Tag: corruption

Obama’s .223 Ammunition Ban: Why the world needs more guns

To understand the extent of radicalism and activism coming out of the Obama White House littered with vast contradictions which gives away their intentions all one need to do is look at their recent move to ban .223 ammunition by calling it armor-piercing. Yes, the same administration that showed open disdain for the police in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently in Staton Island outside of New York is suddenly concerned about police officers and wants to protect them from bullets that haven’t been used in such a case in over 10 years. Now isn’t that proactive of them?

Opposition to the Obama administration’s proposal to ban a popular bullet is gaining steam in the House of Representatives, where more than half of the lawmakers have signed a letter opposing the move.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it wants to ban popular .223 M855 “green tip” ammunition because the bullets can pierce bulletproof vests used by law enforcement. Although the ATF previously approved it in 1986, the agency now says that because handguns have now been designed that can also fire the bullets, police officers are now more likely to encounter them. Some 239 members of the House have now put their names to the letter opposing the ban, which they say would interfere with Americans’ Constitutional rights.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/06/majority-house-members-sign-letter-blasting-obama-bullet-ban-proposal/

Again Obama as a member of the pin headed intelligentsia movement believes that government is the answer to everything. The only real resistance that people have to stand up against an encroaching out of control government with an entire military at its beck and call is the Second Amendment. There is a reason that it’s the very next thing behind free speech created on the Bill of Rights so to ensure a free society. While I hope it never happens, I would never want to be vulnerable to a dictator like Obama who wants to treat the White House like a king’s throne and issue dictates while sucking on grapes with one leg tossed over a chair like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. Property owners have to maintain the ability to protect their private property from invaders both foreign and domestic and that’s pretty much the end of the debate.

After the Obama administration used its Department of Justice to fuel the communist backed insurgency in Ferguson against the police, they don’t get a free pass to suddenly declare that they want to protect them from armor-piercing bullets. It is now well beyond refute that Obama’s White House has been the most anti-police administration ever to be president—so its not even believable that they are concerned about the lives of police when they’ve fueled the flames of anger that have actually killed police in places like New York after the Staten Island debacle and openly injected themselves into the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

I live in an area of the country where the crime rate is extremely low. Now why do you think that is dear reader? It’s not because of the police, because we don’t even have a police department—it’s because nearly every home within ten miles of my home, which houses over 100,000 people—has an AR-15 or some variation of firearm—just in case they should need it. If there was a need a small well-equipped army could be gathered together in a day and cast upon insurgents, whoever they might be—and that is the key to the Second Amendment. Yes, we have the military, yes we have the police, but if they fail—because they are government employees after all, there is nothing left to protect people from aggression. The reason crime is low in my neighborhood is because everyone respects each other and no group of thugs can terrorize normal people because the guns make them the great equalizer. Only in places where guns are banned does violence increase and people live in terror. Places where there are lots of guns tend to be peaceful, their governments run better knowing they can’t gain leverage over the population through force, and economic activity can umbrella under such stable conditions.

But if there was in the future an even more radical president than Obama, such as the return of the Clintons or some other dynasty driven radical who decided they wanted to kill off their political rivals—which there is history of such activity, and those killers show up with armaments to perform the task under government backing—you can’t engage them with a cap gun. You need to have equal or superior firepower over your potential enemies to equalize the playing field.

To demonstrate the task lets study the behavior of a typical male 27-year-old police officer working traffic. He pulls over a car load of football players all in excess of 6 foot 3 out celebrating a recent victory. They have been drinking a bit, but nothing too crazy and speak coherently to the officer. The officer will treat the guys with respect because if he startles them into violence, it might get ugly, so he says sir a lot, and thank you for their cooperation, and the traffic stop will usually end with a warning and possibly an exchange of Facebook account information. The cop will go home that night with four new friends that just might get him into the next big game for free. Believe me, I know how the system works, as of this writing I’m almost 47 years old and I have still been pulled over more times by the police than there are years on my life. I’ve even been an employer to cops who thought they were really cool and actually left me to perform my next example. Say the same cop pulls over four girls coming back from the same game. The cop sees the girls have been drinking so they are a little flirtatious hoping to get out of a potential ticket. The cop knows that he has complete command of them backed by the law so if he wants to accuse them of some danger, he can pull all of them out of the car and frisk them to his heart’s content. Under the law, he knows the girls must do as he commands or they will be subject to resistance. So he threatens them with arrest which scares them and being girls obviously overpowered by a larger police officer with a gun, they submit, which feeds the ego of the cop. He then makes a deal to have the girls perform oral sex on him so they can get out of the ticket—which they do. After the cop goes back home drunk on power, the girls find some way to hide the information from their boyfriends and parents giving them a shameful secret they will have to suppress for the rest of their lives. What was the difference in the two cases? The football players would have likely beat the hell out of the cop if they detected they were being abused. The girls obviously wouldn’t stand a chance giving power completely to the cop.

Governments are always on the outlook for power. They want to be in control, which is why they are in government to begin with. The personality type who ventures into government employment tends to enjoy some variation of this control behavior over others. The ATF is certainly prone to such stories as the provided example, and they are prone to influence from radical presidents. The ATF has been involved many times in presidential invoked terrorism, Ruby Ridge comes to mind, the Waco incident, and obviously under Obama, Fast and Furious. It is nothing for some politician like Obama to designate someone, or a group of people as a threat to their careers and to send in a government agency like the ATF to remove that threat. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. And when it does, the target will want their .223 ammunition.

There is no such thing as a free and peaceful society without guns. Look at the rest of the world and that becomes very evident. Where guns are banned, violence is up, where there are the most guns, economic activity and personal living conditions are greatly improved. Those who want to impose gun control want to control the population at large by taking away the tools that make people equal to the potential insurgents. And the Obama administration so far is the worst that America has seen in this regard. But imagine a worse regime. I thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was bad. Obama has moved the needle much further to the political left. But imagine a world where Obama looks like a conservative? It is for them that something even more powerful than the .223 ammunition will be needed, because they will send their government agents to enforce their will. And all that stands between tyranny and freedom is a gun rack and a lot of ammunition.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

“Dad, It’s Only ISIS,”: SNL’s controversy cuts to a deeper issue about raising girls

A lot has been said over the first week of March 2015 about the Saturday Night Live skit that divided the Internet over the controversial Dakota Johnson short involving ISIS taking her away from her father. When I first saw it, I laughed hard, not because of the ISIS reference which seemed to soak up all the attention, but for another reason. In the skit Dakota Johnson speaks to her father played by Taran Killam as if she were being dropped off at college. It was a touching kind of thing that we have seen before in so many romantic comedies. But just as the young daughter leaves her teary eyed father for what looks like the last time she says, “Dad, it’s only ISIS.” That’s when the audience realizes that the father’s little girl is not going off to college, or moving out on her own, she’s joining the high-profile terrorist organization which is actually happening to some families.

Many thought that ISIS reference wasn’t a joking matter; others defended the skit as a bold act of defiance. That’s not what I saw.

I have raised two daughters and had to marry both of them into families of their own. I know what it feels like to let a daughter leave your care. For me, it was much harder because I was excessively close with my daughters. I was not a “hands off” dad, we always did a lot as a family together so we were unusually close. The biggest rage of my life was in watching young boys come to my house to take my kids on a date. I tried really hard to understand that the process was a natural part of children growing up, so I internalized a lot of it for the sake of everyone. One time though I nearly killed a whole car load of those little scum bags when they picked up one of my kids at 11 PM for a date, one of the boys with their shirt off. It was not the kind of courtship I had spent many hours of my life preparing my daughter for. It wasn’t necessarily her fault; it was the culture at large. The young boys she had to pick from were just so terrible that if she spent her whole life looking for just the right guy that her daddy would approve of, she’d be an old spinster to this day. But from my perspective nothing good happens to a girl past 12 AM especially in a car load of guys on the prowl. So I have had my experiences and they were miserable at best. My kids were good, so there wasn’t much of that. If they had been bad kids its highly likely I’d be in prison over some anger management issue now.

