Tag: corruption

Why Disney Destroyed Han Solo: Progressive activism and attacking “white, American, family men”

I knew there was trouble on June 3rd 2015 when Marvel comics announced that Han Solo had an ex-wife in its comic #6 issue.  I didn’t want to believe it, but after later seeing The Force Awakens, I am 100% sure that what I was watching Disney do was on the scale of the old medieval churches in Europe re-writing history with their printing of Bibles to control the mass population through religion.  Star Wars was becoming something of a religion around the world, and now that the Disney Corporation had paid 4 billion dollars for it they were taking great liberties with very important characters in an attempt to change their original meaning to the overall story.   They didn’t have to, because the property had already been developed by George Lucas over three decades into a positive household name with no signs of abating.  Even more alarming was that Han’s revisionist wife was a black woman named Sana Solo proving that Disney was more interested in establishing progressive values in their ownership of Star Wars instead of just continuing the story that so many loved.   Disney was deliberately smearing the market impression that Han Solo had on the Star Wars stories and they were doing it not to be more successful, but because they wanted to change the meaning and mythic impact of the overall story arc.  That is why if you were listening to WAAM today at 1 PM in the afternoon, you would have heard Matt Clark and I dismantling Disney’s ownership of the Star Wars franchise.  If you missed it, you can hear it again here and above this paragraph in two parts:

http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2015/06/03/meet-sana-solo-han-solos-wife-star-wars-6/

I am quite a believer that the Bible has been revised to such an extent by political forces over the years that it has lost much of its original meaning—so I don’t trust it.  One fine example is the missing Book of Enoch which would have been an important part of Genesis.  It is not considered by Jews and many other Christian groups to be part of the Biblical “canon” and knowing that one can only wonder what else has been left out, or added to the stories that have made three of the world’s religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims.  Like it or not, Star Wars has become something of a religion.  Another few hundred years and it will likely have more influence over mass populations than Christianity does today—and that all starts with these seemingly simple stories being shown in our lifetime.  So it concerned me greatly when Han Solo was introduced in Marvel #6 with a black wife—which I didn’t believe at the time.  My wife and I talked about it a bit, I was then involved in a large motorcycle accident which soaked up a lot of time and attention.  I was also involved in a massive international project that was taking a lot of time.  But my concern was so great that I stopped buying Star Wars merchandise at that moment.  I had been reading the books and comics to alleviate the daily pressure associated with my life.  But upon the release of Star Wars #6 under Marvel Comics, I stopped, immediately.

When Marvel took over the comics which were supposedly Pablo Hidalgo approved from the Star Wars story group six months earlier from Dark Horse I was curious that they didn’t show a desire to connect the story material between the two publishing conglomerates.  I didn’t let that bother me too much because comics I don’t consider to be as important as novels—especially the New York Times bestselling books that had taken over the Star Wars canon for two decades in a really positive way.  But under Disney’s ownership of Marvel they had introduced a black woman to be Han Solo’s wife in an effect to emphasize negative character traits of one of the most popular characters in Star Wars.  Solo was a white guy superman type of character, so I wondered if Disney’s direction was a political one.  Later when I saw The Force Awakens, it clarified it emphatically.   Disney had revised the Star Wars canon personally created by George Lucas to make the stories more progressive politically.  They were essentially destroying a major character for the sake of editing the impact the character had on established mythology.  This was equivalent to the way that progressives have attacked Thomas Jefferson as a real historic figure with the Sally Hemings allegations, or to attack Jesus and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, the prostitute in the Bible who traveled with Jesus and was there at his execution.  We have witnessed revised history taking place in our public schools and colleges for the purpose of erasing history and now it was happening in Star Wars—an entertainment property that was just supposed to be for fun.  Yet Disney was purposely destroying the character of Han Solo because of the impact he had on so many fans as being a very strong, and reliable character. My suspicions were confirmed at the beginning of September when a gay character was included in the new Star Wars novel Aftermath, which I reported a warning to Disney upon release.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. 

I’m not against black characters in Star Wars, or even alternative sexual types.  However, Star Wars has always been an updated western, a space opera intended to communicate mythic stories that propelled our society with foundation philosophies.  Until Star Wars comic #6, then the novel Aftermath followed by the confirmation of all my concerns with the movie The Force Awakens, I felt I could trust Lucasfilm with a story canon that was personally managed by George Lucas.   I could read a story in a book or comic and believe that it had meaning to the overall collection of stories that had been canon until the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm from George Lucas.  Now in a very short time, Disney didn’t even try to cover their intentions with subtlety.   They disrespected the long-time fans so much that they counted on sheer numbers to justify their collective activism of taking a deeply traditional story like Star Wars and turning it into a progressive mess.  Disney was showing itself to be much more interested in selling the politics of the Obama White House than in just telling a story set in a galaxy far far away.   Disney was promoting gay sex and interracial marriages over protecting the value of what made Star Wars successful to begin with.  So for me, the only Star Wars canon is the one that took place before Disney took over.  The last official book in the Star Wars canon under the guidance of George Lucas was the very good book The Crucible.  It takes place 45 years after the Battle of Yavin in the film A New Hope.   After watching A Force Awakens, which takes place around 15 years earlier I had thought that there was some time travel going on that gave the Star Wars story group an out if things went wrong with their progressive activism, but I’m now convinced that it’s too late.  Disney executives have made progressive concepts their priority which has ruined Star Wars forever, they can’t go back now—they are too committed.  Here is how The Crucible went and is officially the way that Han Solo and the other characters of the George Lucas canon rode off into the sunset of storytelling. 

http://www.starwarstimeline.net/

When Han and Leia Solo arrive at Lando Calrissian’s Outer Rim mining operation to help him thwart a hostile takeover, their aim is just to even up the odds and lay down the law. Then monstrous aliens arrive with a message, and mere threats escalate into violent sabotage with mass fatalities. When the dust settles, what began as corporate warfare becomes a battle with much higher stakes–and far deadlier consequences.

Now Han, Leia, and Luke team up once again in a quest to defeat a dangerous adversary bent on galaxy-wide domination. Only this time, the Empire is not the enemy. It is a pair of ruthless geniuses with a lethal ally and a lifelong vendetta against Han Solo. And when the murderous duo gets the drop on Han, he finds himself outgunned in the fight of his life. To save him, and the galaxy, Luke and Leia must brave a gauntlet of treachery, terrorism, and the untold power of an enigmatic artifact capable of bending space, time, and even the Force itself into an apocalyptic nightmare.

I have praised George Lucas often because I think he’s a great filmmaker.   He is too liberal for me, but I respect him greatly.  He does have a black wife, which I don’t think is a big deal and he supports Obama.  I gave high praise for his film Red Tails because it was an important story that needed to be told.   When he sold Star Wars to Disney he did it because he was 70 and wanted to retire—but he had a massive company with over 2000 employees.  It would have been better for Star Wars if Lucas would have just maintained control of his property, but then he couldn’t just let his employees rot—at least in his mind.  So he sold Star Wars to a corporation he thought might preserve it, and washed his hands of the responsibility of being a major employer.  I can understand all that.  I thought it was a good move so long as Disney respected what George Lucas had built.

There is a lot more of George Lucas in Han Solo than in any other character I think.  I’m sure George would say that he’s Artoo Detoo, or Yoda and that Star Wars is all about Luke Skywalker.  But Han Solo is the old drag racer that Lucas used to be—and in many ways still is.  I have read hundreds of Star Wars novels, most of them have Han Solo in the stories so I know the character very well—and he’s what George Lucas wanted to be.  And let me say, Han Solo would have never had a wife during A New Hope.  He had a long time girlfriend who was a drug addict prior to meeting Princess Leia, but he was not a sleep around.  He wanted to be as far away from attachments as possible to protect himself from the obligation of maintaining those relationships and violating his opportunities for freedom.  He wanted nothing more to limit his loyalties to his Wookie friend Chewbacca and to travel the galaxy in his hot rod Millennium Falcon.  Much of his gruffness toward others was an act, just as he deliberately kept the Millennium Falcon looking like a wreck to disguise the power within it—the ship was the embodiment of Han Solo himself.  Solo would have never had a wife, and once he did, he would have never left her. Han Solo is not the kind of character who gets drunk on Nar Shaddaa and wakes up with a wife.  Han Solo was the embodiment of all the cowboys that George Lucas grew up loving as a kid, and he created a character that modern kids could look up to.  That’s why he was always my favorite character, so it was very easy for me to see the revisionist history that Disney was attempting to perform without getting caught.  Only, they got caught.  I know too much about all this stuff not to see it.  I know Star Wars not just from the surface but the structure of it—where it all started from the perspective of the Joseph Campbell Foundation.  I was a member way back when George Lucas was on the Board with Campbell’s wife Jean running things.  I’m not just a fan boy who didn’t want to see Han Solo killed in The Force Awakens.  I’ve studied history and I know the impact of mythology, and why politics seeks to capture stories to control mass populations.  That’s what Disney is doing with Han Solo, destroying him so that they can rebuild him in a progressive way to satisfy their political activism.

Star Wars fans really want to like The Force Awakens.  I’m one of them.  My opinions as of now are in the extreme minority.  Just like a religion, when people find out something is wrong with a mythic device that contains all their foundation thoughts, people tend to get defensive—and some of that could be heard on the broadcast I did with Matt Clark on WAAM radio.  But being in the minority does not make me wrong.  A million fools cannot erase a truth and what Disney is doing will bite them in the ass—because they are changing essential portions of the Star Wars mythology to satisfy current political concerns.  But those concerns will change over the next 60 years and these gay subplots will seem silly to future readers—especially when they seek out the original stories under George Lucas and compare the activism that occurred under Disney.  Disney could have made a lot of money and done something really good by just leaving Star Wars alone and letting the profits from the endeavor follow.  But they chose to be activists politically—for progressive reasons.  Executives at Lucasfilm and Disney looked at Han Solo and noticed that he was a strong, traditional white male, and they wanted to dirty him up.  So they gave him a wife that he was cheating on, and she was a woman of color to make her more of a victim.  Then they had Han leave Leia in A Force Awakens to return to smuggling as if that was all Han Solo was ever good for without his marriage to a woman of stature and prestige.  They purposely muddied up the character to make a point and create more social diversity because that is their value system.  And that is why the Star Wars stories for me ended with The Crucible, a New York Times bestseller that has as much value to me as the novel Lord of the Rings, or The Bridges of Madison County.  Disney by corporate design to elevate minorities, gays, and women in their stories to appear more diverse, politically, took the strongest character in the Star Wars mythology and erased his essence with a revised canon that makes him into a scumbag more relatable to modern audiences.  We are living in an age where a lot of children cannot relate to a Han Solo type, a man who stays with his wife and is loyal to a fault. So Disney tried to weaken the character to appeal to younger audiences—but all they did was cause trouble for themselves.  I’m not the only fan who will reject their product.  Many others over the years to come will follow and Disney will only have themselves to blame.

For me this whole exercise has provided proof of something I’ve long suspected, that mythologies over time are radically redesigned by politics in all cultures to justify the failures of social mismanagement.   The Bible has certainly been altered over the years to reflect the values of the Roman Empire, and the churches of Europe who wanted to use religion as a natural extension of that imperial control.  Modern progressives are trying constantly to re-write history from the vantage point of the conquered Indian to erase the merits of cowboy capitalism in the West.  And China prohibits proper archaeological study of their many pyramid-shaped mounds to suppress the real history of their ancient culture.  Those are just a few examples.  And right in front of our faces we have watched Disney revise something in our lifetimes in spite of the many witnesses.  I read just the other day a defense of the movie A Force Awakens straying from the original plots created in the Expanded Universe by declaring that Solo had a wife in the EU.  No, Solo did not have a wife under the EU.  That plot device was created six months before the release of the 2015 Disney film to justify why Solo left Princess Leia after Return of the Jedi to become a typical white, American male—a Homer Simpson loser who can’t keep his pants on, and is unreliable to family life.  In Disney’s desire to make Star Wars more accessible to women, and minorities, they have deliberately tampered with what made Han Solo one of the most popular characters in the saga—and they did it out of political activism, not intellectual necessity.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

Why You Should Dump Disney Stock Now: The mistakes made on ‘Force Awakens’ will compound the failure of ESPN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Benefits of Second Call Defense: Information and Christmas wishes from the sheepdogs of the shooting industry

 

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

Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 hours, 7 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

Exciting Changes Coming

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

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

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

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

TSA rules for flying with guns and ammo

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

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

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

Firearms

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

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

Ammunition

Firearm magazines and ammunition clips, whether loaded or empty, must be securely boxed or included within a hard-sided case containing an unloaded firearm.
Small arms ammunition, including ammunition not exceeding .75 caliber for rifle or pistol and shotgun shells of any gauge, may be carried in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as described in the packing guidelines above.

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

by Jeff Knox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Karl Rove Should Be Fired: Why Republicans cannot afford a brokered convention

It wasn’t a surprise that there were discussions about a brokered convention this upcoming summer when Republicans nominate their presidential candidate for President of the United States.  Too many conventional Republicans have already stuck their foot in their own mouths speaking out against the presidential candidates who are not establishment types, namely Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.  Candidates like John Kasich cannot fight the battle that is required within our nation because he has the wrong approach.  In an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation, Kasich said while he understands why so many Republican primary voters are “upset” with the federal government’s inability to deal with major issues such as the economy and budgets, he warned if anger carries “the day, we’re not going to get things fixed.”  Well, here’s the story on Kasich, he came out bold in 2010 as a governor and spoke a lot of Tea Party oriented banter, but quickly retreated into a left leaning moderate once he decided shortly after 2012 to run for president.  He’s been a worthless governor since that time, particularly his support of Obamacare through Medicaid expansion.  His desire to trade federal dollars for votes sealed his fate forever.  He could only hope to remain relevant in the Republican Party so long as there is no viable option otherwise.

So it’s no surprise that Republicans like Kasich are upset.  Kasich has been following the same passive playbook that lost the election for John McCain and Mit Romney and winners see clearly the losing strategy, so they are looking for candidates who don’t want to lose.  None of the mainstream candidates are polling well, and it’s for that reason.  The Republican Party has given conservatives nothing to cheer for.  Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have strategically placed the direction of the Republican Party at the mercy of Democrats for reasons that are baffling.  Rove after the 2012 election had all his polling numbers off predicting a victory, but nobody showed up to vote for Romeny, because the candidate had been rammed down the throat of conservatives and few were excited about him.  Rove should have been fired from Fox News, because he completely lost credibility.  Even before there was a Donald Trump it was impossible to listen to Karl Rove and not  think that he was so incompetent during the 2012 election that he needed to be replaced.

The playbook has not been working.  While Rove undoubtedly would proclaim that Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate the type of people who Republicans have put in those positions have been failures designated as such for their inability to get anything done.  It’s not enough to put players on the field who call themselves Republicans.  If the party cannot give victories to voters, then the effort is all for nothing.  Rove is like the head coach for a losing football team who should have been fired a long time ago, but is kept hoping that somehow something will change if everything just stays constant.  That desire to maintain consistently bad results is what is driving the discussion of a brokered convention, which ironically will have none of the GOP establishment with any significant delegates.  Here’s how the media reported the incident:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson ripped into the Republican National Committee Friday, threatening to leave the party after a report surfaced Thursday detailing a meeting party leaders had earlier in the week to discuss a possible brokered convention.

“If the leaders of the Republican Party want to destroy the party, they should continue to hold meetings like the one described in the Washington Post this morning,” the retired neurosurgeon said.

More than 20 top GOP officials discussed at a dinner on Monday the party’s strategy in the event of a brokered convention amid Donald Trump’s consistent lead in the polls.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened as several longtime party members argued the establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight if Trump storms through the presidential primaries, five sources familiar with the meeting told The Washington Post.

The sources said Priebus and McConnell were mostly silent during the deliberation and did not signal support for an explicit anti-Trump effort.

But both men did acknowledge that a stalemated convention is something the party should be ready for.

When asked on Thursday about the dinner, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer told the Post that the RNC is “neutral in this process and the rules are set until the convention begins next July.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/11/ben-carson-on-the-possibility-of-a-brokered-convention-i-will-not-sit-by-and-watch-theft/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262850-gop-prepares-for-brokered-convention-amid-steady-trump

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/kasich-polarization-division-bad-for-us/npjDp/?source=ddn_skip_stub#cmComments

Regardless of who ends up as the presidential nominee, establishment Republicans have been terminated in the minds of voters.  The alarm was clearly noticed by the mainstream reflection of our society, Saturday Night Live, where writers of the 12/12/2015 show were clearly miffed at conservative America.  In the past these types of idiots were the people Karl Rove measured party success against—trying to appeal to them.  But New York, the Beltway, and Los Angeles are not accurate reflections of the mood of the country.  When you get out into the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana, or the mountains of Montana and Idaho, the Republican Party does not reflect those people.  The NRA does, but the Republican Party as it is today does not.  Pandering to weak candidates like John Kasich doesn’t get the job done and the strategists like Karl Rove who have set the table for this kind of failure shoulder most of the responsibility.

Clearly by the time we get through the primary season to the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio the rules will either change, or many conservatives will look for a different party that represents them.  If Republicans do not listen to their needs, they will go somewhere else.  There is no patience for a Jeb Bush type of establishment candidate.  John Kasich has been a terrible representative of conservative values.  He telegraphed his position strategically to the world so far in advance of his run for president in 2016 that it was embarrassing.  He delayed his announcement during the summer of 2015 too long for dramatic reasons when it was clear all along that his purpose behind the Medicaid expansion was to position himself to be president.  As far back as 2013 insiders were reporting that Kasich was setting up a Ohio office to begin probing the presidential possibilities.  So it comes with some anger to people like him that all the rules have changed—because they have.  From the time he announced his run for president the type of person it will take to be a Republican nominee has changed.  And in six months from now it will change even more—and not in Kasich’s favor.  Kasich is part of the Karl Rove failure.  Republicans showed up to play the game with the wrong playbook.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/kasich-only-political-or-ideological-people-oppose-ohios-medicaid-expansion/

My prediction is that the Republican Convention will not be brokered.  There will be a clear winner with a majority of the delegates going into the nomination process.  That picture will become clear by March and the Karl Rove types will either have to shut their mouths or they’ll be replaced, which would be the best option.  Republican strategists need to have their pulse on America, not just the Beltway.   There are very angry conservatives who have been ignored, and they are a majority of the country.  They have been ignored and made fun of by just about all the media, the entertainment industry, and the Beltway, and at some point in time, someone has to pay for that poor judgment in alienating them from the process with name calling and orthodox politics.  The writers at Saturday Night Live are one of the first to see the caution of that sleeping giant and they seem justifiably a little scared.  New York City and Washington D.C. seem like big places when you are within those structures of political supremacy.  But they seem pretty small to the rugged people who live between the cities all across the country.  And those people are cleaning their guns ready for war.  They don’t give a rat’s ass about Obamacare—except that they want the people who shoved it down their throats removed.  The Republican Party better find a way to represent those people, or their failures will continue.  And accepting that role will start with the Republican Convention in July of 2016.  A floor fight will only make it worse for them.  If Establishment Republicans want to keep Karl Rove around because they like him, let him sell popcorn at the Convention, but don’t take his advice.  He will only screw things up more than he has.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Elusive Nature of Leadership: Understanding the need for an entirely different approach

I know I write a lot about the failure of our education system, and need for Donald Trump as president.  While those subjects may become laborious to the everyday reader, there are so many angles to discuss that only voluminous examination from every trajectory of consideration is appropriate to the difficulties of our day.  Sometimes I run across a video clip that really exhibits the reason, and such an example came to me while I was watching a Donald Trump interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN.  I was so astonished by some of the things Chris said that it took me several days to get my thoughts right about it.  Watch the video below.  The specific part of the interview that I found so astonishing was the part that Cuomo uttered in question form, “how do you know you’re right if so many people disagree with you. “  Boy did he say a mouthful right there.

Leadership is the most elusive element of modern culture.  Even with all our science and physiological understanding of thought processes—academics do not understand it.  Very few people understand real leadership.  I actually deal with this kind of stupidity all the time.  I understand leadership extremely well; it’s always been a very natural thing for me.  When I read books like Trump’s Art of the Deal, and Sun Tzu’s Art of War, I understand the author’s point of view instinctively as opposed to the novice student hearing some of the elements of those books for the first time.  A lot of that comes from my education background and life experiences which looked to people on the outside to be extremely reckless.  I have always known the right thing to do even when nobody else could see it, in every aspect of my life—so it’s easy for me to look at Chris Cuomo and wonder if he’s from some other planet.  I’ve heard that baffling contemplation so many times that it doesn’t surprise me.  But for the sake of dramatic writing, I’ll fester along the line of thought to make the point more interesting.  Leadership does not come from focus groups or consensus of any kind.  It comes from raw individualized leadership only—meaning other voices are pointless.  It is good to utilize other people’s opinions for the sake of “team building.”  But a “team” approach is not the same as “leadership.”  It’s just a means of getting large numbers of people to do what you want them to do.  A team approach is fine so long as that team listens to their head coach.  Without a strong leader, a “team” will be ineffective.

When I talk about things like that to people who think they are the smartest people in the room, I get hokey references to all my mysterious books as if somewhere in them was a famous recipe for leadership that they can figure out if they just put together the right mix of a “team” working toward consensus.   As I write this the new Star Wars films are getting ready to release and there is a lot of excitement about them.  There really may never be such an event on planet earth again, where the entire world is so ripe with anticipation.  While I think the movies might be pretty good, I have serious doubts that they will be as good as the movies George Lucas made when he ran Lucasfilm from a leadership position as a sole proprietor.   The new films are certainly made by “committee” and I think that will show up in what comes across in the movie theater.  The message of the old movies was individualism versus the state because that was something that George Lucas believed in during that part of his life.  The new movies are about decentralized authority and consensus building.  For kids going to the movies today, the films will be the best thing they’ll have seen, but in the long lens of history, these new movies will lack the punch of the originals because of the method for which they were made—just like any company that tries to make a product after a strong leader has either left them, or they’ve tried a more inclusive approach—a rule by committee.   That is exactly the problem the Apple Company is suffering through right now.  They still make a good product, but they lack the innovation and spirit they had when Steve Jobs was in charge.   They can hold their own for a while, but are slipping a bit each year under weak leadership.

Trump would be a good president because of what Cuomo asked him.  Trump instinctively knows what’s right to do.  A good leader can make a decision even if nobody else understands the nature of the problem yet. The reason why is because of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.  Leaders are simply at the front of the metaphorical train instead of the back.  It doesn’t matter if you are talking about Jim Harbaugh leaving the San Francisco 49ers  to become coach of the Michigan Wolverines in college or George Patton, strong leadership is immediately noticed the moment its gone.   Good leadership is noticed on a restaurant drive through—good leadership keeps the food moving, bad leadership drives down the food quality and window times.  The moment that Jim Harbaugh left San Francisco for Michigan, that professional football team went into decline but the college team was on the uptake.  Good leaders never listen to the world around them except for intelligence gathering.  Good leaders always act from the inner voice that only they understand at the front of the train of thought—on the cutting edge of decision-making.  It’s not a mystery to those who naturally possess the trait.

However, our education system teaches kids like Chris Cuomo that answers to life come from collective consensus, and is a very unfortunate misunderstanding.  I won’t say that it’s a deliberate lie, just an improper understanding of where to put specific emphasis on personal value.  The schools have lied to these poor kids and taught them all the wrong things for all the wrong social reasons.  Everyone can’t be a leader, because most of the time they lack the courage to be.  It takes a lot of strength and courage to be a leader, and some people just don’t have it in them.  It can be taught to some extent, but only in small degrees.  It actually makes me sad to visit a hospital and see people having babies because most children have indications of the leadership trait available to them as infants–after all they had just survived nine months inside a womb and overcame the immense psychological trauma of child-birth.  If treated correctly, many of those children could be nurtured into the kind of mind that producers good leaders, and if America really wanted to solve some problems, it would focus on strengthening its children right out of the womb, not through some government confiscation program but by empowering the parents to promote self-reliance in infants as soon as possible, learning to walk, learning to play by themselves—not with other children—and developing a strong imagination with stimulation of many aspects of thought as soon as the neurons in their brains have connected to allow such thinking.  But what happens to most of those children is they are coddled too long next to their mothers, and their fathers take orders from society at large falling in behind some authority figure that is probably incompetent by default.  Children directly mimic everything they see from their parents so if the parents are social messes, the children will struggle with those aspects for the rest of their lives.  For many children their limits in life are pressed into them before they are even six months old, and it just saddens me every time I see it.

What’s unique about Trump is that he’s always been way in front of the cutting edge—his whole life.  He’d be a great president because he wouldn’t listen to the opinions of other people—that’s the point!  He doesn’t need consultants, he doesn’t need focus groups.  He needs information, but he doesn’t need anybody to tell him what to do with it.  It would be my hope that under a Trump presidency that he’d cause a renaissance in American leadership just because his methods would be on full display around the world and people would want to copy him.  That might bring out a few more babies per year who have the potential to be strong leaders in the future.  Trump often compares himself to George Patton, and it’s not because of the militaristic nature of both of them, it’s because they both possess similar beliefs in themselves—even when the rest of the world thinks they are crazy—they can see clearly what to do and when to do it.  To those without that skill, they are baffled as to how Trump and Patton could possible know what to do without some support from their peers.  But leadership is a lonely enterprise.  Leaders are alone in the troubles of their minds and they are alone in the successes—they are alone most of the time, even when they are with people who love them.  Being a strong leader is much about being alone—even in a crowd, because nobody understands.   American culture needs to at least embrace its leaders and if such a thing became fashionable through major changes in our education system and a populist president who would make bold front page news every day of his time in office, then maybe some of those children born under freedom might develop in them the natural inclination of leadership.  But before that can happen someone like Trump would need to be able to sell it to the masses.  Only then would the qualities of leadership become more widely acceptable—and understood.  But it will take a generation to get there.  There is nothing easy about leadership.  It is the most important element of a free republic.  Consensus building is absolutely the wrong approach.  It doesn’t work, and it never will.  It can produce moderate results, but spectacular ambitions will always reside among the few who embrace the cutting edge and by their very nature—who always see most clearly and act most decisively.  Trump is one of those rare few who do it so fluidly so this is a rare opportunity for the United States, and I’m excited about it.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Wisdom of Sheriff Wayne Ivey: Good guys with guns and Hillary Clinton’s friends–robbed at gunpoint

 “Enough is enough” when it comes to terrorism — that’s the video message Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey posted recently telling residents that they should start carrying firearms with them to protect his community and our nation against terrorism.  Now that is my idea of a good local sheriff, and cop.  In a lot of ways, Brevard County is a place I consider a second home, so its gives me a lot of pride to see the sheriff of that region speaking with the sense that should be obvious to everyone.  Get a gun, carry a gun, and protect yourself from the aggressive possibilities of terrorism in whatever form.

“I think the message is: people are thirsty for a solution to the terrorist activities, they’re thirsty for a solution to the active-shooter scenarios that have taken place, and I think they’re thirsty for leadership,” Ivey said in response to the national attention his video has gotten. “I think it was time for someone to stand up and say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/12/7/brevard_sheriff_video_arm_selves_against_terror.html

People against Ivey’s proposal are of course organizations like the NAACP and virtually every other liberal conglomeration.  But nobody should listen to them because they are the cause of what’s made the situation dangerous in American to begin with.  They have been pro open borders, they have been pro Islamic immigration without consideration for the potential for radicalization, and they have been notoriously anti-gun—insisting that America copy its domestic philosophy policies from socialist nations like France and other European disasters—old, crusty regions drowning with Marxism.  As I write this President Obama is considering an executive order against firearms which is incredibly arrogant, and intrusive.  One of the worst suggestions by him is that people on a no fly list not be able to buy a gun.  Well, that won’t work; a person like me could easily be put on a no fly list because the regime in power might consider me a threat just because of the things I say.  You can’t legislate evil out of existence; you have to face it down, and you can’t let an evil government prevent good people from facing that evil.   The situation is very simple, good guys need to carry a gun so that when bad guys try to act in a terrorist fashion, the right side will have the advantage to end the threat.  Then of course the gun owner should call Second Call Defense and let them handle the legal issues.

I actually worry about trying to buy a ticket on an airplane for fear of finding my name on a no fly list because to Obama, a person like me is more of a threat to his intentions than an Islamic terrorists trying to breed more like them within the borders of the United States.   So Obama’s executive order proposal  is not intended to protect America from terrorists—it’s to protect government officials from criticism over their own mismanagement—which is an abuse of power.   There’s a reason that congress, represented by the people of our nation, have refused gun restriction action.  It’s not just because of the NRA.  The NRA has so much money and power because people like me put money into it.  They didn’t get all their lobbying wealth from some oversea billionaire like what’s behind the open border issues, and marijuana legalization legislation—or Saudi Arabian activists trying to gain legislative power within the United States by pouring money into the Clinton Foundation and letting a former president and a possible future president keep the hands of justice out of their medieval society.   The NRA and its power over congress are because of millions of people like me who want to see the Second Amendment protected from people like Obama.  He has no right to sign an executive order against firearms in any way.  If he does so he’s acting in a criminal fashion, which only justifies more gun buying to protect us from an activist government hell-bent on disarming us.

In this hostile environment where terrorists want to harm us, and our government who created the situation in every fashion wants to further restrict our ability to protect ourselves, it’s wonderful to see Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey speaking reasonably as a government official.  Good guys need to be the ones carrying guns.  We don’t need to wait for some government study sponsored by grant money for the desired results against guns to be produced as the NAACP desires to tell us what’s logical.  Good guys need to be able to stop bad guys when the intention is to bring harm against innocent people.

For instance, just the other night not that far from my own home a young teenager tried to rob a couple of contractors at gunpoint.  Big mistake for that 16-year-old kid—he apparently listened to too many rap songs about violence and played too much Grand Theft Auto.  Because one of these contractors had a concealed carry permit and pulled out his gun.  The kid shot first but the contractor then discharged his firearm ending the life of the young punk which was well within the right of the contractor.  He waited for the kid to fire first apparently, which is good to do, but dangerous—then ended the threat immediately.  Police showed up, did their investigation and found that the contractor acted within the legal parameters of our society.  The contractors lived another day, the robber didn’t.  The robber’s threat against citizens of planet earth is done forever—by his own choice. If more people carried guns and used them in these kinds of situations—not just in terrorist threats, but street robberies also—we’d have a much safer country.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/evanston/contractor-claims-self-defense-in-deadly-evanston-shooting

Nearly at the same time as the contractor shooting in Evanston, Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley and his wife, Judge Susan Dlott – both personal friends of the Clintons – were driving back to their Indian Hill home from a dinner in Montgomery.  Three punks followed them from the parking lot.  Once the powerful attorney and his federal judge wife were inside their home the punks kicked in the basement door of the victims’ residence, committed theft, roughed up the couple with abuse and pointed guns at (Chesley and Dlott)’s heads.  The thugs Terry Jackson, 21, Darrell Kinney, 20, and Demetrius Williams, 20 — were apprehended by Madeira police following a traffic stop the same evening—luckily.  If Chesley had been carrying a gun, he could have stopped the situation immediately.  The threat is very real; we are in a dangerous world even in nice neighborhoods.  The youth in America have been radicalized by liberal educations and entertainment.  It’s not just Muslims that are the potential threats for violence; it can be anybody—particularly if they are under thirty years of age.  Radicalized educations have destroyed the mind of young people making all of them potentially dangerous.  You can’t go around shooting them all at will, you have to wait for them to make a move against you, but you can’t assume that it won’t happen because President Obama is on the case with his executive order pin.  It is government mismanagement that has caused all these problems, and the responsibility to fix them all starts with good guys with guns.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/indian-hill/police-embattled-attorney-stan-chesley-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-indian-hill-home

All three stories discussed above happened in just one week.  There is not a single source of threatening behavior.  Watching out for radical Jihad fanatics is just a small piece of the puzzle.  We have an entire generation of young people raised to think they are victims and that society owes them something and that if they want that something—they’ll take it by force if necessary.   If three thugs can drive into Indian Hill and rough up a powerful couple on the speed dial of Hillary Clinton at gun point—in their home—it can happen anywhere. 

The only way to stop those possibilities from occurring is by putting a gun in the hands of good guys and giving them the ability to use that gun to stop bad guys.  We do live in a world full of good guys and bad guys.  We are expected to know the difference—and most people do.  Politicians are tone-deaf to evil, because in many cases they embrace evil by the nature of their jobs—so they are unqualified to legislate on our behalf.  Obama is certainly unqualified.   To protect us from them, we have the NRA.  And to protect us from legal recourse, we have Second Call Defense.  But to protect us from terrorist threats, whether it may be a common robber, or a Saudi terrorist attempt—the best defense is a good guy with a gun.  So let’s get guns in the hands of the best people we can find and let them do their work—and let’s turn our country back from the brink from which liberals have created for it—and put it back under our safe keeping as the barrels of our guns point outward to the threats which intend it harm.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

BY JAMES DETAR, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency

By Bill Bennett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT