them, which is why he is my best pick for President of the United States. For him it’s a job demotion. For everyone else on stage with him at the debates, it was a dream come true. And after a while, Trump realized that once all the hoopla from the media calmed down he found himself quite comfortable in the center of the stage—where he’s used to being. It was then that he showed the progressive left that their biggest fears were coming true—and there isn’t anything they can do about it. Nothing is working, not even calling people stupid for supporting Trump, which is why they continue to do it—because they have no other recourse.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face

Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.

The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.

Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.

“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”

“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Kate Scanlon / @scanlon_kate / July 22, 2015 /

Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.

Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]

Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]

This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.

Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]

In 1917, she started publishing the monthly periodical Birth Control Review.[note 3]

On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]

Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/04/man-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-reveals-the-hardest-part-of-undercover-investigation/

 

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Disgusting Amy Schumer: Being lectured about guns by a farting, belching, slutty reject

I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.

Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.

I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.

It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.

My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.

It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.

Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.

Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.

Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that!   Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

HitchBOT Failure in America: Hitchhiking in a self-reliant society

Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.

(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.

HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.

Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.

“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/hitchbot-robot-beheaded-philadelphia-feat/

Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.

The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.

Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.

The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?

To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.

Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.

In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Hoffman Laissez-Faire and the Metaphysics of Quality: Judging the good from the bad

Not everyone is suited for my style of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  In fact, I would say that less than 10% of an entire population is ready for it.  But if I were to pluck 10 people off the street, I could train 5 of them into it with success, giving an approximately 50% interview ratio of developing a person into a gradual acceptance of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  CLICK HERE for the foundation definitions to the laissez-faire system.  This is important because the only way out of many of the world’s problems is through laissez-faire capitalism and that requires people to function from the front of the train mentality as defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Essentially what I would look for in those 5 out of 10 people is a light on in the back of their minds to indicate that they resent the Theory X management styles so prevalent these days and are hungry for the ability to shape their own lives through their own ambitions.  Those are the types of people I would recruit and train into Hoffman Laissez Faire management.

When it is wondered why large, massive companies can be beaten by small ones it is important to understand the Metaphysics of Quality, as I’ve said many times.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  Essentially, you have to be a quality person to recognize other quality people.  Then you have to trust yourself enough to not feel threatened to give them the right to rule themselves, only providing guidance to keep them on the tracks.  But you have to encourage them to function in the scary front part of the train with you instead of in the back where it’s safe—with the other Theory X people.  The federal government for instance is extremely Theory X oriented.  If people do not comply with the federal government the IRS and other methods are used to force people into submission.  This is not good for the national economy and profit-making endeavors.  Only true laissez-faire capitalism will work properly for the most people with a trickle down effect from the few competent to the lax second-handers.

As most of the world functions from second-handers—those who live through others for their sustenance both leadership and their followers prefer Theory X as a kind of safe foundation.  Those are the back of the train people who are always analyzing the contents of the metaphorical train.  They often miss their decision gates because they are in the back of the train as opposed to the front and don’t know to take corrective action until the decision gate has passed.  The bigger the company, the bigger their train, and naturally the more people who are Theory X types who are safely in the back of it.  To put it more obviously, Hollywood has been making a lot of money for a lot of years.  They know what makes movies good and bad—or at least they should.  But the big studios still find themselves in a crap shoot with picking box office winners—which is why they are making so many retreads of old movies to keep their numbers up.  Collective decision-making does not make “superhuman” leadership decisions.  A room full of geniuses will not improve the net results if all those people are in the back of the train instead of the front.

Hoffman Laissez Faire offers a safe seat at the front with the leader who is a visionary.  The leader takes the brunt of all the statistical abuse so to keep it off the people following him leaving them to live as freely as possible thus making them immensely productive.  The leader’s job in such a case is not only to make decisions quickly at the decision gates, but to fight off the tendency of second-handers from the back of the train into slowing things down so that they can acquire group consensus in decision-making tasks.  The leader of Hoffman Laissez Faire keeps the throttle down from the Theory X types in the back of the train by any means possible, so that they cannot threaten the sanctity of those functioning at the front.  With the risk and harassment gone, the Hoffman Laissez Faire participants are free to invest of themselves without fear of being plucked dry from second-handers allowing them to directly benefit from their efforts.  When this power is unleashed a giant company is no match for a small one, or a group of powerful minds comparable to one unleashed of their social adhesion to the collective.  By allowing individuals to invest in the front of the train, everyone on the train benefits even if most of the population is at the back.

To properly accept such a thing it is important to know that the success or failure of the entire endeavor rests on the ability to recruit.  The examples I gave of two people I personally admire, Sam Wyche and Claire Lee Chennault were both extremely strong recruiters.  Wyche handed the Buccaneers their first Superbowl win by recruiting future Hall of Famers.  Other coaches later got the credit, but it was Wyche who scouted and recruited them.  The same with the military general Chennault who was head of the AVG Flying Tigers in China—his bounty hunting American volunteers maintained an extraordinary kill ratio through the early part of the war, of which General Stilwell took much of the credit for as a second-hander.  Stilwell was the typical Theory X type leader whereas Chennualt was using a very early form of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  It takes a good mind to find good people and the battle is won and lost during recruiting.  Not everyone is suited for Hoffman Laissez Faire so sorting them out during the recruiting process is the most important part of the task.

That is the reason that governments and people in general are resistant to all forms of laissez-faire, because as second-handers they cannot participate equally with those at the front of the train—from the back.  By their natural inclination their desire for the safety at the back of the train makes them unqualified for Hoffman Laissez Faire.   As stated, it is the job of a leader at the front to make a safe environment and to encourage risk taking with personal investment.  That is how new recruits can be trained to accept such a method.  But there will always be at least 50% who are too timid to reside in the front of anything.  They are natural followers who will always desire to be at the back of the train of any thought.

Companies or governments who do not understand this dynamic relationship are doomed to failure. They attempt to hide that failure through Theory X behavior, but the productive output cannot be ignored if compared next to the results of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  The only way to avoid such a comparison is to hope to suppress the evidence.  With Sam Wyche he was fired from several jobs when new team owners were looking for familiar back of the train thinkers conducting themselves as variations of Theory X or Theory Y personalities.  The same happened to the great General Chennault.  One of the greatest flying aces of World War II was trained under Chennault, Tex Hill.  But Chennault was pushed aside by Stilwell and President Truman.  Chennault warned the American government of what would happen to China after the war, which of course nobody listened because decisions were being made at the back of the train by Theory X types, and communism swept across the region from Vietnam to Korea dragging America into two more major wars and a PR battle that continues to this very day. Hoffman Laissez Faire prevents such lunacy by not allowing the second handers an equal seat at the table of decision-making creating a climate where only front of the train people are respected for their roles in leadership participation.  Those at the back of the train are not ridiculed for their lack of courage, just not allowed to share in the credit with those who put themselves on the cutting edge and took all the chances.

By rewarding the strong and courageous Hoffman Laissez Faire out performs all other forms of management.  It may look like a hands off Theory Y approach from those at the back of the train, but it’s actually quite encompassing.  But the key to the endeavor is to recruit the right kind of people—in knowing the difference between a second-hander and a potential leader in their own right who desires to be free to live outside the controls of Theory X and invest of themselves for their own benefit.

If the world understood this concept better, they would be more adequately prepared to vote for the correct politicians in their government to think from the front of the train instead of from the back and to utilize laissez-faire leadership styles to unleash the market potential of their countries.  With such an understanding laissez-faire capitalism would thrive much better than under the Theory X style of most Washington bureaucrats.  Those Theory X types will always be there, and it is up to leaders under the Hoffman Laissez Faire system to keep them from contaminating the efforts of those who are at the front of the train under the understanding of the Metaphysic of Quality.  Failure to stop that contamination will prevent the best and brightest of us all from saving everyone else who needs saving.  They just won’t admit it until it’s too late.   A company cannot be measured as successful by its size alone, but by the quality of its leadership.  Governments are the same, there must be good quality people at the front, and those types are only found with proper recruiting.  And to find them, it takes one to know one.  Second-hander types are not capable of seeing such people.  They occasionally get lucky, but they can’t tell one from the other.  Under Hoffman Laissez Faire quality people are as easy to see as a blue sky during a mid day of cloudless summer sun.  And that is half the battle to achieving infinite levels of needed success.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.