I know it’s unfair so I try to be sympathetic to the young boys who weren’t raised by me. They didn’t know why I was so mad, or what I expected because they were raised with far different backgrounds—so I kept my self from being overly intrusive—largely because that dating phase is the last step in raising children—and at that point you better be ready to trust your children. For insecure parents not confident in the tools of intellectual aptitude they have given their children they must worry about their kids doing something stupid. I never felt that way; my issue was always that the boys tended to have a biological interest in my daughters as opposed to a genuine respect for their cerebral matter. Those boys wanted to satisfy themselves at the expense of my many years of hard work, so I took it as a personal insult that they’d show up at my house treating my girls like a piece of meat to be conquered. One little slug actually had the gall to argue with me in my living room about Chick-fil-A and its position on gay rights. Well, Chick-fil-A in my house is sacred, so I didn’t need some little progressive snot-ball ignorant to the ways of the world telling me anything. To this day the Xbox he was playing when we had this discussion is something I still hold a grudge against. We still have the old unit because it has a lot of treasured games on it, but I no longer like it, because it reminds me of that kid.

Daughters never really get over their relationships with their dads. They may go for great periods of time without talking, but if they have strong fathers who spent time teaching them things, there is a bond there that lasts entire lifetimes. I know very hard-core women in their declining years who still love their dads who have long since died. I know even more women who had bad relationships with their fathers who turned out to be screwed up messes. A father is a very important job to a daughter and it is one that I always took very serious. Never too intrusive, but protective to their very souls—not in the type of neurotic fashion so prevalent in modern comedies, but in ways that only literature has managed to even remotely deal with.

So watching Dakota Johnson step into the back of an ISIS truck is exactly the way I felt every time my daughters left the house with a pack of boys destined for trouble. And the nonchalant manner that the skit ended, “Don’t worry dad, we’ll take it from here,” is precisely the way modern males see such daughters—as objects of possession and conquest destined for their penises—and it angers every cell in my body. Every young man felt just as the Saturday Night Live skit showed as my daughters dated. They were all terrorists to the hopes and dreams I had for my kids and were dangerous.

The SNL skit would have had to go to some common extreme such as ISIS to paint the feelings that most dads who really care about their daughters feel when their children leave home. For boys, it’s different. You smack the young tike in the back of the head and congratulate him for having a woman or two on his arm throwing themselves aimlessly at his whims. Boys get congratulated for winning races, and throwing touchdown passes in games of conquest which girls are just one part of. So raising boys is easier.

Girls are the most precious creatures on earth and the world needs many more of them who are good, and it takes good dads to help make good girls—and it’s a hard job. So I laughed at the skit not for the controversy, but for the potent exposure it had of such a raw truth. For me, every young boy who wanted to date my daughters might as well have been a member of ISIS—an aimless terrorist hell-bent on ideological destruction laughing at me and damning death to America. That is exactly how it feels. But the story doesn’t end there. There is much more that comes after and for that, dads are still needed—probably more so than less. And it takes a lot of personal understanding and confidence to embrace that role when there isn’t any glamour or glitz to the job of being a good dad.

That brought up another question I had for which there is no answer. I grew up loving Don Johnson, Dakota’s real dad in the television show Miami Vice. I always liked him as an actor. So I was curious how he could attend the Saturday Night Live broadcast and actually make fun of the fact that his little girl had just made Fifty Shades of Grey showing herself completely nude to the world. She was so naked in the movie that they had to have a makeup person insert public hair on Dakota Johnson to be true to the spirit of the best-selling novel. How could Don Johnson perform that skit and even make fun of it? Even in jest? I suppose some people play good dads, and some people just aren’t. And that’s also why I’m not an actor. I couldn’t do that for all the gold in the world. You can’t grow up loving and caring for a young daughter all your life then revel in her public exposure and dissemination all the while casting jokes. There was a lot wrong about the SNL evening staring Dakota Johnson, but it wasn’t the ISIS skit itself. It was the theme of dads and how they are a dying breed in our culture disrespected and ridiculed by a progressive society. And I’m not OK with that.

 

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Another Abusive Teacher: Good reporting from Karin Johnson and Lauren Pack

There aren’t many media outlets any more that report trouble with the public education system—where employees lose control of themselves and abuse their authority over young students. One reason is that those media outlets have been watching an erosion of trust that voters have toward public education, and it’s scary to them. To many people their school aged years were the best days of their lives, and they want good memories for their children. They want to overlook trouble when it presents itself so that their children can have the nice experience they had when they were young students. Yet, to my experience, I hated my public education years.  It was extremely confining and I always considered it a waste of time. The older I get, the more firmly I feel that the entire system should be completely overhauled so to more properly utilize the natural ambition exhibited by children toward learning—because public education has a tendency to kill that ambition leaving flat, boring adults as a product of that institutional system of learning. Channel 5’s Karin Johnson and I have had this talk before and over time, we have moved in different directions. My experience with advocating for lower tax imposition upon communities is easy for me, because I think the system always needed to be changed. But for her, she had a very good public education experience and it is hard to look back and be critical of it. But to her credit, unlike most reporters in and around Cincinnati—she still does a lot of education news and when something goes wrong, she’s there to sniff it out.

According to a report filed Monday and reported nearly exclusively by Channel 5’s Karin Johnson and the Journal News reporter Lauren Pack, a student at Edgewood Middle School told the school resource officer that a female substitute teacher struck her in the face with a ruler. Two other students claimed the substitute teacher taped their hands to a chair. The incidents occurred between Feb. 16 and Feb. 27, according to the report.

Wisely school Principal Alesia Beckett removed the substitute teacher from the school and took measures to have her removed from the county’s substitute teaching list, which is facilitated through Warren County Educational Service Center.

“I was made aware of the situation on Thursday afternoon. The sub was not in the building on Thursday, so I met with her prior to the start of class on Friday morning. After our meeting, I let her know that her time here was over and that she needed to get her things and leave. At that point, our school resource officer and I confirmed that she had exited the building,” Beckett said. She added the woman was a long-term sub for a teacher on leave.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/substitute-teacher-now-banned-from-16-schools-in-butler-warren-counties/31593720

http://oldschoolcincy.com/29316/butler-county-teacher-accused-of-duct-taping-and-hitting-students/

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/crime-law/substitute-teacher-accused-of-striking-student/nkM2N/

I admire Karin for doing these stories, because there is a lot of pressure not to do them—because people generally want to feel good about public education. But……they want and need to know about teachers substitute or otherwise who let the power go to their heads to the point where they are abusive. My accusation is that most parents use public education as a baby sitting service and could care less what really happens to kids in public school because they are too busy to think about it. Acknowledging that there are serious flaws in public education takes guts, and to her credit, Karin has it. She doesn’t see the demonizing that I do, because our perspective was different, but the results are something that the truth will ultimately carry everyone to eventually. I would have loved to have graduated from high school in the third grade. Some people never want to graduate, and wish to always remain 15 years old. So differences will always be present. But what matters most is overcoming those types of handicaps to tell the truth about a situation so that the voting population can take measure.

If Karin Johnson didn’t do stories like this, there would be no reason for administrators to take swift action to stop bad behavior. In this case Principal Beckett acted correctly and the Journal News and Channel 5 was there to apply the needed pressure from the media to keep everyone honest. But many of the local community papers are so dependent on local school advertising that they have lost their objectivity in reporting the bad news surrendering their integrity to only report the good touchy feely stories that keep levy money pouring in.

Without some level of competition the power-hungry and abusive types find it irresistible to dominate individuals thrown under their command by the power of a position. There are certainly a percentage of police officers who are drawn to the field of police work because it gives them power over other people. There are others who enjoy being in control at the front of a class room and having power over others. It is a powerful experience for someone who craves power to stand in front of a class of 30 people and hold their fates over the fires of judgment. Being the type of person who hates authority with nearly every cell in my body, I had my fill of this behavior in kindergarten. It was a real struggle to not get into trouble because I never allowed myself to yield to any authority figures. Teachers were the first I was exposed to and I never yielded and am extremely proud of it. That trait does me very well currently. I used to make the lives of people like this Edgewood substitute teacher a living hell, and I enjoyed it—because I knew they enjoyed having power over little kids. I still enjoy seeing people like that fall from grace, because I think of them as bad people to begin with. But, it’s not easy to accept by those who want the system to work.

But be assured, this is not an isolated case. It’s just an under reported one. Government schools are filled with these personality types and there just aren’t enough Karin Johnston’s out there, or newspaper reporters like Lauren Pack who ask the dive down questions that are hard for public relations professionals to step around. If not for those two, there might be no public education stories of any honest assessment left in traditional Southwestern Ohio media. Everyone else has pretty much given up and fallen in with the feel good sentiment that keeps levy money pouring in from voters and feeding the corruption and destruction of minds built so negatively in public education. Thankfully, everyone hasn’t given up. Karin may want to preserve the current system with honest reporting, but at least she’s not a sell-out. And that makes her a very good person.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Ending the IRS: Arguments for a “Flat Tax” and sending Lois Lerner to jail

It’s always fun to make controversial yet very forward viewing statements that everyone thinks is crazy only to be clarified as truth later. Glenn Beck is going through a bit of that now as part of his downfall at Fox News was over the conspiratorial controversy of his caliphate proclamations. Well, guess what—he was right about every bit of it. ISIS is now raping the world with the full intention of complete destruction of Western Civilization and Beck was the first to call it. So he is presently going through the kind of validation that is satisfying, yet at the same time mind-boggling agonizing—because if people only listened…………………………………..so much could have been avoided. Well, I made similar statements about the IRS well before the corruption scandal broke out centering on Lois Lerner and her antics against conservative groups. When she was caught lying and took the fifth to avoid testimony I along with many others smelled the smoke and knew there was a larger fire concealed out of sight and we called for prosecution and jail time. Boehner talked tough about it, but dropped the issue in favor of more investigation. Well, after a few years of such analysis it has been discovered that the IRS did attempt to conceal evidence of their conspiracy against conservative oriented groups and the contents of their attempts has been uncovered.

The IRS will never regain any form of respect from the American people. They are permanently a damaged and perceptually corrupt organization. There is no way to clean up the mess now with fancy press releases and a feel good campaign. They are a thug oriented organization under the best of circumstances that takes money from people and puts them in jail if they fail to pay. So there is no sympathy for them when they are caught being every bit as bad as the people they have sent to jail due to their mechanisms of deception. The IRS with the same swagger of the typical tax dodger trying to hide their funds to prevent paying them away to the IRS has shown the same level of criminal activity in using the tax enforcement agency to conduct illegal actions against people they personally don’t like. And one of them was a personal friend of mine—Justine Binik Thomas.

Now it’s been discovered that within the last two weeks investigators were able to recover 424 backup tapes that were previously claimed by the IRS to be irretrievable. On those backup tapes was an email from Lerner saying, “No one will ever believe that both your hard drive and mine crashed within a week of each other.” IRS Deputy Inspector General Timothy P. Camus told The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that they are investigating “potential criminal activity” surrounding the case and of course Lerner is at the center of the storm. But it also means that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is involved as well because he arrogantly provided congressional testimony that the IRS had done everything it could to provide evidence. At a minimum the he is guilty of an obstruction of justice, and perjury—but it looks like the situation is much, much more systematic. These people are just the tip of a very corrupt organization.

The IRS obviously has become an arrogant, union driven organization that has lost its moral compass. If there is such a willingness to lie under oath by people like Lerner and Koskinen—or are willing to just take the fifth and deny everything without providing any testimony hoping that the cover-up they were involved in will be sufficient to keep them from prosecution—then there is equal, or even greater detriment at all levels of the organization. The IRS reputation will never be recoverable.

The only way I see out of the situation is that the IRS has to be eliminated and replaced by something much simpler so that enforcement and collection can be greatly consolidated. Interpretation of the tax laws needs to go away as well, which is bad news for all the lawyers, accountants, and government employees sucking off the system presently—but it’s the only way out.   What comes to my mind is the Forbes plan of a flat tax which is based on a standard that would likely create more federal revenue than less. But the progressive system that we currently have is just garbage. It allows the economically poor to not have any skin in the game—so to abuse the system of wealth redistribution, and it penalizes the rich—and it just needs to be wiped away completely along with every federal job out there. Hey, McDonald’s is hiring—there are jobs out there for people who want to work. The unionized IRS employees make too much money as it stands and their jobs aren’t in service of the American people—but are against it. Their entire function at this point is to serve a criminal organization no different from the mob.

Steve Forbes has tried to propose such a flat tax for years, and it never gets any traction because he’s a wealthy guy, and in American schools led by the same corrupt labor unions that drive the IRS employees is a hatred for the rich with the hope that the IRS can continue stealing from them to give to the poor and unproductive. Nobody is saying that people should be doomed to life as a poor person—but in America poor conditions are a decision, not a fate. We don’t live in Europe where a family name gets people access to upward mobility. There are even those presently in America who still believe such things and they act as gate keepers to success—but they can easily be outmaneuvered and out-worked. In America if you want money—you can get it if you are willing to work for it.

In my life I have worked several full-time jobs and part-time jobs in tandem to get what I needed and it galls me every year to pay taxes to the IRS—especially when you see what they do with it. I’ve seen first hand the dependency culture they have created by taking my money by force and giving it to a bunch of lazy slugs’ content to be victims all their lives because they were taught to be that way by their government education systems. The IRS not only has created a culture of lazy good for nothing, docile, parasites, in America, but they seek to exploit them more for the power it gives them.

After Lois Lerner took the fall for the IRS and retired using the “fifth” to avoid providing testimony as to her guilt, she was paid $129,300 as a bonus to her already six figure salary. But she wasn’t alone, as of June 2013 according to Forbes magazine; the IRS paid $70 million in bonuses to their employees—and for what? They certainly didn’t earn them for performance, not in the way normal people think of performance. Rather the money is hush money to keep their employees quiet and compliant because there is no place else anywhere that worthless people like the government dregs at the IRS could work that would pay them that kind of money for containing lies and stealing money from people. The progressive tax culture established at the start of the 20th century was a mistake and it has lasted now for a hundred years, and its time to redesign it with something more representative of the capitalist economy that we have in America instead of copying off socialist Europe—which was all the rage in 1862 when Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law repealing the previous flat tax which had allowed capitalism in America to give rise quickly to the fastest growing economy on earth. But the Civil War needed money to fight with, so a progressive tax was introduced and never again relinquished gradually increasing to the levels it is today.

The purpose of a progressive tax was to reduce income inequality, but that has been a miserable failure because it ignored the psychological prognosis which made people poor to begin with—it’s called laziness. The result of a progressive tax system was the Robin Hood Effect—the taking from the rich and giving to the poor without making the poor do anything to earn it. Because the money was just dropped into their lap, the poor didn’t feel they needed to do anything productive to earn it—so they never learned any value for the money that was represented by the exchange of someone’s productivity. The typical poor person sees a dollar bill and thinks of what they can buy with it. But the dollar bill is only a representation of some value created by a productive enterprise. That value was created by someone for some reason and that reason is lost in the wealth redistribution schemes of the IRS. So poor people take the money, and spend it not having any idea how the dollar was made or possessing an appreciation for the value of the energy expended to make that dollar. The person who made the dollar in the first place is tasked to keep doing what they did before to make more and the IRS then sweeps in to take more away as more dollars are made-and what they take, they keep some for themselves to give to people like Lois Lerner, then they give it to people like the crack addict on a slum street corner, or the typical buffet attendee at the Golden Corral.

The madness needs to come to an end. There needs to be people who go to jail over this latest IRS scandal. And the progressive tax collector itself needs to be abolished with something fairer to the people who make money—instead of skewing the system toward those who simply take the money and spend it. By continuing the current system we are all forced to support a corrupt organization in the IRS who is obviously involved in illegal activity that is politically motivated. And closing our eyes to it will only make it worse. Failure to punish those involved with this current scandal will be judged by history as a turning point if a failure to respond is not heeded. The best way to create income equality is to make everyone work for their money. It is OK to show compassion to those who have been taught to be lazy and are naturally un-ambitious if the plan is to yield from them more work as they are taught that the way to upward mobility isn’t by popping out more children so they can claim them on welfare benefits, but in working hard, and intelligently and saving some of the money they make to build assets in their life that leads to productivity. But before any of that happens, Lois Lerner and her buddy John Koskinen need a miserable prosecution that will teach others like them not to act in a corrupt way as a public employee. Before any proper decision can be made as to what to do with the IRS, that first prosecution must occur—because the evidence is overwhelming now. It’s beyond redemptive speculation on my part—its now part of our history, and we will be measured by how we conduct ourselves in the face of it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Why Obama Wants an Expanded Middle-Class: What the White House ‘Better Education Plan’ is really about

Has anybody posed the question to Barack Obama recently if he still considers himself a member of the “middle-class?” I personally find the term degrading, and insulting. Who wants to be the “middle” of anything? Not me. So I don’t identify with the “middle-class.” I don’t want to be considered in the middle-class, and I don’t want to accept that there is even a middle-class of just average Americans. I believe in American exceptionalism. Acknowledging a middle-class says that we accept a society of average people. It’s like saying we want our football teams to be average, we want our cars and electronics to be “normal” and that there is no reason to compete against anybody else because we don’t care about the final score. It’s like saying to a video game player who is obsessed with a game like Call of Duty that they should be happy with their “average” score instead of playing over and over to increase their rating.

Yet Obama talks about the “middle-class” like its something good that he wants to expand—and accept more of. He is actually promoting it, and is trying to expand government education to actually make more “average” people. Yet it would be safe to say that Obama considers him and his family as part of the “upper” ruling class. Such behavior was always typical among the communists who wanted to be affiliated with the enforcers as opposed to the commoner. The ruling class always gets better living accommodations, and social status and Obama clearly enjoys his elevated political class status as President of the United States. He will never be considered a part of the middle-class for the rest of his life—so why does he want to promote it to so many people? It really doesn’t make any sense.

The answer comes from deep inside the type of collectivists that Obama is. If they can eliminate competition, they will never be challenged by anybody seeking to actually surpass their social status with actual aptitude. A gigantic middle-class means for people like Obama no challenge to his social status as a member of the elite. So he naturally wants to protect his status with more “middle-class” type people, and the way he performs the task is to propose that the effort is actually good for people.

This is the real nature behind Obama’s new education plan which he actually sent to me through an email. You can read that email promotion from Obama’s White House below where the intent of the proposal is to lower standards for children so that they will be further dumbed down into a compliant “middle-class” of adults giving the federal government more centralized control over students. Of course Obama’s people never tell the whole truth, just as in the first sentence below which attempts to state that students are functioning at a higher level than ever before and that the government education system is actually working. The secret is that the standards have been lowered to make students appear better—without actually achieving anything. For the government, they are successful because they are in the business of making more compliant—average—people. But for the hopeful parent who wants their child to be the next Einstein—there is nothing about the following proposal that will help their child achieve greatness. Obama simply wants to clip their intellectual wings so that in the future—those children will be happy in the middle-class.

 

From: Barack Obama <democraticparty@democrats.org> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Subject: Stand with me on education, Rich

To: Rich Hoffman

Just last week, Rich, we found out that our high school students are currently graduating at an all-time high, and last

year, our younger students posted the highest scores ever recorded in both math and reading. That’s great news! But ensuring our children get the most from their education in today’s ever-evolving economy

remains one of our most important responsibilities. It’s also a major part of my vision for a stronger middle class,

which I laid out in the State of the Union last month. That’s why I’m making the replacement of No Child Left Behind a priority. We need a better education plan — one that

cuts standardized testing to a bare minimum, invests in our preschools, and gives every kid in every corner of our

country a fair shot. I’m calling on Congress to pass a law that makes this vision of a brighter tomorrow for our sons and daughters a reality, Rich.

 

If you agree with me, then go ahead and let them know right now by adding your name next to mine. This plan is just common sense, and it deserves a vote in the House and Senate. But Republicans on Capitol Hill have their own ideas, and without support from people like you, it will be pretty darn tough to have a meaningful debate about any of this. I’m confident that we can work together and get this done, but I could use your help today to show Republicans that

Democrats are committed to making this level of progress permanent. So sign your name today, and tell Congress to pass an education bill that works for middle-class families: http://my.democrats.org/Better-Education-Plan Thanks for standing with me today, Rich.

I’ll be in touch again soon.

Barack Obama

Now, here is a message from the Liberty Township Tea Party describing what is really going on with Obama’s new education plan. To those who think that the Tea Party is still a group of radicals, the evidence below should be obvious.

The White House and government position in general is to make more compliant “middle-class” people through federal education programs. As any intelligent reader will quickly notice by reading the following additional information deliberately removed from Obama’s letter on the same subject, the attempt is to erode more state sovereignty issues at the level of educationand to give even more central control over education matters to the federal government. Read it for yourself:

 

ACTION ALERT: STOP THE STUDENT “SUCCESS” ACT (HR 5)

 

Congressional Leadership Is Bull-Rushing Through HR5, the 600 Page Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (rebranded the “Student Success Act”)

 

The House votes on it this week.  Call your Representative and call the Speaker of the House and tell them to vote “no” on HR 5!

 

 202-224-3121. Below are just a few of the problems.

  1.  HR5 Denigrates Parental Rights and Seizes State Sovereignty
  • No program shall “operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have . . . waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Sec. 6561) (emphasis added).
  • Federal requirements will trump the rights “reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution” to lead in the education of their child. (Sec. 6564)
  • Requires states to change laws and regulations to “conform” to HR5. (Sec. 1403)

 

  1.  HR5 Does Nothing to Relieve Children From No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB’s) Oppressive Testing Requirements.

 

  1.  Feds Will Effectively Direct State Education Policy through Enhanced Continuation of Heavy-Handed NCLB Policies

 

  • Requires states to demonstrate to the federal government that their standards, assessments, and state accountability systems meet the goal of “prepar[ing] all students to graduate high school for postsecondary education or the workforce.” (Sec. 1001)

  • Requires states to submit comprehensive state plans, which the Secretary can disapprove. (Sec. 1111)

 

  1. Increases Federal Data Collection To Control Curriculum

  • Empowers the Department of Education to request individual student and teacher data from State and Local Education Agencies.

LTTP Board, Mark, Leo, Carl, Tim, Susan, Christy, Mike, Katy and Denise

: Follow us on Facebook at:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Township-Tea-Party/102995346723

 

Just like the situation with Net Neutrality, Obamacare, or any other scandal, the Obama White House cannot be trusted with even small truths—because they will lie and mislead about virtually anything, particularly in regard to education. Their end game is not the same as the rest of the world. It’s rather selfish and full of presumption—they want an expanded “middle-class” to protect the seeds of progressivism created by their radical left-leaning predecessors. They care about the end because it justifies the means—and in this case they want a dumb population full of average, middle-class slugs so they can easily dominate their thoughts and actions over the next century. That in essences is what Obama didn’t say in his email. But if he wanted to tell the truth—he would have. Instead, it took the Liberty Township Tea Party to say what the truth really was by a political class who considers itself well above the middle-class and is protecting itself from future insurrection through poor education and centralized federal control.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

uBeam’s Meredith Perry: Changing the world of energy distribution through innovation

Meredith Perry was an astrobiology major in college and did space research for NASA, but at the tender age of 25 years she has taken on the remarkable task of challenging the entire electrical delivery system framework with her very new and innovative company called, uBeam. And, she’s hiring. Her goal is epic and she is just two years away from making it happen. As of this writing she is poised to partner with a tech company with deep pockets like Apple or Google to remove power cords from all appliances starting with mobile devices. Here is the way she describes her company to potential applicants.

