Month: June 2015

The Community Foundation “refuses to accept funds where political statements are attached”: Except when Lakota is involved

You can always tell a lot about a situation by the people who are willing to speak on an issue. Such was the case of a normally calm, mild-mannered Lakota school board meeting on Monday, June 8th 2015 where a number of people spoke out against the Lakota property giveaway of the Old Union School, which many in the community want to see it made into a historic building worthy of preservation. As I reported yesterday, a strong core group of logical community citizens showed up to speak and they made valid arguments which actually ruffled the feathers of the superintendent. The show of support for the old school was enough to cause her to threaten a 10 million dollar bond on a future ballot. The whole meeting will be seen when Lakota publishes the video of the meeting on their website.image

However, the loudest voices at the event where those most silent. Such as the lack of reporting by the local media which would normally salivate over an issue like this—they were noticeably not present. Only Eric Schwartzberg from the Journal was there and he only took one picture—and that was of course the socialite Patti Alderson and her crusade to build a Boys and Girls Club on the site of the Old Union School. That in itself wasn’t shocking, just disappointedly predictable. However it was surprising that Patti’s husband Dick was there and had planned to speak which he eventually declined.

When I was on the Scott Sloan show years ago after calling levy supporters in and around Lakota Latté Sipping Prostitutes—which I chronicled in the latest Cliffhanger installment seen on the sidebar of this article—I was involved in an internal strategy designed to root out subversives in my No Lakota Levy group—and I found them. It was quite an explosive bit of controversy that rooted out many who were playing both sides of a fence, kind of like a two timing man trying to maintain a wife and a mistress by putting down the other when in the presence of either. It was hard to tell who was friend from foe. Patti and Karen Mantia worked together to further cloud the waters which infuriated me to no end—because here was a Republican who has John Kasich’s ear, and who spends a lot of time with the current Speaker of the House who was openly for tax increases using children to hide the obvious liberal behavior. I knew that Dick wasn’t on board with that liberal activity—so it surprised me greatly to hear that he was at the Lakota school board meeting on the arm of his wife. But then again, it didn’t.image

In a similar school board meeting three years ago Patti spoke about me personally. She was head of the Community Foundation and said she refused to accept funds where political statements were attached. I along with several No Lakota Levy leaders started a new Foundation and we presented a check for $10,000 which infuriated levy supporters who were doing just what Patti said she refused to do. The $10,000 was set to be given to poor students to cover their sports fee extortion that Lakota was imposing on tax payers to pass a new levy. Patti attacked me for getting in the way of that extortion racket with a very public assault. Now why would she do such a thing if she really wanted to help children?  Helping kids should be a non-partisan thing. Well, they said things about me and I said things back to them in return and when they had no answer they fell on the typical progressive trick of calling me a sexist and begging the media to stop covering me. They hoped that I would just drift away into seclusion. But that’s not what happened. Speaking of that, just as a reminder be sure to tune into my radio show this upcoming Saturday June 13th 2015 1 PM at the following link. Calls are of course welcome and a local man of power will be my guest. The topic will be guns, guns, and more guns and what to do when you have to shoot someone to defend your property. Tune in and hang on for the ride.

http://www.waamradio.com/

Now, back to the topic at hand–those pro levy people were facing down new foes, this time a whole set of fresh protestors advocating for the same logical approach to a current problem—but a majority of them were females which presents a tactical problem for Mantia and her gang of property tax insurgents to deal with. It’s harder to marginalize women making them more effective in future debates against progressive advocates. So during the June 2015 meeting, Mantia showed a side of herself that people had only read about from my reports. Suddenly she wasn’t the nice Community Conversationalist who tries to justify $40K per year on Jeff Stec as a change agent to advocate on behalf of levy passage. She instead displayed a patronizing, sarcastic, disrespectful, condescending, incompetent overpaid government worker to a group of people who had previously been willing to give her the benefit of doubt. Quite a mistake on her part.image

During a portion of the speech Mantia gave on the matter of the Old Union School she essentially uttered in advocacy of giving Patti the property or investing $10 million dollars as if no other options existed, which is a classic Delphi Technique diatribe. She once did that with me when she presented a couple of options for the declining state revenue coming from Kasich—that the area property owners had an obligation to cover the discrepancy with raised taxes. It never occurred to her that lowering her own costs should come into play. Only that more costs were needed to advance the cause of public education into one big pit of bottomless need was the only thing on her mind. The same holds true over the Old Union School, Mantia and Patti have a deal and every option outside of that deal is non-existent.

But we know those characters; we understand what their motives are—and how they implement their objectives. When Manita was first hired as a superintendent she met with me and a few other key people at No Lakota Levy to feel us out and see how she could go about marginalizing it to make way for her levy attempts. She pretended to tell us secrets as if we’d be in the know and would have information that everyone else would be hungry to get—like her eventual plan to bring merit pay to Lakota—which is a trend happening all across the nation—it’s not specific to anything she’s doing. But we let her talk and were polite with her. When she left I told the other guys what the objective was—and they all agreed. We knew what she was doing—but it appears that Dick didn’t get the memo—or he was powerless to resist it. He’s a very successful person so he doesn’t need to be involved in something as politically charged as this whole Old Union School deal.

imageFor Patti who stated publicly that she refused to take money from any organization that had political statements attached, the Old Union School proves that to be hypocritical. The Old Union School is all about politics.   It’s all about passing levies and giveaways to friends of the district and unifying those normally opposed to tax increases. Patti, one of the wealthiest women of West Chester spoke in support of the Boys and Girls Club wanting money from a district for purely political reasons—as a Republican representative of all things. As a person who respects her husband as a titan of industry—I was just a little embarrassed for him.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Trap Behind the Deal: Danielle Richardson standing against a tide of corruption

Danielle Richardson has been leading the way to save the Old Union School within the Lakota school district. She led a group of protestors to the school board meeting on Monday June 8, 2015 to stop the giveaway the district is attempting to create with a Boys and Girls Club offering free babysitting service to area tax payers. The deal is essentially a levy building consensus exercise designed to pull together the business community with the progressive aims of the government school. What is being destroyed in the process is a bit of history within West Chester, Ohio and the efforts of the tax payers at maintaining sanity from the runaway costs of the Lakota school system—for which they are paving the way for yet another tax increase.

Karen Mantia the superintendent of Lakota is up for a contract renewal, which should be allowed to expire and part ways because of her ineffectiveness from a community perspective. Under her watch taxes have gone up and so have her labor costs not resulting in an increase in services offered to the community. She is everything that people like me said she would be at the very beginning. Lakota during the levy fights have since yielded to the labor union strategy of pay for play programs and reduced programs putting as a priority their employees over the kids who attend resulting in a failure that is only hidden by the benefits of an affluent district. She has ridden the coat tails of that success and sought wherever possible to utilize progressive consensus building mechanisms like the Community Conversation program which costs $40K per year to do nothing but change people’s minds about increased property taxes. The other strategy utilized by her has been to make alliances with former opponents from No Lakota Levy to quiet them during upcoming levies, which is what the Old Union School giveaway is all about.image

Danielle’s protestors had a hardy presence even though it will fall on deaf ears, because Lakota has no other management option but to ask for more money and make deals to gain public support for tax increases. By giving away the Old Union School to development, the cost of the tax increases for the property owners involved are marginalized and everyone gets to walk away from the deal thinking they did something nice for kids—and everyone sleeps well at night with that belief. But that’s not the end of the story for everyone else not associated with the deal—and that’s the issue of concern.

Through an alliance with the Community Foundation Lakota has one of its largest levy cheerleaders which penetrate the heart of the GOP community within Butler County. In this way Mantia and her consensus builders within the Lakota organization gets the Republican Party to support unionized labor which indirectly works against them politically with the amount of PAC money that is generated through union dues. The Old Union School deal is something more reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s backroom deals with Uranium One. It pulls local Republicans in on a trap set by her, using children as bait, to attack their financial base indirectly with union fees. It marginalizes their protests in public because they are all in on the deal, and moves them politically to the left neutralizing their future opposition when tax increases are proposed.

Lakota is too far committed to this Old Union School deal to listen to protestors now. Their goal is not to work with the local GOP as Mantia is a former school teacher herself—they are a progressive advocate intent to water down the GOP into a more centralist organization which has shown itself to be the case over the last four years. Mantia’s not alone of course; the woman who hired her was Lynda O’Connor who openly befriended many of the No Lakota Levy people in 2012 to the point where we supported her for re-election. She’s now the president of the school board and has helped pull all these elements together with consensus building of her own.   People who would normally disagree politically play ball because they want a piece of the pie that this Lakota team helped build. In this case the Lakota alliance with the Community Foundation and area developers whom I worked with in the past are the primary players.  I along with a few others exposed this ill begotten alliance when we started our own foundation to compete with the Community Foundation which resulted in a violent backlash toward myself—which has been well documented—much of it led by the same person who is advocating on behalf of this Boys and Girls Club project. The evidence had been emerging for quite some time, so we flushed it out, and not everyone had the courage to stand up to it. In the end, there were a lot of people who quietly showed me their support, but really in the end just like Danielle Richardson is experiencing now—it’s a lonely road that only one or two people at any given time have the guts to expose. Danielle’s protest is more of an exposure of this vile behavior than a hope for change. The silence and slander from Lakota is the confirmation of her validity because it’s the only play they have in the matter. The slander doesn’t always come from direct sources, but in the roundabout ways within party politics.image

But it should never be taken for granted that the overall goal of the Old Union School deal is to weaken the grip of the GOP, gain support for a future tax increase, and offer free babysitting services to already addicted parents who cannot afford to put their children in daycare so both parents can work and pay for the large mortgages it takes to live within Liberty/West Chester Townships. It is far cheaper to pay the taxes for those levy addicts than the yearly daycare costs—and that is at the heart of the entire strategy which pulls all these parties into supporting indirectly radical labor union intentions dedicated to progressive politics—anti GOP strategies. So while the Old Union School demolition and rebuilding of a new Boys and Girls Club might give local developers some much-needed work, the gains are short-term exclusively but the impact to the GOP down the road is gradual erosion of its small government platform.

As much as area Republicans might want to chastise Richardson for being a radical activist and a say-no-to-anything and everything related to progress type, she is more Republican than a whole room full of GOP leaders—and she’s not even a hard-core Republican. She’s a libertarian in almost every way yet her intentions and goals benefit the GOP far more than Todd Hall’s grand unification of the GOP strategy of pushing out all the radicals and pulling in all the business types under the same tent. Because when it comes to levy time, those who took the deal won’t be able to stand against the tax increase, and Lakota knows that. That’s the main objective of the Old Union School demolition and property giveaway. It’s a flytrap for insurgents who have too high a profile to stand honestly against the corruption as Danielle Richardson is. And for her, it’s going to be a lonely road.

If you want to join her you can at the following link:

http://www.saveoldunionschool.com/

As for fans of Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom who are distraught that No Lakota Levy members are involved in the Old Union School deal, do not fret. The resistance to the future tax increases is alive and well, and more vibrant than it was even four years ago when No Lakota Levy was in its prime. Things evolve and new faces emerge as other faces fade off under the pressure and make deals. People like Danielle Richardson will be a part of those future fights which of course begins with events like this one centering on the Old Union School. I wonder what Lakota will do when they can’t answer the questions that Danielle brings up……………..they certainly can’t call her a sexist. Ummmmmm, that might be a difficult problem for them to overcome. What’s the old term……………………….”what comes around……………goes……………..”

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

In Defense of Selfishness: Explaining the nature sex and relationships

Peter Schwartz from the Ayn Rand Instituted has been doing good publicity for his latest book released on June 2 titled In Defense of Selfishness: Why Self-Sacrifice is Unjust and Destructive. I thought the title odd as the word selfish has been so mischaracterized in our culture that it comes across as a negative. But Peter knows that and calculated that the opposition cast at him would set the trap for his philosophic argument—which is the point of the book. Schwartz has been successfully collecting the bounty of that trap with many interviews and making his point well.

I am of a mind that something really terrible happened in the pre-Deluge days of human history. What we have been told was sinful and wretched behavior may in fact have been translated by an insurrectionists revising historical perspective in a dominating need to rule over others. Somewhere in that struggle the word selfishness was destroyed of its meaning and the word “altruism” became synonymous with the word—“good.” All the religions that sprung forth from this period embraced altruism while they chastised self-interest forcing human beings to admit by their very birth an inclination to sin as defined by the quantity of self-sacrifice a given human being is willing to make on behalf of the greater good. Later this mentality would evolve into movements of communism and socialism, but the stage was set in religion.

However, for thinking people there are cracks into that façade which allow us to peer back into a time when such philosophic notions were not yet forged in such a destructive way and reveal a more sophisticated approach to pre-Socratic philosophy that has been defaced by the more recent translation in order to protect a desire to control the masses like sheep set to slaughter. It is on this stage that Peter Schwartz released his book described on his website as such:

In Defense of Selfishness is a cultural analysis of a deeply ingrained idea, one that influences our most important personal and political choices. The book makes the case—a sober, meticulous case—against the tenets of altruism. It shows that what altruism demands is not, as many superficially believe, that you respect the rights of your neighbor and refrain from acting like Attila the Hun, but that you subordinate yourself to others. Altruism entails not benevolence and cooperation, but servitude. Whether you are told to sacrifice by liberals in order to provide for the medically uninsured or by conservatives in order to preserve your community’s traditions, the code of altruism insists that the needs of others take precedence over your own interests. It declares that whenever you have something others lack, you have a duty to sacrifice for their sake.

The book asks why the fact that someone needs your money makes him morally entitled to it, while the fact that you’ve earned it, doesn’t. It explains why altruism leads to the opposite of social harmony: continual conflict. It scrupulously demonstrates, in theory and in nuts-and-bolts practice, the injustice and the destructiveness of self-sacrifice. And it offers a rational, non-predatory alternative.

People generally view the alternative—“selfishness”—as personified by conniving, murderous brutes, who embrace a do-whatever-you-feel-like-doing philosophy. People believe that our only choice is: sacrifice ourselves to others by being altruistic or sacrifice others to ourselves by being “selfish.” In Defense of Selfishness rejects this false alternative. It rejects the entire premise of sacrifice, under which one person’s gain comes only at the price of another’s loss. Instead, it proposes a true alternative to altruism, whereby people deal with one another not by sacrificing but by offering value for value, to mutual benefit, and by refusing to seek the unearned. This is an alternative, based on Ayn Rand’s ethics of rational self-interest, under which individuals live honest, self-respecting, productive lives. Because the truly selfish person lives by the guidance of reason, not by mindless impulses, he repudiates the unthinking, short-range mentality of the crook, the fly-by-nighter, the drug addict, the playboy, the drifter—all of whom are acting in contradiction to their self- interest.

http://peterschwartz.com/in-defense-of-selfishness/

To prove the merit of Peter’s theory all one needs to do is look toward the human activity of sex to understand. In sex those good at it understand that the selfish needs of their partner must first be met if they would like a return experience. Sex is largely driven by self-interest—it’s something that someone wants to do with—or to—someone else because of their selfish desire driven by animal impulses. Men known as bad lovers are those who do their business with a partner then the moment of their objective are no longer able to continue on. Men known as good lovers will make sure their partner reaches that point before they do so that the partner will want to do it again. The man is making a self-interested investment not only in the present but into the future by ensuring that his lover gets what they want as well.

The modern trend at three-way and group sex—along with the pornographic desensitizing of sex by cheapening it with a barrage of sexual addiction purely focused on imagery is a social attempt at the communal aspects of sex as opposed to the property rights of self-interest. The word “my” in such relationships is replaced with “we” or “us.” Instead of that being “my” wife or girlfriend, it becomes “our,” which then becomes an altruistic self-sacrificing practice. The woman who has miserable sex with a husband who is too busy thinking about other things to see her satisfied is an example of the religious sacrifice to a larger institution above her self-interest to enjoy herself. She will give him what he needs because the Bible tells her to ignoring her needs for the sacrifice of the Biblical laws of conduct. The corrupt man who is the bad lover is then in the power position to take advantage of his dedicated wife in the same way that a congregation might fall to the whims of a church leader of any denomination. The origin of the villainy is in the belief that altruism is the higher moral premise even in spite of the body’s desire for the needs of its terrestrial interests.

A happy couple will acknowledge their needs to one another and will tend to keep those needs within the self-possession of their relationship. Once those needs are met they can resume some other activity freely, and contentedly knowing that they will have another opportunity with a willing partner at their wish. That is because the needs of both parties are met—just like in a free market society. Sex and capitalism are very much applicable to the same moral premise. Orgies and swinging parties are indicative of progressive politics that lead to socialism because their emphasis is on the collective whole, and not their individual needs. The ecstasy of such an experience is on the social assimilation instead of the merit of an individual.

For instance, at a rock concert when a woman flashes her breasts to the stage or to the swarming hoard, she is declaring her sexuality to the group as a kind of sacrifice. When a woman holds the sight of her breasts to her chosen lover, she is giving him a gift intended for his possession in trade for a gratifying sexual experience. If she gives such a sight to many the effort is cheapened when in the privacy of a bedroom—because everyone has seen them. So there is nothing special in the exchange. It could be argued that breasts are breasts and are merrily sacks of fat—but in our culture they have meaning related to sex—so are symbolic of the exchanges made during such physical activity.

It is for this reason that we don’t have open topless beaches in a society that is overtly capitalist. It’s not because of religious origins, it’s because of the value of the one on one exchange with a sexual partner. In France where topless beaches are common, if a woman is topless with a male partner she is still advertising herself as either not in possession of a lover, or open to a new one if one happens by. She is a product of society not her individual sanctity. Society might declare her a liberated woman not afraid to show herself in public—but her sexual power has been marginalized because she will have less erotic capital with her potential mates because their self-interest desires to have a woman worthy of their efforts as individuals—not every guy who has found their way into the woman’s bed. There is nothing special about such a woman—that’s why men call such whores. Men may want first to take care of their needs, but they want the object of their desire to have some value. When sex is shared with many the capital investment of potential suitors is far less.

These are just examples that are easy to understand because everyone has sex who is human. So the correlation is easily assimilated. But the same mentality could be rolled over into virtually everything that involves value—for which money is but a symbol. Yet we have been taught the opposite in our culture, that money represents selfishness, and that communal activity is superior to individual merit.   Thousands of years of communal investments have proven to be wrong at their very core and that this whole mess started sometime after the Biblical Deluge. The entire philosophy of perhaps six thousand or more years has proven to be totally incorrect and in drastic need of revision. It is upon that foundation of thought that Peter Schwartz is making his argument. Selfishness is a dirty word in a culture that has been trained that altruism is far superior. However, to truly understand why altruism is a grand lie, just look to the satisfaction of your sex life and what works and doesn’t and apply those same values to everything else. It will then be discovered that Peter Schwartz is far more correct than Plato or Kant. And that society needs to reset their philosophy to a time before Moses built an ark during a world-wide flood.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Jack Horner’s Science: The future being born from Jurassic World

The best things that come out of the Jurassic Park movies are the lasting impact their theoretical sciences impart into the future. When the first one came out in 1993 it changed the way zoos and theme parks operated. There is a little bit of Jurassic Park in just about every amusement park to this day. A quick trip to the Cincinnati Zoo will show even more evidence. The films and science that come from them are a nearly perfect marriage of imagination and reality. So it is quite exciting to see another film emerging called Jurassic World. Each time there is a new Jurassic Park film, of which Jurassic World will be the fourth, the outside world suddenly becomes interested in the very important work that the paleontologist Jack Horner is conducting that will change the future of the sciences in unimaginable ways very soon.

Not being able to complete the foreign language courses and therefore not obtaining his bachelor’s degree the budding scientist fought through great opposition to discover incredible dinosaur fossils and flesh out new theories as to their origins. It was Jack Horner who pushed the science community out of the box from thinking that dinosaurs spawned reptiles. The emerging answers was that dinosaurs are the parent DNA of birds which attracted Michael Crichton to write his novel, Jurassic Park by incorporating the new theory into a compelling story which brought to life dinosaurs through DNA resurrection into a modern theme park for children to enjoy. Steven Spielberg then made a film from Crichton’s book and history was made. The world learned about DNA and how it could be used to bring back creatures from the past—but ultimately cure humans in the present. Jurassic Park had a positive effect on the emerging science in a very positive fashion. Because of his voluminous work within paleontology Horner was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Science in 1986 by the University of Montana where he works to this day in Bozeman.

In his 2009 book How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn’t Have to Be Forever Horner unveiled his latest theory about genetically nudging the DNA of a chicken through reverse engineering into a dinosaur. It was a concept that he came up with during the filming of the first Jurassic Park movie over two decades ago—and now science has caught up to his vision. It won’t be but a few short years before Horner finds a way to pull off the attempt. He is now funded by people like George Lucas, so he doesn’t have to dig for dinosaurs and money at the same time—which is the largest impediment to science. Because of that Horner’s operation in Bozeman is one of the hottest spots in science and is revolutionizing the world with ambition and options.

Once mankind can build a dinosaur obviously there will be implications to the human race. Everything that we are, and our fates are locked in our DNA sequencing. Once we learn to work with that DNA like we would put a car in the shop for a proper diagnosis of something amiss, humans could be fixed at the genetic level to cure whatever issue we wish. Once Jack Horner builds his dinosaur and future entrepreneurs build actual Jurassic Parks the impact on humans will be much more significant. A new era will give us many options that we hadn’t considered and a whole host of new philosophies and intellectual options will be presented to us. That is the impact of a new Jurassic Park film. Without one, Jack Horner would be just another obscure eccentric digging in the badlands of the northern United States scorned by the scientific community and their accolades.

Even though it is old and dated now, one of the best parts of any amusement park I have been to is the Jurassic Park portion of Universal’s Islands of Adventure. It is there that reality meets fiction and I was able to actually walk through the closest replication of the fictional Jurassic Park on earth. For me personally, who has loved dinosaurs since I was a very little kid the discovery center at the real Jurassic Park was like entering the gates of heaven. I raised my children on the Jurassic Park movies, and on the music of John Williams, so there was something very special about the place to me. The movies and subsequent theme park attractions have all the optimism of early adventure films like the Jules Verne inspired Journey to the Top of the World, and Around the World in 80 Days—but then has the action and horror of something like Jaws. Then mixed in with all of that is quite large does of Indiana Jones—the nothing is impossible human spirit that Dr. Grant came to symbolize in two of the three Jurassic Park movies. These elements have been combined no place else and are central to the optimistic essence of the upcoming Jurassic World.

Once Jurassic World hits theater screens, museums all across the country will open up exhibits trying to recapture the movie experience and millions upon millions of children will learn something important as a result. Book sales of Jack Horner’s material will skyrocket and adults will learn much about what’s coming in science. These are things that are available every day, but are typically ignored until something like Jurassic World puts the focus on those options.   I’m looking forward to seeing the new movie just because of the conceptual design of actually implementing the original thoughts of the John Hammond character who was an unabashed capitalist that made everything possible. The Jurassic Park movies are extremely interesting in how they rock back and forth between capitalism and conservationism. Without the money and financing nobody would have anything—but left unchecked and disrespected, things spiral out of control quickly. So there is a core to the films that philosophically is at the heart of just about everything facing our world today economically and politically.

The premise of Jurassic World is fantastic and is what is facing real amusement parks like Disney’s Animal Kingdom and Sea World—how do you balance out a nice respect for science while still driving up park numbers to the levels it takes to make them financially profitable?   It costs a lot of money to care for large animals and once people get used to seeing them, interest curves off—even when it comes to genetically recreated dinosaurs. So because they can, scientists play a bit of Frankenstein with the DNA of dinosaurs to make a new creature—which is something that we are all facing in the very near future. If we can remake a dinosaur like Jack Horner plans to, why can’t we then make what we want in any form that we want it? Then, why can’t we apply the same to our own bodies as well. If we want to be 6’ 6” basketball players we could make ourselves into one. We could also build the perfect Victoria Secret models. Or we could turn off old age in our own bodies and live for several thousand years instead of just a measly 100. But to do that what happens to our religions and philosophy of sacrifice when so much is being built that is not dependent on invisible gods from realms unseen? Those are the themes that Jurassic World explores but against a canvas of optimism and wonder. It is an extremely unusual enterprise for a film that is about more than just thrills.

At the heart of Jurassic World is Jack Horner. Without him, there wouldn’t be a movie or the books that were the source material. The science of Jack Horner is changing the world from Bozeman, Montana and shaking the foundations of the establishment. The profits from Jurassic World will directly help Jack Horner build his real life dinosaur and that is the best aspect of the new movie. The hard questions about the morality of such a task are dealt with in the films, and then in reality they will be formed into new options that just weren’t there before. Or maybe they were. Perhaps this is how Noah lived so long and in the times before the Deluge giants ruled the world and genetics were manipulated in such a way to give people extremely long lives. Perhaps we are truly resurrecting a past that was imposed on us long ago that we are just now rediscovering? We will find out and leading the way is Jack Horner.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

“Winds of Change”: Denise Hastert and snuff parties of the Illuminati

So, now we know that Denise Hastert didn’t just have one male lover in his life—he had at least two and he cared about that second one enough to attend his funeral when he died of AIDS. Statistically when a young impressionable male is abused by a more dominant father figure, the impact of that sexual encounter essentially ruins any hope that the young male could hope to have with a future wife and children. The traditional head of household role becomes out of reach for such males leaving them as a basic survival mechanism the alternative lifestyles of homosexual behavior. This dirty little secret is at the heart of why there is a spread of homosexual lifestyle acceptance emerging at a rapid pace. There are a lot of abused children emerging into our world with nowhere else to go, intellectually. When the static patterns of normal childhood thought are imposed by a corrupt older person, whether it’s a trusted older male like Denise Hastert was to these young boys as a wrestling coach and Explorer Post leader—or some other source, the hope of a normal life is robbed from these young people for life, and the legislative debate that emerges from Capital Hill is an attempt to erase the evidence by normalizing the behavior.

Hastert was a rich and powerful person, the FBI knew of his conduct—he’s had a wife during this entire span of his life—yet the public knew nothing of the behavior. It was kept from the public eye and was used by more powerful forces to control Hastert for the rest of his life—or at least until the present. As a compromised person Hastert wasn’t in a position to take a stand on anything and had to do as he was told, or face the music of his past misdeeds—which eventually came out anyway. The entire escapade shows just a bit of what is under the surface of evil that is currently plaguing our entire world. A bit deeper than that is the revelations from the bass player of the old rock group the Scorpions inauspiciously uttered from behind the veil by Ralph Rieckermann.

Rieckermann reveled way back in 2012 in the video above to a TMZ cameraman that he had attended a snuff party in Germany where wealthy attendees would watch people actually get killed. The story has surfaced now three years later into the conspiracy outlets, which of course is about three to five years ahead of the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh types—who are then about two years ahead of the mainstream outlets. Those mainstream outlets are slow to the story because it is the head of those companies who tend to attend some of these controversial “Illuminati” events openly trading sins in exchange for power with the belief that ancient pagan “gods” will assist them into finding success.

I have discussed a bit about these ancient pagan rituals and where they reside in space and time before. One of my favorite books Finnegans Wake by James Joyce is entirely dedicated to this pre-Catholic notion of Irish history and the gods from those erased pagan days. The Illuminati had its role in forming America just as it did and continues to shape governments away from regional control into a global consensus—and they seek pre-Christian deities to help them achieve their task utilizing fully dimensions outside of the four we currently live within. I don’t see the Illuminati as an ominous organization of banking cartels and devil worshipers—I see them as just another misguided religion with a not so “illuminated” world outlook rooted in sacrifice—the old evil that perpetually chains mankind to the Vico cycle.

Yet it cannot be ignored that this religious group committed to sacrificing life to these ancient deities with the belief that ultraterrestrials will aid them successfully through life is occurring at a maddening pace. Ultraterrestrials are a term from the reporter John Keel to explain the type of beings who hop in and out of four-dimensional space in mysterious ways manipulating events to suit their needs. He covered the evidence of these beings in the very good book which was made into a movie called The Mothman Prophesies.

 The attempt through science to map these creatures through space and time is called cryptozoology and is an emerging field of endeavor. It is presently as a science where archaeology was at the turn of the Twentieth Century—largely filled with grave robbers and speculation but is quickly taking root in the orthodox as evidence emerges.   But in such studies it is impossible not to run into the underbellies of our present civilization where snuff parties like Rieckermann discussed are a normal activity.

Each year just in the United States approximately 800,000 juveniles are reported missing, half are runaways. The other half stolen by family members in court disputes and related activity. Only about 100 are kidnappings by strangers. Most are between the ages of 12 to 17 and are 80% white. So around 400,000 runaways each and every year leave home often driven to rebellion away from their families by the same music industry that Rieckermann made his living with—and become drug addicts, prostitutes, and sometimes far worse. It is these kids between the cracks of society who end up at snuff parties. A mild version of these types of parties was the subject of the film Eyes Wide Shut.

The belief that through sacrifice—which virtually all religions behold to some extent—that aid will be provided to those making the offerings is an ancient belief, and our modern political class and entertainment culture certainly believes in that theory wholeheartedly. Experience dictates that ultraterrestrials do what they want for their own reasons and can manipulate the minds of human beings to suit their fancy—nearly unimpeded. They are a class of insurrectionists in and of themselves. The Illuminati believes they can control these beings with violence, seduction and other forms of ego massaging, but ultimately the ultraterrestrials have their own agenda and no religion on earth has their finger on those strategic objectives. Illuminati members may find some level of career advancement for massaging the ego of such ultraterrestrials—but they do not control them—that is for sure.

It should not therefore be a surprise that the music and film industry is obsessed with the Illuminati—or that the political class is equally enchanted. Those industries are currently populated by altruists and infantile religious fanatics hiding their poor conduct in life from themselves through a justification of sacrifice and will seek redemption anyway they can. In the case of Denise Hastert while he may have shown the world a love of Christ and regular family behavior with his wife and children he had a dark underbelly that represented the core of his being—a love of young boys whom he could control and manipulate to suit his needs. For such a person where is there for him to go where justification for his behavior could be explained in a way that would prevent him from committing suicide over his vile evil? Now you know dear reader why celebrities and the powerful are attracted to the Illuminati message—why they attend “snuff parties” and why they attend the pagan rituals at the Bohemian Grove. It is because of the old world belief in sacrifice to supernatural aid, because they lack the courage to face life and all its elements on their own merit. Because most of them are compromised people, they seek to retain that old world mystic so that they can remain within the world dominate among their kind.

Like the budding homosexual who often not by choice had a trusted mentor abuse them early in life, the Illuminati members seek those of their own kind to protect the Vico cycle so that they may stay in charge of it. Once one life is sacrificed to an evil perversion like minds find each other for the purpose of preserving their sanity from the guilt they are running from. The conspiracies which follow are the byproducts of that. The Denise Hastert story is interesting because it shows how well the government can keep a secret even at the highest levels. Further proof of what’s going on in the world behind the veil is revealed by former rock and roll icons like Rieckermann. The saddest part of the entire ordeal is that millions of lives are sacrificed in such escapades over the course of the decades by the very few so they can gain an advantage over the rest of society. That same Illuminati sent communism into Russia to destroy its economy and protect Europe. Hitler was a product of the Illuminati and the pagan cults that wanted to rise to power behind his madness. And the Illuminati was part of the American Revolution in destroying the grip that European kings had on a new world—to allow a new world order to emerge under the pagan philosophy of cult driven diatribes who still resent in Europe the spread of Catholicism. That same Illuminati still finds its strategies in our movies, and music framed within the context of snuff parties and Bohemian rapture. The world is not necessarily what we see, it’s what we don’t see that has the most influence—and the reason we don’t see it is because it has been deliberately hidden from us. Just like Denise Hastert was hidden from us all along—for nearly two decades. It just goes to show that if the problems of the world really are to be dealt with—we have to manage the unseen more than the seen—because it is there that the root cause analysis points most vivaciously. If evil in the world is to be stopped in its tracks, you have to look where evil is hiding—in this case—right in plain sight.

Now listen to the old Scorpions song “Winds of Change” and see if you don’t hear it differently…………………………………knowing what you do now.  The videos above will provide more information as will the links contained within the text.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Helping Chief Blackwell: Cincinnati needs more guns–not less

Gun grabbers and pacifists are licking their lips with all the recent violence in Cincinnati involving guns. As Channel 9 released the report below and the Cincinnati Enquirer pandered to the same class of the panic driven drivel, the root cause of the gun violence was ignored in favor of a progressive objective seeking to demonize personal firearms. Here is how Channel 9 presented the case for which the burden fell on Chief Blackwell.

Cincinnatians have been barraged with the reports of 168 shootings so far this year. They include the recent gun battle on I-75, gunfire ringing out on our streets in broad daylight, teen-agers getting shot and teen-agers doing the shooting. There’s one thing all these incidents have in common: a gun.

 

That’s what I wanted to talk about with Chief Jeffrey Blackwell when I sat down with him Friday. Guns have been on his mind too.

 

He produced a daily report showing shootings are up 23 percent this year compared to the same period last year. Homicides are down, but he agreed that the recent violence has created an atmosphere of unease. 

 

His short-term response to the outbreak of gun violence is to create a new “gun-reduction program,” a group of 13 officers who will focus on the people police know of who are responsible for much of it.

 

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/06/03/sentinels-support-chief/28408041/

 

http://www.wcpo.com/web/wcpo/news/crime/cincinnati-police-department-90-day-plan-includes-moving-more-officers-to-the-streets

So I’m going to do Chief Blackwell a favor, and explain to him the cause and how to remedy the problem that the city manager of Cincinnati has placed upon his shoulders. First of all the reason for the increase in gun violence is that the news reports from Baltimore and Ferguson have shown the criminal minded how to avoid prosecution and harassment by the police. Now that they’ve seen how mobs of people can protest the police and how the police have been neutered, particularly in places like New York City, and Chicago—respect for the law is at an all time low. Poor quality politicians and the media have fanned the flames of violence provoking it in many cases in inner cities where government dependents reside in a high concentration. The net result is an increase in the statistical violence involving guns in Cincinnati, and just about everywhere else where large concentrations of public housing, and welfare dominate the per capita population.

Yet in areas where there is a high concentration of gun ownership, like Mason and West Chester, Ohio—there is almost no gun violence per capita or by volume of gun ownership. That is because the quality of people in those areas are different—there are less thugs per capita in those areas. So a simple gun reduction program won’t work, because guns have been invented and bad guys will find them just as they do illegal drugs.   Reducing gun ownership within the city of Cincinnati will only guarantee more violence, not less—because when those who behave with an animalistic desire to suppress others drives criminal behavior against the innocent—the lack of guns allows for an unbalanced defense against thugs. Thugs are those who wish to impart violence against others to fulfill their own personal objectives. The victims may not desire to take part in that desire but if they don’t have a gun to equalize the ill intent, the thug will have the advantage 100% of the time without any resistance.

Progressives and other community advocates who lazily wish that guns had never been invented and fantasize that more government workers could manage all the elements of society into peace if only there were no more guns are the cause of the violence and the delay of the solution. They are the cause of the increased violence coming and going then point at the guns as the villains. Well, they have lost their seat at the table. There is enough history and facts now to dispute their fear based diatribes. Fewer guns increase violence, more guns reduce it. It’s a very simple equation.

If the violence within Cincinnati were to truly be reduced, then more homes with more guns should have them. There may be a slight spike at the beginning of such a proposal where the guns are used to dispel the efforts of a bad guy but once word hit the streets, the cockroaches would return to their hiding and keep their crimes from the eyes of humanity—for the most part. Give some shotguns to the old men who sit on their porches in Avondale talking about the old days—and let them eliminate the violence on their streets, the car break-ins, the drug deals, the gang gatherings—and it will quickly be shown how effect a pro gun program in the hands of private citizens truly is.

Take those same old men in Avondale sitting on their porches with shotguns painted against the reality of our day and they would be arrested for poor handling of a firearm and disturbing the peace while the members of a gang stand on a street corner down the road and laugh. The old men are an easy arrest for the police and keeps their captains off their backs for lack of arrests—but the kids down the road are difficult. There are legal entanglements and revenge killings—and they are just too much trouble. No cop with a family wants a cartel killer to show up on their doorstep, so they leave the kids alone. The gang is just too much trouble to deal with. Cops will show up to take a report after violence has occurred, but they just can’t do anything until a crime is committed making them virtually powerless to stop anything before a thug committees a violent act.

So what is Chief Blackwell supposed to say to a bunch of panicky politicians wanting a quick fix to a problem they created with progressive policies?   Tell them the truth, or tell them what they want to hear—that he’ll focus on getting rid of guns off the streets. To liberal progressives, that is music to their ears, so they might be appeased—for a while, but it won’t solve the problem. Violence will continue because those in charge have been deemed weak by the thugs, and that will only breed more thugs—not less. Before crime can really be solved management must admit that some of their citizens are thugs, and that they seek to correct that behavior with a basic respect for humanity. Those failing to adhere to that basic respect must be dealt with in the only way they understand—with force. Then and only then will violent trends decrease, and assumptions toward civility be cultivated successfully.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

West Chester Will Fight Anything: What makes a good community successful

I’ve discussed this Community Foundation deal set to take place at the location of the old Lakota Union school on Cincinnati Dayton road before. The proposal is to build a Boys & Girls Club at the site offering all day kindergarten for Lakota students—which is a fancy way of saying that it’s a full-time babysitting service funded by the taxpayers for residents of the Lakota schools district. In spite of the $40,000 that Lakota spends each year on the change agent Jeffery Stec to build public support for the union fees the public education employees extract from the tax payers each year, the school board has partnered up with the socialite Patti Alderson and former No Lakota Levy advocates to build a consensus within the community toward future school levies. The next levy is due to take place around 2017. With all the money spent, it just wasn’t enough to hire a progressive cheerleader from Cincinnati—other deals had to be made to keep public opinion in favor of the school system to over 50%. It’s a bit of a shell game going on behind the Boys & Girls Club at the proposed location. Everyone gets something out of the deal, even the tax payers who want to use the free babysitting service—except for a majority of the tax payers who end up paying for the whole enterprise. For them they are supposed to buy into the seemingly good intentions of the Boys & Girls Club mission to replace the parenting of young people with a progressive leaning education centered on altruism.

What is interesting is not that bandits, thieves and social parasites behind the issue, it’s the opinion of some who advocate on their behalf which I couldn’t help but notice in the comments section of the latest Journal News article on the matter, seen below. I’m certainly not one who demonizes builders and developers. I see those occupations as a creative enterprise. I am a fan of the Liberty Way developments and I love the Union Center Blvd developments. But I like to see a resistance that forces those developers to be either better in their presentations, or cleverer in what ends up finally built. Resistance is the key to good management. Those who do resist are not bad people or impediments to progress. Politicians have a tendency to lay down to developers because it is those type of businessmen who tend to contribute to political campaigns hoping that at some time in the future government will get out of their way to allow them to make some money. That leaves the private citizen as the natural counterbalance between these two forces that are needed to maintain good government. It is because of the many private citizens in and around West Chester that there are so many good things happening in one of the most affluent areas of Ohio. Yet the below comment was left on the mentioned article and illustrates a sad belief to the contrary.

You have to love West Chester. They will fight anything. Over the years, the community has fought a community Rec Center, a 1,000,000+ sf upscale Steiner development on Cin-Day (Yes, the same one building in Liberty), a YMCA, the schools, a new Kroger, a Christian school, sidewalks, bike paths and a Boys/Girls Club. Sounds like a great place to live.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/group-aims-to-stop-demolition-of-former-school/nmSWq/

In the article Danielle Richardson and the West Chester-Union Twp. Historical Society, essentially propose to the Lakota school district to buy the old school for the cost of $1—to clear it off their books and turn it over to someone else to manage. The Historical Society has an interest in the century old school building to maintain the image of Old West Chester as a hub of tradition to remember the roots of what made the area great to begin with. If everything that is built is new, then the roots will be lost forever of what attracted people to West Chester in the first place. If there is nobody challenging all these projects, such as the commenter above, everything that makes West Chester great would be lost forever—and changed into something else. For Lakota, which is a very progressive government organization—that is their intended goal on a social level—to change the behavior of the community at large, so their actions must be met with resistance. That’s why they hired Jeff Stec at a rather expensive cost to “change” the minds of the public toward support of a tax payer funded institution. New members of West Chester by their own destructive predilections want to change things into what they left behind. If everything is new and there is no sense of history, then they can feel equal to the people who have lived in West Chester for years. It’s a natural weakness that comes from the type of people who transfer to various locations around the nation. They are rootless by nature, so often have a tinge of jealousy toward those who do have a sense of belonging to a community or family.

An example of this is in Danielle Richardson herself, she is the person at the center of the “chicken” controversy which continues to boil in front of West Chester Trustees. Farms and chickens are part of West Chester’s history and some traditional value toward that memory needs to be made to accommodate that vintage sentiment. New money moved into West Chester and wants to think that the entire community is the Weatherington Country Club. It makes for some good back slapping over drinks to brag about pushing all the hillbillies out of West Chester with all their furry creatures. But, in doing so they destroy the nature of their very investments—which makes no sense, because they improperly value the wrong attributes of a society. West Chester attracted all the great investment it has now, chickens, goats, cows and all—and the old Union school is part of that—and they have value. If the image is allowed to change, then West Chester will become just another community that rises to greatness, and then falls once change agents transform the area into something that future generations despise. Because in thirty years when the new Boys & Girls Club building is old, and all the people who constructed it are dead and gone—nobody will want to preserve all the cheap construction that looks new in 2015, but will look out-dated in 2030. And where will that leave West Chester?

When Randy Oppenheimer from Lakota announced in April 2014 that a joint agreement between the district and the club to operate an all-day kindergarten program on the site was evolving and they were seeking public input—Lakota put Jeff Stec on the case in the form of three public Community Conversations that were held in June to garner public input. Pro levy school types showed up to listen to the paid change agent, but anti-tax people generally stayed home knowing what Stec was. His job was not to garner input—it was to change minds. It’s the old Saul Alinsky Delphi Technique trick talked about over the years—only dressed up with some new terminology. Lakota does not want to make a deal to preserve a piece of their history, they need to make a deal that pulls levy supporters and anti-levy supporters together, so they are using the Boys & Girls Club for that reason. Lakota to do the right thing should do as Randy suggested, and that is auction off the property. If the people who want to build the Boys & Girls Club are really interested in developing the property, they should pay for it without an alliance with government assistance to get premium property dirt cheap—and see what the market value the project will garner in the free market. If that happened, minds would change rapidly into a different direction. It would be my guess that the Historical Society would have more value for the property than the proposed Boys & Girls Club, unless Patti wants to cover the costs herself—which she could do. That would be the best way to proceed.

But to the people who think like the commenter in the Journal News article, they are missing many elements to the story. What makes West Chester great is not rubber stamping all the side-walk proposals, the YMCAs, Libraries, and Krogers, its in fighting for a standard of living that makes our community a—brace yourself—“community.” A community is more than a bunch of buildings and socialites who want to be remembered for their charity, or a school that wants to throw money at their out of control labor union, it’s about people, their history, their chickens and the connection to the past that gives a place a sense of grounding—even to those who move from far away seeking something of substance to fill their lives with meaning. West Chester is good because it has a vigilant population that will fight for its history mixed with a nice conservative base of finance that will make new things for people to enjoy. It takes resistance to offer proper management and an honest government that can make the best decisions possible. And in West Chester there are plenty of those types—and we are lucky to have them.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why the TSA Should be Disbanded: Just like public school teachers, more government employee failures

Yet again another prediction made here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom has proven to be true. A long time ago I pointed out how ineffective and inconvenient the TSA was at airports, to the point where I avoid flying. It is ridiculous that for as much as a plane ticket costs that we have to strip down like we’re going to take a shower to travel on an airplane. It is unconscionable that a grown man has to remove his belt, shoes and business jacket to step through security at an airport in America before a flight. It feels wrong, and vulnerable, and is just ridiculous. Now we learn that after all this time, with all the headache that it has been for nothing. Just over 95% of the time the unionized knuckle-draggers in the TSA have just gone through the motions of security and not caught ill intentions—which was the entire reason the TSA was created in the first place. In a test from Homeland Security’s Red Team, the TSA failed 67 out of 70 times. That is ridiculous.

The grim reality of the situation is that no matter how many people get reassigned at the TSA, there is no real possibility of discipline and therefore improved performance. The reason is that the TSA agents are unionized government employees. They had been checking people at airports, but they were just going through the motions doing as almost every union employee does, the bare minimum of the requirements placed upon them. Collective bargaining contracts take away the incentive for individual aptitude, so typically complacency is always present anywhere a unionized employee performs a task. When an employer cannot expect increased performance from their employees, there is no way to correct behavior like what has been seen within the TSA.

It is the exact same situation that is found among public school teachers who are also unionized. Most of them do only what is barely required and go through the motions of a career just so they can get paid. The passion for their task is often crushed by collective bargaining agreements where the lazy get paid the same as the diligent leaving in their wake chaos and poor performance. There is nothing that the Department of Education can do about this situation; it is just a byproduct of collective bargaining. Just as the Department of Homeland Security can do nothing to solve the TSA issue.

But that’s not the worst of the situation. Now comes the conspiracy as to why the TSA story broke when it did, the day after Rand Paul let the Patriot Act expire on data collection of personal phone records. There is a deep secrete that the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t want the public to know which will quickly be revealed when it is discovered that America is just as safe without the NSA as it is with it. It doesn’t take long to put the puzzle pieces together to realize that the TSA could be completely eliminated and passengers would also be just as safe today as they were before the TSA was ever created. The proof is that the employees haven’t been doing their jobs all along, but the timing of the story is designed to soak up the news cycle with negative—correctible news while the senate works out a renewal of the Patriot Act. The Department of Homeland Security does not want the public to realize that it doesn’t need the services of the new government agency. The DHS does not want the public to know that the extreme cost of all its employees is the same as dropping money into the ocean—it is lost forever and does nothing for anybody—not even the fish.

The TSA agents at commercial airports are worthless and intrusive, and they should be immediately disbanded to save the cost and union imposition. I despise those people whenever I fly. Maybe despise is too soft of a word. In this day and age it no longer matters if there is a male line and a female line because there’s a good chance a same-sex pervert is watching the nude photos of the people passing through the scanner with some inappropriate level of arousal. What’s worse is the pat downs. If a man is of a homosexual type what is to keep him from getting pleasure in the process of handling a line of males forced under the hands of security in order to fly on a plane? Out of all the gays in any given population a large percentage of them are attracted to government work, because of their progressive leanings. So the chances that the person handling passengers in a security line is of a same-sex orientation as far as their preference is very high. It’s a bad and stupid system designed by government for the use of government employees. It has nothing to do with safety and security.

It is easier to fly out of Toronto or Mexico City than it is out of Cincinnati because of the TSA. For travelers to socialist Europe it is far more intrusive to land in Charlotte, North Carolina than in Paris. What becomes apparent to travelers moving to and from the United States is that America is a terrified nation. When those blue outfits of the TSA are seen at security lines, it is obvious that America is so scared of terrorism that they have been willing to throw away their freedoms just to live another day—which to a world radicalized by progressive diatribes, is like throwing blood on a carnivore. In my town of Cincinnati it is far better to fly to Chicago, Charlotte or New York out of Lunkin using the Ultimate Air Shuttle system. There are no lines or TSA. And if you have to fly to Atlanta or Dallas, it is easier to just drive because by the time you show up two hours early to process your ticket and move through security, then you fly in transit, land, collect your baggage and rent a car, you could have covered the distance in a car. The TSA has ruined commercial air travel domestically.

At some point we are going to have the serious discussion in America about the actual usefulness of the TSA. As the evidence from the DHS suggests all this time the TSA has been useless and not able to stop terrorists. So why do we have it? Is it just for the Dumbo feather to make us feel like we can fly—as a purely psychological crutch toward the prospect of terrorism as TSA agents fulfill their sexual fantasies as government workers? This is just one example of how successful Rand Paul was in pushing against the Patriot Act—it forced the DHS to reveal this report as a story of distraction which backfired on them to reveal how incredibly ineffective the TSA has been all along. That brings up the most important question of all, why don’t we just shut it down and start over? Because the facts say that we should.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Evil Behind Dennis Hastert: A need to be “holier than thou”

With all the coverage of the House Speaker Dennis Hastert federal indictment accusing him of violating banking laws by agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money to a young boy lover from his high school teaching past, I think once again Alex Jones most represents what I think is at the core of the problem. Listen to that report below. It’s long and full of illustrious contemplations, but mostly my experience says that they are more correct than not. It would be likely there were many inside the Beltway that knew Hastert had a sexual interest in phallic fantasies and like Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. It was overlooked in favor of the collective welfare of the imposition. If Hastert did molest a young man while he was a wrestling coach, he was completely incapable of being Speaker of the House all these years that he was. He did irreparable damage to the government institution of congress because of his double stance—in public he was family first, in private obviously a phallic pursuer. It stands of great concern that those with the most power in our present society are those guilty of something—generally. The gates of power open to those least able to weld it as a strategic objective to get the expectations within reach of the worst society has to offer which is why I lean toward this Alex Jones report with an ear toward seriousness.

It’s a matter of trust. No matter what anybody thinks of Rand Paul’s stance against the NSA phone collection records clause within the Patriot Act, if child molesters and criminals are those in charge of all these government programs, there is no hope of any of those programs working in any capacity.   There are two things wrong with Hastert; he is essentially just as much of a pervert as the scum bag at my home district of Lakota who was caught taking pictures of little children in his class. As a high school teacher Hastert abused his authority in that role to satisfy a sexual predilection. That’s a big problem in and of itself which I have covered extensively. How many sexual predators are in our public schools? I would argue that there are entirely too many. If your kid goes to a public school, there are likely at least one or two teachers that have this problem. It’s an epidemic that should force public schools to shut down for the safety of children. Forget about the bicycle helmets. Parents who are terrified of every elbow scrape their children experience are sending their children to public employees in government schools who are conducting sexual exploits on a mass scale. Most aren’t caught, which is the most terrifying aspect. It took Hastert several decades to get caught and even then the abused kid took a long time to build up the courage to call him during a CNN interview on the air.

The worst of the matter however is that with all the baggage after Newt Gingrich went down in congress after having an affair with a young congressional aide, Hastert was still promoted into the third most powerful position in the world. These were some of the biggest advocates for family rights and conservative values in the nation’s government, and they turned out to be as dirty as dirt as far as moral compasses and ethical behavior. These are people offered to be the best that government can present as its caretakers—which is of course pathetic.

However, if the situation is every bit as diabolical as Alex Jones proposes, which was revealed in public schools like Mason and Lakota in Ohio, then why wouldn’t Capital Hill be every bit as sexually promiscuous? Why wouldn’t senators and congressman have “boy toys” and young enamored females clamoring over their power at their beck in call seducing their logic in favor of contaminated sequencing? Lobbyists can gain leverage over contaminated clients with sacrificed ethics in exchange for prostitutes. K Street is one of the vilest places on earth presently, especially at night—yet prostitutes thrive right out in the open for a reason. Once a member of government has compromised themselves they lose the ability to say no to anybody. They are all too eager to trade sexual release in exchange for their moral decision-making ability, and once they’ve done it, they are toast for life. Nobody will ever believe anything they do. And for those who guard the gates of power, it is now required that there be some knowledge of some impropriety in their candidates before achieving any credible level of power.

For instance I doubt heavily that the anxiety over Rand Paul and Ted Cruz within the senate is due to their Tea Party politics—but rather because they have not been around long enough for the other members to possess “dirt” on. There are not yet stories of sexual impropriety or drug parties where they have been seen with others in a compromised position. When John McCain speaks that Rand Paul needs to learn the rules of the senate, I doubt he’s talking about procedural orthodox. Likely Paul has read and understands the rules of the senate better than McCain. It’s the unspoken rules that McCain is talking about, where members of both parties know of some impropriety, whether its sex with some boy toy, or an affair with a young woman, a night out with prostitutes, drug parties and other types of information that requires hush money. The reason is that the “holier than thou” types are not equal to those who have compromised themselves, so until they become soiled, they can’t be allowed to hold power, otherwise it will raise the bar for everyone else, and that can’t be allowed in Washington. The establishment would crash in on itself. Yet that is the expectation from those who elected those people to office.

When we send children to public school, it does not occur to us that our children will be abused by their teachers. Yet it happens more than anybody cares to admit to. It happens enough that it’s justifiable to shut down all those public schools to protect children from the molesters. The same with members of our republic, when we elect someone it is not enough to send them to Washington and go back to our entertainment trusting that those representatives will not blow away into the winds of corruption. When they do go bad, we need to get rid of them and replace them with somebody better. But before we do that we have to admit to ourselves that the process is broken and weak-minded people are those in charge selfishly hiding their own improprieties and corruption through intimidation toward those who have not yet committed sin.

When guys get together to drink, or go to Vegas, they commit sins together. They bond and share secrets which deepens their relationship. But if they went to Vegas with a guy like me, a person who won’t belch, fart, or get drunk in a strip house, I would be looked at with great suspicion by the majority of other guys who wanted to take part in that behavior. I would and have on many occasions interrupted the type of bonding those imbeciles wanted to exchange with each other—little sins that build friendships on impropriety so that corruption can evolve into a new standard. My behavior sows mistrust because I insist on being “holier than thou.” If I had a nickel for every time that term has been thrown in my direction—I’d have all the money in the world. Yet it would be assumed that such a character would be desired—but its not. The masses want the scum bag, the child molester, the adulterer and the drug addict—they want the imperfect idiot so that the others won’t have to live up to the standard. That is the heart of our problem in our American republic.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert should lose everything he gained from public office—especially the money he made as a lobbyists pulling the strings of government and showing the highest bidders where the bodies are buried in Capital Hill. He didn’t just have an affair with someone outside of his marriage; he molested a student in a class he taught—a boy for God sake!   And he was paying large amounts of hush money to keep it quit. His bad decisions made him a compromised public official and those are the people who are supposed to figure out if we go to war, or if we manage our national debt? No wonder nobody stands up to President Obama and all his executive orders. It’s highly likely the White House has dirt on just about everyone on Capital Hill and this story broke now for a reason. This has been going on for a long time with Hastert, so why break the story now? That is the big question, and is the reason that anybody who has compromised themselves, should remove themselves from office, because they are not capable of leading anybody anywhere. So I’d advise you dear reader to listen to the Jones broadcast and take with it the evidence presented, then look at your own situation with your own representatives and contemplate what you are willing to do. Because good people need to do something, because they are grossly outnumbered by the wicked.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

U.S. Economy Drops 0.7%: The cost of too many rules and regulations

Not surprising the U.S. economy contracted 0.7% in the first quarter of 2015. At least it wasn’t a surprise to those outside of the Beltway, and progressive cities of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. Everywhere else in the America they saw it coming. Only in the progressive quarters of the nation are the illusions of government tampering not glaringly evident. Unfortunately, most of the surviving newspapers of any merit are still located in those cities, and the reporters there seemed alarmed by the economic retreat into the negative numbers.

No matter where you go in America, there is a big problem. Work ethics are at an all time low. Employees expect higher wages than ever for doing the least amount of work. Yet their competency is dismal. It is actually shocking now when someone does what they are supposed to do in a task, as opposed to doing something incorrectly. Competency is in short supply. But that’s not the worst of it. Government regulations driven by slack-jawed attorneys have crippled American manufacturing methods with stifling rules that prevent common sense in creating productive goods and services. There seems to be this infinite belief that more rules imposed on businesses will not correlate into a lack of productivity. Most companies, even large ones these days will declare that they are late to a schedule because they don’t have the manpower to execute compliance toward all the rules they have to contend with. For most companies compliance to their industry is a majority of their occupational commitment.

Government has imposed itself into virtually every crack of every endeavor in the United States which has destroyed the creative process of producing GDP. The evidence of this trend is actually in our artistic endeavors culturally. After seeing the latest Avengers movie I came away disappointed. It was a pretty good movie, but it was of a quality that was nearly television from the 80s quality—which is saying that it wasn’t new, spectacular, or worthy of a big screen treatment. Sure the special effects were good, but the music, direction and overall plot wasn’t much different from a typical Dukes of Hazard episode. Aside from the new Star Wars movies coming out, the film industry looks to be in desperate trouble. Most of the big movies hitting the silver screen are 1980 retreads, Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Terminator, etc. In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, a new movie seemed to come out every few weeks, many of which were memorable cultural benchmarks, like the Matrix, Twister, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and so on. But with all the talent and film schools out there, Hollywood is incapable of producing anything new. That is a huge problem.

The music industry is even worse. While at Kings Island recently I couldn’t help but notice that many of the young people were mouthing the words to songs that came out when I was a teenager, and heard while at that very same park. Also, the 80s Store was busy with people of all ages relishing all the great memorable aspects of the 1980s that they remember, or want to remember if they’re too young to have actually been there. The 80s Store features film memorabilia from E.T. to Ghostbusters, which is reportedly another retread coming to screens soon this time with women from Saturday Night Live instead of the original cast. I’ll go see it for fun, but do producers think they can recreate the magic of Ghostbusters just by changing women actors from men and stimulate a new audience? That’s part of the problem. The music they play in that store is a trip down memory lane. Back then every week was a new top 40 song and that went on for the entire decade. It was similar to the 1950 and early 60s where the music industry just hit it out of the ballpark with just about every song released. The art in the songs were about things people care about and reflected a culture of capitalism and freedom that was trying to find its way. There was an underlining sense of optimism in 80s music that was not heard in the late 90s or subsequent decades. The music of today is so hell-bent on political diatribes that the music goes out of fashion within a few months, not even years. Creatively our culture is in trouble, the people in it cannot produce original material, and those that can have been ostracized politically out of those progressive cities to preserve the ideology of those regions and our culture is suffering—clearly.

But those are just the symptoms; the cause is in the heavy-handed regulatory climate of our present government. During the 80s, Reagan gave people the impression that the sky was the limit and that the American dream was obtainable. For a lot of people, it was. For some it wasn’t, and for the undisciplined, they spiraled out of control due to indulgence in excess, whether it was money, drugs, or women. But at least there was a belief that anything could happen in America. The 1950s were similar, it was a post war-time, Americans had a good standard of living and businesses were booming. There was no lack of opportunity for those who wanted it as the world put itself back together after World War II. The music was reflective of the overall culture.

When I came out of Avengers: Age of Ultron movie I told my kids that our culture was headed for real trouble. The movie was average at best, and the filmmakers knew there were high expectations after the first movie did so well. Well, the Avenger movies aren’t a shiny penny anymore. There is a level of expectation that the public has and the franchise is slipping. I first noticed it during the latest Captain America movie, which was good-but not as great as it should have been.   With all the resources available from Disney, Age of Ultron was the best that they could do with a comic series that came out in the 60s and 70s? It should be expected that a movie like Frozen should come out every year instead of the occasional hit that it was. Again, with all the resources at Disney, that’s the best that they can do?

While watching Avengers II, the prescreening stuff was obsessed with progressive causes, such as the new ABC Family channel “Becoming Us,” which features a transgender family dealing with a dad who wants to become a woman. Really? Who thinks that thirty years from now in the Kings Island 2015 store that anybody is going to want to buy a t-shirt or hat with the logo “Becoming Us” on it? Progressives are more interested in being a change agent for an extreme minority rather than giving people what they really want in entertainment. Two or three more people might want to have a sex change operation because of “Becoming Us” but the vast majority of people will just tune out because the subject matter turns them off.

Then there is the ACLU case accusing Hollywood of hiring only men for big projects like Avengers instead of women. They ask questions like “why are all the directors of big blockbuster movies all men?” In fact Melissa Goodman, director of the L.G.B.T Gender and Reproductive Justice Project of the ACLU of Southern California said, “Women directors aren’t working on an even playing field and aren’t getting a fair opportunity to succeed.” Goodman doesn’t see the reality on the wall, she assumes that if a woman is cast in some below the line job or as a director that people will rush to the multiplex to see whatever they put up on the screen and it just doesn’t work that way. Transgender issues are not an issue. Boy George in the 80s had great success and people bought his music. But he wasn’t in everyone’s face about it every 15 minutes reminding people of his rights. He just made decent music that people wanted to hear. These days everything is about fairness and regulating an industry into making things fair. To that effect, in order to make something fair the good must give way to the bad, the strong to the weak, and the brilliant to the stupid, which of course waters down the end product in favor of stylish sentimentality. Yet the net result is a blasé commitment to the final product by a customer base indifferent to the consumer drive to participate.

The same ridiculous laws have migrated out of entertainment and into mainstream occupations. It is more important to government regulators to have a company hire minorities, women, or immigrants than the best people for a job who can make the best product. If companies don’t show an interest in bending to the will of government sentiment, then a government audit of some kind will come in for a shake down forcing the company to either shut down or pay extraordinary fines as a “payoff.” While all this is going on of course the company is less productive and not making whatever it’s supposed to be good at. The energy of the company is on compliance, not productivity.

Then of course comes the most intrusive element of all, taxation. There is a belief that a corporation should be willing to pay infinite amounts of tax just to operate within the United States. Well, that’s not how it works. Companies exists for one reason, to make money. Not to lose money. If they have to pay too much in taxes, they have to cover their margins somehow, and usually that means either relocating their business to a region that has low taxation—or they will just decide to shut down. There is no moral case for paying taxes to support government programs invented by politicians who know nothing about running a business. Companies will either not produce their product, or they’ll leave the country.

So when it’s wondered why there was a 0.7% drop in GDP during the first quarter of 2015, now you know why. Regulations are too intrusive, taxes are too high, and the political climate is more interested in all the wrong social issues than in actually making things people want. That has created a stifling atmosphere that is quickly evident in our arts, which directly translate over into our more productive sectors of society. Regulations and rules kill GDP. They do not enhance productivity, they hurt it, and in American society there are too many rules. That is why there is a retreat in productive output. Government has intruded itself into the affairs of the American people and the net result is less of what makes us good. Why is that so hard for progressives to understand? More rules don’t work in sports, why does anybody think they would work in business?

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.