Tag: Ayn Rand

The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference

I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.”  To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative.  I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.)  Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative.  A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster.  It’s not the fault of women.  But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition.  Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.

I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids.  I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort.  Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.

In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work.  I know this because he’s a friend of mine.  Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition.  He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative.  In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.

I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice.  But I do judge them as lacking conservatism.  There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy.  I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes.  Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing.  It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity.  Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs.  When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built.  That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.

Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement.   They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated.  The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism.  Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.

When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial.  They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement.  But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures.  A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village.  That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty.  This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump.  When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important.  The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism.  Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur.  But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them.  And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.

I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be.  But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren.  The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen.  Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass.   But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.

So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism.  Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.”  I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves.  The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence.  They are mistaken.

Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue.  If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment.  If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes.  But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards.  I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News.  The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow.  These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism.  And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality.  Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives.  But they are not.  Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great.  Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper.  The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming.  Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else.   And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage.  Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism.  All it really is, is embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Addict John Kasich: Begging for money like a derelict one last time

If you ever wanted a way to explain to your kids why they should never do drugs, just point them in the direction of the Kasich presidential campaign.  It always comes up if you dig deep enough; illegal drugs are a terrible aspect of modern culture—especially in Ohio.  If there is one reason to despise illegal immigration, it is because of the horrendous effect that narcotics passing into our country hidden within that act entails—drugs turn good people into bad every time—without fail.  Now based on his behavior it would appear that John Kasich has become a serious drug addict.  What he is saying and doing makes no sense—he is delusional.  The day after the Super Tuesday presidential results where Donald Trump won five American territories and lost only one to John Kasich—Kasich complete with a confetti style victory party had his team put together this video.

Uuuuuuh, we are halfway through the election of more than fifty American territories who produce electoral votes and Governor Kasich of Ohio has only won one state with a measly 66 delegates—and that was Ohio on March 15th.  For him and really everyone else the election is already over except by defying the will of the American voter who has supported the Republican Party.  There is no other way for this election to end for Kasich other than a concession speech.  Yet, Kasich and his people sent me this email looking for money just two days from a miserable showing on Super Tuesday where he barely even stacked up any votes in most of the states—except for Ohio.  Nobody in their right mind—who has any money to speak of—would dump money into Kasich—these are supposed to be smart people.  But this email clearly shows the rationality of a crack addict looking for just one more hit before plunging themselves into bankruptcy.

Rich, want to defeat Hillary Clinton and win the White House? Only John Kasich can do it.

Gov. John Kasich is the ONLY Republican polls show can defeat her in three critical swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

Following our big Ohio win, we’re now focused on collecting delegates in Utah (will caucus on Tuesday) and the other major upcoming states like Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania and many others.

We will go into the convention with more momentum than any other candidate. 

Governor Kasich will be our nominee because he is the only candidate who can do the job of President and the only Republican who can WIN.

It’s critical that we continue to build on our momentum!

Chip in $25 or more right now to ensure we win the nomination.

Rich – not only will we continue to gain momentum before the convention but we’ll unify our party and defeat Hillary Clinton this fall.

We have an 8-point lead over Hillary nationally and would defeat her in Ohio by 21 points!

Our positive message is working and it’s gaining more attention every day.

Trump and Cruz are terrified to face Gov. John Kasich in the GOP convention. Here’s why:
Politico released a survey where 45% of respondents said that John Kasich is the best Republican candidate to go on and defeat Hillary Clinton this fall. Kasich finishes 12-points ahead of Cruz and a whopping 23-points ahead of Trump!
While the other candidates have run campaigns that divide us, Gov. Kasich is the lone candidate who’s run a positive campaign focused on working together to solve our greatest challenges with real, achievable solutions. 
Utah will caucus on Tuesday and Wisconsin voters will head to the polls on April 5th. We need your ongoing support to ensure that we can keep growing on our momentum from the big win in Ohio.
We WILL stop Trump from getting the nomination and we WILL win at the convention – and then we’ll go on to defeat Hillary this fall and begin the hard work of fixing America, together.


>>Chip in $25<<

>>Chip in $50<<

>>Chip in $100<<

Onward to victory,

John Weaver

Chief Strategist

JohnKasich.com

That guy should be fired if he is the chief strategist for Kasich—and Kasich needs to enter re-hab immediately for signing off on it.  To even talk about going to a convention with the most momentum at this point is insanely stupid.  I know area Republicans are having a hard time with the Donald Trump eventual nomination because it will completely change the way they do business inside the Beltway–Lobby money for politicians is like heroin or cocaine is to a drug addict—for the sake of the American Republic—the practice has to end.  Politicians have not done the job correctly for two centuries, and American voters are pulling the plug on them—especially people like John Kasich.  How any Republican within the party leadership could look at the loser and conclude that he should be taking a victory lap after winning Ohio is just delusional—and it’s no wonder that so many people support Donald Trump.

We all speculate on how bad the “political class” really is, and have great fun making light of their efforts. But up until recently we didn’t have any alternative.  Trump gives us an alternative.  Cruz is too rigid for the job, and he is clinging on for dear life, legitimately.  He doesn’t do well in most of the states that are coming up–especially California and New York and now Lindsey Graham is actually joining sides with the hated senator for the sheer preservation of their Beltway addictions.  But Kasich hasn’t really been on the radar but in a few very progressive states who only vote for him because he’s like voting for a Democrat.  Everywhere else, he has bombed badly.

That can only lead us to believe that he has lost his sanity.  And he, along with many establishment Republicans have surrendered their logic to the gullibility of addiction.  They share with the most despicable of our national citizens a love for illusion conjured up by drug use.  Addiction to lobbyist entitlements to the brain of the consumer is no different essentially than a line of cocaine—because the result is the same—avoidance of reality, artificial stimulation of the present circumstances, and undeniable escape from the conditions of one’s environment. John Kasich and his team have shown that they are no different than the scum bag drug addict who would sell their children into the hands of villains just to feel the rush of their drug of choice one last time.  My answer to them is no different than if a homeless person missing all their teeth and wearing tattered clothing draped from their arms asked me for a few dollars in downtown Cincinnati.  You know by giving them money that they are only going to turn around and buy a bottle of alcohol or a hit of crack—that’s usually why they are in the situation that they are—because they made bad decisions based on a reality they couldn’t come to terms with.  And that is certainly the situation with John Kasich.  He has lost his mind in addition to losing the election during the presidential primary.  Now it forces us to do the hard thing—and that is to starve him out for his own good.  He has embarrassed us enough in Ohio.  Now it’s time to turn off the money—I certainly won’t be giving him any.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Eden of America: Why we should repeal The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Previously I published a very short book called Eden of America by Zophar Roberts which was written between 1800 and 1801.  Within it are the observations of a frontier world that pre-dates all present day politics except for the presumption of the implementation of the American Constitution.  It was a new nation learning about itself and what came before.  During that time there was quite extraordinary interest in the land that America inherited—and the mounds of the Ohio Valley which contained the remains of a giant race of people.  These people appeared to thrive during the Archaic Period of North American history and their descendents appear to have interbred with travelers from the Orient who were sailing all over the world in the days of the Phoenicians, the early Vikings, and of course the Chinese.   Following perfectly the Vico cycle, China after the 1420s closed off to the world and moved into a nation of anarchy then aristocracy abandoning their history at that point and allowing Europe to believe that when Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, that they had been the first into the new world.  Europe believed the people he discovered were “Indians.”  What he really found were the remains of a people long abandoned to their roots that had devolved into nomadic tribes–(for a modern fictional example think of the Mad Max movies).  In the Ohio Valley they were called Adena and Hopewell Indians and they had lost their vast and sophisticated culture to time.  They occupied the lands that strange burial and ceremonial mounds were built on, but they had no clue as to how they were made or what they signified.  These mounds resembled quite similarly the types of earthen structures seen all over the United Kingdom and Ireland and have a rich history of mythological stories.  Additionally, earthen structures like those found in Ohio were similar to those in China and Siberia.  The Indians in America simply inherited them by default the way a modern-day urban dweller inherits the skyscrapers and architecture of a city.  They played no role in building the city, but they enjoy their construction as generations leave the earth and their memory with them.  That is the case of the “Indian” tribes who have been associated with the culture of pre-Columbian archaeology.

However, prior to the start of the Smithsonian Institute and the rise of the National Geographic society by Alexander Graham Bell—and many others, there was plenty of armchair archaeology going on as farmers settled the Ohio Valley and were finding the bones and relics of an ancient—and advanced culture which appeared to rival the Mesopotamian society in the Middle East—and the Indus Valley–the region of modern-day India and countries to the immediate east.  As many who settled the New World especially after the Civil War had cleared the politics of slavery from contention a strong desire inspired by the churches of Europe had a lot at stake to ensure to themselves that they were the ones on the cutting edge of something new—and fresh.  They were strongly motivated to ensure that America would be a Christian nation so they did as most European conquerors did for really the entire history of their religion—they erased the past and all evidence of it and used established science which the political machine controlled from a central Washington authority to preserve a dialogue which suited the politics of their migration from Europe to America.

Essentially from 1800 to around 1850 it was commonly known in the Ohio Valley and down into Kentucky that very large statured people lived in America and had a thriving culture of mysterious origin.  But for the frontiersman, they had a curious speculation, but little investment to the contrary.  They were free to pick up skulls from their farms and hold them up to their human heads and proclaim their observations freely of which people like Zophar Roberts likely observed.  But with the new nation and its Christian heritage from Europe came the advent of academia shaped by politics to unseat the observations and steer societal consciousness toward religions and government desires which suited the continuing flow of immigrants who wished to make in America a “sister alliance” with the homeland after the brave souls who first fought the Revolution and declared themselves independent—even to the global practice of slavery—had done all the hard work.  They made treaties with the “Indians” then purposely broke them slowly over time building a storyline which would later justify all public attention.  That storyline was maintained by secret societies and conspiracy theory deliberately spread to hide the truth from generation to generation.  After the Spanish-American War, then the Civil War followed by westward expansion and the lust for wealth during the Gold Rush the destruction of those past civilizations was complete and the observations from yesteryear nearly quelled.

To further suppress those early American observations of a species of giants who left behind an advanced culture lost to history laws were created to protect the Indians who were naturally associated with being present before the arrival of Columbus.  Even though archaeology became an established science really at the turn of the 20th century organized under university tutelage seriously between 1910 and 1940 some good work was being done to answer some of these lingering questions.  As momentum began to pick up as to the origins of some unanswered questions regarding “Indians” the political class seeking a preservation of their aristocratic tendencies for control established in 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act which essentially made it impossible for any archaeologist to obtain permits to conduct a dig into some of these mysterious Ohio Valley mounds to learn more.  Since then, archaeology into those ancient cultures have nearly stopped.  It is clear to a mind that asks questions and makes observations based in reality that the Native American Graves Protection Act was to serve as a similar means of historic scientific editing as the barbarians that burnt down the Library of Alexandria which I think was one of the most epic catastrophes that ever occurred on earth—not in enormity—but in what was lost to history.  By utilizing the Smithsonian Institute interpretation of historical documentation—which has done some fantastic work over the years but is in all actuality—a single source only validated by National Geographic which  also has a Washington D.C. home base—laws were written to protect a line of dialogue that supported a progressive interpretation of Native American occupation supporting a world view using Christopher Columbus as a benchmark in history.   I’m not one to say that those scientific organizations are not valuable, but they are certainly inspired by the climate of politics within the city that they operate.  Thus, they are committed to the progressive outlook shaped by legislation and the dialogue of abused rights attributed to an invented class of citizens called, “Native Americans.” 

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

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

As proof, the ancient city of Cahokia was noticed as recently as 1923 while a neighborhood was being constructed upon its ruins.  Builders at the time thought the pyramids on the site were just hills.  By 1966 it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Then in 1982 it was listed as only one of twenty-three World Heritage Sites.  It is one of the most archaeologically significant places on earth and standing atop the large mound there, which is the third largest in the known world—you can see downtown St. Louis—that’s how close it is yet so far away from mainstream thought.  Since then there have been excavations but the work has been extremely limited.  It’s a wonderful state park but scientists are no closer to understanding the people of Cahokia than they were in 1982. All the theories were essentially published at that time and the park system of the historic site has maintained that dialogue since.  Because of the Native American Graves Protection Act all science in that area must be given approval by caretakers of Indian tribes as if they had anything to do with the Cahokian site. But because of politics, they have been given authority to limit scientific evaluation—incorrectly. The process is essentially the same as using the EPA to stop business development, or a township zoning commission to prevent healthy new economic growth within a community. The Native American Graves Protection Act keeps the story of the Ohio Valley giants suppressed by authentic science leaving us only to speculate.

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

When you hear of firsthand accounts such as what was provided by Zophar Roberts, which then was reflected by Abraham Lincoln as he traveled prior to his presidency on the campaign trail and saw many of the same speculations—we get a glimpse into the archaeological world as it should have evolved—with an open mind and a natural human curiosity that could evolve with the facts as they were presented.   Over the last century there have been many political factions tied directly to religion and a global dialogue shaped but a philosophy established on Greek assumptions that whatever happened prior to Christopher Columbus didn’t matter.  All that does matter is from the perspective of a modern interpretation of a reality formed by religious foundations.  These giants which likely reside today in the unexcavated mounds of Miamisburg, Ohio—and many, many other places are part of a history that modern politics wants to forget—and so far they have been allowed to edit the scientific fact toward that reality.  But thanks to stories which crawl out from under unmolested sources—we sometimes get a window into the world before such corruption took place.  And to really understand America and our very lives within a historical context, we must always accept new evidence as it makes itself known.   To that effect, I give a lot of weight to the account of Zophar Roberts.  It at least inspires further excavation in places untouched by science—Miamisburg is the perfect location.  If nothing is within that mound contrary to the Smithsonian account of the Adena and Hopewell Indians—so be it.  But we’ll never know unless we look.  I suggest a repeal of The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  Then I suggest funding excavation of these sites without political limits by private sector money and what we will find is more along the lines of Zophar Roberts rather than National Geographic.  We will never know unless we give it an honest shot and so long as the government has its hands in science—we never will.  Science needs to be driven by the private sector—and then the truth will be revealed.

For further proof please click on the hotlinks within this article for further reading and evidence of a world long-lost to history.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

Ann Becker Wins, Patti Alderson Loses: A new dawn for a Constitutional Republic–not turning the other cheek

For me it was the best election I’ve enjoyed in quite some time.  All my people didn’t win but the one I most supported did—and that was Ann Becker knocking out Patti Alderson off the Ohio State Central Committee.  Patti is part of the party establishment that speaks about Republican values but behaves like a Democrat and she along with several like her gave us John Kasich.  There were several Tea Party challengers to the establishment State Central Committee candidates who are all just as bad as Patti relative to political philosophy—and few of them broke through like Ann did—but now Becker can begin to do valuable work from the inside that will help guide the Republican Party back toward real conservatism instead of just RINO namesake—using the party to win elections then run like their more progressive rivals.

It never fails to shock me even knowing all that I do about how things work—to learn to what extent the Republican Party led by John Kasich in Ohio had a lock on voters through the machine of politics.  I have been supporting Donald Trump for president and was happy with his wins on Tuesday, March 15th.  I was hoping he’d get Ohio but based on the feedback I had from area Republicans attending a Trump event recently I was continually baffled to hear them talk about how they feared to let it be publicly known that they liked Trump.  I mean these were grown adults and they were fearful of the wrath of some little hunchback progressive who could get his ass kicked by a falling leaf.  There is nothing to fear about John Kasich.  Yet politicians afraid of harming their rise to power within the party did not want party leaders to know that they were at this epic Trump event but only to get an autograph of the celebrity.  The head of the Republican Party was supposed to be seated next to me, but he never showed up because obviously the party was in the bag for Kasich and he was expected to strong-arm his party members into supporting the current governor over Trump.  That is precisely what is wrong with politics.  Those politicians didn’t represent the people who elected them—they represented with real anxiety the desires of the party bosses and largely that temperament has been shaped over many years by people like Patti Alderson.  So it was wonderful to see her go down in flames to someone I know will truly steer the State Central Committee into the direction of a constitutional republic.

As the nationwide results came in I was embarrassed for Ohio and the Republican Party that was so proud of their ability to turn out votes for John Kasich—in spite of him being an extreme loser who has no chance nationally of winning anything outside of a complete insurrection at the National Convention.  Trump and Cruz are the clear favorites among voters leaving all the establishment types in the dust of recollection.  Listening to Kasich talk you’d think he just won the Super Bowl.   What was painful to me was what many of those area Republicans and their donors said to me just a few days prior at the Trump event.   If given a choice, they’d vote a different way.  I’d say to them that nobody knows how you vote when it’s just you in the booth.  That’s when they’d say to me—“yes they do.”  They didn’t want it to ever be discovered that they supported anybody but Kasich for President in 2016—even though the guy had no chance to do anything nationally. With all that strong-arming by party bosses Kasich won a measly 66 delegates.  To date he has barely broke 100 which is deplorable.  Only career politicians would think such a thing was something to celebrate.

Patti Alderson in spite of the people who will tell me and you dear reader that she’s a pinnacle of virtue is exactly the type of person who is bad for the Republican Party.  She supported increases in taxes—has used charities as a means of extortion against children by blocking out people who actually tried to help then smeared the people who were really trying to point a light on what she was doing with the unionized educators embedded deeply in our community.  I know firsthand what she’s like behind the smiles and the charity—and she went after my name rather viciously once all other means of stopping my anti-tax group ran out.  In a lot of ways what she did locally was a lot like what the Republican Party is doing now to Donald Trump.  They don’t know how to stop him so they are attacking him.  And like him I have a similar social policy—I never forget, I do hold grudges and even if it takes 100 years, I look to get even against those who have done me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with that type of animosity—it is the difference between winners and losers.  All this turning the other cheek stuff in my view is a stupid position to take on anything—it certainly isn’t a path to any kind of victory.  If they hit you, you always hit them harder and harder until they stop and give up.

It was four years to the day that I had to dig in like Trump and defend my record by an onslaught of media and public sentiment coordinated by Patti against me to essentially preserve all that she had built connecting the Republican Party to Lakota Schools and the tax increases that she wanted.  I encouraged all my Republican friends to stand with me, that what Patti was doing with her tax increase support around the community using charity to help sell it would lose in the end in spite of the mudslinging—that all she was trying to do would backfire if everyone would just hold their ground.  But they listened to her because she was a party insider instead of me and history told the rest of the story.  I am proud to be the first that I know of in modern politics to do as Trump is now on a national stage.  I tried to tell area Republicans to dig in and stand for something and some did.  Most continued listening to Patti—like Judy Shelton who was strong-arming local Republican members to hold the line of the party even if the party was wrong philosophically.  (CLICK TO REVIEW)  Thankfully good people have been challenging the Republican establishment ever since and many have broken through.  Ann is only the most spectacular and recent example.  But many before her have been pounding away at those fences and now they are starting to break through.

Trump is a result of that offensive strategy, he would not have had the kind of success he is now prior to 2012.  I said to an NPR reporter for WVXU at that Trump event standing in front of the Bernie Sanders supporters that politics was changing forever.  Trump was paving the way for a new kind of politician—part entertainer, part private sector success story, and part WWF.  It takes those entertainment attributes to break the party lines and establish yourself independently from any collectivist rule.  I proved that 100 days after an onslaught that Patti Alderson led against me within the Republican Party to remove me from her plans by using a little authentic theatrics to gain supporters away from her way of thinking. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  I was astonished by all the people who were happy that my methods had actually worked—they stopped me everywhere and thanked me for what I had done—which was simply to stand my ground when everyone else literally abandoned me at Patti’s direction.  I wrote about my experiences extensively and now many thousands of people have read about that strategy.   I said it in 2012—the way to win as a Republican was to hit back at Democrats harder than they hit you.  Many being good Christians couldn’t get their mind around it.  But the Saul Alinsky playbook exposes that tendency among Republicans to turn the other cheek and that’s how liberals have continued to beat conservatives time and time again, and there has been no end in sight, until that moment in 2012.  So it gives me great satisfaction to see Ann Becker beat out Patti Alderson and to see Donald Trump using that same strategy on a national level.  Not that Trump adopted any of my ideas; he’s certainly his own man.  But enough people have been thinking about these things and a chain reaction within politics has taken on a life of its own.

It was quite enjoyable for me to watch Trump’s speech after he won essentially all the states on the March 15th election except for Ohio—knocking out Marco Rubio from the presidential race.  Trump attacked the media, the GOP establishment and showed that he was standing by his campaign manager when there were calls for his head—and he did it with a smile on his face to the outrage of the media.  I remember how it felt for me March 12th through March 15th of 2012 when Patti Alderson led her group of people to attack me in every way that she could without actually getting her hands dirty.  I remember my hatred of Michael Clark from The Cincinnati Enquirer, the betrayal of Scott Sloan at WLW, and my supposed friends within No Lakota Levy who abandoned me while speaking to hundreds of thousands of people on the air in the moment when I needed them most.  They did what they did because Patti had led them to their actions—I have the emails to prove it–still.  But I stood my ground as hard as it was.  Professionally, if I had been anyone else I would have been finished as a person in Butler County—but people like Patti didn’t care in the least.  For her the needs of the many out-weighed the needs of the few and if I was getting in the way—even if I was technically correct—then disposal was the option.  It was a hard period of time for me.  But I dug in and stood my ground and people thanked me for it.  And now, just four years later my friend Ann Becker has replaced Patti Alderson from her Central Committee seat and Donald Trump is running for president and is essentially using the same methods I did to advance his tactical position.  And this time the Republican establishment can’t stop him.  Because those of us on the cutting edge have seen the weak spots in the party system and now it is coming apart.  And that gives me great satisfaction for really the first time in over thirty years of political observation.  March 15th was a good day for our Constitutional Republic.  And things are just getting started.  It’s not that anger and flamboyancy are the proper means to defending a republic, but when fear is used to keep party members in line and to force people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t on their own—the best way to deal with it is to throw it back in the perpetrator’s face and stand up to the bully—whoever it is.  There is one thing in this world that I have no tolerance for and that is a bully.   Trump isn’t the bully—it’s the people who use party members to hold people to a worthless vote that goes against the voters.  And of that class—Patti Alderson was one of the most frequent violators.  She didn’t bully people with force—she does it with a smile on her face and a large check book.  But the methods are conducted under coercion nonetheless—and that has to end at every level of government, from local to international.

So how did Ann win that important election—well, I’ll tell you.  She was at the Trump rally in West Chester even though she’s a Cruz supporter—she went where the people were and she talked to those many thousands who were standing in the rain trying to get into the packed venue.  Those were people who were definitely going to vote in West Chester for Trump and she gave them her name on the ballot.  Most people reading through such ballots have no idea who Patti Alderson was, but they knew Ann because she handed them literature with her name on it working the crowd.  She went door to door.  She was on the nightly local television news.  She had write ups in the newspaper.  She was on the radio.  And she had commercials on 55 KRC.  In short, she took nothing for granted and she actively worked every angle possible to the largest extent possible.  She simply out-worked the incumbent Patti Alderson who sat back and expected her reputation to carry her through the election.  That is how you beat these incumbents dear reader.  You simply outwork them.  That is how Trump is doing it, and that is how Ann won.  If everyone who is a freedom lover did the same—the establishment would cease to be.  You don’t have to play party politics and fall in line with the leadership.  You simply outwork everyone else and stick by your guns no matter what.  That is the best path to success in any endeavor—and it needs to become the standard mode of operation in politics.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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