Our engineering team is comprised of world-class multidisciplinary inventors, where the word “impossible” is not part of our lexicon. We take pride in solving complex technological problems quickly, across many fields. At uBeam, we go from PowerPoint to prototype in a month or less.

We’re on a mission to untether the world, and we’re in search of new blood to join the team. We’re seeking hands on, dedicated people who are driven to push the boundaries of technology, people who are not looking for a typical 9-to-5 desk job, who are looking to make tectonic shifts in the world of electricity.

About her new technological invention she says according to her website and USA Today, “I started looking into types of technology that harnessed ambient energy, and I stumbled across piezoelectric [material], and I thought, if this can harness vibration, how do I induce ­vibration over the air? Then I realized that sound is vibration over the air. It was a natural “aha.”

“The dream is to replace all electrical outlets with uBeam transmitters,” says Perry. “You’ll wake up and just go through your day with your device and it will be charging in your house, in your car, at your bus stop, at your gym, in your hotel. We want to be absolutely everywhere. And wires won’t be anywhere.”

Here’s how it works. uBeam’s transmitter is a wafer-thin square the size of a salad plate that punches out ultrasonic frequencies much like a speaker creates sound. The receiver, currently in the form of a smart phone case, resonates at the same high frequency and turns that imperceptible movement into energy, charging the phone.

uBeam’s transmitter doesn’t go through walls, so a square tile is required for each room. Although uBeam is still a few years from being consumer-ready, Perry is convinced her “competitively priced” creation will find its way into our homes and any commercial space where devices are used.

“What I’ve seen over the years is people making tiny improvements in existing technology as opposed to saying, ‘Let’s throw this all out and do something new,'” she says. “I know the odds are so against me. But I wouldn’t start a company and bust my (rear) for years unless we were working on something orders of magnitude better than anything else out there.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/ubeam-founder-meredith-perry-replaces-cords-with-wireless-charging/23699083/

http://ubeam.com/

http://www.fastcompany.com/3029523/most-creative-people-2014/meredith-perry

I love Meredith Perry’s attitude and the implications for her invention is quite extraordinary. It has a real chance of completely changing the way that power is transmitted from one place to another. It of course highlights the origin of power to begin with where the debate of Thorium as opposed to dirty energy is clearly a better option, but because of politics Thorium was suppressed as dirty energy was highlighted. There is a real danger of Perry’s invention being crushed by the status quo because it will completely change the way that homes and businesses are wired during construction. uBeam is certainly one of the biggest breakthroughs in science and technology that is currently on the frontier of discovery—and it came from a very young and ambitious young woman unafraid of the status quo—or her place in it. She is to me a remarkable young woman.

I would say that the best home for uBeam would be Apple, who has enough fluid cash to purchase all the big three auto companies in America right now. Only from such an innovative company would something as cutting edge like uBeam have a chance of cutting through the massive amount of lobby power that will try to sink them. It would give Apple a tremendous advantage over their competition such as Samsung for a few key years of future product rollouts. Obviously, uBeam would need to be available to all products, from the new Samsung televisions to their mobile devices—but Apple working with uBeam could corner that market to protect the wireless power market from the political machine that seeks to capture and regulate energy to throttle the cost and demand.

A company like uBeam is one step closer to my dream of every car, home, and personal power consumption device pulling free energy out of the air and being self-generated which is a real possibility. In our immediate lifetimes the debate will occur that the current power grid all across the world is old-fashioned and well out-dated. All power lines could be replaced with personal power devices—and that is a debate that will cause current power companies and the governments in their pocket a lot of heartache. Perry’s uBeam company is the gateway to such thinking and once people get a taste for it, they will accept it for everything from their washers and dryers, to their cars—and eventually their homes.

Ambient energy is important because it generates energy from everyday motions in life. uBeam is using ultrasonic waves to create energy, and it is entirely possible that the same could be done on a massive scale—just study an electrical storm during a spring rain where cold air strikes a front of warmer air provoking a violent storm. Such things have been tried before but were struck down politically because money could not be made on generating the power or the delivery method. When it comes down to something like what uBeam proposes, the technology is viable, clean, and much more efficient and reliable, but it will threaten the current infrastructure which will find it a threat to its very existence. So for the next step in wireless power transfer to occur it needs two things to happen—one of which it already has. It needs a fearless, smart, and charismatic young person who doesn’t understand the nature of defeat and is a rebel even by the standard of the Silicone Valley tech companies. Meredith Perry is the embodiment of such a person. The next thing it needs is a protective entity that has an immediate need for such a product as uBeam is producing. Apple or Google are among the only companies with the big guns to protect uBeam from the resistance that will surely come. If those two things can happen, the world just may change for the better.

Needless to say, I’m rooting for uBeam and its founder, Meredith Perry. She reminds me of my daughters who are the same age. There is a lot of hope in her, and I would hate to see that ambition crushed by a world protecting itself from its own insecurities. For that reason alone I’m ready to rip out all my outlets and convert over to uBeam technology. It’s just a matter of time.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Why FCC Chairman Wheeler Wants Net Neutrality: Sign the petition today against it

Below is a good video that demonstrates exactly what Net Neutrality is and it should be watched. It’s a very confusing issue because the advocates of Net Neutrality are actually taking the position of the opposition in saying they are defending the freedom of the Internet. However, it is a ruse. The FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a Obama guy, as will be shown below and is a former lobbyist for the cable companies. The Net Neutrality supporters are trying to make it sound as if it is the cable companies who are pouring millions of dollars into defeating Net Neutrality, but it is the opposite that is really happening. It is the status quo technology that wants Net Neutrality and it is all the upstarts that are against it—because the FCC chairman under Obama’s direction is seeking to make the Internet a public utility—so they can control it—tax it, and unionize it. Just four days before the FCC historic vote, over 200,000 signatures have signed the below letter to the FCC, which can be accessed for yourself at the following link.

https://www.protectinternetfreedom.com/

Dear Chairman Wheeler,

Internet use and online communication is the scourge of autocratic governments that deny basic freedoms to their people. Internet information has proven to be a spark that creates the fire of freedom in the most oppressive corners of the world.

The Internet is one of the most positive forces for improving the human condition the world has ever known. It is the hub of innovation for the economy in America and the world. It’s a source of progress, democratic distribution of information, societal change, personal empowerment and technological innovation.

The attempt by the Obama Administration to control the Internet as a public utility takes power away from consumers, website developers and small business owners and puts it in the hands of Government. This will drive up costs, slow down innovation, and put unelected political appointees in charge of picking winners and losers.

And it will take away America’s moral authority to argue that autocratic regimes have no right to assert control of the Internet in their own countries.

Mr. Wheeler, I am signing my name here today, asking that you and your colleagues vote NO on bringing the Internet under Federal Government control.

Sincerely,

Now watch this video–they are all on the same team.  The protestors, and Wheeler.

It is the right thing to do to sign the letter and send it to the FCC, but be warned, the Chairman already has his marching orders by the president, so the letter won’t have any levity to his decision-making process. All that signing the letter will accomplish is in letting the government know how many people actually stand against them in a fashion to actually put their name to it. By traditional White House analysis, 200,000 signatures is a large number. It’s a small number of the population, but it represents a fairly scary opposition that they will try to minimize, but to a less successful effect. To understand why, study the history and background of the FCC chairman.

Thomas Edgar Wheeler (born April 5, 1946; Redlands, California)[1][2] is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

He was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

Originally considered a frontrunner for the position,[7] Wheeler was confirmed as the new Federal Communications Commission chief in November 2013.[8] Despite a letter written by several prominent former Obama administration officials endorsing Wheeler for the position, many people expressed concern over the consideration of Wheeler for the position due to his history of lobbying for industry.[7]

In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[5][9][10] He is the only member of both halls of fame.[6] Cablevision magazine named Wheeler one of the 20 most influential individuals in its history during cable’s 20th anniversary in 1995.[5]

During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over US $500,000 for Obama’s campaigns.[7][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

On the current path, large cable companies are becoming extinct, the government cannot get their control around information because of the free and open Internet that exists now, and they want the FCC to begin getting things back under control from Google, Microsoft, and Amazon to actually protect the companies they are claiming to be against like Comcast, AT&T and other traditional communication companies. They are playing the same tricks they did with Obamacare, Benghazi, and open border immigration to overwhelm the system, hamper the minds of the masses with too much data-and to shove through new controls and regulations that nobody will stand against until it’s too late.

Wheeler is going to vote in favor of Net Neutrality because he’s been told to by his boss in the White House to do so. This is a power grab by the FCC for more control, not less. The government position is actually that they want to protect start-ups and porn providers with a free and open Internet by defeating a pay to play system—but what they don’t tell anybody is that they are seeking to control and limit that freedom for everyone, not just the big companies. In that respect the Internet will be “equal,” it s just that everyone will be equally limited and taxed.

So fill out the form, send it in so that guys like me will have ammunition to slam the FCC with later when we can expose the crimes about to be committed. The more people who fill out that form, the better the case will be later to prove that we told you so—so that by the time there are new elections in 2016, congress, the senate and hopefully a new president will pull the FCC back in and defund them into oblivion. That is the best way to strike a blow at this encroaching insurrection. So, make sure to fill out the form today, so that when we fight tomorrow—there will be some statistical information to use in proving what a gross violation the FCC actually imposed on the freest place on earth, the Internet. And they did it all in the name of control, taxation, and much more limited options for a tomorrow they dread to see coming.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

A Rudolph Giuliani Defense: Why all the effort

As I’ve said before, there is a very good reason I write all these articles, and they are never intended for the masses. I offer them to everyone, but due to their length, and content, the masses will tend to reject them as too difficult. Purposely I present most of my articles at over 1000 words—because people of poor intellect will avoid the contents—leaving a target audience of approximately 1% to read them. That 1% tends to be the social elite, the news makers and shakers of society who aren’t so easily scared off by such lengthy presentations. They require such explanations as they cannot find in typical 400 word pieces because modern problems require more information for their inquiring minds. The Drudge Report has its niche, which is to present many links to several pertinent articles on a daily basis from one location. Other news sites do a good job of reporting daily events, but they only go surface deep not giving the proper depth of an argument that might typically fill a 12 to 22 minute television or radio segment. Being a person with a background in doing a lot of live radio and television I have a pretty good idea what is needed for a typical interview so I present my articles in a way that will settle the mind of the type of people who find themselves in a position to do important things—by means of shaping the social dialogue.

The general rule is that it takes approximately five years for the typical 1% of the target audience to fully embrace the topics of my articles. This is due to the train metaphor discussed in a recent article I did on leadership which can be reviewed by (CLICKING HERE.) It takes about that long for my target audience to properly embrace the things they read and for the events I report to begin being seen to their eyes. So my task for quite some time is to report the conditions and circumstances as early as possible so that 1% of the target audience can contemplate those observations for a number of years while balancing out their own information obtained through experience.

Going through Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom articles a number of them especially from 3 to 4 years ago are routinely at the top of many Google searches because minds seeking that information start inquiring about the topics about a year and a half before they feel comfortable talking about these controversial issues at a social occasion or even more daring—in front of a camera. I am not the only one providing this service, but I do make sure that I provide each topic in a way that would be able to be discussed credibly during a news segment—because I have the unique experience of performing that task myself. One of my most popular articles is the one about Barrack Obama’s mother revealed through nude photographs taken likely by Frank Marshell Davis—the communist and mentor to the current president which at the time seemed very controversial, but presents enough evidence to declare that there is something really wrong with the mind of the man currently sitting in the White House.

When that article was first written I had taken an article from The Blaze discussing the new book The Communist written by Paul Kengor and provided a means for framing the argument by logical, articulate minds. Anyone who has done live interviews knows that before you can articulate fully a statement during a debate, that you have to know the who, what, why, when and where backwards and forwards otherwise you will stumble through the interview sounding foolish. It’s not enough to provide the observation that Obama was trained as a communist—and these are the facts—you have to paint the story in a way that makes sense to the 1% of the population that actually considers things, and tend to be leaders in their own right.

So it gave me great pleasure to watch former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani defend American exceptionalism and lay out essentially the primary topics presented in my article on Obama mentioning specifically the Frank Marshelle Davis connection on the popular Fox News show The Kelly File. It was an explosive interview by a guy who traditionally speaks his mind and hits hard in his positions. But, five years ago, he would not have dared to say any of the things he did on The Kelly File because of the scrutiny it would have provided him as a spokesman for the Republican Party. Back then, Obama’s presidency was still new, and people like me were being viewed as extreme. Now, the facts are in, and those at the back of the train of thought—not always their fault—are seeking answers. In Obama’s case the foundations of his beliefs point back to a childhood developed by socialist leaning grandparents and a number of father figures scooped up by his sexually carefree mother over many years. These men were Islamic and Hindu in their faith and in some cases were communist radicals shaping the mind of the young confused little Barrack Obama in a way that ruined his mind.

I started out my article on the Frank Marshell Davis character with a sensational headline that typically grabs a reader’s attention, but once they see the lengthy contents they turn away. However, there are plenty of who, what, why, when and wheres presented and by the time those readers finish one of my articles, they are well equipped to seek out support information. I even put the link to the very good book by Kengor at the end for people to read for themselves.   After they’ve done a bit of personal investigation they can then ask the question how we allowed such a Trojan Horse like Obama into the White House to begin with. That appears to be the path that Giuliani has taken-and it was good to hear him double down on The Kelly File when he was being offered a platform to apologize from.   I’ve been in that situation a time or two myself, so I understand and sympathize with what it means, and when Giuliani held his ground, he put himself in a position to lead many others in the proper direction of actually questioning Obama’s intentions in a way that the political left has successfully deterred for six years.

Just because a person is President of the United States it does not mean they love the nation. Glenn Beck actually did a good radio piece about Obama in the wake of the Giuliani comments about love for a country specifically and was spot on in his analysis. Obama does not love America the way we might love America. He was raised away from the mainland in a third world developing country by a sleep-around mother who brought many men to the young man’s life leaving a very confused little boy who communist radicals later befriended to send the fair-skinned community organizer behind the scenes to dismantle the “imperialist” monster. They saw America as something to “transform” not to protect so they went about their business of hiding their insurgent behind the protection of racist accusations. Influential Republicans who often tour the talk show circuits held their tongues because of the volatility of bringing up anything negative about Obama’s past giving him a chance to show what he was really about. When they saw his actions over the last six years, they sought out answers to provide some context to their observations leading them to articles like mine that have been out there a while, but are only just now being accepted as a viable examination into the insurgent mind of America’s current president.

Obama is an American president that we’ve never seen before—and there is a reason. He was raised and developed to be a radical within the White House. He was elected through guilt—accusations of an ancient past that involved slavery cast against the political party that actually freed the slaves. Through their timidity Republican leaders stayed away from the controversy and gave Obama a chance. Now, they are seeing what people like me have been saying all along as the facts have caught up to their positions at the back of the train and they can’t hide from the facts any longer. Of those Giuliani is among the first of the top 1% of party leaders and people of means to speak about these matters in front of a camera instead of at social gatherings under hushed voices and for that he deserves credit for his courage. Now that he’s shown the way, others will follow, and it is at that time that a proper exploration into the real motives of President Obama can be understood.

It takes a while for the contents of these articles to do their job, but it’s the nature of the human mind. If I wanted to appeal to the masses, I would write much smaller, less controversial and far leaning articles. But I’m not. I want people like Giuliani to read these articles from his iPhone in a New York café and consider—what if. I want him to think about it for some time with the reassurance of talk radio, books like Kengor’s and to want to add up the evidence and finally do something about it when they get the opportunity. Because guys like Giuliani get in front of the camera often, they get a chance to really break open a story—even if the information is old. The Frank Marshell Davis story is old at this point, but it never really hit the American consciousness, because it is too complicated and deceitful to consider among a busy public. But that was always the plan to place an insurgent communist type thinker into the White House of the freest country on earth to dismantle its power and influence the world over. It’s one thing to present the evidence, it’s another to stake a reputation on it. And for a man of Giuliani’s reputation, it means a lot that he’s finally willing to make such statements. It’s a sign that the type of people who typically find themselves in a leadership role, are finally able to articulate an argument against the Obama presidency that steps beyond the pageantry of the office itself. And that is the first step in solving the problem. The masses of democracy that Obama appeals to have enabled the insurgent to hide his true colors behind a political office meant to be above scrutiny. It takes that unique 1% to take action against such maniacal schemes. And it is for them that I do all this work.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Understanding Leadership: The difference between success and failure

Compared to most everyone else I have some bizarre ideals about leadership that certainly don’t travel well with the currents of civilization. Yet I am so certain of them that I no longer entertain opinions to the contrary because I recognize it as a special gift that is of great benefit not only to myself, but everyone I happen to know. Of course this leads to many matters of conflict which part of me strategically avoids while at the same time seeking it out. Leadership is one of the least understood attributes to modern society even though it should be easily plotted through history. Our best modern attempts is to believe that somehow West Point makes leaders through the military and that somehow the armed services through the concept of sacrifice makes great people. The other belief is that somehow in the classrooms of our colleges a teacher touches the life of a student and magic happens and a leader is born. So the mystical belief is that if society wants leaders, they need more procedures and rules to create an environment for a leader to evolve into the role of a savior willing to sacrifice themselves for a common good—so most schools of thought travel down that path. Yet, that grasp is likely the most ardent enemy of leadership that there is, and ends up crushing such opportunities for such people to emerge leaving in the wake chaos and process driven bureaucracy where everything just grinds to a halt with inaction.

Many times while dealing with a political system from local government to a business of some kind, what is found there is a process driven commitment to a rigid line of thought mystically protecting them from the scandal of inefficiency. The belief is actually as stupid as a group of head hunters from a South Pacific island refusing to allow their picture to be taken because they believe that their soul will be captured in the process. The belief in processes and procedures comes directly from a lack of leadership—it doesn’t act as a substitute. Where it gets really confusing is that some sense of order is needed for mankind to act with one another but to have real leadership it often requires visionaries to break those rules so that leadership can occur.

Readers here know of my thoughts on the work of Robert Pirsig who developed the Metaphysics of Quality and specifically captured the essence of leadership in his contemplations on philosophy. I often refer to his train motif to explain leadership—who is always the character at the front of a long train spotting things at the cutting edge of travel along the tracks. Process driven analysis is usually at the back of the train—away from the leader—as far as possible in most organizations. They are never in a position to make decisions at the cutting edge because by the time the problem gets to their part of the train at the back, decisions are long passed the point of no return. The only way that decisions can be made at the back of a train is for the train to go very slow or to stop all together—so that communication from the front can get to the back of the train in time for decision makers to consider the information and then project it back up to where the engineer is, and the train can turn, stop, or go faster depending on what is needed. It takes courage to be at the front of the train, and when decisions are made there, they can be immediately applied allowing for more swiftness in movement. Most modern organizations, the American military included, function from the back of a train of thought.

The back of the train is safe. It covers up the great mystery as to why some people are naturally better than others at the task of leadership. In fact, it avoids the entire question when process driven analysis can just keep everyone busy giving the illusion of productivity. But frustration often emerges that the train just doesn’t move fast enough—and that is because there isn’t anybody competent at the front of the train because everyone is stuck in the back. Those most able to be great leaders get bored and just step off in frustration leaving an organization even more befuddled than they were before. This is essentially why Apple fired Steve Jobs the first time—before hiring him again to save their company. Steve Jobs was always at the front of the train—and was happy no place else. Most great companies with the most innovation coming out of them have a leader at the front of the train who is most comfortable being there. There are of course people in the back who collect data to analyze, but the train is not driven from there. It is given to the leader to create a history to learn from so that decisions can most fluidly be made at the very front of the train as the future progresses.

I would never make it in todays military. Even while watching American Sniper I kept thinking how stifling the military is on a human mind, and that is for a good reason. When you become a soldier, you become part of a system and surrender your individuality to process driven goals. I could never do that, and I never have been able to. Yet great individuals in the military like Chris Kyle, Chuck Yeager, General Claire Lee Chennault, and General Patton all had a strong streak of individuality in them that sometimes defied orders and acted on their own merit from the front of whatever train they were on. All those characters found life at the back of the train boring and stifling desiring instead to be at the cutting edge of action. For those characters, the orders were less process driven because they were literally on the front lines of combat. However, especially in Chennault’s case when General Stillwell became U.S. Army commander in China during World War II Chennault was much less effective as a leader because the jealous Stillwell insisted on running the war from the back of the train, instead of the front where Chennault resided. This caused constant feuding between the two generals and cost the lives of many soldiers as the end result. Patton was much the same kind of man, and if reading the book Killing Patton is studied, it was likely that someone killed the general because nobody wanted to deal with him in peace time.   Likely it was Stalin who ordered the assassination, and at the time they were supposedly allies with the United States-but Stalin just didn’t want to deal with Patton in a future war—so they killed him—likely. And many in the U.S.—including the White House—secretly breathed a sigh of relief. But why? Because, Patton insisted not only at being at the front of the train, he wanted to be on the sweep at the front—the closest to the tracks as he could get. He was a real, natural-born leader and he often defied orders to do what he thought was best. If not for Patton, it is likely that the Germans would have beat America to the bomb—and the Allies would have lost.

So given all this historical data—why are organizations still insistent on back of the train analysis designed to stifle leadership? Well, it is the same vile human emotion that desires communism over capitalism—the jealous refusal to accept that some people have leadership, and some people don’t. Those that don’t desire process driven rules and regulations to protect them from their own inadequacies—and that pretty much sums it up. They hover like ghosts behind a leader in the back of the train and look for ways to take the credit for decisions made at the front once they think the situation is safe for them to do so. In Patton’s case they of course waited for a few days after the war ended to kill Patton. Authorities did something similar in China with Chennault sending him quickly to pasture once the conflict ended trying quickly to silence the petulant general. Instead Chennault wrote a great book The Way of the Fighter which revealed all his contentious exchanges between FDR, General Stillwell, and Truman up until the publication of the book in 1949. Chennault was irate with frustration saying that the conflict in China was not against the Japanese, but with the encroaching communists from the North. The authorities at the back of the train laughed it off and pulled out the United States surrendering all the hard-fought gains to the communists to become our future enemy. If Truman had listened to Chennault instead of Stillwell, there wouldn’t have been a Korean War, and there wouldn’t have been a Vietnam. And China would to this day be a capitalist country and friend to the United States instead of the holder of its debts and leveraging itself for a fiscal take-over of the American economy. And for a modern context, Chris Kyle would have likely had many less killings if he had always done what he was told. It’s part of the American way to think on ones feet and to make judgment calls from the front of the train. But first someone has to have the courage to reside there—and that is what’s short in most organizations. If they can find someone who wants to be at the front of the train, they are lucky. Those types of leaders are rare, but they are the key to making an endeavor successful or a failure. In classrooms look at the kids in the back of the class as opposed to those who voluntarily sit in the front—and you will see the difference between potential leaders and slugs who want to hide in the masses.

The failure to recognize such people is the problem, and they are often concealed behind jealousy, inflated egos, and overly educated process driven knuckle-draggers. Even the best leaders were hated even when they were loved. People love the results, but they hate that they can’t emulate a leader through processes, graphs, and structural definitions. There isn’t a class at West Point that can properly teach leadership and there isn’t a single course anywhere that can teach the proper behavior. It comes to some people naturally who love to stand in the fire at the front of the train. Leadership takes a natural courage that is vacant from most people, and if a society wants more leaders—it has to create an environment that produces more of them. But more often than when potential leaders are discovered within government schools they are beat into submission before they get out of the fifth grade and destroyed like baby seals surrounded by sharks that just want a meal. Most leaders are destroyed before they ever make it to adulthood. Today’s real leaders are taught early and often to stand at the back of the train and to shut up. So, not knowing any better, they do—and live desperate lives unfulfilled quietly screaming in silence to words that can’t be articulated.

For more on this topic read my article “Making Omelets: The essence of leadership” which features several videos of Gordon Ramsay the popular chef and television personality who is famous for fixing failed restaurants. There are millions upon millions of people who can cook, and there are hundreds of others who have made successful television careers out of cooking. But Ramsay is different. It’s because he makes decisions at the front of the train instead of the back—and that skill is one of the most unusual in the world—the culinary world is much, much better off.   Whether its food, war, or just aspects of manufacturing, real leaders are hard to come by, but when they are found, they are more precious than a treasure trove of wealth discovered.   They have the ability to see and guide others through dangers not yet seen and can create what’s needed before anybody even understands why. But before one can be a leader they must have courage—because the front of the train is scary. And that is why organizations without good leadership languish in bureaucracy. Because they have to go slow enough for the cowards in the back to make a decision—and that is a promise of inevitable failure—because the competition out there will likely happen across a leader—and they won’t be moving slowly—they’ll travel fast because they have a leader at the front of the train. It’s not the size of an organization that makes it successful; it’s about the quality of their leadership. And to understand that, quality has to be understood—which is the topic of a whole new article.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Net Neutrality and Castro: Both lied to achieve their political objectives

Anyone claiming that Net Neutrality is a good thing is a political insurgent within the United States and they are lying. They are up to the same kind of lies that history has seen before, and they are after control of information and the taxation of the Internet with the creation of yet another government department. They are following a pattern very similar to one that was seen in Cuba when Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Bastista to bring communism to the small island occupied largely by American businesses. The very same people who currently support Net Neutrality watched and supported Castro’s use of communism as a weapon and are still seeking to apply the same methods to capitalism wherever it flourishes. In 21st century America, there is no place that capitalism is more alive than on the Internet—so those who advocate that the FCC take control of the Internet are using nearly the same strategies as Castro did to win the hearts and minds of supporters to execute the task at hand—the spread of socialism. To illustrate my point watch the clip below where Castro promised during a speech that he was not bringing communism to Cuba. Of course in hindsight we now know better–just as it will be with Net Neutrality. Castro lied openly that he and his party were not communists. He also lied that he did not want power for himself. He’s still in charge in Cuba some 60 years later—and people are still dirt poor and crumbling away into dust because of socialism.

Castro became a communist during his jail term from Bastista after the failed attack on the Moncada Baracks. It was in prison that he formed a revolutionary group with Che Guevara and his brother Rual Castro—who just worked out the deal with Obama to reopen Cuba to Americans. American intelligentsia particularly on college campuses openly supported Castro as a hero of Marxism and thought of him as a rock star. Castro was treated with the kind of fanfare that might only be seen today from a Hollywood celebrity. Yet all during this period Castro denied being a communist, until he was in charge. It was then that he made the subtle announcement shift and began to lace his speeches with references toward socialism. Please take the time to watch the next video, which is a pretty good documentary about Castro and the whole Cuban situation on the world stage. After watching it will become clear what the strategic desires for communism were and what a thin line America really walked on—and still does. For instance, when Castro created the “boat people” as a way to infect the political leanings within America with socialist trained insurgents trying to reach their families already in America the move was a tactical one—just as the push for open boarders is today. The third world countries to the south of the United States are poor because of the open utilization of socialism, yet they are being encouraged to move into the United States to infect the political process with socialist voters. It is the desire of most on the political left in America to see communism spread globally, and to eliminate capitalism everywhere. Go ahead; the history is clear in the following video.

Net Neutrality advocates are performing the exact same strategy and are openly lying to the American people so the FCC can create a Department of the Internet. Their intentions are first to put on the breaks to the open capitalism currently so prevalent there. They then intend to tax the Internet so that they can increase the amount of revenue to the Federal government. Then, most importantly of all, they want to control information. For those on the left who have captured our education institutions, the media and even the values of the American nation with sentiment, they are still a party that looks like its going to be extinct within a few years, just because they are mathematically a minority party. Just look at their upcoming field of candidates for the 2016 elections. They really only have Hillary Clinton as a viable progressive. There are no other challengers—whereas the Republicans have a dozen or so. There is a lot of competition in the Republican Party, but hardly any within the Democrats and most of them are within the groups mentioned. Mainstream America still leans toward the right and toward capitalism. The only way the progressive left can win elections is through voter fraud, or by encouraging right thinking people to just stay home and not vote—because it’s a pointless exercise, which then cuts into the voting numbers.

 

The desire by the left to allow amnesty to illegal aliens is the same strategy that Fidel Castro imposed on the United States when he used his own people to infect the Florida political system with socialist Cubans so to slowly rot America from within. It was a strategy that even modern communist loving progressives still want to continue—because it’s working. It’s a way that Democrats can turn red states into purple states and continue to do the work that Castro started in the Western Hemisphere—the end of capitalism and the spread of communism.

Communists can’t have an open exchange of ideas on the Internet. China regulates what people can see, and there is a desire for the same in America. After all, the political left has control of the current media—including Fox News. Fox would be a lot harder hitting if they didn’t want to play fair and so not to threaten their White House press pass. And anybody who has worked for media knows that editors and program directors trained in liberal institutions lean to the left as opposed to the right. Those on the right often find themselves clamped with FCC regulations that target the removal of such characters with surgical precision—which is how the left managed to take over the media in the first place.

They wish to do the same with the Internet. Because the left controls the media citizen journalists have risen to challenge traditional broadcasts-and information is getting out that the government clearly is embarrassed by. For instance, take this article for example. No broadcaster on the air today would dare make such comparisons to Fidel Castro and Net Neutrality—even though the strategies are clearly the same. Castro to achieve power lied about his support of communism until it was too late. In the same manner the producers of the below commercial are doing precisely that—denying the real intention of Net Neutrality by attempting to capture the position of their opposition—which progressives do all the time. It was Republicans that ended slavery in America.   Yet to this day, it is thought that Democrats are for all people of color. During the Iraq War, the left pounded President Bush for American involvement. Now, under Obama, they are calling for war to attack a group of radicals they helped empower in Egypt, Libya and the entire Middle East. Now suddenly the left-leaning media is pounding the drums of war. When people like me point out the hypocrisy, the political left is embarrassed, so they seek to remove the observer so they can continue to hide in the shadows behind lies. If they can regulate me out of existence, they can continue to rule politics as a minority party. That is what Net Neutrality is all about—control.

This is typical among communists; they are second-handers who live through other people. They falsely expect others to do the work while they benefit and in Cuba once Castro took possession of all the American businesses there, their economy died and they essentially currently live in the stone age, until fellow socialists in America desired to come to Cuba’s rescue with an insurgence of American investment hoping to further spread the message of communism to the heartland of the United States through vacations and interaction with the landmass south of Florida.

Net Neutrality is about destroying capitalism and the advocates in favor want control—just as Castro wanted control of Cuba. The political left has already destroyed an entire generation through public education and sappy entertainment options from a Hollywood no longer supporting capitalism. This has given rise to the value of the Internet and created a desperate need by liberals to capture and control the Internet for their own survival. The only way they can perform the task is through a Trojan Horse insurrection, just as Castro did in Cuba-by openly lying about their intentions until it was too late. For the Internet that time will come when the FCC creates a Department of the Internet and seeks taxation and permits right out of the gate to destroy their philosophic rivals—just because they can’t compete. Because that’s the real secret between those who support socialism and communism, and those who support capitalism—the capitalists aren’t afraid of competition because they are always striving to get better. But the socialists are already of the weak type and just want to be told what to do because they are too lazy to think. Those are the type of people buying into Net Neutrality—and due to the lies being spread—historically the perpetrators know that the results will likely reside in their favor.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT