Tag: Doc Thompson

Trump on Meet the Press: Beating “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and the conspiracies of doom

I write sometimes about the occult, comparative religion, and the hidden history of the human race.  There are a lot of people out there who believe a lot of strange stuff, and if you peel back the layers of just about any organization—fraternity, secret society, or even political party you will find some reference to a group of people called “The Brotherhood of the Snake.” Because of that “Brotherhood” I have no faith that any presidential candidate no matter how well-intentioned would be able to break the cycle of that “Brotherhood” which believes in various forms of human sacrifice for divine sanctity.  Any president who expects to have success in a culture essentially run by “The Brotherhood of the Snake” would need to be completely independent of it. Donald Trump appears to be and the evidence of just how independent he is can be seen in the wonderful interview done on Meet the Press conducted on Sunday August 16, 2015.  Trump is a free man built by capitalism and he loves himself in a way that the American way of life intended to construct.  He is an Ayn Rand man—a unique creation built exclusively by the philosophy of America shaped by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith.  That makes him a uniquely independent human being and wonderfully free person economically and spiritually.  Put Trump in the White House and things will happen on Capitol Hill.  Without Trump, the cult of sacrifice will continue while K-Street lobbyists, prostitutes, and scum bags of all shapes and sizes will continue to ruin the management of the United States.  That is why I am so excited about Donald Trump.  We are on a philosophic precipice and I want Trump and his guys in charge so that they can rip America away from “The Brotherhood of the Snake.”  Here is the Meet the Press interview”

As to “The Brotherhood of the Snake,” believe me dear reader—you have heard of it.  If you are a Catholic, you are in the “Brotherhood” through evolution and you participate in its rituals each time you take communion simulating the blood of Christ.  If you are a “greenie weenie” tree hugging hippie, you are part of the “Brotherhood” because you are willing to sacrifice aspects of the human race for the preservation of “earth.”  If you believe as labor unions do that something must be sacrificed so that all people can be equal with a “living wage,” you are part of a belief system created by the “Brotherhood” many years ago that formed such thoughts from its infancy.  Here is how “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and its history evolved over time from a site linked below.  If you have doubts about any of this CLICK HERE to allow me to substantiate these claims further and provide a correct education into a world largely hidden from us all in our busy daily lives.

The Secret Societies have been present in the history of man for a very long time. It all started thousands of years ago with the “Brotherhood of the Snake”, a secret society set up by an alien named Ea or Enki. This story is very carefully told in the Sumerian scriptures, which go back at least 6000 years. There it says man was created by draconian aliens, who came to this planet to exploit its resources – especially gold. But the work was heavy, so the alien race wanted someone else to do the hard work. Thus Ea, who was a brilliant scientist, created Homo sapiens as a hybrid between a primitive earth life-form and the alien race. 

First Homo sapiens was only meant for slave labor and couldn’t breed. Later on this was changed. Ea didn’t like, though, how his created race was treated and wanted to enlighten them by telling them who they were and where they came from. He also wanted to tell them the well hidden truth that each individual is a spirit inhabiting a body and that after body death the spirit lives on and reincarnates on Earth. 

Ea’s superiors didn’t agree to this, as they were afraid of chaos and turmoil, but Ea told them anyway. The early Homo sapiens revolted against their Masters, but were forced to retire. Ea then started this secret society, the Brotherhood of the Snake, to enlighten people in secret. But he was discovered and judged by the alien laws, which meant that Ea was deported to Earth for eternity – to die here and be reborn here in endless cycles, using fragile, short living human bodies. If this is right, he might still be here … 

In the meantime, as time passed by, the “Brotherhood of the Snake” was infiltrated by the Draconian Master aliens and the knowledge was distorted to trap man instead of enlighten him. The Egyptian Era was in fact real “space opera”, with aliens walking around among us, even taking the throne as pharaohs on mostly. By that time the Brotherhood was very infiltrated and its purpose to manipulate the masses, making them believe in false gods and masters. 

In the background through all history there are the secret societies. The original Brotherhood soon split up in cults, when certain people on top were in disagreement with each other and different powers of control developed, with them even fighting each other (which still is the case today) totally above an ignorant population.

They invented the different religions and sects and cults so man would be busy doing something else instead of looking into what the Brotherhood was doing. It was also a way to control people by not telling the truth about God and Jesus, so that people would miss the point and never be able to be set free. Religion has always been connected with guilt and punishment, which is NOT the way it is supposed to be. They put themselves in charge of the churches to entrap people and to spread conflicts between different belief systems. Most wars throughout history have been religious wars.

Out of the original Brotherhood came Freemasonry, the Rosicrucians, The Knight Templars, Ordo Templi Orientis, Knights of Malta and more. They all knew, on the highest grades, the truth about the origin of man and that we all are spiritual beings and thus immortal. They know God is the REAL and only source, but they distorted that power as we let them deceive us and used the power of God that we have inside of us for their evil purposes. This knowledge is a very well kept secret and they have done everything in their power to hide the truth from people, and one must say they succeeded quite well. People who for some reason or another have stumbled upon the road to truth has either been ridiculed, slandered or even killed. 

Now you might say that the Freemasons, for example, is a charity organization and even Christian to its belief. Yes, that’s what we’re told and that is what most members of the secret society believe. Most people involved are good people, who are ignorant of what’s going on upon the highest grades. Because up there is Satanism and worship of the dark forces. They don’t serve God, they serve Satanor Lucifer and that is the key to what is happening in the world of today. 

Adam Weishaupt (1748-1811) basically a Jew, converted to become a Catholic Priest and ended up starting a “new” secret society called the Illuminati. Actually it was not new at the time; it’s been there long before then, but during Weishaupt’s lifetime this organization was revealed publicly. It’s unclear if he was the master-mind behind it, but most researchers, including me, are more or less certain that Weishaupt was just a puppet for the Elite of the Freemasons. 

The Freemasons had recently started a new branch of Freemasonry – Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite with its 33 degrees of initiation. It’s still today one of the most powerful secret societies, including members within high politics, religious leaders, businessmen and other “useful” persons. Things point in the direction that Weishaupt was sponsored by the Rothschilds, who then were (and are) the heads of Freemasonry. 

The Illuminati had its own grades ABOVE (or rather beside) the 33 degrees of Freemasonry. Even persons who were initiated to the higher degrees of Freemasonry had no knowledge of the Illuminati grades – it was that secret. Up there Weishaupt planned the take-over of the planet, and he made up distinct targets for a One World Government and a New World Order. All this was written down in something called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“, with an evil purpose to put the blame on the Jews(!) if something would leak. 

And it did leak! A courier for the Illuminati was struck by lightning when he rode over a field and the Protocols were found, where the takeover was carefully written down. This was in The 1770’s.Weishaupt and his Illuminati “Brothers” had to flee and work underground, as their organization was banned. It was decided that the name Illuminati should never be used officially again, but front groupsshould be used to fulfill the purpose of world domination, with the rest of the population made into slaves. One of the front groups were the Freemasons, who had a better reputation … 

It is believed that Weishaupt was killed by his Freemason Brothers, as he was unable to keep his mouth and still continued to use the name Illuminati. There could also have been other reasons. 

The secret goal, however, survived Weishaupt and the Rothschilds were now heads of the Illuminati (and still are today, together with David Rockefeller). A good help to reach the goal came from the Freemason Cecil Rhodes, who in the 19th Century tried to build a One World Government with the British Empire on the top. This was of course sponsored by the Rothschilds and it was also Rhodes who created the Round Table, a secret society in itself, named after King Arthur’s Round Table, where the Brotherhood Elite are gathering up to this day. 

World War I and II were both attempts to take over. After the Second World War people were so tired of all this killing that they welcomed the United Nations, when it was founded. The official policy of theUN was to safeguard the peace, so nothing like WW II would ever happen again. But indeed the UN was another important front organization for the Illuminati, to unite the countries of the world into one. This led to the EU project, which anyone, with his eyes open, can see goes right into the direction of the biggest fascist state known to man, where each country gets less and less power and sovereignty. 

By galloping inflation the International Bankers (read the Illuminati) have succeeded in making us believe that the only solution is a One Currency – the EMU. When that project is safeguarded, the Central European Bank (Illuminati) has all the power over the economy in Europe and can lead us in whatever direction they want. Some politicians are just stupid and ignorant, others are aware of facts and work for and with the Illuminati. The innocent people, being deceived, are the ones who will suffer the most. This is a betrayal beyond comprehension. 

The EU then will expand into the United Nations of Africa, Asia and South America and the end phenomenon will be that all those United States will be united into one big fascist state, which will last in a thousand years, regarding to their occult belief. It’s the Golden Age – the Age of AntiChrist. 

The secret societies and the Illuminati believe in the power of symbols. The world is full of their magical and black magic symbols. The problem is, we are so used to seeing them all over the place, that we don’t even think about it. The Illuminati believe that the more symbols around, the more magical power to them. The insignia of the Illuminati and the New World Order is the “Pyramid with the All-Seeing- Eye”, which you can study on the back of the US One Dollar Bill(!)

A few years ago this symbol was also on a series of stamps coming from the Vatican(!) The All-Seeing-Eye is the Eye of Horus, which is the Eye of Lucifer, and goes back to the Egyptian era. Other common symbols are the pentagram (five-pointed star), the hexagram (six-pointed star – The Star of David), the Swastika reversed (the way Hitler used it) and the pyramid in general. 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_brotherhoodsnake05.htm

Trump is the closest man to a successful self-made man that we have in America, and his presidency will set a new standard that counters centuries of this “Brotherhood of the Snake” mentality that currently has handcuffed our political system to bizarre religious belief from multiple denominations all centering on a premise of sacrifice. Trump is a self-made creator and that is a basic, primal reason for my emphatic support.   He handled the Meet the Press interview incredibly well as he shattered many of the questions which have been formed around a basic premise of political orthodox shaped by ritualistic belief passed down to people through quantum entanglement to adhere to “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and their nutty beliefs.  It’s time for America and its people to grow up and away from this ancient notion of sacrifice, and a Trump presidency is a first big step in that direction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

High crimes and misdemeanors: Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, and the implication of two American presidents

Again, I’ve said it before—but because the news is just now catching up to things I’ve said years ago, I have to address them, particularly in regard to the destroyed Lois Lerner emails at the IRS, and the same involving Hillary Clinton on her private server destroying classified information hoping to prevent a modern version of Watergate for her presidency which is occurring before she has even been elected. Both women should be in prison for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are notoriously criminal, both of them and it is disgraceful that they are both free to roam about unmolested currently without prosecution. They clearly committed crimes and are showing the world that criminals are in charge within the federal government. And you know what they have in common dear reader? Barack Obama was at the center of both their lives directly and if the evidence had not been destroyed it would likely point directly to the President’s office.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

“High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: “‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art‘, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”[2]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

As can be found in[3] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “…impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[4]

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, “Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges.”[5]

The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor”, “maladministration”, or “other crime”. Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave”. Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved “…for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.

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

Proof if it can ever be retrieved will show that Lois Lerner received marching orders from the IRS union rep who met directly with President Obama, to use the IRS to derail the Tea Party movement through audits and other legal harassment. Lerner has showed horrendous behavior toward conservatives in the emails that had been scanned through and released to authorities. Imagine what they destroyed! What’s most troubling is the communication between Lerner and her husband who advocated that he wanted to vote for a “socialist-labor candidate.” Out of all the bad things I have said about these people in the past, I hate being so right about them.

But Hillary, she used a former President in her husband to gain access to secret service and a plausible reason to have a private server to begin with, then used that security to hide acts she committed as Secretary of State under another sitting president in Obama. If that’s not high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing is. Obama is guilty and so are both Clintons, the one who used to be President and the one who wants to be. They are all inconceivably bad, so bad that people can’t even fathom the treachery on display, because we are not accustomed to comprehending it. That is why there are terms for such things so that those trusted with such delicate information can be prosecuted if they violate that trust. And until that happens, our legal system is a joke not worthy of a single tax dollar for further substantiation.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Lynnette and Rochelle for Donald Trump: Why the 80s were so great

I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.

http://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-turns-black-women-into-republicans/

I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.

Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.

In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.

But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.

If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.

There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.

The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Butler County’s Judy Shelton and her Contributions Toward Donald Trump: Meet ‘The Viewers’–keys to expanding the Republican Party base

Many times I have pointed out the burgeoning issue of how weak establishment Republicans are. They are holding the party down creating an insurrection within the GOP that has directly led to the present circumstances. Here in Butler County, Ohio, considered by many to be one of the strongest bastions of Republicanism in the country, I have been extremely displeased with the GOP. Judy Shelton and her kind on the Central Committee have purposely attempted to push Tea Party elements out while dragging donors to the political middle of the debate—away from capitalism more toward socialism. So long as area Republicans receive their invite to the socialite Patti Alderson’s latest charity event, most have been willing to play along—except for 25-30% of the party. For them, they get left behind, and people like Judy will declare publicly, that it was her goal all along. Those dissidents can either go along to get along—or they won’t have a seat at the table. What those short-sighted thinkers have always missed is not that they needed to move to the political left to cater to voters—the Bernie Sanders socialists—but to pick up voters in that 25-30% range who often just refuse to vote for Republican losers. Case in point is the two women below who emphatically are showing their support for Donald Trump. These are voter demographics that are untapped by current Republican strategies.

After the GOP Debate on Fox News and the fallout thereafter toward Donald Trump by establishment types, mystification engulfed the party in a similar way that has been evident in Butler County by Shelton and Alderson. Pundits loyal to Republicans just don’t understand what all the hype toward Trump is. Even Glenn Beck—who just recently attacked Grover Norquist and declared that he was done with the Republican Party has been extremely critical of Trump. Apparently Beck wants a Jesus Christ type figure who will soft talk the nation from the brink—which is about as realistic as hoping that Peter Pan will teach us all to fly. There is no basis in reality for such a hope. It makes a fine fantasy, but is not very practical in the realm of strategy.

I am certainly part of that 25-30% who will vote against Republicans if they are not conservative enough. As Beck has pointed out before, during the American Revolution, less than 30% of the population advocated in favor of the elements of the War of Independence. Yet America earned its way on the backs of that minority, and the same holds true today. The masses do not know the best answers. It usually comes from the minority—the clear thinking, and passionate. Republicans do not need so much a big tent pandered to every special interest group—blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc., it needs to reach within those groups those 30% who just want to win. Clearly by the evidence of the two Trump advocates in the above video, there are two demographics present that are very passionate about Donald Trump. Republicans could have those voters if only they’d embrace the possibility of being a winner.

This should be easy. What happens to the local NFL team when they have several seasons of losing efforts? That team usually has a hard time selling-out tickets—because people in America have a hard time supporting losing efforts. They will be loyal to a certain point, but clearly want to see a winner on the football field. The moment that an NFL team turns it all around and becomes a winner again, fans go crazy. Fans will do just about anything to be near a winner—and they will spend their money emphatically on winning efforts. When an NFL team is winning, ticket sales are up, beer and hotdogs concessions are through the roof, and memorabilia jumps off the racks in retail outlets. Winning is very good for an NFL team’s achievement of financial success.

Republicans have not been winners. They make promises but are weak to follow through. They have a reputation of being like Yosemite Sam in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons continually outmaneuvered by a Democratic rascally rabbit. They have been made fools of since the days of Ronald Reagan, and they wonder why they don’t have more supporters. You have to win something to maintain enthusiasm in the Party. Elections aren’t enough. Currently Republicans have the House and Senate and what have they done with it? Nothing. Republican leaders on Capital Hill are still being outmaneuvered by Barack Obama—and that doesn’t sit well with the elements of the Republican Party who want to support a winner.

Judy Shelton in my home town has manipulated the Central Committee with manipulation by busing in voters for hard votes and worked against that hard-line 30% with open harassment and extortion to protect John Boehner from internal challenges within the GOP. That is as stupid as telling a football player on an NFL team that their job is secure, all they have to do is show up on Sunday and collect a pay check, win, lose or draw. That is not how things work in reality. Performance is expected, and the Republicans for two decades have done little else but talk.

Donald Trump may be a lot of things. He may be all over the map politically. He may have liberal views and some Alex Jones level conspiracy beliefs. As I’ve said, he’s not a conservative in the way that I am, that is for sure. But—who is? I like Carly Fiorina, I like Ted Cruz, I like Scott Walker. I’d vote for Ben Carson in less than a second, as he best represents my own political philosophy. I love that guy. But in this aggressive global environment with all the political theater going on, who of that bunch has a chance of withstanding the onslaught of harassment so evident throughout the world encapsulated by Socialist International. Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums and pushing for open socialism. Who among the Republicans can take that on but an unapologetic capitalist who is driven by a self-centered desire for narcissism? Narcissism and vanity are considered faults by the Republican Party, particularly local apologists like Judy Shelton. But winners tend to embody some elements of narcissism—because it is that which often propels them toward perfection—or at least an attempt to be better day after day.

Republicans like Judy Shelton work so hard behind the scenes with the assumption that the Party is bigger than the individual, which actually goes against the premise of conservative values. No wonder there are splinter groups erupting behind the establishment—she should have known better. Instead of acknowledging that trend, she has fought against it doubling down within the party ranks and insisting on unyielding support of John Boehner who has done nothing in his time as Speaker of the House but lose to Obama. It’s an insane premise that could only be constructed by establishment politicians who are way too comfortable with their social role within that system. Because of people like Shelton, and there are many like her all across America, particularly within the Beltway, voters often just stay at home unwilling to cast a vote for a loser—whether they are Republicans or Democrats (socialists). CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW and clarification. Judy Shelton’s support for Boehner with a track record of failure, and also of John Kasich who has turned toward big government and declared that St. Peter will welcome good Republicans in heaven because they have pandered to the poor as a party will not win anything but elections in the future. Republicans are do nothing losers who have been beaten in policy by Democrats over and over again, and are defeated people—politically.

Americans love winners and they will support a winner even if the circumstances around the victor are shady. Of course a clean winner is always best, but look at the apologists for Tom Brady. Nobody wants to believe he or the Patriots cheated their way to so many Superbowl victories because people love a winner—however they win. Nobody wants to wait until they die to have victory—which is the public policy essentially of John Kasich. People want a winner now or sooner, especially Americans. So it should not be a mystery to the political pundits that Trump is doing so well even with all the usual tricks used to knock him off his pedestal. He’s a winner and people are willing to overlook his faults because of it. What Republicans would discover if they stopped listening to loyalists like Judy Shelton from Butler County, Ohio is that new voters, perhaps even some from the other side would vote for Trump as a Republican just because he has a reputation as a winner. New demographics would be created in the wake of such a move, many of them very passionate about their representative, such as the two women above. Nobody is doing videos like that for John Boehner, or John Kasich. Judy Shelton is only able to keep support for those two by twisting people’s arms behind their backs and busing in degenerates with the promise of a free meal during Central Committee meetings. For those who accuse Trump of smoke and mirrors tapped off with dishonest diatribes against the establishment, it is the suspicion that worse is occurring behind the scenes, and they’d be correct. Those 25-30% of Republican voters have not been passionate about the Republican Party for years. They are passionate now, because they sense a winner in Trump, and they want to see victory for a change—not just in elections won, but in action taken day-to-day. Trump represents victory and for a large percentage of the Republican voter base, a sleeping giant is erupting that people like Judy Shelton didn’t even know about. Because those Republicans want victory more than a free meal to buy their vote in Butler County.

Rich Hoffman  CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The “Vagenda” of Megan Kelly Against Donald Trump: Why progressive women are sometimes fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals

Rupert Murdoch may have been pandering to his Fox News journalists by saying that his friend Donald Trump needs to learn that running for president of the United States is “public life,” but he’d be wrong.  For some reason everyone believed that they were going to put a guy like Trump on center stage with 24 million people watching on television and that they were going to pin him down with some hit pieces pandering to the mythical “war on women,” and that they’d get away with it.  Sure Donald Trump had called some women in the past “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” but he does the same to men.  Women don’t have special rules of behavior if they truly want to be “equal.”  When Megan Kelly brought up something Donald Trump had said on his television show, The Apprentice about a woman looking good on her knees, she was the one who stepped in it on live television.  Trump did what he was supposed to, he didn’t back down—instead he went on the attack like he said he would leaving many including Red State editor Erick Erickson baffled.  Shortly thereafter Erickson disinvited Trump to a weekend event because of the feud that had widened between Trump and Kelly.  Trump of course responded to the Erickson actions by calling him a “weak and pathetic leader.”  I’ve been telling Republicans for a long time that if they want to beat the progressive left, and the right, you have to hit back when attacked.  And if they hit you with a blunt stick, you need to come back at them with something much harsher.  In a war of words, that is certainly the case.  Megan Kelly clearly had a “vagenda” against Trump from before the debate, and she got it thrown back in her face—which she obviously didn’t expect.  In an equal world, females don’t get to dish out attacks then hide behind their femininity for protection.  Progressives have advanced their position for too long using this tactic and it’s about time that someone calls them out on it.  And Trump did much to my satisfaction.

As everyone who reads here knows, I am well aware of this “vagenda” where progressive types attempt to disarm men from their opinions using the weapons of femininity to attack while expecting no return fire of aggression—because they are women.  I am proud to say that I have maintained a position over the years consistent to the one Donald Trump is exhibiting now on a national stage and I have been trying to get other Republicans to listen for quite some time.  But they are afraid of that “vagenda,” so they always have backed down.   I know how Trump feels when people who should have courage back out of events because of comments he made in response to Megan Kelly after the debate by saying “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes.  Blood coming out of her whatever,” which immediately provoked Erickson at Red State to cancel the Trump appearance.  Well, Trump created an event of his own in response—which was the correct behavior.  But the “vagenda” strategies are the last resort of progressives who use their sex to disarm men into maintaining a status quo.  I have said plenty of things on my own under similar circumstances.  Here are just a few examples which were well documented in the Cincinnati media market.  I said of school levy supporters:

“Their husbands roll them over at night and insert their manhood into these women of the bedroom and hundred-dollar bills find their way into their purses. The women don’t know what the man does to earn the money, nor do they care. They are busy saving the world one child at a time with howls of safety and more regulations as they rush to the polling places at election time.”  Remember that, and also this, “crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they plot against me with an anger only estrogen can produce.  The progressive mode of attack they use to protect their positions which cannot withstand scrutiny is to attack people like Rush Limbaugh whenever he says something they believe they can use against him in an emotional argument. Conservatives typically are terrible at playing this game with progressives because they tend to operate on a belief system rooted in the truth. So they can easily be attacked because if they cross the line, they feel bad about it, and that guilt is used against them to change their behavior in the future.”

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-3137-lakota_anti_tax_spokesman_booted_for_derogatory_re.html

I’ve been there and am proud of Trump for sticking to his guns.  It’s about time someone does what he’s doing.  Women are not a collective group.  Progressive women are seeking to “change” America into something I don’t want, and they aren’t going to get away with it without being called out.  For my comments the usual tactic was used of distance, isolation and a media attempt to paint me as a “fringe” guy.  The hardest part for me was when some of my associates pulled away from me while I was on the air of a large radio station defending their position for them.  I managed to do well on the radio show, and thereafter.  But I have a policy that if people behave like a vagina, then they invite upon themselves for what happens to those sexual utilities during mating practices—and that’s what happened to them in the wake.  For me, my numbers went up on the blog, I sold more books, and I even had people stopping me at gas stations volunteering to pay for tanks of fuel out of thanks.  I get asked at least once a week to run for some elected office—which I don’t do, because I’m too busy, too young in my opinion, and I have no desire to be a public servant—owned by the “public.”   In all honesty, I’m rooting for Trump more now than ever because I’m hoping he will change the definition for what is expected out of a public servant.  I’d love to see more people like him entering public office who wouldn’t be demeaned by the expectation of being a public utility to a bunch of careless people who just want a punching bag for their own slanted lives.   Trump as president could do a lot of good.  With his attitude who is going to beat him in a negotiation over arms, prisoners, economic policy or global pride?  And after years of America suffering under the “vagenda” of feminists, that’s exactly the kind of president we need to straighten out the mess of decades of policy that soft bellied politicians have given us.

It’s OK to say you hate “vagenda” driven feminists.  Some of them are disgusting people, some are fat pigs, and are disgusting animals.  We are not obligated as men to pander to those idiots just because they offer the gateways to sex.  When it came down to it, the men who pulled away from me during my escapade did it under pressure from their wives and community friends who played right along with the “vagenda” of the feminist movement.  I tried to tell those men that women—normal women—don’t like the “vagenda,” but that they have been taught that they have to support it with a collective unification. Men over time have been taught to fear those who possess vaginas because the “vagenda” behind their actions are not defensible.  Men fear that they won’t get sex unless they play along.  Wrong.  I have said it time and time and time again, women love 50 Shades of Grey because they don’t want to live the “vagenda” in their bedrooms.  Sure they might utter such nonsense socially, but with the door closed, there are reasons they throw their panties at rock stars and tuck themselves under their sheets reading the latest E. L. James novel.  That is the secret; most women hate the “vagenda” as much as men do, they are just afraid to say so publicly because society has shouted them down when they showed the inclination.  They don’t like the “vagenda” of Megan Kelly, not to the core of their essence.

The result of the war with Megan Kelly and Donald Trump is that the billionaire investor running for president will increase in popularity. The Fox News stunt to diminish Trump backfired in a dramatic way and Trump’s popularity will increase among women.  Just like the immigration issue in America will be solved once Republicans learn that by supporting capitalism you give immigrants what they came to America for in the first place, respect for themselves with a good job, and money to care for their families—women don’t like the “vagenda” of progressivism.  When it comes to supporting Trump, they may not announce it at the dinner table to their families—because they feel guilty, but they will throw their panties at Donald Trump at campaign events just because the man has so much confidence.  Women—normal women—not “vagenda” driven despots, love confidence and they will throw their support behind a candidate who exhibits that behavior with the same recklessness that they will throw themselves at Gene Simmons from the rock band KISS even knowing that he’s a disgusting old man who has slept with over 4,600 women.  I understand it, and have experienced it firsthand.  Trump understands it too.  And because he’s running for president on a big international stage that is watching his every move—soon the world will learn that hard lesson which they have avoided for such a long time—that people are sick of the “vagenda.”  Megan Kelly came out as a villain in the debate because of her commitment to the “vagenda.”  And Donald Trump was launched into the orbit of a rock star, and that was not the intention of Fox News.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face

Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.

The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.

Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.

“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”

“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Kate Scanlon / @scanlon_kate / July 22, 2015 /

Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.

Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]

Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]

This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.

Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]

In 1917, she started publishing the monthly periodical Birth Control Review.[note 3]

On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]

Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]

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

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/04/man-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-reveals-the-hardest-part-of-undercover-investigation/

 

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Disgusting Amy Schumer: Being lectured about guns by a farting, belching, slutty reject

I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.

Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.

I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.

It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.

My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.

It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.

Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.

Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.

Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that!   Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

HitchBOT Failure in America: Hitchhiking in a self-reliant society

Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.

(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.

HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.

Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.

“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/hitchbot-robot-beheaded-philadelphia-feat/

Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.

The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.

Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.

The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?

To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.

Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.

In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Hoffman Laissez-Faire and the Metaphysics of Quality: Judging the good from the bad

Not everyone is suited for my style of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  In fact, I would say that less than 10% of an entire population is ready for it.  But if I were to pluck 10 people off the street, I could train 5 of them into it with success, giving an approximately 50% interview ratio of developing a person into a gradual acceptance of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  CLICK HERE for the foundation definitions to the laissez-faire system.  This is important because the only way out of many of the world’s problems is through laissez-faire capitalism and that requires people to function from the front of the train mentality as defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Essentially what I would look for in those 5 out of 10 people is a light on in the back of their minds to indicate that they resent the Theory X management styles so prevalent these days and are hungry for the ability to shape their own lives through their own ambitions.  Those are the types of people I would recruit and train into Hoffman Laissez Faire management.

When it is wondered why large, massive companies can be beaten by small ones it is important to understand the Metaphysics of Quality, as I’ve said many times.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  Essentially, you have to be a quality person to recognize other quality people.  Then you have to trust yourself enough to not feel threatened to give them the right to rule themselves, only providing guidance to keep them on the tracks.  But you have to encourage them to function in the scary front part of the train with you instead of in the back where it’s safe—with the other Theory X people.  The federal government for instance is extremely Theory X oriented.  If people do not comply with the federal government the IRS and other methods are used to force people into submission.  This is not good for the national economy and profit-making endeavors.  Only true laissez-faire capitalism will work properly for the most people with a trickle down effect from the few competent to the lax second-handers.

As most of the world functions from second-handers—those who live through others for their sustenance both leadership and their followers prefer Theory X as a kind of safe foundation.  Those are the back of the train people who are always analyzing the contents of the metaphorical train.  They often miss their decision gates because they are in the back of the train as opposed to the front and don’t know to take corrective action until the decision gate has passed.  The bigger the company, the bigger their train, and naturally the more people who are Theory X types who are safely in the back of it.  To put it more obviously, Hollywood has been making a lot of money for a lot of years.  They know what makes movies good and bad—or at least they should.  But the big studios still find themselves in a crap shoot with picking box office winners—which is why they are making so many retreads of old movies to keep their numbers up.  Collective decision-making does not make “superhuman” leadership decisions.  A room full of geniuses will not improve the net results if all those people are in the back of the train instead of the front.

Hoffman Laissez Faire offers a safe seat at the front with the leader who is a visionary.  The leader takes the brunt of all the statistical abuse so to keep it off the people following him leaving them to live as freely as possible thus making them immensely productive.  The leader’s job in such a case is not only to make decisions quickly at the decision gates, but to fight off the tendency of second-handers from the back of the train into slowing things down so that they can acquire group consensus in decision-making tasks.  The leader of Hoffman Laissez Faire keeps the throttle down from the Theory X types in the back of the train by any means possible, so that they cannot threaten the sanctity of those functioning at the front.  With the risk and harassment gone, the Hoffman Laissez Faire participants are free to invest of themselves without fear of being plucked dry from second-handers allowing them to directly benefit from their efforts.  When this power is unleashed a giant company is no match for a small one, or a group of powerful minds comparable to one unleashed of their social adhesion to the collective.  By allowing individuals to invest in the front of the train, everyone on the train benefits even if most of the population is at the back.

To properly accept such a thing it is important to know that the success or failure of the entire endeavor rests on the ability to recruit.  The examples I gave of two people I personally admire, Sam Wyche and Claire Lee Chennault were both extremely strong recruiters.  Wyche handed the Buccaneers their first Superbowl win by recruiting future Hall of Famers.  Other coaches later got the credit, but it was Wyche who scouted and recruited them.  The same with the military general Chennault who was head of the AVG Flying Tigers in China—his bounty hunting American volunteers maintained an extraordinary kill ratio through the early part of the war, of which General Stilwell took much of the credit for as a second-hander.  Stilwell was the typical Theory X type leader whereas Chennualt was using a very early form of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  It takes a good mind to find good people and the battle is won and lost during recruiting.  Not everyone is suited for Hoffman Laissez Faire so sorting them out during the recruiting process is the most important part of the task.

That is the reason that governments and people in general are resistant to all forms of laissez-faire, because as second-handers they cannot participate equally with those at the front of the train—from the back.  By their natural inclination their desire for the safety at the back of the train makes them unqualified for Hoffman Laissez Faire.   As stated, it is the job of a leader at the front to make a safe environment and to encourage risk taking with personal investment.  That is how new recruits can be trained to accept such a method.  But there will always be at least 50% who are too timid to reside in the front of anything.  They are natural followers who will always desire to be at the back of the train of any thought.

Companies or governments who do not understand this dynamic relationship are doomed to failure. They attempt to hide that failure through Theory X behavior, but the productive output cannot be ignored if compared next to the results of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  The only way to avoid such a comparison is to hope to suppress the evidence.  With Sam Wyche he was fired from several jobs when new team owners were looking for familiar back of the train thinkers conducting themselves as variations of Theory X or Theory Y personalities.  The same happened to the great General Chennault.  One of the greatest flying aces of World War II was trained under Chennault, Tex Hill.  But Chennault was pushed aside by Stilwell and President Truman.  Chennault warned the American government of what would happen to China after the war, which of course nobody listened because decisions were being made at the back of the train by Theory X types, and communism swept across the region from Vietnam to Korea dragging America into two more major wars and a PR battle that continues to this very day. Hoffman Laissez Faire prevents such lunacy by not allowing the second handers an equal seat at the table of decision-making creating a climate where only front of the train people are respected for their roles in leadership participation.  Those at the back of the train are not ridiculed for their lack of courage, just not allowed to share in the credit with those who put themselves on the cutting edge and took all the chances.

By rewarding the strong and courageous Hoffman Laissez Faire out performs all other forms of management.  It may look like a hands off Theory Y approach from those at the back of the train, but it’s actually quite encompassing.  But the key to the endeavor is to recruit the right kind of people—in knowing the difference between a second-hander and a potential leader in their own right who desires to be free to live outside the controls of Theory X and invest of themselves for their own benefit.

If the world understood this concept better, they would be more adequately prepared to vote for the correct politicians in their government to think from the front of the train instead of from the back and to utilize laissez-faire leadership styles to unleash the market potential of their countries.  With such an understanding laissez-faire capitalism would thrive much better than under the Theory X style of most Washington bureaucrats.  Those Theory X types will always be there, and it is up to leaders under the Hoffman Laissez Faire system to keep them from contaminating the efforts of those who are at the front of the train under the understanding of the Metaphysic of Quality.  Failure to stop that contamination will prevent the best and brightest of us all from saving everyone else who needs saving.  They just won’t admit it until it’s too late.   A company cannot be measured as successful by its size alone, but by the quality of its leadership.  Governments are the same, there must be good quality people at the front, and those types are only found with proper recruiting.  And to find them, it takes one to know one.  Second-hander types are not capable of seeing such people.  They occasionally get lucky, but they can’t tell one from the other.  Under Hoffman Laissez Faire quality people are as easy to see as a blue sky during a mid day of cloudless summer sun.  And that is half the battle to achieving infinite levels of needed success.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Politics of the DuBose Shooting in Cincinnati: Crimes driven by fear, stupidity, and the mob

I’ve said on many occasions that one of the biggest problems with police forces, particularly traffic cops, is that often they are staffed by young kids looking to prove their manhood, and that there are quotas driving their job performance. That is clearly the case with 25-year-old University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing who shot Samuel DuBose in the head on July 19th setting off a nationwide analysis over race relations centered this time on the Midwest city of Cincinnati. Tensing pulled over DeBose for missing a front license plate then discovered alcohol in the passenger’s side floorboard and that the driver could not produce a driver’s license which are all big problems. For the traffic cop, it is a number of citations that prove he did his job for the day and was easy pickings for a nice healthy fine in a court of law. DuBose was doing all kinds of things wrong culminating when he reached for the ignition to drive away when he realized that he was busted without his license. When he made a move to do something other than what Tensing was instructing, it set off the immature over-reaction that most officers are trained with provoking Tensing to prove to his peers that he was worthy of the badge. So he shot DeBose dead. As bad as all that was, it wasn’t the worst of it.

Of course the thing to do would have been for Tensing to arrest DeBose once he got home; after all he had the license number, so there wasn’t far for the driver to go, and not many places to hide. Sure, the other officers would have chided the young officer for not containing his suspect, but everyone would have been alive to conduct themselves another day. Tensing was always in control and fully in the right to make the traffic stop. When it comes to cops, you have to assume they are all trigger happy idiots ready to shoot you in a moment. I treat them that way all the many times I’ve been pulled over, knowing they are always looking for a reason to pull the trigger on someone. Tensing obviously was adding up the elements in his head, the missing license plate, the alcohol, the missing driver’s license and assumed there was likely a gun somewhere in the car. I would have thought that, so any sudden moves would likely provoke that adrenaline which always accompanies that kind of activity. DeBose should have known that. He was in his 40s and had been around. You don’t make sudden moves around jumpy cops. It’s just not a good idea—they are like snakes, and will strike in a moment like the trained animals they are. So between the two guys, DeBose and Tensing, there was plenty of stupidity to go around.

Then came the real trouble, prosecutor Joe Deters pushed for a murder indictment against Tensing hoping to throw red meat to the national protestors who were pouring into Cincinnati looking to turn the Queen City into another Ferguson or Baltimore. Deters to appeal toward Mayor Cranley provided an expansion of the jurisdiction of the Cincinnati Police Department into the territory of the U.C. police taking shots at their lack of professionalism as a cause and corrective action. CPD after all had integrated many progressive measures in the wake of the previous riots within the city to avoid setting off the black community—as DeBose was a man of color. So the strategy of Deters was to expand the reach of CPD making Cranley happy while keeping the protestors happy with the red meat of a sacrificed officer. Clearly Cranley and Deters wanted more than anything to avoid mass riots instigated by communist insurgents, funded by George Soros, so they tossed the kid Tensing to the curb with a murder charge.

Repeatedly in an interview with Katie Couric on Yahoo News, Cranley told the world that CPD did not think it was appropriate to pull over people of color for missing license plates or driver’s licenses—that those are crimes they have decided to let go. This gives the criminal element what they need, confirmation that the CPD would rather avoid controversy then law enforcement and that the acts of intimidation against the city by groups of radicals has more power—and that they should stay the course by demanding more relief from law enforcement. Cranley came out sounding like a wet noodle soaked in pig fat—obviously more afraid of city-wide protests than in pursuing justice for criminal activity. That should really help investment into Cincinnati knowing that the inmates are running the asylum within the city limits. Smart.

Deters with all his tough talk to the contrary was clearly playing politics with the situation. He held onto the video weighing out all the elements to see how the mob would play their side. As national organizations poured into Cincinnati in the days immediately after July 19th, he pulled the trigger on Tensing with just the same lack of courage as the young cop had. The traffic cop panicked and shot his citation in the head out of fear—Deters prosecuted the officer out of fear of mass riots. All parties acted out of fear, not logic.

Without question, Tensing shouldn’t just walk away into the sunset, but a murder conviction implies that the officer got up for work that day planning to murder someone and that he was using traffic stops to commit the crime. Deters should know better, but like Tensing, his judgment is clouded by fear. The cause of that fear is the real villain. A traffic stop of a man of color that is missing license plates and has stashes of alcohol tucked by the seat is a sign of worse things. If that guy would rather run away than get out of the car and explain himself, there was something he was hiding. So a jumpy officer pulled the trigger rather than showing a little courage to find out the deeper story. But Deters and Cranley did far worse; they let the criminal element know what they can and can’t get away with, and showed that they feared more the mobs within black communities more than the protests of their unionized work force. Deters calculated that the union of the CPD would outrank the University of Cincinnati Police by expanding their territory shutting up their protests of eating their own to appease the mob, so everyone won, except for Tensing. As the trigger man, he is to be sacrificed as an immature kid who murdered in cold blood. All references to the many crimes of DeBose were cast aside so not to provoke the communist influenced mob. And that makes this whole case utterly disgusting.

The bad guys are winning. That’s not to say DeBose was a bad guy. I think he was just a guy living in the cracks who had such disregard for the law that he didn’t care if he had a license plate of proof of a driver’s license. Let alone proof of insurance. The bar has been set so low that those expectations are no longer possible within city limits for fear of setting off race riots. But out in the suburbs where I live, if I have a front license plate and driver’s license, just see what happens if I fail to produce proof of insurance. All hell would break loose—bet on it. It has nothing to do with color, but everything to do with values. White suburbanites likely won’t gather together to protest the local police force if something goes wrong, where communist infiltration into the black communities of poor inner city dwellers seek to advance a political agenda on the backs of every imposition. So as stupid as it was to shoot the poor guy in the head over a traffic stop, Deters did far worse; they threw more fuel on the fire, not toward the insurgents and their protests, but toward their overall intent—strategically–to paralyze white America behind a veil of guilt into inaction, so that they can move their troops against capitalism and value to topple the system with inaction. Mayor Cranley has shown to what extent he is already influenced into that inaction. And now we all see just how bad it really is—and who is really running Cincinnati. It’s not the elected officials—it’s the mob.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.