Tag: corruption

Why I’d Vote For Scott Walker: The worthlessness of a college education

Out of all the potential candidates for the upcoming presidential election in 2016, it is Scott Walker who most personifies my expectations for such a high administrative position. He is certainly the most qualified, and vetted of any potential candidate except for maybe President Obama himself. Walker has been through a remarkable amount of tribulation—and has come out on top each and every time. He has the even temperament to take on anything and still come out as someone who can build bridges with those he disagrees with. From my vantage point, he’s the perfect candidate including the fact that he did not graduate from college. Recently when progressives have witnessed the polling numbers of Walker and realized that he could have a legitimate chance at running for President of the United States, they have been clamoring for anything and everything negative about Walker that they could—which has been a very short list. Even when they looked for skeletons in his closet they found it surprisingly empty. All they could muster was an attack on his intelligence because he did not complete college—which again to me is one of his greatest strengths.

The college myth was created by the progressive class to perpetuate the complete lie that college would allow kids to purchase their way into merit for income earning potential. It has only worked in regard to government workers who don’t have any real expectation of performance anyway. In the private sector college experience has not replaced the traditional ground up mentorship’s which used to be so common—where a hard enterprising worker learned everything there was to know about a business and worked their way up the ranks through tribulation and experience. Progressives in their desperate task of creating a society of collectivists decided that the best way to accomplish the task was through public education and colleges—which they have done. There is a good reason that most educators throughout the United States are known liberals. It is to teach students liberalism and to implant in their young minds the concept of selflessness. For instance, when my wife attended college she was told to read the Koran. When she asked the question about why the Bible wasn’t offered she was instantly told that she wasn’t there to ask questions but to do as she was told—which came as a surprise to both of us. The college had an agenda for their students and that was to spread the theocracy of Islam while charging students huge amounts of money for the indoctrination. The results can be easily seen around us to this day.

In college I was primarily interested in economics and philosophy—and my professors were wrong on both. In philosophy on the very first day the topic of conversation and first reading assignment was I Ching, which I thought was stupid. I explained the book to the class and professor as a ridiculous expression of oriental mystics that had very little to do with American economic power. Of course the professor attacked American domination through economics around the world and cited that the oriental people had it right as a best approach through a happy life toward our deaths. Even more shocking to me was the fact that out of a class room of 50 students I was the only one who had read I Ching so I was the only one who knew what I was talking about—except for the professor who was clearly a huge bleeding heart liberal. I Ching essentially preached the ideals of Confucianism which was really a back door approach to preparing the mind to accept communism as a state-run option—because the orient is essentially a collectivist based society and their philosophies reflect a lack of focus on individuality. I had read the book on my own the year before and already knew what I was going to get out of it, yet the philosophy professor was planning to spend four weeks on the book—which to me was just ridiculous.

There was a similar story which involved my economics studies. When I discovered that the professor in that class was essentially preaching the merits of Keynesian economics I completely rejected the class and was ready to withdrawal. Again, I had already read enough prior to the class to know what the professor was teaching and to stay in his class meant I would have to turn off my mind—not turn it on to a greater degree. Clearly, the experience my wife and I had in college was evidence that the college experience was not about teaching students to be productive people in society—it was to indoctrinate them with as much liberalism as they could cram into a four-year degree hoping that students would take with them that idiocy into the real world to implement progressive political strategies.

I lived on the campus of the University of Cincinnati for one full year and part of another without the desire to party at the fraternities, or to hang out at the bars and nightclubs. I went to a few of those events just to see what all the fuss was, and I didn’t like them. So I spent my time reading books in restaurants that were open all night and maintaining my emotional distance so I’d have clear observation. I was able to watch the college students—who were my age, with the gained insight of uncommitted logic and I drew my conclusions—which turned out to be extremely right. College for most people is a really bad idea. It’s good for learning something in the medical industry and other sciences, but for practical application into the manufacturing sector, or in sales, invention, and even engineering—college does a terrible job in producing intelligent, hard-working masterpieces. College is the dream of progressives to ruin the minds of the young with collectivist crap with the promise that success in life can be purchased. All you have to do is sit through the liberalized classes like a time share victim and hope that you come away from the experience with a free vacation from life.

College teaches people to think within a system—but often the answers to the hardest problems are outside of any organized structure. This is why major progressives like Howard Dean were threatened by Scott Walker as seen in the video above. This is also why Walker has been so successful in Wisconsin where other governors throughout the country have faltered. Walker is functioning from personal experience instead of direction from a system of collective thought. College graduates make nice little party leaders who will think for the good of the political orthodox, but if a problem falls outside of those parameters, they are often lost as to what to do—because collectively their party has not yet answered those types of questions. That happens to Barack Obama all the time. He is the epitome of a college graduate ill prepared for the world outside of liberal institutional thought.   He cannot think on his feet.

College success is a myth created by progressives and largely the baby boomers bought into the lie completely surrendering logic to pure speculation. Boomers wanted to believe that they could purchase a better life for their children with a college ticket—but all their kids really received was a trip into the “Brave New World.” College often ruins minds and destroys opportunity—and most kids are better off not going. There is no replacement for good old-fashioned hard work—and that is the kind of person that Scott Walker is. A quick study, and one of my most popular articles seen on the sidebar to the right indicates that most successful people avoid the damage that college does to their minds. I saw little of nothing in my college days that was helpful to a human being who desires to think. What I saw happen to women in particular I thought was devastating to their integrity forever. What I gained most out of college was found at a local Burger King that I sat in and read my many books—which I could have done without going to college. It was the most positive aspect of my experience. I ate a lot of Whoppers.

The panic of a Walker candidacy from both Republicans and Democrats is in finally convincing America of the worthlessness of a college education. If Walker wins, it will be a major blow to the progressive myth—and that has all those who love their institutions deeply concerned. But that issue needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later, because America needs the innovation that comes from those who normally get frustrated with college and drop out all together as opposed to those looking to purchase their way through life by turning off their minds just so they can get a piece of paper. From my personal experience there are a lot of potential Bill Gates types out there along with his nemesis Steve Jobs—both who didn’t have a college education. College destroys minds, it doesn’t help them grow and develop new ideas—not at the normal pace of human need. College limits people far more than it helps them, and that is what a Scott Walker President would illustrate to the 21st Century masses. The college scam is already falling apart and people will discover it by default, but Scott Walker could accelerate the process, and might actually save some of what’s left of America. So if I get the opportunity, I will vote for Scott Walker.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

The Control of Net Neutrality: Third Way economics reinvented

One of the great failures of the human condition is the personal desire to control other people through manipulation, social titles, and just sheer domination. Anyone who has worked in an environment where other people were constantly in interaction, they have witnessed this desire for control over others in all its dysfunction. Control is essentially the primary reason for the governments’ desire for gun control over its population. It is also the primary reason Obama through the FCC wants control of the internet through Net Neutrality. The control desired isn’t anything needed, but is only to satisfy the egos of bureaucrats and their lust to have the kind of control over others that they can’t get in their personal lives. If the root cause of the human desire for control is analyzed in most situations it will be found nearly 100% of the time that those who desire control over others most are those least secure about how to guide their own lives from moment to moment.

Often control is disguised to be seen as a helpful measure. An insecure parent might desire to control the finances of their children so to keep them close—so not to leave them vulnerable to social judgment which might otherwise be noticed. A boss might desire to control an employee they know is superior to them by crafting mundane procedures to wear down the challenging individual in hopes that the tasks will hone down ambition so corporate superiors might not notice. And the government at all levels–from the local zoning board all the way up to President of the United States can’t resist controlling other people through rules and regulations. For the political employee it is difficult to resist when power is confiscated through government mechanisms and provided to the desk of a bureaucrat the means to sort through and re-distribute the fruits of productivity to those they deem worthy. For the zoning administrator the rich land owner who wants to build a new garage will have to pay more and grease many more wheels to get approval than the hot young blond who wants to build a deck to sun bath upon. When the rights of others must be filtered through some government bureaucrat abuse through control is a common occurrence.

It is because of this human frailty desiring control over others that economies struggle and do not reach their full potential. It is also why there is much resistance to laissez-faire capitalism as opposed to socialism, communism, or some mixture of those ideas, especially by the political left. If the mind of those who call themselves democrats is analyzed correctly, it will be discovered that deep down inside they typically have serious personal control insecurities—which is why they are Democrats to begin with. Those who lean liberal tend to be insecure with themselves and desire to use re-distribution of resources through politics as a means to inflate their personal power over others. This was never more apparent than in the 1990s when then President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to hide their human frailties behind economic policies that pretended to support capitalism, only with a new spin on the type of socialism that control addicts desire most. They called it “The Third Way.”

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”.[5] Blair referred to it as “social-ism” that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.[8]

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.[10]

The Third Way has been criticized[11] by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[12] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.[13][14][15] Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.

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

In other words, the Third Way is identical to the corporate boss who is technically incompetent who steals the ideas of a superior minded employee so to impress their bosses when performance reviews are requested to drive up job security. Government has recognized that socialism and communism tend to rob people of initiative, so they give the illusion of capitalism so that the work excess produced can then be stolen and re-distributed to their political supporters to keep them in power. So essentially the Third Way is socialism without the title designed to hide the intentions toward control. It would be equivalent to the jealous husband who won’t let his wife drive a car under abusive circumstances—afraid she might find a better lover—by telling her that driving is dangerous and that he loves her so much that he doesn’t want her to get hurt. That is the essence of the Third Way economy patterns so prevalent today, introduced by progressives like Bill Clinton and heavily supported by open socialists like Barack Obama.

The point of this article is to illustrate what is really going on behind Net Neutrality. Under the current policy of Internet regulation and creativity, it is essentially a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Products are bought and sold rapidly in great number because there is an incentive to make money—so a very diverse number of products are available to consumers at a wide range of prices driven by competition. Government regulation hardly exists on the Internet and this has allowed a market sector to flourish—much the way the economy in America did during the 1920s, and 1980s under presidents Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.   Communists and socialists however have had their presidents elected in most of the other periods and the result has been lackluster economic growth—except for the advent of the Internet. At the heart of the desire for Net Neutrality is the desire to control the economy and the people who make it up.

There is no problem with the Internet, there is no unfairness. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on the Internet because of its limitless creative options. It has regulated itself through competition the way laissez-faire capitalism tends to anywhere it is utilized without controls imposed upon it by weak-willed personalities. Net Neutrality is all about control over others. That need for control is built on inner insecurities by lesser individuals who want to appear as equal or even superior to their betters. With Net Neutrality weak people who know they can’t compete in life need the protection of government so that they can feel equal to everyone else. Under open market capitalism, they can’t, so they must sabotage the successful so that they can feel equal. That is what is called “social justice.”

Net Neutrality is all about control and insecurity. It’s about a government that is useless trying to make itself relevant with “social justice” by stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy. It is just another version of the Third Way. It’s a scam—just like most things in government are. It’s an attack on laissez-faire capitalism. It’s all about control from inferior minds over superior ones in the only way that such an arrangement can occur—through manipulation, emotion, and a promise of security from illusionary concerns. Net Neutrality is a false argument against freedom by a lying government for the sole purpose of convincing the strong to give up their rights to the weak so that social justice through the Third Way of compromise can occur—which is nothing more than a way to hide the inadequacies of failed personalities from the realities they’d otherwise make for themselves.

 

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

A List of Proven False Flags: How many can you name not yet clarified?

 

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction.  I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done.  I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience.  For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values.  One of their reasons for asking for more money was to make the school safer because of the recent school shootings—like the Sandy Hook incident.  Conveniently a shooting spree threat was found a few days before the election in the girl’s bathroom of the high school inciting panic throughout the district.  CLICK TO REVIEW.  The tax was won in favor of the increase by approximately a 1% swing.  Likely a radicalized teacher union member left the note, but nobody will ever be able to prove it even though there were cameras and witnesses—the investigation never turned up an arrest of any kind.  After the election, the issue was just dropped and within a few weeks—everyone forgot about it.  That would be an instance of a likely false flag operation by an organization that needed to swing votes in their favor for a collective cause.

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.  Below is a list of several that are now far enough into the past that they can be looked at honestly.  Many modern false flags still have too much political weight to them, so any analysis is still decades off—and likely history will view our current time as being filled with them.  False flags are natural by-products of collectivism and such philosophy is taught in our public schools so groups of people as Nietzsche said—are quick to lend their support.   In the following list, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to their part in a false flag endeavor, either orally or in writing.  Pay close attention and then consider if any such action is likely in the modern context.

  • Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
  • Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
  • Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
  • The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
  • The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.
  • Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
  • The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
  • In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
  • The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
  • The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
  • A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
  • A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
  • The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
  • A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
  • (22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the White House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).  (I don’t completely agree with the cause, but there was certainly foul play involved)

(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.

(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(39) The highly respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/42-admitted-false-flag-attacks

Very interesting isn’t it?  Now—after watching Brian Williams fall from grace and knowing what you do now dear reader—how many false flags can you name in your neighborhood?  I bet you can find enough to fill a lengthy list.  Now, imagine how many there are at the state and federal level.  Think about that the next time you vote—and before you fall for the contents of the next sappy news story.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

What ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Says about Humanity: The politics behind the sexes

I personally don’t see any difference between the minds of men and women.  Women have done great things in history and are quite capable intellectually of anything that needs to be done at any level.  I have raised two daughters to believe that they can do anything and that no obstacle is too great and that there is no such thing as social victimization.  Yet there is a difference between men and women and that is their roles in sexuality.  Sex is a function of human bodies, like eating, breathing, or physical activity of any kind.  The mind often drives the body, but the vehicle that hosts the mind is different.  So it becomes very confusing to society when politics and philosophy have focused incorrectly on the bodily function of the sexes so to gain leverage in the great games of life—whether it was men trying to keep women from voting, or women using sex to gain advantage in a marriage or other relationships.  Such perilous activity is the key topic point to my new installment to the Cliffhanger series Latté Sipping Prostitutes.

Currently the intellectual capacity of our modern society isn’t very astute.  We are a consumer based species heavily focused on sign stimuli which drives our commercial activity to the point where intelligence has been frowned upon.  The Go Daddy commercials are good examples of this—they offer an easy product that virtually anybody can perform—but they use sex to sell their product placement and convince people to turn off their minds to the fact.  Most aspects of commercial society function with this intellectual weakness-Go Daddy is just an example.  The important aspect is that sex is used to place product importance into the minds of the consumer class.  Well, the very same tactic is used in politics, and it is a serious situation that needs to be explored which again is why I wrote Latte Sipping Prostitutes.

Progressive institutions like public education and media outlets have further distorted the contradiction by speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they have in a recent Hollywood Reporter article regarding the new Fifty Shades of Grey film being released on Valentines Day 2015 weekend to capitalize on the romantic event.  The book itself is simply a work of erotic fiction.  It is pornography that has been sold as mainstream literature in outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and was featured on day time talk shows like Ellen as if it were a work of pornography finally aimed at females often referred to as “mommy porn.”  Men feeling like they needed to show support of women–after all they have the annual Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition that comes out in February along with other milder forms of pornography intended specifically for them–just went along to get along.  The book itself and the film that is following is seen as empowering women—so the mainstream bought into the effort and made E.L. James a multimillionaire.  Yet the story itself is all about the fantasy of women being dominated by a strong “ultimate” man.  In this case it is a young billionaire who is drastically handsome and has just enough of a broken psyche that the story’s protagonist can love back to health—which leads to the bondage subplot and the 1/5 of the upcoming film dealing strictly with nudity and sadomasochistic sex.  This has left men very confused because for three decades now they were told that women didn’t want those kinds of men.  They wanted big softies who cried and shared their feelings.  That is not the kind of man who is the object of love in Fifty Shades of Grey and the subsequent novels.  So to sum up the problem progressive society wishes literally to have their cake and eat it too—they instructed men to be less manly and controlling—to be more open and expressive—then promoted a movie that is supposed to empower women which is all about the lust of women for controlling—dominating men.  Then to top it off, the articles leading up to the film’s release–the pre-sales articles bragged about the parts of the country showing the strongest sales numbers and guess what states they were—they were strong southern states still leaning politically and culturally toward traditional values.  The not so subtle message from progressive organizations like The Hollywood Reporter shown below is that women in the south are repressed and desire liberation.  Read for yourself.

The highly anticipated big-screen version of EL James’ best-selling erotic novel is selling more advance tickets than average in many Southern and Midwestern states, according to Fandango. In particular, presales for Fifty Shades are nearly four times better than average pre sales in Mississippi, the online ticket retailer added. Sales are, similarly, at least two times better than expected in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.

Fifty Shades, which hits theaters on Feb. 13, is already the fastest-selling R-rated title in Fandango history. The company analyzed the state-by-state advance sales patterns, comparing Fifty Shades presales against the average and finding surprisingly high numbers for the Universal/Focus Features title.

Fandango is also reporting that hundreds of opening-weekend screenings of Fifty Shades are already sold out in cities like Tupelo, Mississippi; Florence, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Diego; Houston; Las Vegas; L.A. and New York.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fifty-shades-grey-ticket-sales-770101

The sales pattern for Fifty Shades of Grey will be that the film will do between $80 million to $60 million on opening weekend but will drop quickly once the build-up audience sees the movie.  It will be lucky to make $160 million domestically which will make money on a budget that is reasonably low—and will be considered a success.  But it will not be on par culturally with something like American Sniper which speaks to the typical “Red State” voter.  Progressive institutions are trying to build a case for their viewpoints of expanded feminism by attacking typical red states and purple states such as Kentucky.

Of a particular interest Florence, Kentucky was mentioned which is a southern suburb of Cincinnati.  I know from personal experience a lot about that demographic which is typically very affluent.  There are a lot of professional couples living in that region where the husband travels a lot in their job and the women are independently building their own lives under a shared roof under very progressive conditions.  When you get a few miles away from this specific region of Kentucky the demographics move back toward Bible Belt traditional roles where women still are encouraged to wear skirts on Sundays and to stay home to raise their babies if it’s even a remote option with a marriage partner.  Yet the Hollywood Reporter took the pre-sales numbers from the Rave in Florence as an indication of the Bible Belt south as having women crawling all over themselves to see Fifty Shades of Grey.

Obviously the motive of the reports were political and agenda driven.  When the reality comes to pass and the film isn’t a blockbuster on par with films like American Sniper—everyone will forget about the build-up.  But they will remember that women in the south felt repressed and that they desire fulfillment they aren’t getting from their traditional lifestyles meaning they need to support more Barack Obama wealth redistribution programs, Hillary Clinton for upcoming president, and Elizabeth Warren as a viable progressive voice in Washington.  Men through their guilt will just throw up their arms and say nothing as their wives vote for Hillary and they vote for whoever the Republican is leaving the minority voting population as the pivot vote.  See how it works?  But all along the scam is clear—Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t empower women at all—it just exploits secretly the stereotype that was always there—that women in a sexual sense desire to be in possession of a man who conducts their life with sheer confidence and strength.  It has nothing to do with a woman’s mind or ability to conduct a hard task like becoming a scientist traveling to Mars or a technical wizard in a laboratory—but with their desires for sexual roles that they are biologically inclined to.  To fill those roles they want strong men—not weak crybabies. So it is in this way that feminism has confused the hell out of everyone with the strategic objective to advance progressivism.

It’s a complicated story and my narrative Latté Sipping Prostitutes means to specifically break down this issue in a way that provides context.  An example is often helpful because society speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue.  And it takes a great understanding of human nature to see through the haze. That understanding will not come from the Hollywood Reporter.  They are simply trying to make a point that will recruit more progressive voters in the future from states that typically vote the way their husbands do—because men tend to pay more attention to political aspects of society as women tend to focus more on social aspects.  In most honest marriages men leave the social engagements to their wives while the men read about local and state politics in the paper and the two typically trust in each other the result.  There is much more at work behind the Hollywood Reporter article that goes back to the training of progressives from their institutions of learning which taught them to think in such ways.  But it’s hard to see, which is why it is good to have tools which enable the curious to see those tricks played so openly upon the political and social landscape using the sexes to hide the truth.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Latté Sipping Prostitutes: Tackling tough subjects in the latest Cliffhanger installment

As much as women think they have made great gains in the world of voting and the workplace, women are still used and abused terribly under the flag of collectivism. They are expected to act in unison—as a collective group and often behave in such a fashion making them a serious barrier to logic when hard decisions have to be made. It is probably one of the hardest things to write about in regard to correcting aspects of politics and philosophy plunging our society into the current quandaries that we find ourselves in—but if proper correction of modern problems are to have any hope—this problem must be identified and dealt with so that civilization can fix them. That is why the next chapter of my Cliffhanger story The Curse of Fort Seven Mile deals exclusively with this problem. Here is the description of the chapter from the book as it appears on Amazon.com.image

A school board president, a chamber of commerce CEO, a teacher’s union president and a wealthy socialite plan the demise of Fort Seven Mile’s new mayor after a brutal attack by Cliffhanger upon the police force. A sinister plan is hatched during their weekly latté gatherings where the four women routinely plan the manner of politics around their community along with their fantasies of sadomasochism, gossip, and social treachery.

Their grabs for power escalate as they organize a union protest at the Mayor’s home in a hope to diminish public approval of the beautiful Misty Finnegan and draw out the bandit Cliffhanger with a trap only the crafty mind of Patty Latrine could fathom. What they discover is a secret nobody could even comprehend leading to events that will change life as they know it forever.

 

Long time readers here will recognize the title as a joke that has evolved over several years. Specifically, I have used such a term often to describe the type of people who illogically vote for continuous tax increases not from individual thought processes, but from the pressure of their peers. Once it became obvious to me that women were being used by other women to promote obvious trends in politics that were disastrous to our society it was clear that the tendency needed to be called out so that it could be recognized and corrected. Men have been slow to join me in pointing out such a tragedy because they have been pinned into a corner with a check-mate in regards to social conduct. If they support such viewpoints as I have proposed, then they are cast about as Neanderthals and sex is cut from their lives with surgical precision.

This has always been by design, progressive groups knew that this would be the biological component to their movement and they sought to exploit it behind the flag of feminism. Like in the story described above, every community has some variation of the characters mentioned. Sometimes there are men included, but the basis of most society presently conducts their schemes against the voting population in much the way that the ladies in Latté Sipping Prostitutes do. And usually the groupings are broke down along similar political lines. The evidence can be seen at various Chamber of Commerce events and charity fund-raising efforts. Always the intentions from a distance are good—but the subtle underbelly of the strategy is often sinister—and deeply complicated. To hide that complicated web of motivations men have been urged to go along to get along and turn off their brains.  It is likely one of the biggest modern problems that is facing our culture which nobody talks about. But they should.

Even though I have written about this problem extensively and provided vast amounts of scientific data to support the conclusions and discussed it over hours of talk radio—the best format to explore the problem is within fiction. It is within the context of a story that the various psychological layers of the forces at work can be properly explored in all their connecting fashions. The primary antagonist in this particular story Latté Sipping Prostitutes is Patty Latrine—the wealthy socialite. Every community has some version of her and she is found among all the various groups herding women along like sheep toward a destiny not always to their liking.

The main protagonist in Latté Sipping Prostitutes even though she doesn’t have a line of dialogue but is only seen and talked about is the new Mayor of Fort Seven Mile, Misty Finnegan. As a woman she is truly a liberated free-thinker who is independent to such an extent that she lives beyond the control of Patty Latrine which makes the socialite feel very insecure—an emotion that she’s not used to experiencing. What has the women of her group so up in arms over the new mayor is that Misty is home schooling her children which means she doesn’t blindly support the public education system that Patty uses to advance her social strategies. To make matters worse Misty is a beautiful woman and the socialites under Patty’s leadership find the mayor to be a threat to their own power of seduction—that ability to perk out a lip or flirt with men in a way to get what they want when they want it. (Most human communication is non-verbal and women are great at it). Misty Finnegan’s presence as a powerful political figure of a truly strong and independent woman creates major problems for Patty Latrine and her minions of latte sipping despots who will do almost anything to stay in Patty’s good graces.

So what do the Patty Latrines of the world have that other women want—and why would women as a collective group even be prone to her strategies? Well, that is part of the problem and I’ve seen it firsthand—which I write about extensively in this latest Cliffhanger installment. Women like to have places to wear the jewelry and cloths they pick up here and there either from men, or from a shopping spree and people like Patty give them someplace to wear them. It’s just another form of control. If men committed sins in the past by not allowing their wives to drive a car, or getting them continuously pregnant to keep them from running off with another man, women like Patty Latrine use social status to do the same, by controlling the flow of politics at a communal level. If you don’t do and say as Patty does, an invite to her next charity dinner won’t come and nobody wants to be cast out of such events when everyone will be there!

It used to be the good ol’ boys network that was the vile centerpiece of corruption and discontent in every community, but that is no longer the case. Now it is women and they are every bit as bad as the men were. But they have the social mask of goodness to hide that evil behind built by progressive strategy over time to suppress judgment against their actions. What both groups did was wrong acting as a collective unit. Individually, if spoken to, they would say one thing, but within the peer groups of their Central Committees and social networks is a “team” approach which often requires them to act against their best judgment. That is where the trouble starts and the evil driven by a lack of personal authenticity creeps into the picture to bring with it corruption—because once a human being makes such a decision, they are willing to compromise on everything and they lose their integrity.

My work of course in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is intended to be thought-provoking. For that reason I am particularly proud of Latté Sipping Prostitutes because it is such difficult subject matter to properly articulate. I don’t see many creative types in literature or film attempting to grapple with this problem—so it is advancing unhindered throughout our social structure without analysis, but, not in this new installment of Cliffhanger. After completing the story I knew that I had pulled together some difficult elements and readers would benefit from the result. That result might be controversial but it’s honest and leads to an exciting and unique chapter to the Cliffhanger story arc. A chapter that’s a lot of fun, but is brutally honest in a way that I’m known for; Latté Sipping Prostitutes is one of those stories that has a lot going on but is all too revealing. It might ruffle some feathers but to my intention, that is the difference between good literature and slack-jawed news articles.

The new installment can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Latte-Sipping-Prostitutes-Curse-Seven-ebook/dp/B00TBW2D12/

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

The Obama and John Kasich French-Kissing Budgets: It will cost Lakota $5.9 million and worse–yet another levy

 

John Kasich has shown that he is fully capable of surpassing Pete Carroll’s Super Bowl losing decision as the dumbest idea to date. Failing to address the runaway costs of Ohio public schools by giving more money to poor districts while taking money away from the wealthy ones—he proposed early in February 2015 to solve the gulf with a tax increase. His comment to the wealthy districts was, “If you live in a district that can afford it, you can help yourself.” Essentially what he means is that he’s redistributing the wealth of Ohio tax payers from well-off regions to poorer ones with an established result to raise taxes on communities hosting gigantic schools with treacherously inflated employee wages like Lakota. Taking the largest schools hit in Butler County will be the Lakota Local School District—where I live, which will lose a total of $5.9 million over the next two fiscal years. A neighboring distinct to the west, Ross will lose $438,765. Talawanda to the north, $594,482. As residents we already pay state taxes intended for the unconstitutional distribution of public education—yet Kasich is taking that money and passing it out disproportionately to districts deemed more needy than others, then telling wealthy districts like mine to raise taxes and take care of themselves—all while taking our state tax money and dispersing it like Santa Clause everywhere but in Lakota and other Butler County schools. Then to make matters worse Kasich said this to a Cleveland newspaper—which is appalling. It looks like Kasich and Obama put their budgets together on the same napkin at the same bar, French-kissing each other when they thought nobody was looking—because they are both just as ridiculously stupid.

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Gov. John Kasich said he doesn’t consider his new school funding plan to be a redistribution of income, even as it sends more money to poor districts and less to richer ones.

“It is a conservative point of view in that every kid should be in a position to thrive,” Kasich said.

“I don’t see it as redistribution,” he added. “I see it as a formula for driving resources to kids.”

In an appearance at the E Prep and Village Prep Woodland Hills charter school campus in Cleveland his morning, Kasich said he expects “a lot of squawking” when he releases the changes in state aid to individual districts this afternoon.

About half of Ohio’s districts will see reductions, he said, despite him adding $700 million in aid to schools overall.

Kasich said he wants to send more money to district with less “capacity” to pay for schools and less money to those that have the income and property values to cover the costs.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/gov_kasich_says_his_school_fun.html

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/kasichs-education-speech-under-way/nWCBT/

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/budget-increases-funding-for-poorer-school-distric/nj4tr/

The ultimate failure in this debacle is in believing that more money will actually help kids in a poor community—as if money alone will make schools better. Government schools suck because government is incompetent. You could throw $1 million dollars per pupil into a poor community and the money will be completely wasted on teacher salaries, new paint for the schools but not a single elevated child—because schools do not make children great. Teachers don’t make good people. Parents do. Schools and teachers can assist, but they can’t take broken Humpty Dumpty families and put all their broken shells together again if their home environment is full of drug addicts, gamblers, whores, or people who enjoy watching the Bill Cunningham show. It doesn’t work now, it hasn’t worked in the past, and it certainly won’t work in the future. Money does not make quality. People make quality and there is a reason that kids in richer districts do better scholastically than poor kids. It’s because their parents generally care more about the outcome of their kids and there is likely peer knowledge of similar families who also care about the fate of their children. In poor communities very few people care about kids. Teachers generally pretend to, but in the end, if their union calls for a strike—they’ll march in the streets and leave the kids in need of a mentor. Most teachers are unfortunately in the profession to make money. I believe they start out well-intentioned, but a few years into their mandatory union membership—they become socialist radicals just like the rest of the employees in public education. And those employees aren’t worth the money they demand to be paid.

That is the real issue—the money the employees cost a district. A properly run school district would wisely cut all their most expensive employees and let some other school have them—hiring cheaper teachers who will do the same work for half the cost. Experience doesn’t mean much in public schools because kids aren’t learning anything anyway. Government schools are simply an expensive state funded baby-sitting service and nothing more—for parents too busy to care for their own. So they pawn their kids off on society to raise and hope the school will cover their faults. At least in a wealthy district the parents ask how the child’s day went and try to bring some semblance of family structure to children. In poor districts—an intact family is as rare as an eclipse. Money can’t fix that problem.

As for pre-school education and subsequent grade school skills—teaching itself has entered a new age, and the government schools are way behind the curve. For anybody who hasn’t yet learned, there is a thing kids have these days called, LeapFrog—which is a computer tablet intended for kids 3 to 9 which teaches them math, grammar, and other logic skills. If I had one of those when I was a kid I would have been done with all the skills of grade school before 5 years of age because the programs are so good, and intuitive. The government school profession is no longer effective in this fast paced age of massive data consumption. Kids are bored with public school by the time they are in the 2nd and 3rd grades and learning for them becomes a chore instead of a pleasure because of the way its sold to them in public schools driven by radical—expensive labor union personnel—is destroying our youth—not helping them.

So Kasich has made an epic error. To mask his lack of courage in dealing with the public labor unions, he has instead punted to the local districts to allow them to fight it out due to his progressivism.   He might as well be Obama in the Ohio capital at this point. Sure he moved some money around to create a surplus, but he largely did it with wealth redistribution like this situation with the schools, and by taking federal money. He’s not a conservative—he is the definition of a RINO. If he were a governor in New York or California—he’d call himself a Democrat because that’s where his values and leadership point to as far as values.

As for the development of the I-75 corridor in Southern Ohio surely he knows what this means. He remembers the Lakota fights of a few years ago, and now because of his decision, he’ll see them again. If he thought they were bloody before, he and they haven’t seen anything yet. And those fights will be in the newspapers, and they will influence investment into the area at a critical time—and he’ll be to blame. I can say that I’m not alone in anger on this high tax proposal by Kasich of the Lakota and Mason area. Paying for overpriced government babysitters isn’t going to go over well and it will take a while for those districts to pass a tax increase because of the fights coming—so public relations of the area will take a hit. And the blame will fall squarely on John Kasich. Once something is done—you can’t undo it. And now he’s simply blown it. He has fallen from a political star to a simple grain of sand on a vast beach being washed out to sea by larger and larger waves. Any hopes he had at greatness are now washing away with the high tide as he panders to the power of the unions with a feeble attempt to appease them—which of course won’t work. His decision and budget proposal regarding education will have a catastrophic effect and the blame will be solely in his possession.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Controversy Over ‘American Sniper’: Why evil hates the new Clint Eastwood film

The best part of the American Sniper film is that it has flushed out the counter insurgents within United States cultures—those who actively work against the ideas established in the Constitution to create an economy based on capitalism, personal freedom, and moral integrity.  The popularity of the film has forced opinions to be mirrored against the radicals of American society and display the contrast.  One of the typical and less profanity ridden examples of hate against the film is the article shown below from Salon.com–a left leaning publication.  It seamlessly combines an attack on the integrity of Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood, and the GOP in general into one dribbling hate fest.  Have a look:

Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a[youtuhero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than anguish with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.

But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia– from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mindset.

In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on U.S. gun culture, “Bowling for Columbine.  Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directed comments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.

Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/

For many years these types of leftists have attacked the fundamental conservatism of American culture with accusations that silence opinion so not to be labeled in such a hateful manner.  Socialist radicals just as they are taking over Europe, the Middle East, and every poverty-stricken nation throughout Africa, India, and China have successfully eroded away opinion against their schemes using the same methods and everywhere but America has it worked.  In the United States the leftist strategy is certainly at work, but it has met with considerable resistance particularly from the type of Americans who love their guns, their country and their God.  Chris Kyle is a danger to them because it gives those core Americans the knowledge that they are not alone and isolated in their thoughts and provides clarity to the true insurrection by socialist minority forces.  These insurgents have been at work for many years as change agents against the American republic trying to force a conversion into a mass driven democracy guided by socialists.  American Sniper is the movie of normal Americans, and they have showed up in mass to see it scaring the crap out of those insurgents hoping to remain undetected.

Clint Eastwood has had a battle with these insurgents for many years starting with his Dirty Harry films.  Those cop drama movies were all about the changes happening in America through those change agents as Clint Eastwood’s character represented the last vestiges of John Wayne’s patriotism.  Critics pushed on Eastwood throughout that series and in each film Dirty Harry addressed those issues.  For instance in Magnum Force, the second Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood dealt with the thin line between his character and the vigilantes who were cops who created a secret squad of assassins killing bad guys without any court process.  It was essentially an argument between raw conservatism and fascism.  In the Enforcer the story dealt with underground communist terrorists similar to the real life Weather Underground.  Dirty Harry had a female partner which created conflict in the face to the severe danger being created by radical groups pressured by a political system to hire women to the force just for social satisfaction.  In Sudden Impact everyone was against Dirty Harry as the character was forced to step away from the politics surrounding him.  At the end of that movie when the killer was found, Eastwood’s character let her go—because there was no justice possible to rectify the situation.  By the time the Dead Pool came out—which launched the career of Jim Carry—Dirty Harry was a celebrity just trying to live his life—but circumstances would not allow him to do so.  Even with all the feel good publicity expected by Dirty Harry—in the end he had to turn toward raw vigilantism to solve the crime.  Eastwood has always answered the leftist critics with his arguments in his most controversial films.  He as done plenty of soft, non political films, but Eastwood has always expressed a lot about himself and his views in his movies.  His best films are the ones where he is most controversial because the passion of his convictions comes out clearly which is why after all these years—he is still a beloved actor/director.  Like a time capsule Eastwood has been there from the beginning and has chronicled the present insurgency in the topics of his films as they happened to our social tapestry.

So it is again with American Sniper which essentially returns to the topic of the very first Dirty Harry film.  The fight between Chris Kyle and Mustafa in the film is the same as the one between Dirty Harry and Scorpio.  American Sniper is an exploration of evil and what to do with it when you find it.  What is the responsibility of America when evil is at their doorstep?  That is the question that Eastwood answers in the film.  And American audiences like his opinion and have voted with their wallets.

Evil is among us.  It is at work and it forces us to look within ourselves to decide what to do with it.  It’s not complicated—it’s rather simple.  For Chris Kyle, because his upbringing and state heritage gave him the ability to detect evil as viewed by Christian orthodox—he had an advantage over those less fortunate throughout the world.   After all, we are lucky to be born in America.  It would stink to be born and raised someplace else—but we need not feel guilt about that to the point where we give the value of that benefit away just to make the rest of the world feel better about themselves.  The insurgents among us feed off that tendency and make it into a reckless enterprise.  Chris Kyle, like many of us are products of our environment—and those of us born on the winning team are lucky to be there.  But we have a right to protect that value by projecting it elsewhere so that other little children not born under capitalism and freedom can taste what we love and cherish.  If left alone—those other countries become cesspools of evil by default.

So the question remains, is it a higher morality to leave a country like Iraq alone as the terrorist evil there hell-bent on revenge for their arguments with Europe and a conflict that extends back to the Crusades—or should America sweep in to free people from the evil at work behind the broken ideologies of collectivism that is ever-present among the communist driven ISIS currently reeking havoc once again in Iraq upon our departure?   Would Iraq be better off or worse off without all the CIA involvement, or the alliances formed due to oil companies in Saudi Arabia?   If left alone, the entire Middle East, Israel included, would be a pit of communism and that is the real issue that leftists hate about American Sniper.  If the traditional definition of communism is defined as evil because it robes individuals of their ownership and value and surrenders to the collectivism of the mob then it is easy to designate all terrorist activity as evil.  They aren’t freedom fighters fighting against institutionalism.  They are fighting in favor of institutional religion, politics and economic viability. And that makes them evil.

Evil likes to hide in the masses.  Within collectivist systems where the value of the good is robbed to hide the degradation of the bad, evil can flourish—so it prefers collectivism over individualism because it can operate in a concealed fashion.  Clint Eastwood made a movie in American Sniper that stares that evil in the face—and the leftists advocating that vile evil don’t like it.  So they criticize the film, Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood and anybody who expresses appreciation for the film hoping to push everyone back into the hole that they have been living in for years allowing evil to flourish.  But this time it’s not working.  And they are scared—as they should be.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Fairfield Township Tax Increase: The signs of a declining community

No matter where you are in the world articles like this one are something you should pay attention to. Even though the story is a local one, gradually its contents will find you in whatever corner of the world you happen to reside. When I was a kid, Fairfield Township was one of the booming areas around the City of Cincinnati. With Jungle Jims bringing international attention to the area as one of the most unusual grocery stores in America, General Motors operating a parts plant off RT 4 and a number of other developments, Fairfield Township was the rising star of Ohio. I lived in neighboring Liberty Township and used to think the people who lived in Fairfield were rich and very lucky. Well, years of mismanagement and sheer stupidity have brought to the Township a promise of bankruptcy by 2018 unless the trustees put a 4.9 mill levy up to pay for their fire and police protection on the May 2015 ballot. Here are the numbers provided by the Journal News:

The problem stems from the fact that since 2012, the township has transferred more than $1.7 million from the general fund to the police and fire departments to cover budget shortfalls. Expenses have been outpacing revenues in both departments since 2011, Geis said. (Ken Geis,is the township’s interim administrator.)

Police expenses, including salaries and equipment, were just short of $3 million in 2013, while revenues were about $2.2 million. The fire department had similar figures in 2013, Geis said. The township transferred about $350,000 from the general fund in 2012 for the fire department, $1.1 million in 2013 for fire and police combined and about $300,000 so far this year for the police department.

The township’s finances are strong now, with a Aa2 bond rating from Moody’s, the second highest rating possible and an indicator of good credit risk, and a projected balance of nearly $4 million this year after expenses. However, that’s down from the 2011 balance of $6 million. Projected balances show the general fund gradually diminishing until it dips near or below $1 million in 2018.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/local/township-may-consider-levy-to-avoid-insolvency/nhWC6/

The smart thing to do would be to restructure the contracts and staffing levels of the police and fire departments to reflect the declining community that Fairfield is. Let’s face it; Fairfield Township is not the best place to live anymore. It is mired with the same types of challenges that most big cities face with a demographic population overly dependent on government services as the more self-reliant types have picked up and moved on to places where people think more the way they do. It was easy to keep adding fire departments as part of a gigantic international labor union and expect massive wages for mostly sitting around all day doing nothing while Fairfield Township was experiencing its economic boom that lasted for several decades during the 60s through the 80s. It’s not like the roughly 18,000 residents around Fairfield Township were having houses burn down every day. There is the occasional arson case, the occasional pot bust, and domestic violence calls that come when you put stupid young people with no money and addictions to alcohol in conflict together near a bowling alley—but other than those issues, Fairfield Township is grossly overstaffed with police and fire department employees—and the trustees know that the fight to reduce those positions will likely be more unpopular than filing bankruptcy—which is just fine with the labor unions behind the police and fire departments. For instance, the Township in the fourth quarter of 2014 hired Lawrence Barbiere to replace Jack Grove as the township law director. Guess what, Grove was charging the township for his services–$315 per hour. Barbiere only charges $150 per hour. If the trustees look at their fire department and police payrolls they will see a lot of officers pushing over $100,000 per year with their overtime roll-overs. Those employees should be cut—or put on a RIF so that newer—cheaper employees could be implemented so not to force residents to vote for a tax increase. You can still have your police and fire departments sitting on the side of the road playing on the internet all day—but at least they’ll be there if some delusional drug addict has a bad drug bust or ends up burning down their home to collect insurance money so to pay off their gambling debts.

But of course the fire department will inflate their numeric needs because it must always be remembered; they are an international labor union first—servants of the local citizens second. Chief Matt Fruchey said this of the trustees decision for a tax increase in May—“I am very pleased that the trustees have aligned with our assessment of current and future needs of the township.” What that means is that Fruchey believes staffing levels need to be increased to some magic number consistent with the number of people living in the area. Increasingly Fairfield Township is filled with people like Barbara Holland who said to the Today’s Pulse newspaper that she’s not worried about her taxes, as her property is not of a great monetary value. “They’re (trustees) going to really have to get out there and push this….it’s the people with these big houses that are going to fight it.” So essentially what Barbara said is that she wants the services of the police and fire without paying for it, and wants wealth redistribution from those “big houses” to give her community resources that she isn’t equally contributing to.

It is that kind of mentality that tells the money to leave Fairfield Township because the trustees failed to protect them from people like Barbara Holland and Chief Matt Fruchey. Fruchey knows that his guys need a few more players in their Call of Duty network down at the firehouse, so he’s protecting their interests by exploiting the stupid in Fairfield Township. So guess what happens, the people in those big houses get up and leave Fairfield Township and move next door to Liberty and West Chester where personal wealth and property value is still appreciated somewhat leaving the community who just passed the high tax rates filled with people like Barbara, and without people in those big houses. Guess what happens to the revenue stream of a community when value leaves and poor value stays? The community dies.

Yet in a different newspaper Barbara Holland spoke a different note about the upcoming levy when the trustees split the vote on a May ballot or a November vote during a special Friday meeting on January 23rd. Suddenly Holland stated to the Enquirer that “I think you need to have another town meeting roundtable. Tonight was not informative. I’m going to be cutting something out if this goes through.” So in one paper Holland doesn’t care about the tax, the next she’s undecided. What is going on is that the trustees know they have to come up with more money to pay for the police and fire services and they don’t want the pain of lawsuits if they force staff reductions to balance the books. Wishy washy residents like Holland they need to speak out in favor of the levy to put peer pressure into the community to support the next levy—they just can’t decide when the best numbers will be that will work toward their advantage. These are the decisions of a declining community—because no matter what the trustees do, failure will follow. If they pass a tax increase more money will leave the township for friendlier districts. If they don’t pass the tax increase the international unions connected to the fire and police departments will put the screws down on the trustees in ways they aren’t equipped to deal with financially or emotionally. So either way, Fairfield Township loses and will further go down in value. There will become more residents like Barbara Holland demanding more taxes on properties of little value and less in those “big houses” who will pay a lot more just because people like Holland ended up voting for the increase.

The same struggles are coming to your front door dear reader. It’s just a matter of time.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Labor Unions in Decline: Knuckle-dragging losers, Obama and King Jayavarman II

“To give working families a fair shot, we’ll still need more employers to see beyond next quarter’s earnings and recognize that investing in their workforce is in their company’s long-term interest. We still need laws that strengthen rather than weaken unions, and give American workers a voice.”   That is the advice of a knuckle dragging idiot whose entire world view was shaped by marijuana cigarettes, Marxists college professors and a parade of communists who wanted to screw his promiscuous white mother.  Well, that idiot has been president of the United States now for a few years and even with the hard lessons about how socialism does not work, and managed economies by government infusion of their bureaucratic tendrils stifles creative enterprise instead of feeding it—Barack Obama still says really stupid things like that about labor unions.

Union membership in the United States fell to an all-time low in 2014, according to a government report released just days after President Barack Obama called for new laws to strengthen unions during his State of the Union speech. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the union membership rate was 11.1 percent last year, down 0.2 percent from the rate seen in 2012 and 2013. This trend is part of a growing realization about unions in America and the kind of rhetoric uttered by major left leaning progressives like Obama and his personal friend Richard Trumka—that the concept of a labor union is right out of the pages of Karl Marx. Labor unions are essentially anti-American, anti-capitalism, and immoral toward positive growth toward productive enterprise.

The BLS report reveals that union membership is increasingly a thing of the past for most Americans, and is a status mostly relegated to government workers—which needs to be made illegal. The union membership rate for the public sector was 35.7 percent, and was just 6.6 percent in the private sector. As of last year, there were 14.6 million people working in unions.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez picked up on this point, and noted that the BLS report showed that weekly wages for union workers were significantly higher than wages for non-union workers. Union workers saw a median weekly wage of $970 in 2014, while the median wage for non-union workers was $763.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/23/u-s-union-membership-falls-to-record-low-in-2014/

Well……………….Tom, Barry, and Richard T and all the other slack-jawed old hippies and social parasites who utter such ridiculous nonsense with the wit of a cockroach—the reason labor unions are failing is because that $10,000 dollars per year difference in pay that union workers typically make above non-union workers is sapped directly out of the profit formula that most businesses need to exist. While the communist in people like Barak Obama, and Tom Perez point to the CEOs of various corporations and declare that they should give back their high salaries and bonus checks to “the people” of the “middle class” they forget that it takes leaders to drive companies and the workers toward profitability in the first place. Under the philosophy of Karl Marx the “workers” typically left to their own devices are often uninspired toward productive enterprise and are easily out produced by the rest of the world. Yet they command salaries that are higher for less work. That doesn’t make any sense and is the direct cause of why union membership is down.

If labor unions attached to government positions were made illegal that would go a long way toward solving many budget problems in the United States. The private sector has had to learn the hard way—yet the government sector workers have no reason to change their behavior from their point of view. They can now vote themselves raises as labor unions protect them from reality leaving the only option to eliminating their corrosive influence is to cut the positions all together. As Obama lectures that CEOs should distribute their bonus checks to the “middle class” he runs off to a golf outing on the tax payer funded Air Force One to live as if he were the king Jayavarman II of the Khmer Empire presiding over the majestic Angkor monuments. The drunkenness of power upon Obama’s mind is purely funded by tax payer looting provided to him through an army of union driven thugs at his feet providing support so long as they get that marginal pay increase just for belonging to a federal labor union. Labor unions attached to government work of any kind invites corruption of the highest order and are the root cause of the inflated tax payer funded budgets demanding reforms that never come.

Most of the time workers are not worth that $10,000 difference in pay that Tom Perez is talking about because the laws of a free market economy were ignored. The value is artificial and focused on the worker instead of the net result of the product produced by the endeavor demanded—which is a fatal flaw in thinking. Only government workers who get paid for showing up at a desk without the expectation of doing any real work, like Obama and Perez, could conclude such a ridiculous proposal—that companies function as ignorantly as they, and pay employees for unproductive work at values that are unreasonably high. In government when they need more money, they just raise taxes. So they assume in the private sector that the cost of goods and services can do the same to cover their margins. But it doesn’t work that way. When the world is competing with a global economy where many workers in those far away lands are doing work for $1 to $2 per day, its hard for the worker in the middle of Tennessee to justify their existence toward productivity when they expect to make over 100 times that amount for the same work.

This blind support for labor unions comes from people who have no idea how the world really works. They have been bred in a government backed vacuum to believe that jobs are created with tax payer money and that results are never to be expected. In many ways Obama is very much like the king Jayavarman II who started an empire in the region of Cambodia around 802 AD by declaring himself king of the world sticking a penis shaped rock in a slotted stone and asking the gods to give him immortal power. To prove he and his subsequent rulers were truly divinely led, they built all the monuments popular to the region—such as Angkor Wat. But guess what, they weren’t immortal or divinely influenced. They were just men who rose and fell within a few centuries of their climb to power. And so it will be for all government workers and their inflated wages they demand. Their large houses, boats, and lavish vacations paid for by the tax payers will be consumed and cast back to ruin the moment their lives are snuffed out by fate—and nobody will remember their efforts. Only through productivity does the work of ones enterprise live on in some fashion of immortality. No matter how much people like Obama take and give away—the value of what is looted is what suffers. What is taken is productivity and without it an entity dies one hundred percent of the time. That is why union membership is down. Soon, it will only be government workers who will be in them and the next great crises will be when people not in a union are asked to pay for more taxes to justify those in government still in unproductive unions. But the sympathy won’t be there. It’s already fading fast—especially after the scandals within the IRS over the last few years.

It’s only a matter of time before those union memberships decline as well. Because there is no longer sympathy for the unionized slug who expects to get paid for sitting around all day doing very little. The reason is not so much because of the money—it’s because of the effort. America as a nation was a productive place driven by capitalism. Without that productive edge against the rest of the world, Americans feel “average” and nobody likes that. The only way to be a winner is to out-produce your rivals around the globe, and the only way to do that is to do better. A union slug won’t be motivated to do better because they get paid regardless of the work performed. So it will be that aspect to their complacency which will eventually do them in. More union workers is a guarantee to have less work done at a higher cost—and that is not a recipe for success. People, no matter where they come from expect success—yet the labor unions work against that desire in ways that are happily putting them out of business.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

A Case in Favor of the Kroger Marketplace: Sometimes the way to save something old is with something new

I was very much against the proposed Kroger Marketplace at the corner of 747 and Taylorsville Road in West Chester, Ohio. The opposition was because the people around the community didn’t want it and the developer didn’t seem to want to construct the buffer zone that was needed to appease the community according to news reports. The Kroger store was supposed to be a service to the community in a positive way, but the people who had moved in and around the area obviously didn’t want anything to do with it. So the trustees listened to the voters instead of laying down flat for the developers and the project halted, which I applauded. Now a different developer wants to build a Marketplace literally at the end of my street, and I am quite happy about it. So what’s the difference?

For several decades now the RT 4 corridor that runs a short way through Liberty Township, Ohio has been an optimal area for commercial and business development. When I arrive home after a long trip I cherish my hometown intersection of RT 4 and Liberty Fairfield Road which includes a traditional Kroger store that has been swelling over the years to a breaking point. Often my wife and I go to the strip mall where the Kroger currently exists and eat Chinese food at the little place there which I think is some of the finest in the country. On a Saturday, traffic is terrible because that Kroger is so swelled making further quests into the surrounding businesses unattractive.

The prospect of a 133,868 square foot Kroger Marketplace being built just up the road and diagonally across from the Elk Run golf course to replace the current one is very attractive just because the business at the old one is so robust that it demands an expansion. I purposely don’t like going to Kroger because it’s just too cramped. We typically get our Chinese food and go home because driving through and around the Kroger parking lot is just too cramped that it’s not worth it. One of the benefits of that particular intersection and the developments there is that everything is so spread out, so traffic is typically handled well. I’m happy to see a new Waffle House being erected next to the Taco Bell and LaRosa’s which is across from the McDonald’s and Skyline Chili. There are so many dining options at that intersection that it looks deceptively rural. But, I can get just about everything I need there. I can get my car repaired. I can purchase advanced firearms. I can get all my household maintenance needs between Tractor Supply and Ace Hardware. My wife and I frequently eat at the Frisch’s. Our banking is there, there’s a Hallmark. A Beverage Barn is run by a wonderful Indian family and were among the first in the area to special order Mello Yello for me directly, before the Coke Company resumed distribution back to the Cincinnati area a few years ago. There are so many positive developments that allow my family to do virtually everything we need to do within two miles of our home and I love it.   But the grocery experience is just too inconvenient.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/public-hearing-for-new-butler-county-kroger-resche/njmb4/

The wealth of the area is conducive to the type of grocery experience that a Kroger Marketplace offers. I like the options offered in the other Liberty Township Kroger store which is a Marketplace—but it’s too far away to be considered convenient. So for me the Kroger Marketplace offers a fix to my present dilemma and the zoning for years has wanted to move in that direction at that particular location, the corner of Kyles Station and RT. 4. There are of course people who enjoy the view of an empty field, including myself. I still enjoy the sight of the occasional farming that takes place on that high hill which looks down into Trenton within the valley of the Great Miami River. But for business development, that particular location is one of the best in the area and is needed due to the value of the developments surrounding it.

There are homes around my property that are in the half million dollar range. The Elk Run Golf course I think is one of the nicest in the city—as it is very picturesque and classy. It’s a bit dated, but is due for an update which will only come if people continue to see the value in it. In a lot of ways the new Kroger will do a lot to bring the proper demographic of financial value to the area directly across from the golf course to appreciate what Elk Run offers as an asset of Liberty Township. Of that new demographic is the residents of the new Carriage Hill development which featured Homarama two consecutive years with homes upward of a million dollars in value. People who have homes like that don’t want to be cramped into a box full of dated architecture and limited shelf space. They want options, high-end cooking ingredients, and a shopping experience that is professional, and free of neurosis. The proposed Kroger Marketplace in Liberty Township is poised to provide all those options and more because the location, view, and proximity to so many family dwellings is just phenomenal.

The West Chester location was nothing like the Liberty Township location as far as placement and overall community impact. The West Chester location needed a developer that understood what the community was weary of. That particular intersection along 747 is very busy already as the Lakota school down the road really mounts up the traffic in the morning and afternoons. The homes in the immediate area already have to contend with a great deal of traffic on crowded roads. But in Liberty Township along RT 4, the road infrastructure is already built; it just needs the construction to begin.

As for the complaints, local residents won’t want to trade their view of a grassy field for a parking lot full of cars. I will be impacted as my wife and I enjoy evenings in our hot tub looking at the stars. The lights from the new Kroger will add to the light pollution which will dilute out more stars from our view.   But it’s a small price to pay for the types of high-end food offerings that are typical of a Kroger Marketplace. I will gladly welcome the new development as it will greatly enhance my life and does what new creations are supposed to—it will improve life in the community. It will bring a fresh new awareness not just to the area, but to the legacy items currently already there and in a state of decline.

To this day the Western Row golf course is an empty field. The course died years ago before the spur of development along Mason-Montgomery Rd occurred and there are no takers to develop such a large plot of highly expensive real-estate now that the prices are through the roof. The property is too expensive for a golf course, and too large for more restaurants and small stores.  So it sits in limbo. I would like to not see the same thing happen to Elk Run. I love the Elk Run property. I love the golf course. But because taxes are so high, it would be too expensive to privately own if the golf course fails in the future. And it’s too big to fill with business. It has taken twenty years to fill what has been built along that span of RT 4—so it’s not logical to expect Elk Run to fill with anything but more homes at some point. So for those who love green space and the scenery on top of the big hill in Liberty Township the best way to preserve it is to fully support the new Kroger Marketplace in Liberty Township. What’s wrong with a round of golf before a grocery shopping trip? Nothing at all. At the proposed location I would hope that the Elk Run golf course would enjoy new life from a new demographic support system instead of fading away into the sunset as an older generation moves on to greener pastures and a new generation perpetually looks for something new. Sometimes it takes something new to keep the old alive—and in this case, the new Kroger Marketplace will do just the trick.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development