Tag: Down the Rabbit Hole

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.

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.

Hoffman Laissez Faire: A new style of management for the 22nd Century

The issue was not settled by Douglas McGregor from the MIT Sloan School of Management when he came up with Theory X and Theory Y concepts on how to utilize workforce motivation.  Rather constant innovation is always needed to push the boundaries and to refine previous thoughts until something new is revealed that nobody on the face of the earth has seen before.   Particularly, I have always disagreed with Theory X and have always found Theory Y to be entirely too relaxed.  So I spent the last 17 years refining a style of my own which was inspired by two people I consider to be some of the best leaders in history.  One is the football coach Sam Wyche from the Cincinnati Bengals and later Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the other is Claire Lee Chennault.  The football coach invented new aspects to an old game and was involved in developing Hall of Fame talent like Joe Montana, Warren Sapp, John Lynch and Derrick Brooks.  The other essentially prevented Japan from taking China during World War II—all by himself.   However, both men suffered from history as Theory X and Theory Y types have written the history books not sure or outright resentful of the success of their betters, which I have always found immensely interesting—actually I have been obsessed with that cause and effect.  This has prompted me to create my own management style which was developed to explain the conditions of the two leaders indicated.  I call it Hoffman Laissez Faire and I have just concluded a multi-decade research project that proves its dramatic success which I will explain the value for with some context.

In the United States, essentially created by the economist Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” concept of economic motivation and development, laissez fair capitalism is the best method of creating not only wealth for a country, but an entire race of people.  Since laissez faire capitalism scares 90 percent of the population who are not functioning from a proper personal value system that allows for that brand of economic motivation to manifest, it is important then to look at the various modes of personal management that drives people in their daily lives to understand why.  Most people live their lives in the easy way taught to them as children, the authoritarian system of Theory X which comes to them first from their parents—which they never escape.  That is the reason for the 50-year-old over-weight office employee who begins planning their lunch the moment they clock in for the day who is as productive as a flat tire shredded on the rim of a beat-up old car.  They have been taught Theory X management styles and accept them to the point that they no longer think from their own input, but from others.  In their homes, their parents controlled their first thoughts, and then it was their jobs.  So of course they vote that way and elect politicians who do the same things.  It is unreasonable to expect a company full of Theory X employees to vote in favor of a United States President who advocates laissez faire capitalism.  Rather, they would likely find socialism more appealing, because it most represents Theory X management styles.  So to fix the nation of America you cannot start at the top, but at the level of people’s personal management styles and fix that before any hope of a democratic republic can have hopes of success.

Theory X and Theory Y are models of the type of employees that managers may encounter in the workplace. These models are used to prepare tactics and protocols on how to deal with employees to maximize production and profit.

According to this theory, type X individuals are inherently lazy and unhappy with their jobs. Therefore, an authoritarian management style is required to ensure fulfillment of the individuals’ objectives. These workers need close supervision with comprehensive systems of control and a hierarchical structure is needed with tight controls at every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program, and will avoid responsibility. According to Dr. Kumi Mark, if organizational goals are to be met, ‘Theory X’ managers must rely heavily on the threat of punishment to gain employee compliance. When practiced this theory can lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision and a punitive atmosphere. The ‘Theory X’ manager believes that all actions can be traced, and the responsible individual needs a direct reward or a reprimand according to the action’s outcomes. This managerial style is more effective when used to motivate a workforce that is not inherently motivated to perform. It is usually exercised in professions where promotion is infrequent, unlikely or even impossible and where workers perform repetitive tasks. One major flaw of this management style is that it limits employee potential and discourages creative thinking.

‘Theory Y’ managers assume employees can be ambitious, self-motivated and exercise self-control. Employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties and for them, work is as natural as play. They possess creative problem solving abilities, but their talents are underused in most organizations. ‘Theory Y’ managers believe that given the proper conditions, employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility, exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing their objectives. A ‘Theory Y’ manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. Many people interpret ‘Theory Y’ as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close reading of ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that ‘Theory Y’ managers are more likely than ‘Theory X’ managers to develop a climate of trust with employees required for employee development. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the tension in superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This environment would include sharing of decision-making so that subordinates have a say in decisions that influence them.

Then of course there is Theory Z which came as a kind of off-spring in management evolution.  It’s a name for various theories of human motivation built on Douglas McGregor‘s Theory X and Theory Y. Theories X, Y and various versions of Z have been used in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development.

One Theory Z was developed by Abraham H. Maslow in his paper “Theory Z” and the other is Dr. William Ouchi’s so-called “Japanese Management” style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s. The third was developed by W. J. Reddin in Managerial Effectiveness.

McGregor’s Theory Y in contrast to Theory X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, and Theory Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs.

For Ouchi, Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job. According to Ouchi, Theory Z management tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction.

Ironically, “Japanese Management” and Theory Z itself were based on Dr. W. Edwards Deming‘s famous “14 points“. Deming, an American scholar whose management and motivation theories were more popular outside the United States, went on to help lay the foundation of Japanese organizational development during their expansion in the world economy in the 1980s. (CLICK HERE TO READ MY OPINION OF DEMMING)  Deming’s theories are summarized in his two books, Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, in which he spells out his “System of Profound Knowledge”. He was a frequent advisor to Japanese business and government leaders, and eventually became a revered counselor. Deming was awarded the Second Order of the Sacred Treasures by the former Emperor Hirohito, and American businesses tried to use his “Japanese” approach to improve their competitive position.

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

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

Abraham Maslow, a psychologist and the first theorist to develop a theory of motivation based upon human needs produced a theory that had three assumptions. First, human needs are never completely satisfied. Second, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction. Third, these needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970).

  1. Physiological need
  2. Safety needs
  3. Belongingness and love needs
  4. The esteem needs –self-confidence
  5. The need forself-actualization – the need to reach your full potential

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory helps the manager to understand what motivates an employee. By understanding what needs must be met in order for an employee to achieve the highest-level of motivation, managers are then able to get the most out of production. Theory X, Y and Z all play a role in how a company should manage successfully. Theory X and Theory Y were both written by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who is believed to be a key element in the area of management theory. In Mc.Gregor’s book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960), McGregor describes Theory X and Theory Y based upon Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where McGregor grouped the hierarchy into a lower order (Theory X) needs and a higher order (Theory Y) needs. McGregor suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees, but better results could be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than Theory X (Heil, Bennis, & Stephens, 2000).

All those methods are insufficient to the modern task. The two great leaders I mentioned previously, Claire Lee Chennault and Sam Wyche were using something else which I would term a unique variation of laissez faire management styles.  The laissez-faire leadership style is where all the rights and power to make decisions is fully given to the worker. This was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The laissez-faire style is sometimes described as a “hands off” leadership style because the leader delegates the tasks to their followers while providing little or no direction to the followers. If the leader withdraws too much from their followers it can sometimes result in a lack of productivity, cohesiveness, and satisfaction.[8]

Laissez-faire leaders allow followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the completion of their work. It allows followers a high degree of autonomy and self-rule, while at the same time offering guidance and support when requested. The laissez-faire leader using guided freedom provides the followers with all materials necessary to accomplish their goals, but does not directly participate in decision making unless the followers request their assistance.

This is an effective style to use when:

  • Followers are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.
  • Followers have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.
  • Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used.
  • Followers are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should NOT be used when:

  • Followers feel insecure at the unavailability of a leader.
  • The leader cannot or will not provide regular feedback to their followers.[9]

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

Obviously a society who is trying to have a laissez faire form of capitalism needs voters from a democratic republic who function best within a laissez faire form of personal management.  And in tomorrow’s article I’ll elaborate more how and why this form of management is far superior to all the other methods mentioned within this text. My Hoffman variation to the laissez faire system is not casual, as one might imagine it to be, or misdiagnosed from a distance.  It’s rather intense, but it never robs people of their merit or emotional investment in the task at hand, which is incredibly important.  It requires the manager to be uniquely good and diverse at many levels to understand the emotional climate that employees need to function within to fully utilize the gifts of their productivity. These definitions are important before moving into the more advance notions of laissez faire leadership which I will do in the next article on this topic.  This article is but a foundation to begin building upon so that everything that comes next can be referenced correctly to the curious mind.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

‘They Live’s’ Rowdy Roddy Piper: Kicking Ass in the afterlife

Rowdy Roddy Piper died in his sleep at his home on Thursday July 30th 2015 at the relatively young age of 61. He was a popular wrestler and media personality who starred in one of my favorite movies, They Live by John Carpenter. He had one of the best lines in cinema history in that film where his character declared to the half human insurgent aliens taking over the human race, “I’m here to chew bubble gum and kick ass—and I’m all out of bubble gum.” Piper in his older years began to take on a personally more of a world outlook similar to the character he played in that cult classic speaking out openly against the Illuminati and the elements of the New World Order that are so evident. When I found out he died that was the first thing I thought of—was that “they” killed him. In all actuality he was a wrestler who lived a fairly hard life. Cardiac arrest is not all that uncommon for older men, so it’s a valid way to exit the world, but given his anti-Illuminati stance of late—particularly the work he was doing with Alex Jones—it is the first thing you tend to think of if you have knowledge of these types of things.

Rowdy Roddy Piper died in his sleep at his home on Thursday July 30th 2015 at the relatively young age of 61. He was a popular wrestler and media personality who starred in one of my favorite movies, They Live by John Carpenter. He had one of the best lines in cinema history in that film where his character declared to the half human insurgent aliens taking over the human race, “I’m here to chew bubble gum and kick ass—and I’m all out of bubble gum.” Piper in his older years began to take on a personally more of a world outlook similar to the character he played in that cult classic speaking out openly against the Illuminati and the elements of the New World Order that are so evident. When I found out he died that was the first thing I thought of—was that “they” killed him. In all actuality he was a wrestler who lived a fairly hard life. Cardiac arrest is not all that uncommon for older men, so it’s a valid way to exit the world, but given his anti-Illuminati stance of late—particularly the work he was doing with Alex Jones—it is the first thing you tend to think of if you have knowledge of these types of things.

If a body is in a weakened state due to cancer or other illnesses, then it is prone to the micro attacks by ultraterrestrial insurgents under fairly normal conditions. If those insurgents were purely fictional, like many claim them to be, I think Rowdy Roddy Piper would still be alive today. But, experience says there’s something to them, and when you make a stand against their strategies, they do impose their manipulations. So if an older man finds themselves in a weakened state health wise, they are prone to dying in their sleep. Healthy people might find themselves in car wrecks or in an avalanche of stressful circumstances designed to throw the curious mind off track, but for a pro wrestler who spent their life abusing their bodies, cardiac arrest in the quiet of night is the best option for removing a mouth piece against their tyranny.

Then again, sometimes people just die. There’s not always a conspiracy in everything. Often however, things are not always as they seem. Given Piper’s stance against the Illuminati of late right in the heart of the communication center of its activity–Hollywood, my suspicions are quite properly placed. I thought the same thing about Andrew Breitbart, where microbots were probably used to destroy his cell structure hoping his publishing empire would collapse in his absence. Piper wasn’t anywhere near as a threat compared to Breitbart was, but his pop culture status did make his opinions dangerous to those who desire control.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think the Illuminati or the globalist types are such scary people. To me they are just more parasites in competition for life on planet earth. They have their point of view which they seek to impose on others. What makes them evil is that they have no respect for the rights and thoughts of other individuals whom they seek to pull under their control and manipulation. In my judgment, any group that has to hide their intentions is weak, and what makes them ominous is their strategy of subtle subterfuge—as they often say one thing, but intend totally different things.

When Carpenter wrote They Live, he meant it as a cry against Reaganomics, which I emphatically support. He’s not completely right about all things, but his concept behind They Live is very interesting, and quite valid. There is more at work behind the efforts of the political elite, and it is attached to crony capitalism and socialism—which are methods of control. I am a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism and management styles, which is a totally different kind of capitalism from the crony kind. Reaganomics was more of a “let do” approach than the tightly controlled government regulation that we saw before and after Ronald Reagan, so I’m a supporter of the type of economics that allows for more people to participate in the creation of GDP. John Carpenter saw elements of crony capitalism under Reaganomics and deemed it part of the problem of economic inequality. So the context of his articulation was wrong as to the villain of the New World Order, but his concept was correct. It was the fictional mechanism of the Hoffman Lenses, the sunglasses that Rowdy Roddy Piper wore in They Live, which showed the true nature of the hidden world within society.

In reality it’s not so simple as aliens running around among us looking like skeletons under the view of Hoffman Lenses. The real villains are within the quantum realm and share space with us. They are not visible because they live in the very small realm of the 5th dimension and higher. They have their motives and they are in competition with the human race for attention within the context of life. They are not our friends or helpers. Religions have been concocted to appeal to them, but they do what they want when they want to do it. Fiction like They Live and vibrant personalities like Rowdy Roddy Piper are threats to them as the art of humanity can sometimes intrude on those ultraterrestrial plans—but its all fair game. “They” do no have a right to rule us, just as we don’t have a right to rule them. But they try to we have a right to fight back. But before you can fight them, you have to understand who “they” are—because they hide themselves from us for a reason.

In his closing days Piper was quite vocal about the hidden rulers of our planet. Some might think it was the ramblings of a former pro wrestler who wasn’t very smart and had endured a hard life to emerge a little crazy in his elderly years. But I think he realized that there was a genius in his John Carpenter movie role that he embraced more and more as he become older and more aware of the way the world really worked. Young pop icons like Miley Cyrus do not think about such things in their 20s. They just know that if they sell sex, drugs and music, that they become wealthy, which is a typical sell-out approach to those who rule over us all. When I was a kid my dad told me that if I didn’t start learning to “play” the game that “they’d” get me. He didn’t realize at the time what he was telling me, because I was the same kid who used to sing the song in church, “Yes Jesus Loves Me” but would refuse to sing the line, “because we are weak and he is strong.” I fundamentally challenged the concept of control within the church, even as a 7-year-old. So I certainly wasn’t willing to surrender my personal integrity to any human control mechanisms if I was challenging universal order. You see dear reader, I was born with Hoffman Lenses and I started viewing the world with them from the very first moments of my life. I always needed to know who “they” were, and I was always intent to refuse submission to them. To do that, you have to know who and what you are fighting.

Towards the end, even though it was a lifelong journey, I think Rowdy Roddy Piper was learning who “they” really were. But his real heart wasn’t as big as his intellectual heart, and if failed him in the middle of a night within his home. Age, lifestyle, and of course ultraterrestrial pressure likely did him in. Doctors will say it was natural causes—cardiac arrest. But their science ignores the 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensions, so that’s all the further they can go for diagnosis. But Hoffman Lenses say otherwise, and I will miss the Piper. He was a good dude, but he will live on. In the future, as silly as some think They Live was as a movie, it may become one of the most important things Rowdy Roddy Piper ever did. And I will be forever grateful that he played his part. Where he is now, he may have no need to chew bubble gum, but he can still kick ass.

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.

Capital Crime: Why Planned Parenthood is guilty of mass murder and should be defunded

I support stem cell research emphatically, and my position on abortion is that sometimes death is better than being raised by a terrible parent. Society does not have a good track record in replacing parents, so if a child is crippled with stupid parents they don’t have much chance at success as human beings, and their lives are sometimes better off not suffering through that lifetime of struggle by being aborted before birth. But make no mistake about it; Planned Parenthood is an institution of death. They are evil, and vile, and palaces of complicity into murder. They kill many more lives per year than all the firearms of the world, and their employees are murderers.   And the government steals our money in the form of taxes and funds this vast evil pulling all of us into the mass killings. When John Boehner wonders why house members are moving to remove him from leadership all he needs to do is look in the mirror. He has the power to de-fund Planned Parenthood, to repeal Obamacare, to push for lower taxes, the prosecution of Lois Lerner, the investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and many other criminal activity directly associated with the federal government, but he does nothing but illicit pretty words of sternness—while obviously protecting the political elite culture in Capital Hill. But the worse of his and all members of the federal government is the support of Planned Parenthood as an institution of death. The extent of their evil is evident in the collection of videos released by the Center for Medical Progress shown below.

Obviously the culture of Planned Parenthood is rampant with a bunch of villains from Jurassic World; a bunch of Doctor Wu’s who are willing to sell human body parts for research in exchange for cash. Because genetic research is a relatively new field of endeavor and there are more lobbyists on K-Street pushing this business of stem cells from aborted fetuses than there are prostitutes—which is quite a statement—the employment culture of the tax payer funded abortion clinics is one in dealing death with a blasé attitude toward life. The doctors shown in the videos are completely numb to any reference to life in the fetuses which indicates that all employees of Planned Parenthood are well on their way toward a Soylent Green mentality that have lost value in the human race. It’s a living nightmare that is as real life as the sun is in the sky. And we, as a species, do not know what to do with our emotions on the topic.

At this point so many people have had to make the decision to have an abortion sometime in their life that they have by default become numb to the practice of death. Since we all have some of our money involved in this abortion practice, it is hard to look at ourselves and judge Planned Parenthood as the evil organization that it is—because we all have our hands a little dirty in their activity. Just as we do with the IRS, the public school situation, and every other activity promoted by government toward collectivism over individualism—Planned Parenthood has a stance of destroying individual lives through abortion to preserve the greater good of stem cell research and social management. To the government types who have built Planned Parenthood putting unwanted children into the welfare culture unnecessarily taxes the resources of the government’s ability to manage all those new mouths to feed, which is exacerbated by the illegal immigrant stance that many on the political left have. When it comes to social management, the government is more interested in a diverse global culture so they promote white and black America to have abortions so that the future populations of those demographic groups are outpaced by immigrant populations. The goal of government is demographic management and they are willing to kill some types of potential people to have other types emerge dominate in future elections. But killing is killing, and Hitler had similar plans in Germany. It’s all evil. Hitler was vile and evil, but then again, so is Planned Parenthood. The only difference is the time of death, before or after the birth of a child.

The argument of whether life begins at conception is about as valid as to whether or not Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky. To provide a legal term to common sense comes out sounding like a lie to hide an evil. Life is life and it wants to live even if it is just a sperm looking for an egg, or an egg looking to plant itself in a uterus waiting with all hope to be fertilized by a sperm. It is ironic that out of thousands of potential sperm it is only one that breaks through to become a child. That symbolism within that biological act signifies the importance of every individual life. That life may not make it to a fully functioning human being, but if that life is snuffed out through abortion with no chance at all—it is evil to act in such a manner. That is a human decision rooted in evil, the same evil that kills another human being after they have been born and raised by parents and society to be functioning people. Life is life whether it’s in the form of a plant, a fetus, or a 90-year-old man. It’s all life, you can’t cheapen it in one aspect then expect it to thrive in other aspects.

To my mind children are the most important resource that any culture can have. As babies they are full of life’s potential, even if they are unfortunately born handicapped. Their life is full of infinite possibilities. They are just wonderful. But around age 12-13 once puberty kicks in and they are taught to build their lives around reproductive hobbies, they are much less interesting, and begin the long march toward stagnant adulthood. By age 15 they lose the wonder of life and begin to see limits everywhere. Most adult lives are failures—they are concessions of the dreams of their childhoods—and are sad. Too often they transfer that disappointment onto their own offspring prematurely limiting their intellectual growth—and that is very sad to watch. When I see it happening, abortion seems like a reasonable alternative. One death is quick; one is very slow taking a lifetime to get there. But it is all sad. I always hope among every child I meet that they will have the benefit of a good life with good influences that will teach them to dream and achieve, instead of conceding and maintaining intellectual stagnation. But for most of them, that’s not the case and it always makes me sad to see. Without a chance at life, they have nothing to hope for—especially when that life is snuffed out of them before they are even born.

That’s where we find ourselves with this tragic situation. Planned Parenthood with the federal government at its back is promoting the death of children through abortion. The more the better as far as those abortion clinics go, but it was never revealed why so many deaths were wanted or needed. Now we discover there is an entire black market industry that is taking the aborted fetuses and selling those body parts for extra money on the side, feeding an industry of evil and there are no laws to prevent the behavior because of the lobbyists that have made sure that things remain that way. Politicians like Boehner had to know about this practice through lobby connections around Capital Hill, but only until now did the grim reality of that industry show itself in the bland comments of these Planned Parenthood workers. The only defense politicians like Nancy Pelosi have is to attack the Center for Medical Progress for taking the video. They can’t dispute that there are multiple Planned Parenthood employees who are obviously in the business of trafficking human body parts from aborted babies, they can only attack the delivery of the message and to declare through fancy public relation’s firms that death is a non issue only analyzed by a Fox News demographic. That’s how terribly evil these people are.

What is lost in the entire discussion is a defense of the life, the potentiality of all life and the basic premise of humanity to provide that opportunity—even to the very small and unprotected. Abortion is a disgusting enterprise that is now one step closer to pure evil, because of the black market that Planned Parenthood routinely supports. The depth of that activity is just becoming known. So the burden is now on congress and the senate to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Tax payers at the bare minimum should not be pulled into such a vast evil with the support of their money. If Planned Parenthood wants to be involved in such ridiculous evil, they need to do it with their own money and resources. Given the amount of babies they have sold to the black market, they should be able to fund themselves—with profit to spare. They don’t need tax payer money to make the situation even worse.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Being Free: Donald Trump’s Anderson Cooper interview

There are many kinds of wealth, and in many ways I think I’m far better off than Donald Trump. I wouldn’t trade my life for his. But I find myself having an awful lot in common with the 2016 presidential candidate, as many do which is one of the reasons for his popularity. With that said it is obvious that Trump is learning how to be a political candidate and is refining his approach that is most evident to me in this Anderson Cooper interview which is long, but illustrates several very important sociological behavior patterns for which he’s personally destroying. Trump is able to give this kind of interview because he’s literally a free man. That freedom comes from his wealth, which I understand. I share with him some of that freedom, so I understand what makes him tick, and that is why I’m so enthusiastic for his candidacy. Watch carefully.

Most powerful to me in that interview was Trump’s revelations about lobbyists, when he declared he’s been on the other side of the ball most of his life as a businessman and understands how the system works. When he says that he could get a politician to jump off a ledge he’s serious and I believe him emphatically. Cooper tried to pin him down with guilt about his participation in the system by using lobbyists to control politicians as Trump chided back that as a businessman he had to play the game–because that’s how the game is played. Trump then stated more or less that he wants to run so he can change the rules of that game. As a president, he couldn’t be bought. As a president there is nothing the White House can give him that he doesn’t already have. As a 69-year-old man who has made $10 billion dollars of worth, I believe he wants to sincerely contribute his independence to the philosophic debate of preserving the United States.

When Trump says that there is no politician that can turn this country around, he is absolutely right. When a lobbyist can control politicians the way they do, the system is hopelessly beyond repair. Trump additionally stated to Cooper during the interview that if he were in the White House, he would never leave, and would work hard while there—so much so that he wouldn’t have time to comb his famous hair. And I believe him. Trump may be arrogant, he may love to see himself on television, he may be narcissistic, but without question he is the hardest working candidate running for president. I recognize within that arrogance some of myself. When you work harder than other people, and people don’t respect your hard work, you have to learn to do things for yourself—because you see what needs to be done while others do not. The world doesn’t thank you for things that are done for which they don’t understand the value—but only in hindsight. When a person is on the cutting edge, often only they understand the treasure of that position, so they act on behalf of themselves knowing that people will thank them later. In this respect I share a lot in common with Trump. I believe him when he says he’d be the hardest working president that the White House has ever seen. He’d work hard not so that people would reward him, but because he personally desires to do a good job judged off his measuring stick. That is a tremendous difference between him, and everyone else, not just in who is running, but in who has ever run.

Another place that Anderson Cooper effectively brought up an important part of the Trump candidacy was over the question regarding faith. Virtually all of human society believes that faith in a deity makes politicians malleable enough to serve as public representative in a democracy. This is the most idiotic notion of any social analysis. On matters of faith I answer questions in a similar way as Trump does. I do not owe my life to a god of any kind. I do not give credit to my good deeds to some un-named creature only interpreted for me by some insufficient minds who might have written the Bible or Koran hundreds of years ago and translated for me by churches. I trust what I can see and touch—and if something exists in the quantum realm of the very infinitely small, I use my own experience to guide my thoughts. I do not trust the interpretations of history. But I certainly wouldn’t call myself an atheist. I don’t pray to some god to help something to occur, I utilize myself to unleash my potential to help solve problems. In a lot of ways the power of positive thinking is like praying. At some point in the distant past human beings recognized that the act of praying could shape the events of history—perhaps in small ways, but enough so that the act was worth doing. But strong, independent people have learned more, which just praying doesn’t do it, but the power of positive thinking goes several steps further. Trump is that kind of religious person. He is such a free man that he doesn’t feel he needs to kneel before a god whom he has never met other than through interpretations of others—to surrender his logic to the supernatural.

To assume that god will listen to billions of desperate voices and shape world events to their liking is absurd. It is even worse to expect a leader of the human race to pray to a deity for guidance. Who knows really what might answer such a prayer—the gods of the Holy Bible, the god of the Maya, of the Muslim, or the Asian—nobody really knows. In my experience there are many tricksters who live in the spiritual realm, many soothsaying mind-watchmen who will gladly steer an undefended mind to their doom just as there are car salesmen who will take your money knowing full and well that you can’t afford what they are selling. There is no way to know unless you meet these deities with your own eyes and touch them with your hands what they are up to, so trusting them would be absolutely foolish. Now, honoring what’s good about spiritual revealers is a tremendous positive, and Trump stated as much with Cooper. He lives his life in a way that he feels he shouldn’t have to ask for any forgiveness from a god. That statement is a powerful one. Who wants a leader who will surrender the sanctity of the United States to the prayer of some unproven manic who lives in the 5th or even 11th dimension hoping to get a boost to their ego by destroying the minds of those limited four-dimensional beings on planet earth with misdirection. Cooper represents a status quo opinion of politicians that has created some really major problems over the years. If politicians can make voters believe they are connected in some way to the afterworld, then they are free to repeat history as just another corrupt emperor, ruthless dictator, pharaoh or Pope. For instance, the current Pope Francis from Argentina is a maniacal socialist. We are supposed to believe that he went from a nightclub bouncer to a religious leader because some smoke came out of church chimney. And this guy is going to lead the world spiritually into progressive concerns? Give me a break. He might be a nice man, but a leader of human society—absolutely not. Is he connected to god, even less likely? Giving such people a seat at the table of leadership is like asking a dog to not eat a plate of food placed before them when their owners leave the room. Politicians and religious leaders are all made of the same secondary stuff. They live through others, not of their own individuality, and are therefore ill-equipped to lead a nation of individuals driven by a pure capitalist economy. Trump’s answers to Cooper on religion were very interesting, and I understand Trump completely, maybe more than Trump actually does. He has nothing to feel guilty about—even though Cooper obviously didn’t understand the answer. More than anything, I think that religious presumption is what gets all republics into trouble. Keep god in the church on Sunday or in your hearts during study. Keep it out of the realm of leadership. Leadership is a task for mankind on planet earth in a four-dimensional lifestyle. Those are the rules of the game, and we have to live with them unless those rules can be changed from the other side.

The theme of the interview essentially came down to the fact that Trump knows how to play the game of both religion and lobbyists and that he is best equipped to change the rules if he’s on the other side of things. John Boehner might be the third most powerful person in the world, but if the Pope comes to America to give a speech, Boehner is likely to listen to the church leader’s comments about the poor and destitute hoping to get into heaven than Trump would—and that makes Trump a better potential leader. Boehner might say because the Pope whispered in his ear that it is good to help the poor with sacrifice and altruism. That would be because Boehner is a second-hander who lives through other people himself. He needs money too from people like Trump to stay in power, so he will regulate his thoughts to a deity to guide him through life’s mysteries. Whereas Trump will also help the poor, he’ll tell them to get a job—and if there isn’t a job, he’ll make one through capitalism. That is the main difference between Donald Trump and everyone else. He’s a truly free man who works harder than everyone else, and has earned the right to say what he wants. And America needs such a person right now—otherwise it may fail to exist for four more years. We really are at a pinnacle of existence, and it will take more than prayer or lobbyists to pull us from the brink.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Quality on a Golf Course: Why being “rich” is valuable

I hope it doesn’t happen, but I support it if it does–if Donald Trump goes third-party, I will support him. I am likely much more conservative than Donald Trump. I’m probably more conservative than every Republican in the party. I’m probably more conservative than even the most Bible thumping conservative–anywhere. Yet I would in less than a heartbeat support Donald Trump for president if he leaves the Republicans for a third-party. I would do so because I support a business man over a politician almost every time, particularly one who is as independently wealthy as Trump is. I think economic understanding is the paramount issue of the 2016 election because without money, there is no value—no morality, no understanding of quality, no measurement of worth. Wealthy people are typically a measure of productivity. If they have money, their hands touch the creations of wealth in positive ways. Money has been so ridiculed by the political culture that they forget that it is the only way to really measure value in our society. That is the premier reason I support Donald Trump even if he leaves the Republican Party. Here is how he put it during an interview with The Hill:

“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish. I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans. Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”

“I’m not in the gang. I’m not in the group where the group does whatever it’s supposed to do,” he said. “I want to do what’s right for the country — not what’s good for special interest groups that contribute, not what’s good for the lobbyists and the donors.”

http://www.msn.com/?cobrand=lenovo13-comm.msn.com&ocid=LENDHP&pc=MALCJS

Much of what Trump said in that little interview was exactly how I feel about machine politics. I don’t like it. For something I don’t like, I spend a lot of time thinking about it, but my thoughts are always on how to break it up, not in how to play along to get something. I despise that system, because it gets in the way of pure capitalism and find it repulsive. If Trump will take a stand against it, I’ll fight with him against that system.

I was at a golf course the other day with my favorite pair of jeans on. I’m not one who cares much for orthodox behavior, or the rules of society, but at golf courses there is an understanding of how one dresses and acts. Just like business meetings typically involve suits and ties. You don’t show up covered in tattoos and torn cloths and expect people to take you serious, because the dress is an expectation of quality. Once all parties meeting with that basic agreement of quality in place, then discussions about important topics can begin. Golf courses are all about quality. They are about nice greens, golf clubs, amenities, and nice casual cloths along with quality time with yourself, or friends. Golf is about the swing, shooting under par, and getting the most out of the various tools among the assortment of golf clubs. The distinct ping of a driver hitting a golf ball squarely and with greatly controlled force is a sound of extreme beauty. That is because there is quality in the action. So I was aware that I would get some sideways looks when I showed up in my favorite jeans that have the knees torn out completely with holes. They look really bad. But I love them; they are comfortable and represent my lifestyle. And after spending several straight days in business suits, I wanted to be in my favorite cloths as I stopped by this particular course on business. Not to play, but to do some other activity.

As I walked around the clubhouse many golfers looked at me with disdain, which I understood. I was clearly not dressed for a golf course, so I didn’t take any offense. The value system of the golf course dictated that people conduct themselves with proper attire. It doesn’t matter the sex or race—only that fellow golfers conduct themselves with a sense of “quality.” In addition to the holy pants, I had on a loose-fitting button-up shirt that wasn’t tucked in, which is normal for me around the house. At a golf course, it was frowned upon. And I understood and accepted that. Life on a golf course is supposed to be slightly luxurious and otherworldly. People go there to get away not just from the world for a bit, but to be around quality. If people show up expecting that culture of quality to change just because they want to wear holy pants, they are the one in the wrong. Now, I was in the mood to not care what people thought, so I dressed the way I wanted. But never did I expect them to change for my benefit.

Similarly, money is a measurement of quality. Those who have lots of money have usually done something in their life that reflects excessively productive output. The money is a measure of that productivity. People can be jealous of that productive output and hope that they might acquire a lot of money without the work of being productive, but usually they would be wasting wishes—unless they happen to win a lottery ticket or inherit a lot of money for someone else’s effort. But they do not have a right to demand that productive people refuse to put a cap on their efforts just to make others feel better about themselves.

The Republican Party as an organization doesn’t do much but consume resources. They solicit money from people like Trump to keep them funded and continuing to win elections which then provokes the question as to why they are even needed if they serve no other purpose but to appeal to people who have money so they can stick themselves between the productive and the needy to barter the relationship with their con-artist appeal. If they aren’t going to manage resources, then the politicians are useless, which is what Trump’s campaign is shaping up to illustrate. He doesn’t need them and neither do voters, which begs the question as to why we have such a ridiculous system to begin with.

The political class is attempting to demonize Trump because he has money. Because he has money, he doesn’t have to appeal to any donors, so there is nobody to pull out the rug from under his campaign. The political class knows they can’t compete with that, so they have no other move but to castigate him from their circles of associations. They want him as a donor; they don’t want him as a contributor to the philosophy of Republicanism. That makes them leeches in need of sustenance. It also makes him the body they need to suck off of, and with all this name calling they have embarked on, they are trying to put him in his place with force—whether it’s John McCain calling Trump’s supports “crazies,” or Lindsey Graham calling Trump himself a “jackass.” They actually expected him to take the ridicule which is why politics is so screwed up in the first place. The emphasis among the political class is that the individual must subject themselves to the greater good of the group—those who are most served have the value over the least. But that assumes that everyone involved is of the same quality. And people are not all of the same quality. That is the lesson one learns at a golf course, or based on the size of one’s bank account. Some people do more and are worth more than others. In the world of politics, Trump has done a lot more than all the politicians on Capital Hill put together. Yet they expect Trump to fall in line to maintain their illusion of value behind a group consensus. They do the same to us all, which makes them completely worthless to the task at hand.

If Trump leaves the party behind, I will as well to help him accomplish his task. I’ve pulled for Republicans before; I still do with a hope that some of them aren’t a bunch of screwballs. After I was burnt by John Kasich personally as I was one of the Right to Work leaders in Ohio during a time when the governor wanted to attack those types of people using the party to try to eliminate them, I will never give anybody a chance to do that to me again. So I have no love for the party, they are too liberal for me. They can point to Trump and declare that he was a Democrat, and that he was friends with the Clintons, and that he isn’t a strong conservative. But he’s rich, and he has made a lot of money, and to me that means something. I’d put my bets on him over any politician, so if the party paints him out of the party, it will be their loss—yet again.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

John Kasich Running For President: All the good things I have to say about him

As many know I have a lot to say.  Every day I write multi thousand word articles about topics that are on my mind.  So of course I have to comment on John Kasich, whom I once awarded as Warrior of the Week right here on this site.   He just announced he’s running for president of the United States.  I’ve met the guy personally, and he’s from my state.  So let me articulate all the reasons he should be president with my voluminous command of the English language and prodigious writing ability.

………………………………………I can’t think of a single good thing to say in support.  He lost Issue 2.  Gave Obama everything he wanted.  And he was one of the first to tag Ohio to Obamacare.  He shouldn’t be running for president…………………he should be running from angry voters.

Only in Washington!

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

“The Snow is Warm”: A gift from Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman to America

Dear reader, you should know by now that I do all this to make things easy to understand in a world that from afar looks very complicated.  But it’s really not  Much of what’s happening to us as a country is directly blamed on tricks that soothsayers are conducting to put us to sleep so they can inspire an insurrection against capitalism.  Both political parties are involved, perhaps unaware of the scope of the trouble, but there is nowhere to turn for the American voter, because the system has been corrupted by soothsayers.  So to make it easier to understand the recent Iranian deal, the reason that Donald Trump is so popular, and to what extent Saul Alinsky tactics are used to drive collective culture toward evil ends—I have put two hours of radio programming together done with Matt Clark at WAAM, Ann Arbor that specifically breaks down these topics so they are easy to understand.  On the clip below, the first 30 minutes or so, it is Matt and a lit up phone bank of callers who wanted to talk about Donald Trump.  At the end of that show I was one of the callers and we put a book end on that segment.  Then Matt and I did a show together as a direct continuation of the previous show and dug deep into the Donald Trump issue as well as the Iranian deal struck recently by the White House.  I would suggest you take a break from the text, hit play and just listen to the entire clip for a while, and enjoy a summation of these epic events on some of the finest talk radio you will hear anywhere.  Also included in this article are short video clips from the extended show to make summations a bit easier.  You should watch these and share them with as many people as possible.

About 50 minutes into the clip I tell the story of four mountain climbers from an Akira Kurosawa film called Dreams released in 1989.  It is one of my favorite films from the famed director and is a direct metaphor for how Saul Alinsky tactics are manipulating the politics of our day.  I used this story once on this site to explain how a local politician who worked with me in the Republican Party to fight taxes turned under pressure to support a tax increase at Lakota.  CLICK HERE to review.  Whether we are dealing with the microcosm, or macrocosm, the metaphor is the same.  It is directly applicable to the events of our day.  The four mountain climbers are lost in a blizzard high atop some mountain not disclosed, but I imagined it to be something like Everest.  They have lost their base camp in the storm and are losing their strength.  Three of the climbers are passing out due to fatigue and have turned their attention toward death. 

The leader of the four realizes that the situation is hopeless so he too joins his friends in embracing death.  An angel shows up above him and whispers him to sleep—ultimately death.  She tells him, “the snow is warm.”  The leader complies for a little bit, but soon realizes that something isn’t quite right.  He knows better.  The snow is not warm—it’s freezing cold.  He wonders why she would tell him something like that because if he did embrace the snow and its cold, the remainder of his body heat would be extinguished and he’d die.  So why would she tell him something obviously not good for him?  He pushes back a little, and then she pushes him back down into the snow.  At first he tries just a little, but after she refuses to let him get back up he gets angry and pushes back harder.  Soon a struggle ensues and she gets angry and her beautiful face turns into a skull and she dissipates into the storm taking the elements with her.  She was a Grim Reaper type of character and had caused the entire ordeal hoping to rob the four men of their life.  He quickly rallies his friends back to life and they soon discover that the base camp they had been searching for is only twenty feet away.  They were that close, yet so far.

Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer and is a book designed to convince people that the “snow is warm,” essentially.  He was an evil man committed to evil deeds, and Hillary Clinton was a huge fan, even doing a college paper on him.  Barack Obama taught Saul Alinsky tactics while in Chicago, so the roots of this evil man are in our current political system.  When it is suspected that evil is at work, the best way to think of it is with the Akira Kurosawa story.  Donald Trump has made himself the lead mountain climber pushing back against death only to discover that the chaos of our condition is a cleverly disguised assault designed to destroy America—pure and simple.  After listening to the Matt Clark broadcast with me as a guest we spelled it out quite clearly for you.  It is beyond debate at this point.

Even the way that the media attempted to pit leading Republicans against Trump when they realized the billionaire could have cared less about the criticism he received over the immigration issue, or the ban from the Huffington Post to treat him as a serious candidate.  Most of the leading presidential candidates were pulled into the trap of defending John McCain as a war hero when in Trump’s world, getting caught is a sign of failure.  But in the Beltway it makes you “honorable.”  So the machine of politics showed its fangs as Trump has pushed back and forced all to look at where we stand with certain issues, like blind appreciation of anybody who is a service member, or this constant push to get candidates to apologize for something as if to force them to admit that they are guilty of going against the collective consensus of our media culture.  They want us all to apologize for knowing that the “snow is cold,” when they try to tell us it’s warm.

I have an affinity for Trump.  I told the story in The Magic 100 article (CLICK HERE TO REVIEW) of my similar experiences that Trump is going though now where I refused to apologize for calling fat-assed levy supporters prostitutes for their motivations even though there was a lot of pressure to do so.  I held my ground and many people thanked me for it.  I explained four years ago to Republicans who read this site that in the future they needed to maintain some testicular fortitude in the face of such tactics, and so far, only Donald Trump is applying that discovered strategy, so I am rooting for him to hold tight.  Because what the soothsayers don’t want us to discover is that the snow is not warm and that our base camp is right next to us. And we don’t need the advice of demons from hell trying to rob us of our life.  They certainly don’t want us to fight back.  But if you listen to the broadcasts above dear reader, it will become very obvious that we are under attack in America, and that if we want to survive, now is the time to push back and make them retreat back to the hell they all came from.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.