Month: December 2015

The Brilliance of Donald Trump: Why being a little wild is a good thing

Amazingly, Donald Trump’s recent position of monitoring and restricting the movement of Muslim’s in and out of American borders is creating quite a stir—politically.  While most in the Beltway believe Trump is a madman, I would say that Trump is behaving like the brilliant tactician that he is.  No wonder the United States is losing around the world, because the people in mainstream politics are clueless about negotiation and strategy.  Trump’s comments are brilliant for several reasons.  First he’s playing the typical high low game needed in any negotiation.  He knows by taking an extreme position, he’ll force elected officials to at least consider some measures of security in relation to the Muslim religion.  The terrorist element is obviously hiding within that religion behind peaceful people, but there is no way to root the bad guys out if you don’t force the Islamic community to separate themselves from the radicals.  In the short run, radicals are forced into hiding until things calm down which obviously makes the world safer through the Christmas Holiday.  Additionally, all the idiots who are coming out against Trump, which is everyone pretty much in the Beltway—are demonstrating why they are unqualified to be president as Americans want somebody to make decisive decisions even if they are standing alone.  To understand the extent of the issue, watch this ABC Report on Trump with clips from a recent Barbra Walters interview.

Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.  Six months from now he’ll be able to say that he was the first Republican to identify the problem, which will prove to be quite extensive in its sleeper cell network, and he will show Republican delegates that he is willing to do anything and everything to beat Hillary Clinton ahead of the convention.  That is after all what they all share in common as a concern, beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head election.  No other Republican candidate has a chance because it will take extreme positions to outscore her in a media field that is clearly in her corner.  You can’t play nice with her and win.  You have to hit her lower than she is willing to go, which is lower than most anybody can fathom.

Trump has many business interests around the world, particularly in the UAE, so he’s showing Republican voters that he is willing to go against his own interests to do what he thinks is right—which dispels one of the concerns Republicans have with Trump.  The New York billionaire has had a friendly relationship with the Clintons in the past, so Trump has to prove that he will hit Hillary hard and not go soft as a candidate.  So this Muslim debate does several things that are needed for Trump and the nation and he has orchestrated it all very brilliantly.  It puts the issues of Muslim terrorist cells hiding behind the religion on the front burner for discussion which is needed.  Complacency will only lead to many more domestic attacks—particularly through the Christmas Season.  Trump has also thrown cold water on the millions of dollars of attack ads that Jeb Bush and John Kasich have taken out against him ahead of the primaries.  The money of those other Republican presidential candidates and their donors has been completely wasted, so of course they are mad at Trump.  Then of course there is the Obama administration that is quietly terrified of a Trump nominee, as there will be unfettered criticism and bombastic dissemination of Obama and his former employee Hillary Clinton in his last year as president, establishing his legacy forever as a complete failure. Of course they think Trump is unqualified to be president, because they have set the bar so low that Trump would be unable to live under that bar.  Trump is promising to make fools of all of them and that’s the real fear of the comments about Muslims.   They don’t care about those people of religion; they care about being exposed as political losers.

The way that ABC presented that report was interesting, it was essentially no different from school kids debating who the best band is, or what is fashionable or not fashionable.  If a kid in school distinguishes themselves as a stand-out from the crowd, they get picked on endlessly until they comply with the recommendations of mass association.  Peer pressure is what public schools are all about—fitting into a crowd and merging with the collective opinion on a matter.  But real leaders are those who stand against the tide, who are the first to see a problem and offer a solution—even if nobody else understands it.  I was always one of those kids; I never fit neatly into place and constantly pushed back against the masses.  I never did what was expected of me, and now many years later, I have been proven correct time and time again.  Eventually people in the masses follow a good leader—they do come around to the correct way of thinking by necessity of their own survival.

Trump more than anything has shown himself to be a leader.  As the world turns against him he has managed to put himself on the front page of every newspaper in the world with hundreds of millions of dollars of free advertising showing himself to be willing to be a decisive leader—which is the most sought after trait that voters are looking for in the 2016 election.  There is no issue more important than that one to normal people outside of the Beltway.  The Trump comments were controversial, but there is no downside.  What he has done is made an investment that will pay off greatly by the time summer comes around in the northern hemisphere, and there will be no stopping him.

To prove themselves competent, authorities will have to bust terrorist cells during the Holiday season to prove they are doing their jobs—and they’ll do it to prove to Trump that all Muslims are not terrorists.  Because of their anger at Trump they will be forced to actually do their jobs for a change—something they wouldn’t have been motivated to do before Trump’s comments.  Likely we will all be a lot safer for the short run as Muslims themselves seek to push their radicals out of the darkness into the light of day to avoid association which will only help our Homeland Security investigations. And the Obama administration for helping these terrorists gain strength will be forced to pick sides—which they obviously don’t want to do.

All this will play in favor of Trump going into the fall of 2016 where he’ll be poised to take credit for it all—because it was his actions that provoked all the behavior change which left unchecked would have led to many more San Bernardino shootings.  Of course the political establishment doesn’t understand all these techniques of strategy, which is why they are the ones not qualified to be president.  All this that Trump is doing is outlined in his very good book on business, The Art of the Deal.  There is no secret—he spells it out for all to see.  Anybody with half a brain would know what he’s doing—and fortunately, many Americans do have a brain when they are given the right things to think about.

This is the only way to break loose the issues that are destroying our nation—the bad guys have to be rooted out and exposed in this fashion.  I know a thing or two about these strategies and have used them myself many times.  They work in both small and large situations.  But in Trump’s case, they will strike fear into his enemies when he takes the desk of the Oval Office.  He will be in a wonderful negotiation position by then, because it does pay to be a little wild.  Often it pays very well.  But to sell that wildness you have to be willing to carry out an act when called upon.  And if you have to pick something to display it, you do it with the most strategic subject possible so that if you do have to pull the trigger you accomplish another objective with the wildness.  That’s why Trump is the best.  And that’s why he SHOULD certainly be president.  You don’t win by playing patty cake.  You win with being a little crazy when it counts most.  Christmas of 2015 after a terrorist attack that the current president is avoiding to name is a good place to start.  New York will be safer because of Trump’s wildness, and so will everyone else.

 

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

What I Love About Christmas: Guns, Guns, and more Guns–Smith and Wesson stock is rising!

It’s a wonderful time that we live in, regardless of the challenges posed by poorly constructed philosophies and destructive politics—it is truly a wonderful life.  In spite of the terrorists that want to kill us in America because of our use of capitalism, or the domestic insurgents who want to blast the United States back into the Stone Age regarding religious and hierarchical structure—life is beautiful.  It is Christmas time, time with family is wonderful, and we have guns—lots of guns—so all is well.  I love guns, and so do many Americans.  I also love my iPhone, so it gave me great pleasure to get a stock notification while I was having a nice lunch that Smith & Wesson stock was up, way up.  Given the recent attempts by the left-leaning political class to propose stricter gun laws, the American public responded by purchasing large numbers of personal firearms.  That of course drove up the stock offering from Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger—two of my favorite firearm manufacturers, both examples of great American companies—that can emphatically declare—Made in America.  Here is the news that came over my stock app which made my lunch taste so much better.

Smith & Wesson Hits 8-Year High On Gun Control Push

BY JAMES DETAR, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

12/07/2015 05:04 PM ET
Shares of Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ:SWHC) and Sturm Ruger (NYSE:RGR) gapped up sharply Monday amid new gun control calls by President Obama and the New York Times as well as a Supreme Court ruling.

Obama’s Oval Office address Sunday night and an unusual New York Times editorial came in the wake of the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., on Dec. 2 in which 14 died and 21 were wounded. Shares of firearms makers often rise after mass shootings and other violent incidents, and fall during lull periods.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider an appeal of a Chicago area law banning semiautomatic guns such as the AK-47 and Uzi, and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said in a statement that they would have allowed consideration of the case “because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this court’s attention as much as any of our precedents.”

Smith & Wesson shares gapped up 7.6% to 20.44 to an eight-year high in Monday afternoon trading on the stock market today.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/business/120715-784076-smith-wesson-sturm-ruger-rise-on-gun-control-talk.htm#ixzz3tjtPLTmp

I remember when stock prices used to be checked by reading the Wall Street Journal and the closing value from the previous day.  The information was at best 24 hours old by the time you could effectively use it to make a trading decision.  Now with the mobile devices that are so easily available, stock pricing changes are instant.  I’ve come to enjoy my iPhone because the apps are so interactive and run well on the Apple operating system.  I have my preset favorites and one of them is (NASDAQ:SWHC) but that’s really just for fun.  You aren’t going to get rich on that kind of stock; you’d have to buy it in large quantities when it’s very low and sell it off on a bounce-back.  But watching it climb to such lofty heights as it has after Obama’s speech has more value to me than just money.

Smith & Wesson are and Ruger are companies that I cheer for, because everyone knows the political pressure against them to shut down, the threats of lawsuits that they’ve had to endure from every pandering politician to ever hit the scene—the gun companies have been easy targets for many years.  So I watch the stock of gun companies to monitor their health—because that is important to me.  I want to see them succeed, because if they do, I succeed also.  It’s good to see Smith & Wesson stock climbing because that means that mainstreamers are buying guns and are wanting to own a piece of the company.

I would suggest Smith & Wesson stock for a Christmas present to a person in your life who values such things.  At the current prices, they won’t be retiring any time soon, but it is ownership into something that is distinctly, and unapologetically American.  I know I feel every time I buy one of their firearms pride in owning a piece of American craftsmanship.  I have a long history with fine machining products—and even today it’s a part of my life.  I have great respect for products made on lathes and milling machines.  So I never tire of rubbing my fingers over a fine firearm that was built to contain controlled explosions and deliver a projectile to a target radius many yards away.  It is a similar appreciation as I feel when holding a fine set of golf clubs, or shooting a basketball into a well constructed hoop.  Its science melded with human invention out of necessity—and they are things to behold with appreciation.  Machining measurements on firearms are understandably very tight, so it takes a lot of responsibility, and craftsmanship to be a firearms manufacturer.  The liability alone makes it nearly prohibitive, which has been politically motivated to sink those companies with compliance costs.  There are much more profitable ventures to be involved in, so I greatly respect companies like Smith & Wesson, who have their headquarters in a liberal part of the country and are holding their own against a tide of progressive sentimentality.  They could do other things to make a buck, but they work each day to stay in business for the few of us out there who greatly appreciate their efforts.  Those are the things I think of when I rub my fingers over the contours of a finely built gun.  They are objects of great love and care—and they go perfectly with a bold American flag flying on the Fourth of July.

Watching the stock price rise on my iPhone indicated to me that the attempts of the gun grabbers were failing.  If they were trying to use fear instigated by terrorism to drive society into their warm embrace—they have failed in their task.  Instead, what they are getting is a society that is rejecting their extended arms knowing that the cost of that embrace is a loss of freedom and personal sanctity.  What the government is doing is essentially perverted, like a teenage boy trying to sneak a kiss from an innocent girl by taking her to a scary movie so that she wants to tuck herself into his arms as an invitation to a first base advancement of sexual exploration.  Government wants America disarmed for the same reasons—and the public isn’t falling for it. Instead, they were going in the other direction and that is good for firearms manufacturers like Smith & Wesson who have been making guns for a long time—yet have done so without the glamour and glitz of the great success story that they are, because guns have been given an undeserved stigma.   Yet Smith & Wesson made them anyway.  So it’s nice to see good things happening to good people and the owners of Smith & Wesson are.  Those who aren’t owners yet desired to be, so they bought some stock, which is the best way to tell such a company—Thank You.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

President Obama’s Pathetic Speech: Keeping Donald Trump, alive

It was so astonishingly embarrassing how President Obama delivered the “terrorism” address to the nation on Sunday, December 8th 2015. First of all, Obama avoided using the Oval Office desk—a place where so many presidents of the past used that tool to calm the American public after a tragedy. Instead, Obama used a pedestal in the middle of the room. That was a very strange thing to do which points obviously to everything that Dinesh D’Souza has been saying about Obama, that he’s so anti-imperialist that he hates the reputation of the United States around the world and is seeking to change the nation into “something else.” Whatever it is, this guy is just terrible, and way over his head. His presidency was launched by terrorists, namely Bill Ayers, and it has been defined by terrorism. What else would we have expected from a Marxist community organizer? Did anybody really think a University of Chicago intellectual could manage the most powerful country on earth just by waking up in the White House every day? Well, apparently some people did think that. And they were obviously wrong.

Those same Obama supporters point to Donald Trump and declare that he doesn’t have the track record to run the country. Please………..give me a break. Look, I’m a Trump supporter. I love his books and think he’s the best example of an Ayn Rand type of candidate that we are likely to ever see. I’m not crazy about Trump’s positions on eminent domain, or casinos—but he’s as self-made and smart as they have ever been in American business. And I want him for president after this joke Obama has mismanaged our precious country into oblivion. I’ve said it so many times now, the message should be quite clear. But for a change don’t just read my words, but the words of another Trump supporter that put the politics of 2015 in a proper context. Read it for yourself and pass it along to a potential supporter. Politics as usual will not suffice, its time we turn things around into another direction—the opposite of where Obama is currently. And that won’t happen doing things the way we have in the past.

What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency

By Bill Bennett

They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump. Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few. It’s about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one. It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened. Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone. There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher’s union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign. Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.

Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to de-fund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right? First, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed.

Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything. Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.

Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.

Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win. But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.

Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.

Now, he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He’s questioning our relationship with Mexico; he’s questioning why the border is wide open; he’s questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he’s questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he’s questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he’s questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question! I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.

Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying.

Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records.

Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election.

How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election? Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant. Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama’s records, the game is over. The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.

Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the “Dogs of Hell” have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

Yes, it’s become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can’t silence him. And they sure can’t intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he’s the one telling the truth.

 

William John “Bill” Bennett is an American conservative politician, and political theorist, who served as Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988 under President Ronald Reagan

As this article said at the beginning, don’t be surprised if something happens to Donald Trump. I’m sure there are plans as I write this. But accomplishing a task is quite different from planning it. And I think Donald Trump can handle himself quite well. But I’ll say this, if Trump needs it, all he needs to do is ask, and I’d be happy to help him survive to another day. And I’m sure you dear reader feel the same way too. We’re not playing patty cake here. We are in an ideological war, and Trump is the battle flag of what’s left of American culture. We can’t let the bad guys capture it.

If you find you need some help Donald, just give me a call. I’d be happy to help.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Gun Smoke, Hoppe’s, and Leather: How Second Call Defense preserves a fundamental American right


image

With all the calls for gun control peculating from recent terrorist attacks it has been good for me to spend much more time with my guns than I usually do, just to balance out the obvious intrusion that political leftists intend on our rights as American citizens. I have been practicing a lot in my home gun range the new skill of Cowboy Fast Draw. While I have a long way to go before I get where I want to be, it has been a lot of fun getting there. In my home shop I can now reload my ammunition and shoot it within a few feet from my work bench and that is something that I cherish as a right.

The reason I became a recruiter for Second Call Defense is because it is the biggest fight presently in politics. I have spent a lot of time on other issues leading up to this latest crusade, such as education, and economic matters—political philosophy and related items, but guns are at the center of our capitalist culture and they require a defense—an articulate defense. So for me to provide some of the needed help—the words needed to frame the argument properly, I need to step into that realm with both feet. If you are going to promote conceal and open carry as a solution to many of the modern problems we are facing, you have to also provide people with the protections they need if they take your advice. I don’t want to get a bunch of people in trouble for using a firearm in their constitutionally protected right to defend their property. I’d like to keep them out of trouble for listening to me. Second Call Defense gives me that ability; I can promote firearms for self-defense while offering a legal protection in case something happens. Until the emergence of Second Call Defense, there wasn’t any such protection—so it was hard for me to promote something that might disrupt the lives of the people who listen to me.image

But I’ll have to say that I’m having a good time with it. It’s difficult to get into shooting for sport if you can’t use your firearms, but at least locally where I live there is a new shooting range going in near Port Union—a classy facility that looks fantastic. I’ve watched the building go together over the last few months and have been impressed with its construction. The facility is called Premier Shooting & Training Center and is located in West Chester focusing on a February opening. It will be the place in town to shoot the firearms of choice. I have already been told that my .500 Magnum will be welcome there. Then of course there is the ability to shoot at your own home, which is a treasure in itself.

There really is no better smell in the world than Hoppe’s bore cleaning solvent, leather, and gun smoke. Those are the smells of freedom—it’s the smell of America. It is what gives us our freedom, the right to bear arms. It is unique in the world in that guns are intended to protect the property of mankind which for the first time in history has decided that acquisitions obtained through capitalist enterprise needs private protection. That is the purpose of guns, to keep malicious people from cheating at life and stealing the fruits of labor—the things acquired in the game of life. There is no better smell than those three items because they are the smell of freedom. As I shot in my little private work area on Sunday watching football games and enjoying the company of my many tools, it was that scent that made me want to take a moment to appreciate what it’s all for.image

By becoming a member of Second Call Defense you can rest easily in using your firearm in concealed carry conditions. If you do use that firearm, the terrifying legal issues that follow are much less menacing. Just call the number on your membership card and let the attorneys at Second Call handle the case from there. There are five categories of protection, entry-level, or Basic, Advocate, Defender, Protector, and Ultimate. From Defender through Ultimate Second Call Defense even offers a gun replacement or retrieval of a beloved firearm during or after a court proceeding. One thing that happens after a gun related shooting is that guns are confiscated for evidence and if you happen to have a lot of history with that firearm, it will have sentimental value. Second Call Defense will do what it can to get your gun back once the case is put to rest. If it is impossible, then they offer to replace the gun. That would come in handy if the gun is a valuable one, something in excess of $1000. Or perhaps the gun is one that you intend to pass down to a son or daughter, with Second Call Defense; you have the best chance there is of getting that gun back. And that’s a very good thing. Of course the price per month increases for the higher coverage, but after spending countless hours cleaning your guns with Hoppe’s in your home shop, you tend to bond with those friends, and until Second Call Defense came along, there wasn’t anything that could be done with law enforcement when they did confiscate guns.

I don’t have a very high impression of the police—I know they are needed, and many of them do good work, but I have had lots of bad experiences with them. Most of those experiences are that I’ve never trusted them to do what I can do myself, and they seem to know that about me. They tend to be contentious in personal interactions because I’m not the submissive type and I with them because I personally despise authority figures—in every form. When I was first gunsmithing many years ago, I had a FFA license to practice and all the credentials it took to operate a shop at my personal residence. So I had to talk to government people, and I didn’t like it. There were too many rules and they all had very stuffy approaches to their jobs. They seemed too eager to throw barriers in front of you so that they would have less work to do. My respect for them was much lower after I had to work with them for a while. About that time my wife who was young and extremely beautiful—a top tier model type who was working as a receptionist at her parent’s business had to deal with a few cops investigating a break-in where her dad had lost some valuables. They knew she was married, she told them what I did because they asked and they seemed to get cockier in their questioning. The entire purpose of their visit was to get information on the break-in. Instead an older cop and his younger partner were more interested in hitting on my wife trying to exert authority upon her to get her to tolerate their sexual advances. “I won’t cheat on my husband,” she eventually said to them. But then the old fat one said, “but will you lay still while I do?” Her dad was in the other room and heard the whole thing. The cops had no fear of ramifications from their actions because they were the embodiments of the law. They knew her dad wanted them to resolve his case and they knew I needed to maintain my FFA license, because they bragged about how they knew ATF agents in town hinting that they could make life rough on me—if they wanted.

I stewed over that incident for at least two years—actually it still makes me very angry when I think about it. But needless to say, I gave up gunsmithing and decided to hold jobs that avoided that kind of manipulation—where someone could exert that kind of authority over my life. But I always loved gunsmithing and the idea of it. While that incident might have shaped my feelings about government authority for life—I didn’t let my love of gunsmithing and guns in general erode away. I was only 19 at that time, but now I’m much older, and times have changed—as well as the politics. I have much more powerful weapons now than guns to use against incursions—I have the gift of the written word, which I have been able to use much better than the best snipers on the planet in accomplishing my intended goals. Guns are just tools in the scheme of things.

But that doesn’t rival the smell of freshly discharged gun powder and Hoppe’s solvent with a newly made leather holster hanging from your hip. Those are the kinds of smells that brought my interest toward guns in the first place and many years later have reinvigorated my interest. However, it is Second Call Defense that has made it all possible for me. Knowing that such a defense exists puts my mind at ease in promoting firearms once again. In those early days of gunsmithing, it was obvious that there were cops, like those two that hit on my wife that would sell confiscated firearms in an auction or on the black market without a second thought and there was no defense against that type of harassment. Gun owners had to put up or shut up, or face arrest, or legal harassment through permit compliance—or some other government means of control. Without such a defense, I just couldn’t recommend such a lifestyle to people without the possibility of intrusion—because there is nothing like losing a gun you care about to legal red tape. It’s not as rough as losing a family member, but it’s close—because when you work with guns and clean them, maintain them, they become characters in your life that you treasure. And law enforcement can confiscate them at will with a trumped-up charge—which happens more than it should. Second Call Defense offers a protection against that kind of thing for the first time. If Second Call Defense had been around 25 years ago, I would have continued being a gunsmith to this day. It is better late than never though, and at least now it’s an option. And knowing that makes that gun smoke and Hoppe’s smell a whole lot better.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Why ISIS Terrorists Want to Kill Americans: What it means to eat from the Tree of Life

I have listened to countless hours of talk radio and watched many segments on television, read many articles from the mainstream press and all have missed the mark in identifying why San Bernardino assassins Syed Farok and his wife Tashfeen Malik dropped off their six month old child at a grandmother’s house telling the unsuspecting woman that they were going to the doctor, neglecting to give any hints that they would probably never return—no final goodbyes to their child or parents, no hint of what was to come. Then to get back in their car and go to the government office where Farok worked to kill 14 people and wound many others in what they knew would become an international incident of terror. But why–how could that possibly have been justified in their minds to give up so much and to bring so much hurt to others if they were such devoted Muslims who read from the Quran so intently—supposedly a book of peace?

The answer is a rather disturbing one, and it cannot be reasoned with by fancy appeasement speeches and psychological evaluations. But it does explain why Barack Obama sympathizes with terrorism and why the political left seems to take similar positions against America as the San Bernardino shooters did. Ironically the answer is within the 2014 movie Noah by Darren Aronofsky—in how progressive types interpret Biblical events and the type of maniacal behavior that can sometimes be associated with religion. I’m one who enjoyed Noah by Aronofsky. I like Aronofsky’s work, particularly Pi, Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, so I gave Noah a chance, and immediately recognized within it distinct elements not just from the book of Genesis, but the Book of Enoch—which is a kind of deleted scenes group of stories from the Bible. Aronofsky certainly intended to shake up the foundations of the viewing public by throwing The Book of Enoch into the traditional story of Genesis—and I thought it was a pretty good idea to combine action film elements with the classic story to form a unique mythology. The response from the religious community was brutal and Aronofsky was deeply criticized. The film did pretty well at the global box office and was an ambitious project which I enjoyed. But of course there is more to it—as there always is.

In Aronofsky’s Noah, the biblical character was a bit of a madman following the will of the Creator with a maniacal ambition that could have easily been interpreted as insane. There are many hints to a time before Noah through his grandfather who lives atop a mountain protected by the fallen angels known as The Watchers. This grandfather Methuselah was played by Anthony Hopkins quite brilliantly and obviously possessed a Merlin like quality directly inherited from Enoch. Methuselah lived the longest of the Noah family at 969 years which is interesting. I happen to believe quite emphatically that the Bible has many missing chapters and what has been presented to the public at large through the churches over time are only the pacifist passages, and not the whole work—only the parts that would placate the masses. So I enjoyed very much the back story elements of Genesis within the movie Noah. This is quite a study in itself, but lets not get off track, the purpose of this article is to understand the rationalization behind terrorism and how religion can provoke such extremism. It could be said that many of the characters in Noah were radicals in their own way, Noah for building an Ark based on a vision from the Creator leading his family to safety through the end times for a rebirth of civilization, and Noah’s Tubal-cain who had an almost Ayn Rand concept of mankind—which I actually agreed with. In Aronofsky’s version of Noah Russell Crow’s self sacrifice as the classic Biblical character was an environmental one that very neatly pressed in the modern Green Movement into the film’s message as Tubal-can played by Ray Winstone was a pro man type of capitalist. I enjoyed all the various perspectives even though I don’t agree with much of it. I noticed the obvious Hollywood politics quickly which of course spilled over into the Obama Climate Summit in Paris.

Leading up the San Bernardino shootings Obama and his friends were in Paris which is still recovering from acts of ISIS terrorism of their own and declared that global warming was the greatest menace facing our world. If you really get to the meat of what they believe, they are not unlike Noah in Aronofsky’s movie. They want to erase mankind from the earth and return the world back to nature—so from their perspective, global warming is the greatest threat—because they don’t like the achievements of mankind. To Obama and his progressive friends, they have radicalized their foundations of social communism and economic Marxism into a new religion centering on the environment, which ties directly to the movie Noah—who believed he was not being saved to keep mankind alive, but to save the animals of the earth from Tubal-cain’s vile superiority as a species of man. In typical Christian understanding the moral of Genesis was a combination of Tubal-cain and Noah, but in Aronofsky’s interpretation, it was directed at the environmentalists who have a great desire to start a new religion of earth worship making the whole planet a kind of eternal Garden of Eden. Keep that in mind.

As anyone who has read the Quran knows, it is essentially another version of the Biblical Old Testament–it shares many of the same characters as it’s Christian counterpart and I believe with that book as I do with the Bible that the chapters were put together by former emperors and religious leaders to control their populations with stories conducive with “service”—so there are missing elements that will likely never be recovered but through myth and legend. This is the book that many of these modern terrorists are gravitating to, and with a singular focus such as what Syed Farok obviously displayed—where peripheral concerns were ignored, much like the prophets from the Quran assumed that they were the hand of god doing the work of a higher purpose even if it meant an end to the human race. If taken literally, the characters from the Old Testament and the Quran were extremely self-sacrificial and functioning from their unique connection to their deities. To the outside world this appears quite insane, but to them, it is justified.

Now enter the communist spread from the Soviet Union that is behind the current environmental concerns and the Islamic caliphate which has adopted various degrees of Marxism as a means toward collectivism to assimilate more closely with Allah. The goal of such assimilation is to recognize that one’s spirit belongs to Allah and that whatever he wishes for us, we must perform. To them the villain of Islam is the kind of mentality that Tubal-cain exhibited. Of course Tubal-cain is the West, Israel, the United States, Europe and all places that have elements of capitalism within their cultures—because capitalism is the religion of “man,” not of the “Creator” whatever name is placed upon it.

Viewed in this context things make a lot more sense—politicians like Obama use global warming as a way to attack western ways and the Tubal-cain nature of mankind—the capitalism of the United States. Radical Islam uses the prophet heroes of the Quran to do the same, their motive is to show Allah that they are pure in spirit and not attached to the evils of capitalism—that their values of self-sacrifice are paramount and worthy of an eternal walk in the Garden of Eden—that they don’t identify with the paradox of knowledge of good and evil, but that they eat from the “Tree of Life.”

I’ve read all these books—many times actually, and am 100% sure that when Syed Farok and his wife Tashfeen Malik dropped off their six month old child at grandmother’s house forever that they weren’t emotional about the issue, and that they didn’t feel bad lying to family members about what they were about to do. I would go so far to suggest that they purposely kept their eye on the higher goal of appeasing Allah because they justified their lives as eating from the Tree of Life-not the Tubal-cain based capitalism that corrupts mankind from the perspective of the Marxist. And thus, you have the reason that Obama cannot condemn Islam, and why global warming is the greatest threat to civilization. It’s not mankind that they are protecting, but mother earth and they share with radical Islam the belief that the capitalist West is the shared villain of their religious doctrines and that all of them are willing to sacrifice their life in the here and now for the benefits of an eternal afterlife with the “father.” And if you are a president with daddy issues like Obama is, an everlasting father in the clouds of heaven is an appealing idea. What he shares with the terrorist Syed Farok is the desire to end capitalism and all the Tubal-cain’s of existence for the might of a savor only written about in books ultimately controlled by churches and politics reflecting a fragmented past not conducive with the ambitions of America.

The goal of the terrorist of course whether it is the literal attempts by radicals like Syed Farok or politicians like Obama who obviously sympathizes with terror acts as his friend Bill Ayers from Chicago shares much in ideology with Farok—they intend to strike fear into mankind to force them to give up individual freedoms in favor of collective enterprise. And to their rational, if people have to die to serve the greater good of their maniacal deities, then so be it. They do so with their eyes off this terrestrial existence toward a greater good defined by their religions, whether that religion is Islam, or the more modern Mother Earth worship. All those ideologies share a common past one that spans the centuries. More recently it is rooted in communism, but it spans back further toward the desire of ancient rulers to keep their subjects under submission through religion that all these beliefs were fostered. If taken correctly many of the lost books of the Bible and the Quran, there would likely be different values expressed, but we’ll never know. Aronofsky played with the idea a bit in Noah, but ultimately carried the message of his film toward the values of his dinner time friends around Hollywood—the religion of conservation—and the desire to reacquaint themselves with the Garden of Eden as agents of light. Syed Farok and his wife obviously felt so strongly in their actions against the villainous West that they were willing to sacrifice everything to terrorize that representation of Tubal-cain into submission to the collectivism of Allah—even if it meant never seeing their child again.

But they all have it wrong, Aronofsky, Farok, Obama, and all the church leaders who edited these religious texts for the purpose of social control. Man wasn’t meant to stay in a Garden of Eden built by a creator. Man is the creator, and it is the task of civilization to build a Garden of Eden for each and every one of us to live within. Because when we finally peel away all the mysteries of quantum mechanics we will find that the creator wasn’t out there somewhere, but always inside. As Jesus said, “the Kingdom of God is all around us but men do not see it.” That statement didn’t mean that men were to be graduated from only to reconcile through death with the creator of all things. It was intended to evolve mankind into a true understanding—and the reason that men do not see the Garden of Eden in their own lives is because they are listening to all the wrong sources. Go to Trump Tower in Manhattan and you will see the Garden of Eden, the Kingdom of God—the Tree of Life. You will see the gates of heaven built through capitalism and the morality of productivity for the first time in human history. And that is why Syed Farok is a villain of epic proportions rooted in a medieval religion that is outdated and manipulated through the ages toward collectivism by power-hungry rulers who wanted nothing else but to control the masses to their selfish desires for terrestrial concerns.

For those who want to know my source material for this article, consult the metaphorical Tree of Life. The rest of these idiots are still eating from the Tree of Knowledge and they weren’t supposed to.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

New York Times Shares Guilt in Promoting Terrorism Activity: Syed Farook was a very liberal government employee Muslim

Actually, The New York Times is correct when they said on their front page editorial against gun ownership—“no right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” That is why I propose in the wake of the gross mismanagement of the events that led up to the San Bernardino shootings that we possibly reword the American Constitution to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment for all. The New York Times showed why they are losing readership and nearing bankruptcy, because they don’t understand the world outside of their little building in New York City. They certainly don’t understand the necessity of guns in American culture. Read part of their much talked about and misguided editorial for further gun control below.   My terminology for the rewording would be to clarify that guns are needed in American culture because government often does fail, and that gun owners must possess at least equal armaments for their own protection in the event of such administrative failures as those on full display in the terrorist acts leading up to the San Bernardino massacre—which was clearly the fault of the Obama administration and the Homeland Security under his management from the executive office. Americans can’t be limited by clip counts and weapons types by legislation that puts more powerful weapons in the hands of government than what the citizen employers of those organizations possess themselves. What the New York Times proposes below is just stupid. They have the situation backwards. We need more guns with fewer restrictions, not fewer guns with more restrictions. Here is what they said:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

 It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

 http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/new-york-times-gun-control-san-bernardino/index.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0

Let me clarify a “moral outrage” for The New York Times—a president who failed to acknowledge that ISIS (Not ISIL) is a major threat in spreading a global caliphate, which he had a hand in creating through his actions—then not communicating that failure properly to the American people. What is outrageous is the decision to allow the media to completely contaminate the crime scene of the San Bernardino terrorists just two days after they were shot and killed. Astonishingly the media was allowed to enter the apartment the two lived in and put their fingerprints all over the possessions contained therein. The apartment had not even been dusted for prints so this was an obvious move by the FBI and the Obama administration in coordination with local law enforcement to allow for the destruction of evidence so that connections to other terrorist suspects could be eliminated. The White House needed to maintain the story that the two acted alone, instead of being part of a more extensive group. This was highly corrupt, and if the highest law enforcement in America is prone to making these kinds of terrible judgment calls, they are not capable to make decisions on civilian’s behalf in regards to armament. Forget restrictions of full automatic weapons or ammunition types, like the .223. Those restrictions need to be removed because you never know when some government employee, like one of the terrorists in this California case was—might lose their mind, destroy evidence, abuse their authority, or allow themselves to be pawns from a corrupt executive branch in the future—and assault the innocent with the most aggressive weapons invented. American civilians need to be able to protect themselves from anything, enemies foreign and domestic.

But let me declare to The New York Times the greatest outrage—the cover-up—or the attempted cover-up of the nature of the terrorist couple themselves, the family lawyer who immediately tried to pacify the situation and media outlets like The New York Times from jumping all over guns instead of the actions of one of their own. In his online dating “Arab Lounge” profile where he met Tashfeen Malik, Syed Farook described himself as a devoted Muslim who was “very liberal,” politically. Farook was a creation of government. It took two full days before a picture of Tashfeen was produced essentially because she was always seen in a hijab marking her clearly as a Muslim and the government didn’t want the American people to start blaming all Muslims for being potential terrorists. When the FBI and White House realized they couldn’t contain the story they did the opposite, they allowed the media to contaminate the crime scene. They took away all references that they could find to other terrorist groups within the United States then let the media destroy all the rest of the evidence with over saturation of exposure instead of trying to limit access.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/04/online-dating-profile-provides-closer-look-at-calif-killer-and-lists-his-political-identification/

These are the types of people who want to demand that Americans give up their guns and trust government exclusively. Every level of this San Bernardino terrorist act was provoked by a government employee—from the shooter himself down to the investigators on the ground. The New York Times has the same radicalized liberal beliefs as Syed Farook and they are seeking to deflect the argument of potential terrorism away from liberal issues onto guns at the expense of freedom. There is nothing reasonable about gun control proposals when all the guilty in this case were the type of government employees we all need to protect ourselves from. The situation is just appalling. Our government cannot be trusted, and America needs guns to protect themselves from their employees as well as common thugs and miscreants in general. What would be best is just to lift all restrictions on ammo and explosive devices and let the free market take care of this encroaching problem. Liberals built this mess—these terrorist networks and the people who make them up. They don’t get to disarm us from the ramifications of their failure as well. That’s not how it works. The New York Times even for a very liberal publication should at least have known that much. They certainly shouldn’t have put that editorial on their front page because gun ownership was not the cause of the problem. It was the lack of a defense from the victims and the nurturing of domestic terrorism that all liberals helped create through their actions that is most to blame—and the clear attempt to cover up the evidence from the highest office of the White House to the cops on the scene. They knew the names, they saw their appearance once the terrorist couple had been gunned down in the street—appropriately—but they attempted to contain the story from the outset and when they realized how deep it went, they looked to isolate them from the connections to others which undoubtedly extended to more terrorist cells around the United States. And these same idiots think it appropriate to lecture America about gun rights? It is because of these types of people that we have a Second Amendment to begin with. So perhaps its time to take any vagueness out of the Constitution to clarify the real intention of civilian gun ownership—it is for protection from the employees of those civilians in attempting an insurrection—as they have been caught red-handed in hiding terrorism in America and their part in fostering it. The New York Times is as guilty as anybody on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and its time they apologize for their part in creating terrorism in America instead of camouflaging their error behind calls for more gun control.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Ruger’s Plan to Help the NRA: Using Second Call Defense to help stop Jihad at American borders

Fortunately, most Americans understand the situation, on Black Friday 2015 a record was shattered as there were 185,000 background checks from people buying firearms. That averages out to roughly 2 checks every second. And those Americans weren’t buying guns to hunt deer. Hopefully, many of those guns were from Ruger who is donating $2 for every Ruger sold between 2015 and 2016 intending to raise $4 million dollars for the NRA. I did my part and bought a new Ruger, and I’m very proud of it. In spite of the government insisting every couple of minutes that more gun control is needed to slow down the violent mass shootings erupting all over the country, the only real solution to the mismanagement of the social affairs that have contributed to the violence is more guns carried by responsible people, not less.

After the San Bernardino shooting on December 2nd 2015 Obama went straight to the airwaves to proclaim the need for more gun control and made a point to declare that other countries don’t have the problem of gun violence that America has. He failed to say why. Most of the rest of the world has terrible poverty and severe gun control restrictions and their people are mass migrating from those places trying to get into the United States. They aren’t immigrating to America because they like their homes. All is not well in the world, so Obama’s comparison is out-of-touch and extremely naive. He could only make such a global comparison by ignoring many facts, dangerously to his own detriment in judgment—which is obviously extremely flawed. America is a superior place to live, and guns help make it that way. Obama clearly doesn’t connect the dots. Because there are two things that are common to many of these mass shootings over the last couple of years—most of the shootings involve young people fresh out of their progressive educations. Second many of them are related to radical Islamic behavior. Fewer guns empowers these demographic groups toward terrorism—it doesn’t deter them.

The husband and wife shooter in San Bernardino recently were clearly Islamic radicals stoked into a froth of terrorism by fellow Jihadist activists. The situation was so embarrassing to the government that the wife had been permitted into the country on a work visa passing the Homeland Security check, then marrying a U.S. citizen whom she likely instigated into a Jihadist conversion. It was astonishing as of this writing that there was not yet a picture of the wife produced anywhere on the Internet. Surely there were some, but the authorities avoided putting her picture up because she represents a new level to the prospect of terror, the conversion of devout Muslims to Jihad through the power of sex. Without question, she is not alone working now with the United States. Obama cannot deny it— or anybody else. They propose gun control for one of two reasons; they have either promoted these extremists to come into the United States hoping to spread a Middle Eastern caliphate, or to cover the follies of their own terrible mismanagement as government officials. It is either deliberate promotion of these terrorist attacks or the result of gross incompetence. Given Obama’s social position against Israel, his reluctance to name Islamic terrorism by name, and his tendency as a foreign raised child to view America as an imperialist empire—that speculation as to his loyalty has reasonable traction to consider insurgency. His insistence on Syrian refugees entering the United States points to possibly thousands of additional terrorists raising more home-grown radicals just like this husband and wife team. These insurgents plan long and patiently. They fully intend the death of America like a long time family pet being taken to the vet to be euthanized. They say nice things to our ears, but their intentions are to woe us to sleep before the injection takes place.

Given all those raw facts it is clear that in either case, our government has been grossly incompetent. The terrorist husband in San Bernardino was a government worker, the investigators were government employees, the Homeland Security that allowed all this radical behavior to foster were government employees. All the freedoms we gave up, Constitutionally guaranteed, did not prevent the attack from occurring, so what was the point of it all? What’s the point of the HSA, the TSA, the FBI, the CIA or any of them if they couldn’t keep an online dating service from sending a girl from Saudi Arabia to an American born Muslim to ruin his mind with sex and radicalism until he was ready to shoot up an office building while maintaining a bomb factory at his home in full view of his neighbors—who were shushed into silence for fear of being labeled “prejudice.” Government incompetence is at the heart of every issue, so the obvious conclusion is that they cannot be trusted.

That is why gun sales are up, because normal Americans see the writing on the wall and they know they need to protect themselves. If an active civil war between factions of political ideology must break out, then the fault is on the government for failing to protect our private property from potential terrorists. We have the Second Amendment as a back-up–the way it was always designed, to take matters into our own hands if government proves itself to be so grossly inadequate. It is good and highly encouraged that all Americans obtain a concealed carry permit and began making themselves active resistance to this impending terrorism within our borders. Ruger is doing their part in offering to boost the power of the NRA with a donation for every firearm sold during this upcoming year, so if you’re planning to buy one, make it a Ruger.

One of the most exciting things about a possible Donald Trump presidency is that he is very pro Second Amendment and has a plan to make concealed carry permits viable in all 50 states. So if you get a concealed carry permit in Ohio, it would be good in California and Hawaii—which would be wonderful. If there had been armed people in that government building, those two terrorists could not have emptied so many rounds into innocent people. Some gun carrying protectors could have shot back ending the dispute right then and there. There may have still been some killed or injured, but the number would be far less. The response to these terrorist threats cannot be passivity, and gun restrictions. It has to be the opposite, more guns and expanded conditions for which private people carry them.

Of course this all points back to why I am now a recruiter for Second Call Defense. If you are going to carry a firearm and you find yourself in a self-defense shooting—say some Jihadist nut job came into your place of business or a fine restaurant you were taking your wife to for a nice dinner and these scum bags come in to spread their intentions of a global caliphate—and you shoot them—you will have to defend yourself from the same government that let those idiots roam free—that same government that refused to publish the picture of a young Saudi woman who used sex to convert the mind of a peaceful Muslim into a radical Jihadist. So you have to protect yourself from that government—because they will be looking for a straw man for their incompetence. Second Call Defense takes that ability away from them. First you shoot the terrorist saving as many people as you can, then you call Second Call Defense and let them handle the government investigation into the matter protecting you and your property from further incursions of blame. Just as Barack Obama took the side of Trayvon Martin in the George Zimmerman case in Florida putting the shooter at a severe legal disadvantage in the process, you don’t want the same thing to happen to you if you put down a terrorist Jihadist that the government let into the country to fulfill some political goal they have at our expense. If that happens, be sure to let Second Call Defense handle the case. Just use my name in the redemption code when you sign up and you will get the first month free. I wouldn’t put my name on something like this if I didn’t think it would help people and help spread the use of firearms in these types of cases.

Ruger specifically is one of my favorite firearms manufactures. I absolutely love my Vaquero; it is machined to perfection and is just an astonishingly wonderful product. I have shot it nearly a thousand times over the last couple of months and it gives me great pleasure to stand at my workbench in the garage and clean it back to its original finish after each shooting session. It is a wonderfully American thing to do as I listen to talk radio and listen to conservative discussions free of liberal sentimentality while cleaning a very nice firearm after a hard day of shooting, carefully, with great craftsmanship—to use an array of tools to care for something that is fun recreationally, but can also defend your property from the fools of the world—which are numerous. As I clean that gun I think of how special we are in the United States to have those privileges—we are probably the only place that has such an ability—free speech, free access to the finest firearms in the world, free from unreasonable searches and seizer—but it is all those rights that these terrorists are attacking. Their military objective is to erode our freedoms with terrorism, to force America to overreact into accepting gradually bigger government and much more restriction—like what terrorists achieved after 9/11. But we have to stop that game in its tracks right now. We have to give them the opposite. We need gun sales to spike; we need more people openly carrying them, and we need to make it easier for them to carry guns in more places. That is the only solution to the gross government mismanagement to the current Jihadist threats. And toward that aim, Ruger is a good place to begin fighting back. Second Call Defense is the next.

Now, CLICK HERE to learn about my plan to defeat ISIS and global terrorism, once and for all. 

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

The Movie ‘Selma’ Was Terrible: Mark Zuckerberg’s wasted $45 billion dollars

I read in USA Today that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife who just gave birth to their first child, planned to give away approximately 45 billion dollars during their lifetimes toward the next generation in achieving equality and other lofty goals. While that sounded very “stylish” I couldn’t help but think that the actuality of their intentions would only lead to more degradation and progressive political erosion of core traditional values—such as strong families, hard work, and personal ethics. It is a proven fact that you can’t throw good money at bad people, so a valueless society even propped up with billions or trillions of dollars cannot flourish. There are many examples of this but let me give a more contemporary comparison that everyone can relate to, like a review of the recent movie Selma about Martin Luther King’s march across the famous bridge toward Montgomery, Alabama for a civil rights demonstration that made history. I personally think a lot of Martin Luther King, or at least I did until I saw Selma because the movie wasn’t very good. It had the feel of a made for television movie, not an Academy Award type of film. It clearly received high praise because of its message about progressive concerns—not for the actual quality of the film itself. Under the direction of Ava DuVernay, I think she went a long way to destroying what was best about Martin Luther King. But the purpose of this article is to show how good money spent poorly can give terrible results, and that is what Selma most represents. With all the great talent involved, and money—they couldn’t buy a successful outcome.

Selma is a 2014 American historical drama film directed by Ava DuVernay and written by Paul Webb. It is based on the 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights marches led by James Bevel,[3][4] Hosea Williams, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Lewis. The film stars actors David Oyelowo as King, Tom Wilkinson as President Lyndon B. Johnson, Tim Roth as George Wallace, Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King, and rapper and actor Common as Bevel.

Selma premiered at the American Film Institute Festival on November 11, 2014, began a limited US release on December 25, and expanded into wide theatrical release on January 9, 2015, two months before the 50th anniversary of the march. The film got a re-release on March 20, 2015 in the honor of the 50th anniversary of the historical march.

Selma had four Golden Globe Award nominations, including Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director, and Best Actor, and won for Best Original Song.[5] It was also nominated for Best Picture and won Best Original Song at the 87th Academy Awards.

The story goes like this, in 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. Four African-American girls walking down stairs in the Birmingham, Alabama 16th Street Baptist Church were killed by a bomb set by the Ku Klux Klan. Annie Lee Cooper attempted to register to vote in Selma, Alabama but was prevented by the white registrar. King met with President Lyndon B. Johnson and asked for federal legislation to allow black citizens to register to vote unencumbered. Johnson said he had more important projects at the time, like his War on Poverty initiative.

King traveled to Selma with Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, James Orange, and Diane Nash. James Bevel greeted them, and other SCLC activists showed up to help. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover told Johnson that King was a problem, and suggested they disrupt his marriage. Coretta Scott King has concerns about her husband’s upcoming work in Selma. King calls singer Mahalia Jackson to inspire him with a song. King, other SCLC leaders, and black Selma residents march to the registration office to register. After a confrontation in front of the courthouse a shoving match occurs as the police go into the crowd. Cooper fights back, knocking Sheriff Jim Clark to the ground, leading to the arrest of Cooper, King, and others.

Alabama Governor George Wallace speaks out against the movement. Coretta meets with Malcolm X, who says he will drive whites to ally with King by advocating a more extreme position. Wallace and Al Lingo decide to use force at an upcoming night march in Marion, Alabama, using state troopers to assault the marchers. A group of protesters runs into a restaurant to hide, but troopers rush in, beat and shoot Jimmie Lee Jackson. King and Bevel meet with Cager Lee, Jackson’s grandfather, at the morgue. King speaks to ask people to continue to fight for their rights. King receives harassing phone calls with a recording of sexual activity implied to be him and another woman leading to an argument with Coretta. King is criticized by members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

As the Selma to Montgomery march is about to begin, King talks to Young about cancelling it, but Young convinces King to persevere. The marchers, including John Lewis of SNCC, Hosea Williams of SCLC, and Selma activist Amelia Boynton, cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge and approach a line of state troopers who put on gas masks. The troopers order the marchers to turn back, and when they hold their ground the troopers attack with clubs, horses, tear gas, and other weapons. Lewis and Boynton are among those badly injured. The attack was shown on national television as the wounded are treated at Brown Chapel, the movement’s headquarter church.

Movement attorney Fred Gray asks federal Judge Frank Minis Johnson to let the march go forward. President Johnson demands that King and Wallace stop their actions, and sends John Doar to convince King to postpone the next march. White Americans, including Viola Liuzzo and James Reeb, arrived to join the second march. Marchers cross the bridge again and see the state troopers lined up, but the troopers turn aside to let them pass. King, after praying, turns around and leads the group away, and again comes under sharp criticism from SNCC activists. That evening, Reeb was beaten to death by white racists on a street in Selma.

Judge Johnson allows the march. President Johnson speaks before a Joint Session of Congress to ask for quick passage of a bill to eliminate restrictions on voting, praising the courage of the activists; he states “We shall overcome.” The march on the highway to Montgomery takes place, and when the marchers reach Montgomery King delivers a speech on the steps of the State Capitol. As King speaks of coming victory, footage of him and his supporters were displayed on screen, and that was the end of the movie. That should save you from having to watch it.

DuVernay directed Selma, with a $20 million budget produced by Plan B Entertainment. The movie was released on December 25, 2014.[27] There was significant controversy about Selma and its depiction of Lyndon Johnson‘s actions as portrayed in the film.[28][29] Former Johnson domestic policy aide Joseph A. Califano, Jr. criticized DuVernay for ignoring and falsifying history, and particularly for suggesting that Johnson reluctantly supported King’s efforts and that he set the FBI to investigate King.[30] For the film she did uncredited re-writes of most of the original screenwriter Paul Webb’s script with an increased emphasis on King and the people of Selma as central figures.[31][32] In response to the criticisms of historians and media sources that accused her of irresponsibly rewriting history to portray her own agenda, DuVernay pointed out that the film is “not a documentary. I’m not a historian. I’m a storyteller”.[33] However, most people watching the film without question will accept the film as historical record.

The film was nominated for Best Picture and Best Song, but not Best Director, by the Academy Awards. While the lack of diversity of the Oscar nominations for 2014 was the subject of much press,[34] especially on Twitter,[35] the film of the only person of color that was nominated for the 87th Academy Awards, Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu, ended up taking top honors in three categories at the February 2015 87th Academy Awards – Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay. The award for Best Original Song went to “Glory” from Selma.[36][37] DuVernay stated that she had not expected to be nominated so the omission didn’t really bother her; rather she was hurt by actor David Oyelowo not being nominated. As to the question of racial diversity of awards, she stated that the obstacles to people of color being represented in the Academy Awards were systemic.[35] She failed to mention that in order to be considered for such a nomination that she should have shown herself to be a director of the highest order. For instance, I disagree tremendously with the politics of the movie Argo and its director Ben Afleck. But, Ben did a great job with that picture and deserved his rewards as a fabulous director. It had nothing to do with him being white, or a male—he just made a great movie—even though I disagreed with most of the premise—favoring the communists of Iran with a haze of respect instead of a more conservative position.

Ava Marie DuVernay (born August 24, 1972) is an American director, screenwriter, film marketer, and film distributor. At the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, DuVernay won the Best Director Prize for her second feature film Middle of Nowhere,[1][2][3][4] becoming the first African-American woman to win the award.[5][6] For her work in Selma, DuVernay is the first black woman director to be nominated for a Golden Globe Award.[7][8] With Selma, she is also the first black woman director to have their film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_(film)

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

Ava DuVernay obviously needed more time behind the camera directing because there were a lot of sloppy mistakes, most notably involving Malcolm X. It was obvious that the producers, specifically Oprah and Brad Pitt wanted an African-American woman to direct the film instead of the best possible candidate, so their hiring desires directed the foundation of the film which came across as a music video painted with a PBS documentary. I don’t think it was DuVernay’s fault the movie wasn’t good; it was that the lack of understanding and emphasis by the producers that made the film bad from the start. They made a movie about a popular black man and the civil rights movement then expected to show up at the Academy Awards to pick up their nomination for advancing a progressive cause. The movie suffered because of it. The story of Selma is actually a good one, but it deserved a much better effort instead of the politically charged tripe that was provided.

The film cost $20 million to make and brought in just over $68 million so financially it wasn’t a failure, but culturally it did little to advance the story of Martin Luther King. Instead, it took him down several pegs in the eyes of history I suppose to show that he was a more “human” man. Obviously the real hero of Selma to my eyes appeared to be King’s wife—the battered wife who stood by her man even after his death—which contradicted the UN flying flag that the protestors were carrying into Montgomery at the end of the film. What did the United Nations have to do with American civil rights? If the intention of the filmmakers was to tell a powerful story about Martin Luther King and how Malcolm X made peace with him before his own assassination, the film failed. Instead they gave us an insider’s gaze into the political activism that still goes on behind the scenes of a civil rights movement that isn’t so much rooted in fairness for all people, but a global government led by the United Nations—which had Brad Pitt’s fingerprints all over it, even the cowboy riding a horse running down innocent blacks with a bullwhip in slow motion. The progressive imagery was obvious. I certainly didn’t miss it, which made me wonder who they thought they were making the movie for. I don’t think the producers knew.

Given the history and success of people like Oprah and Brad Pitt, you’d think they’d know better. They are rich people, but all their wealth hasn’t done much to make them better people. You could give them all the money in the world and they would just waste it. They couldn’t even make a good movie when given a free hand at producing anything they wanted with money not even being an option. With all their resources, Selma is all they could come up with. It is for that reason that with all the intelligence Mark Zuckerberg showed in developing Facebook, it’s clear he was a one shot wonder who stumbled across something that people wanted to pay him a lot of money for. But he doesn’t understand the value of what he obtained and neither will the recipients of his 45 billion dollars. It’s a nice gesture but will share with the movie Selma—made by his good friends—a lackluster outcome that falls well short of its good intentions. The path to hell of course is paved with good intentions. But you’d think that smart people would have learned that by now and not funded the concrete trucks that helped pave the way. Without personal value, no amount of money can’t fix anything; money can only delay the inevitable just a while longer. Money doesn’t give value—it only represents it. If you throw $20 million dollars at a slam dunk movie set for the academy awards, but the people involved are not up to the task and aren’t making the movie with real value at the heart of it—but just eyeing a sure-fire Academy Award for exploiting blacks and the civil rights history—then the attempt will likely be a failure. And if $45 billion dollars are poured into a global society without putting value into the people receiving it, then all that money will just be wasted, because the value of money cannot stick to anything. The effort may be noble, but the result will be less than fulfilling, because the essence of value was ignored, and confused with fiscal measurements.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Proof That American Muslims Celebrated During 9/11: The selective amnesia of mainstream media

It is truly astonishing the level of collective hypnosis that is occurring on the topic of radicalized Muslims within the United States. Exchanges like the one below on the Morning Joe with Donald Trump continue, where they berate him for his assertion that there were cheering Muslims in New Jersey who were having block parties in celebration as the World Trade Center buildings came down on 9/11 2001. I saw it, my family saw it, and obviously Donald Trump saw it. I know it was a long time ago and YouTube had not been invented yet. I also understand that many of today’s reporters were probably just learning to read in grade school so they probably don’t remember. They think the world and its history started once YouTube came to life in 2005 where video was suddenly readily available anytime to anyone. However, I’m sure there is video of the occurrences, we know what some of those Islamic groups were called—so it shouldn’t be too hard to dig up the video proving correct what Donald Trump is now saying—because we all saw it that were alive and cognoscente back then. I think many people are just choosing to forget about it because the implication is so scary that people would rather not know of it. One of the groups cheering was an organization that became Revolution Islam. Before we get into that, have a look and listen to the extreme denial displayed on that Morning Joe program. It really is astonishing. There is evidence to the contrary of what they are saying in the very next video.

Revolution Islam was known as recently as 2009 to protest outside of mosques in New York City trying to recruit peaceful Muslims into their radical agenda. They openly celebrated 9/11, the Fort Hood shootings, and every act of terror catalogued by Islamic radicals anywhere in the world. As they say, the Quran commands them to terrorize non believers. They would gather in the streets of New York and shout down all passers-by right in the light of day. They made no attempt to hide their behavior and the media reported on it. CNN did as well as others. There may have been an attempt to re-edit history to favor a pro-Palestinian vantage point, or perhaps the oil barons threw money at news organizations to erase their past financing of terrorist activity, but something happened to hide the videos from 2001 showing groups like Revolution Islam cheering in the streets after 9/11. But you can bet on it, those videos are out there, the news organizations just need to dig them out. Revolution Islam is part of a fringe group within the United States of radical Islamic fundamentalists who want a global caliphate and they will stop at nothing to get it. They openly worshipped Osama Bin Laden with great love—even saying that they cared more about him than themselves. Don’t believe me; well watch the video below from Anderson Cooper’s show 360 on CNN. He’s a credible source and did a story on this group with a sit down interview in 2009. I have no question CNN could dig up in their files the video of the cheering Muslims as the 9/11 towers were falling down. I know what I saw. If they need help searching their data bases just look under this group’s name, Revolution Islam. Likely the FBI, CIA, and every other news organization have the same video. Even if they don’t, or have destroyed them, this video at least shows the remnants of their behavior before they went into hiding after the terrorist attacks. These radicals were still operating out in the open.

If you haven’t already, make sure to copy this video on a private file so that you’ll have it later. If you are reading this story a week or so after I have written it and the video is gone, it’s because it was pulled from YouTube. As of this writing over a million people have seen the video, but if it gets out in the open it will likely be removed. It’s hard to say where Google’s loyalties are in regard to this global desire to help radical Muslims establish a global caliphate rooted in Dark Ages mentality. I wouldn’t think that Google or other forward leaning organizations would support this kind of censorship, but you never know. I am surprised that the collective media is so adamant about creating a separation between Muslim behavior and radical Islamists because the proof has been quite evident for a number of years. CNN’s report shown above is all the proof you need to comprehend the scope of the problem.

There really are only two explanations—we are talking about an Alex Jones massive conspiracy theory involving globalists who are using Islamic fundamentalists to perpetuate war and anxiety so that Americans will give up their Constitutional rights in favor of a global government which they control—or Americans endured such a trauma on 9/11 that they have eliminated the facts from their minds to deal with the terrible tragedy. After all, we all know Muslim people and want to think of them as nice and peaceful. Nobody wants to think that the person they know could be one of these nut-case terrorists so perhaps we have blocked out the unpleasant thought in favor of a national dialogue that preserves our sanity. Such bad news isn’t good for television ratings, and maybe that is the reason for the mass elimination of video from that period. But one thing is very clear—there were American Muslims very happy about 9/11 and they were celebrating.

Living in New York Donald Trump surely saw the CNN story and reflected back to the 9/11 period eight years prior. As much as Donald Trump had been interviewed and pays attention to the news—I have no doubt that he saw such reports in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I remember such things too. I certainly remember the celebrations overseas, and I remember having discussions with people about homegrown Muslims sympathizing with the World Trade Center attackers—that were generated by what we saw on TV. After 9/11 a lot of Muslims felt they had to go underground so they hid their religion for a time. There were lots of reports from the media who felt sorry for these people as the established order of things took on the Muslim cause almost as a civil rights issue. Much of the bad behavior that we feared about radical Islam was being ignored so that innocent people wouldn’t be caught in the crossfire. Without question that is why so many young reporters today are reluctant to criticism of Islam in any way—even if the evidence points right into the doors of a mosque.

Over time it became so unfashionable to criticize radical Islamic behavior that the media had decided to ignore it. They put them in the same class as other minorities in America propping them up as a civil rights issue and threw their support behind massive America collection programs like the NSA hoping that Homeland Security would protect them from further attacks. When those attacks did come the blame was placed everywhere but the obvious. Fort Hood became a situation of “workplace violence” while the Boston Marathon Bombing became a couple of misunderstood children—not focusing on their radical Islamic exposure as the cause of the violence. For the same reasons that many people can’t remember much of the events during a violent automobile accident—because the brain shuts down as a survival mechanism—Islamic terror is undergoing the same type of process across American society, and the media certainly has a huge case of that selective amnesia. Whatever the cause of it, whether conspiracy, or psychological—it is a factor that shows up glaringly in these Donald Trump interviews with the media. They chose not to remember, yet the presidential candidate does—just as many do and the evidence is there for everyone to see.

Even if there is never any evidence of video from 2001, it cannot be denied that there weren’t American Muslims who were just as crazy as the typical ISIS terrorist now. CNN interviewed them with a credible journalist who was mainstream—and gay. Anderson Cooper is as harmless toward advocating false conspiracies as it gets. He interviewed members of Revolution Islam to get the facts and they weren’t hard to get. Those people were standing in front of a mosque advertising to fellow Muslims why they should become radicalized. What Donald Trump is saying isn’t conspiracy, or even politically incorrect. It’s a fact, as clear as the daytime sun on a cloudless day. The only difference is Trump hasn’t decided to ignore the facts he’s observed through history—while the general public and the media have. Yet that doesn’t change the threat level, and that is something we all need to take very seriously. Not every Muslim is a radical. But it only takes one or two, and given the recent history of treacherous acts, terrorists aren’t coming out of Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism—they are coming out of the Islamic religion. All that anybody needs to do is pay attention to the obvious.

Sorry to say it to the people who don’t support Trump, but he’s right again. He has a good reason to double down on the issue. Because he’s not wrong.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

A Review of ‘Crippled America’: The bargain of Donald Trump, my dream presidential candidate

I started on Donald Trump’s new book, Crippled America during Thanksgiving morning 2015 about two hours before the Macy’s parade and ended about an hour and a half after, just before our lunchtime feast. It wasn’t a very big book and was an easy read. It was written so people with very basic reading skills would have no trouble with it. For the first 25 pages I couldn’t help but think that Trump probably dictated the whole book to somebody because it sounded an awful lot like his campaign speeches, of which I’ve listened to quite a lot of. I didn’t anticipate that I’d learn very much new about Trump that I didn’t already know. However, by the time I closed the book just before the turkey was placed on our table, I felt refreshed and happy that such a guy was running for presidential office. I have been a Trump supporter since his campaign speech in June at Trump Tower so I was already in his camp. Leading up to his announcement it has been my strong feeling for years, going all the way back to Ross Perot, that successful business people needed to be in government, not the unproven lawyers that we have now—so Trump as president makes sense to me. After reading Crippled America it was clear to me that Trump should be handing these books out at campaign events, because it turned out to be a pretty good book, especially the second half after he warmed up a bit. The first half was pretty typical to his campaign platform, but the second half delved more into the man himself, the character behind the drama, the hype, and the brand—to the person who just wants to restore the American nation from the dilapidated mess that it currently is.

As I closed the book I understood Donald Trump. He was still that 28-year-old developer taking on impossible projects that nobody else could touch and turning them into marvels the world would gawk at. Trump isn’t nearly the egoist that his persona projects, he’s a very passionate developer who just likes to make things. His run for president is not about power or prestige, he already has those things. What he wants to do is restore America like he has so many failed properties around the world. It’s a massive restoration project that has his natural inclinations salivating to see if he can pull it off in his final years of life—the perfect period to an American story that he has been gloriously successful at writing. Trump is not the kind of man who is happy just dining his way into the sunset with a beautiful family and wealth beyond measure. He wants to be in the trenches fighting, and at the stage of life that he’s in currently only the restoration project of President of the United States suits his polished tastes. He has everything a man could want—literally, except one thing—completion of the greatest challenge perhaps the world has ever seen. America is a crippled superpower heavily in debt, defeated in spirit because of over 20 years of gross government mismanagement, and a country that has lost its global respect. Trump intends quite sincerely to turn all that around within a few terms as president. He even says in the book that he plans to actually accomplish more in the first 90 days than Obama has in 7 years. And I believe him, especially after reading his book, because he does get into details on how to do it—complete with examples.

Politically it was the usual stuff, discussions about the economy, taxes, the state of the nation, infrastructure, foreign policy and what he thinks he can do that’s better than everyone else. In that way Trump’s book sounds like Ben Carson’s, and Hillary Clinton’s. But there’s more to it—another layer that was not so obviously camouflaged. There is a swagger to Trump that indicates he could actually pull it off. With every other political candidate and commenter alike who have written such books—from Glenn Beck to Rand Paul—and I’ve read them all—nobody but Trump stands a chance of accomplishing even a small portion of the promises—because the political system itself is set up to prevent any action—and to feed the shadow government of lobbyists and political donations which essentially fuel all the politics of the Beltway.

Trump has a plan for just about everything and he has the confidence based on his reputation to pull off 100% of what’s in his book. I was actually impressed by his swagger, which is saying something. I have personally hired hundreds of people so I’ve interviewed perhaps thousands over the last decade and I’ve developed quite a bullshit detector. I know when someone presents an inflated résumé to me, and I know when raw passion is displayed for the hiring. Trump is raw passion with an understated résumé of which Crippled America is essentially. Getting to know Trump becomes much more evident toward the last third of the book where he talks about all his building projects over the years and when you realize just how much he’s accomplished in just three decades, its pretty earth shattering. Just considering what he did from 1974 with the Commodore Hotel in New York City to the opening of Trump Tower in 1983 is mind-blowing as an individual measurement, with just a loan from his father to take on the world of real estate in New York City which is arguably on of the most complicated and expensive in the world. He is an impressive figure radiating with confidence which is obvious in every word of his book. Based on his résumé and how he communicated it, I’d have to hire him just to see if he could do it. Our last president was a community organizer and he ran the country with that strength in his wheel house. Obama gets excited about Ferguson riots, but could care less about $19 trillion in debt. Bush the younger ran the country as a rich daddy’s boy—which he was. His dad wished he had completed the mission in Iraq, but didn’t so the boy finished the job—to his own detriment. Following the orders of his daddy was in Bush’s wheel house so he did so in that fashion. Clinton during the 90s was a free partying womanizer associated with criminals, drug smuggling and murder as governor of Arkansas. So he ran the country as if it were the mob. And that’s pretty much what we got. There hasn’t been anybody like Trump—ever. He’s successful, accomplished, and at the top of his game—and he’s even more confident than I think most people can even register. Out of all the candidates in this century or the last, Trump is the most poised candidate ever to put his name on a ticket. We have to give him a chance or we are just stupid as a nation, because he is certainly the most qualified presidential candidate.

And that’s where Crippled America gets interesting. Trump knows why the media is against him, and why the political parties are terrified of him. He’s more aware of it than even he’ll let on in his speeches—it comes out in his writing. When he is given time and a free stump without opposition he can really string together a number of complicated thoughts about matters. He’s much smarter than he lets on—that much is very clear. If Trump becomes president the entire political system falls apart. He has been a powerful political contributor and they loved him then. But now he’s crossing over into their world and he knows where the bodies are buried—and they don’t like it. The political class has been “apathetic” to say the least in the United States. They have made good livings for themselves doing nothing. They know if Trump is elected than there will be other business types who follow and a chain reaction will start that will end their way of life. Business people will begin to enter public office from the local school board president to the governors of states. The term “politician” will take on an entirely new meaning. Trump plans to run the White House like he does his businesses and that scares K-Street immensely. They will be exposed and Trump will use that leverage to get the arm twisting he needs done accomplished.

As I closed the book and thought about all the things I’m grateful for—which is a lot—I think for the first time ever I had hope for our political future. I’ve voted for people before who I thought might shake things up a bit and accomplish a nice thing or two. But Trump is offering to revamp America as a restoration project from Social Security, private sector driven health care, to making concealed carry a statewide option—like getting a driver’s license. I think I’d vote for Donald Trump just because he wants to make concealed carry good in all 50 states. I’m surprised he doesn’t talk more about that issue—because it’s a big one. He wants to simplify the tax code and demand respect from our trade imbalances. He planes to renew our infrastructure and dramatically increase our economic growth. His presidency would be a trend setting endeavor that would change all elections in the future. So for me the turkey tasted just a bitter knowing that Trump is running for president. And given his polling numbers in spite of everything that’s been thrown at him he has a great chance of winning. The political establishment however is fighting for its very life and will do anything it can to keep Trump out of the White House. The difference between my hopes for change in the past and this one is that I think Trump is just getting started and he knows how to work through that minefield and still come out of the other side dancing through the fire. Any apprehension I had about Trump was erased with Crippled America. Using his book as a résumé there really is no other option. He is the most accomplished candidate in the field to do what he says, and he’s most poised to put a stop to the current political process of fundraising and K-Street shadow governments.   If he did just 1% of what he promised in Crippled America he’d go down as the greatest president in the history of the world. But as I cut the turkey on my plate I realized that he had the potential to accomplish all 100%. And that is really something to smile about.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT