Tag: Down the Rabbit Hole

Ayn Rand and Social Security: Confiscated money that is owed eventually

As far as Ayn Rand and her modern footprint into politics and philosophy many on the left have attempted to discredit her based on the notion that she drew from Social Security late in her life. As a small government advocate deeply suspicious of America’s steps toward socialism—which she had fled from, and lost her family to, many progressives have identified her as a danger to their Kant driven philosophy doing whatever they could to discredit her writings using the Social Security issue to lead the charge against the logic she presented. Recently my friend Mark Etterling ran across just such a person on his email musings with the far left and radical nut cases hoping to shut off the world to wisdom, so to disguise their treacherous attempts against righteousness—specifically a strong economy driven by capitalism. Mark presented a strong case in favor of Ayn Rand which I thought was effective enough to repeat below. Many assume that Social Security is a government entitlement when in fact as Mark presents; it’s supposed to be an investment. The distinction is important as Etterling explains in greater detail:

From: Mark Etterling Date: April 5, 2015 at 1:31:22 PM EDT Subject: Moron, expose theyself Reply-To: Mark Etterling

 

Recently I read a Facebook post from a liberal that was meant to be a “gotcha” moment against conservatives and in this case the now deceased author Ayn Rand in particular. Upon reading the post I actually found myself laughing out loud. Not only was this a hilariously bad attempt at painting the right as hypocrites, but was so moronic that the poster had no idea who he was actually insulting.

The post was a story about how the vaunted die-hard capitalist Ayn Rand had actually dared to collect on Social Security in her old age in defiance of her own writings demonizing big government. This is the same tired assault that liberals have tried for years by claiming conservatives are hypocrites for railing against intrusive government up until such time as it’s their own turn to stand in line for some government goodies.

So for the umpteenth time allow me to explain what the half-wits on left just simply can’t seem to grasp. SOCIAL SECURITY ISN’T A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT! Let me put this in simple terms. If you loan someone $100 today and then later return to collect on your loan that doesn’t make you greedy, a thief, a handout recipient, a hypocrite, or any other such non-sense. It simply means that you are collecting a return of what was rightfully yours all along. The fact that the government forcibly confiscates that money from you (and the matching funds from your employer) throughout your working life on the promise of returning it to you later (if you’re fortunate enough to live that long) doesn’t constitute even the remotest concept to anyone above the IQ of a horsefly that it somehow magically becomes a handout.

To prove my point all you need to do is look at your pay stub. You have separate line item deductions for Social Security and Medicare because those moneys are SUPPOSED to be placed in a separate government trust fund so that people won’t foolishly waste all their money before they reach retirement age. The reason I capitalized the word supposedly above is because under this scenario the ugly truth is that it’s been the government all along who has foolishly wasted your money instead as they have basically borrowed and spent against all that money until the actual trust fund is pretty much an empty vault of IOU’s. Personally, as an intelligent adult I would have preferred it if big brother government would have simply butted out of my life so that I could have invested that total of 15% annual matching funds on my own instead of through a glorified government sanctioned Ponzi scheme. However, now that they have it, you can bet your @ss I want it back!

It blows my mind every time I hear some idiot from the left proclaiming that the elderly are better off because of Social Security. In saying that they are not only stating by proxy that all Americans are too stupid to be trusted with something like their own retirement (same thing for healthcare), but completely forget that had the government not interfered the money that was confiscated would have been the people’s money all along (plus interest) anyway. It’s like a thief robbing you and then expecting a big old “thank you” for returning the things they should have never stolen at government gun point in the first place. Here’s another way to think of it for when they ignorantly try to insult conservatives for trying to collect what is rightfully theirs. Is it right that someone should be forced to pay for a meal in advance and then demonized simply because they would now like a chance to eat it before it’s all gone? Honestly, I wish I could think of a stronger word than “moron” in situations like this.

Morons are morons and nothing will ever change that. However, in posting what he posted this particular moron doesn’t even realize that who he has basically insulted isn’t just conservatives, but every American who has worked all their life and is now old enough that they are simply trying to retrieve what was rightfully theirs all along. The checks they are now receiving aren’t government handouts. They’re long overdue reimbursements. Personally, I hope he reposts his article over and over. In doing so he’ll be accomplishing far more to expose his own true self-insulting ignorance than any rebuttal I could ever hope to write.

P.S. As a side note please remember that it was DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who recently proposed the idiotic idea of having the government confiscate everyone’s IRA’s and 401K’s and using that money to shore up the missing funds from Social Security. As you can see, these people aren’t just simple morons. They’re morons that are hell-bent on ruining all our lives.

Social Security was a stupid idea, and it never should have been enacted. It is an insult to stick the government in between Americans and their so-called retirements. I resent every deduction taken from my paycheck as a theft stolen from me, because the government will never be in a position to pay me back all the money I have “invested” under coercion. I have personal friends who hate Social Security so badly they have essentially given up their citizenship over the issue. One of those friends had began plotting his deferral from the Social Security system in the 5th grade—no kidding. He was a very smart kid and while the other kids were talking about the rock band KISS and the new show on television called The Dukes of Hazzard, he was planning on how to legally refuse his obligations toward Social Security. As an adult, he gave up his citizenship after years of legal entanglement—but—he doesn’t pay into the system, because as he was always right, Social Security is stolen money not granted by an infant when they are issued a card after being registered by their parents. His argument was that his parents didn’t have a right to commit him to a life obligation into such a contract with the government.

The rest of the world isn’t willing to take such extremes, so we just pay into it knowing that its wrong—because we don’t want the hassle of fighting the government—and they know that. My friend had a lifelong crusade against Social Security which continues to this very day—but I have always found it easier to just outwork the money grabbing hands of the government. I have infinite energy which they don’t posses. With me it’s a delicate balance; government knows they need me to be productive to pay their salaries, so they generally leave me alone. But, I have to accept that they will steal a portion of my money every week because they made laws enabling them to do so. I have the same deal with insects in my house. I know they are there in the cracks, but if they come out in the open, they are disposed of. I don’t want to see them even though they are likely hidden in every crevice available. The government takes my money before I even get to see it each week. They get first dibs on my earnings—which is why more Americans aren’t angered by the stolen money because they figure they never had it in the first place. But when it comes time to get that money back—everyone expects it—just like we expect tax returns at the end of each year for the overpayments interest free we make to the government through the same withdrawal system. The idiots who came before us who voted in favor of this kind of thing made a major mistake, and it should be rectified. But until then, like Mark Etterling said in his article—I want my money back at the first opportunity I can get it. And I won’t apologize for wanting it either. It was stolen from me without my permission, and I want every dime back before it’s all said and done. When Ayn Rand needed the money she put into the system, I don’t fault her for getting it. She paid into it, so she deserved to get it back. But, she would have been the first to argue, if the government had stayed out of the exchange in the first place that same money may have made her rich, instead of needing Social Security in the first place. She was more qualified to handle her own money than the government was, and that is the tragedy we all face—at some point in time.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Science of a Resurrection: Understanding the essence of a human soul

 In lieu of the recent discussions that always follow Easter Sunday and the resurrection of Jesus, the topics of concern from a religious point of view center on the nature of life and death. Older people tend to look at death as an end; young people do what they can to avoid thinking about the end, because they are just at the beginning. As Easter came and went I was editing the latest installments of my Cliffhanger series from The Curse of Fort Seven Mile stories which have been building up to a discussion about this very topic. I can successfully state that I no longer acknowledge death as an end to anything, but the vehicle which beholds consciousness—otherwise termed as the soul. We are living in an age where computer power will allow us to upload everything contained within the memories of a brain into an artificial intelligence. But we will likely miss the opportunity to replicate what we call the soul of a person—because it exists in a quantum level and can exist anywhere and everywhere in the universe, or multi verse simultaneously without any concern for time and space. In the context of my Cliffhanger stories, this means that villains killed or deceased are still a threat to the fabric of mankind. Just because a life on earth has ended does not mean that the desires they held in life are not still being utilized in some fashion because their soul is still roaming about looking to create havoc just as they did in life. A human body is but a vehicle that the soul rides within and uses to navigate through a terrain of space and time. Once that vehicle is removed, the soul is free to move about under the rules of quantum mechanics instead of in the Theory of Relativity.

When you look at a dead body, it is quickly obvious that there is nothing there. They look strangely vacant even though the facial features and other aspects of their living life can be seen. Even if the contents of memory and brain capacity are fully uploaded into a computer program that can replicate human behavior what will still be lacking is the information at the quantum level which contains our immortal elements. The big challenge for human beings of the 21st century and on is to divorce themselves of this notion that a human body is the beginning and end of a life. To know yourself, and others you care about, you have to see who they really are and look beyond the scope of bodily limitations. To grasp a bit of this concept here is an article about the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose and their work toward understanding the quantum aptitude of the human soul.

 

Soul quanta

So, there is abundance of places or other universes where our soul could migrate after death, according to the theory of neo-biocentrism. But does the soul exist?

Professor Stuart Hameroff from the University of Arizona has no doubts about the existence of eternal soul. Last year, he announced that he has found evidence that consciousness does not perish after death.

According to Hameroff, the human brain is the perfect quantum computer, and the soul, or consciousness, is simply information stored at the quantum level. It can be transferred, following the death of the body; quantum information carried by consciousness merges with our universe and exists infinitely. In his turn, (Robert) Lanza proves that the soul migrates to another universe. That is the main difference his theory has from the similar ones.

Sir Roger Penrose, a well-known British physicist and expert in mathematics from Oxford, supports this theory and claims to have found traces of contact with other universes. Together, the scientists are developing a quantum theory to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. They believe that they have found carriers of consciousness, the elements that accumulate information during life and “drain” consciousness somewhere else after death. These elements are located inside protein-based microtubules (neuronal microtubules), which previously have been attributed a simple role of reinforcement and transport channeling inside a living cell. Based on their structure, microtubules are best suited to function as carriers of quantum properties inside the brain. That is mainly because they are able to retain quantum states for a long time, meaning they can function as elements of a quantum computer.

 

http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

In my Curse of Fort Seven Mile series, the introduction to villains still desiring mayhem even after their death is introduced based on the science of quantum mechanics and the understanding of 5th dimensional branes. From this vantage point, souls without bodies can still enact strategies against humanity for the same purposes they did in traditional life—only they do it without the limits of a human body. Even though this may seem like science fiction, I would say that it is more fact than fiction. I stopped believing in death years ago which then pokes holes in all aspects of religious mythology and forces new definitions to deal with that emerging reality. If beings whether they be in the form of humans, honey bees, or even trees live on in a form of their innate soul only using the vehicles of existence as a temporary carrier of their true essence, than what can we attribute life to if not the birth of a living thing and the death of it? I would even propose that a human body has the potential to live as long as we can repair it, just like a car. After all a body is simply a series of mechanical parts biologically assembled. There is no reason a human being couldn’t live for thousands of years only dying in cases where the body is destroyed by tragedy. Old age is a sickness that is curable and is only not utilized because of a silly belief that the body and soul are connected in ways that are more revered than they really are pulling our thoughts into a timeline consisting of a beginning, middle, and end. But this is unnecessary.

Yes I believe in resurrection—but to be more accurate, I don’t believe in death, so resurrection is a relative term confined to the bodies of 4 dimensional existences. What makes living dangerous is that the evil of minds like the mass murderers of history are like Jesus, still living—only in a different form and if they wish to, they can still terrorize targets of their desire for needs unknown to the living unaware of the motivations and desires contained within the quantum world. But one thing is clear in such an understanding, if life doesn’t end in death—than what happens when evil people are punished or removed from their bodies by killing them? Are they not free to roam the universe causing terror and mayhem for eternity, and how could such creatures be combated if death is no longer a threat to them. That ladies and gentlemen, is the topic of the next century and the answer will change the way we view everything—most notably death itself. But before we can begin to comprehend such a thing, we have to change the way we view life and death and divorce it from the bodies which carry our souls through existence.

Hell is a concept invented by humans to separate the good from the bad in human behavior. What humans have failed to do is define the necessity of judgment against evil and given the responsibility to a deity of worship—such as we say when declaring that “Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead.” This will no longer work knowing now what we do about the nature of life and death. The old mythology of birth, death, and resurrection will no longer function now that we know where the soul resides and the reality of uploading ourselves into another body, or even a machine becomes a more plausible in the very near future. We must force ourselves to define evil once and for all, not as an act that kills, maims and destroys culture ending the lives of innocents—but in something else much more literal. For that is a task of our age, and it will have ramifications that will span the universe.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Doc Thompson and Skip LeCombe: The Henry Reardens of talk radio

Doc Thompson and Skip LeCombe on their Morning Blaze radio show have been doing daily wrap-ups for the topics they covered during their 6 AM to 9 AM time slot on a video summary. Below is a sample of their show from April 1st 2015 which I picked because at the end Doc shows off his Rearden Steel t-shirt. The two of them have done a great job keeping a lively and informative broadcast that has become for me essential to beginning my day. Breakfast just wouldn’t be breakfast without Doc and Skip on The Blaze Radio Network.

One of the best parts of the Morning Blaze Show is the police blotters that come on at around ten minutes to 7 AM. Doc reads various news stories featuring police arrests in an old-fashioned style that is laced with rhyming comedy. It takes some work everyday, but they put their time in and do it right leaving me openly laughing during the segment much of the time. The segment encapsulates to what extent Doc and Skip do just a little bit extra above everyone else in talk radio to give their audience something fresh.

Most radio hosts show up on the radio and talk for 1 to 3 hours—take a few calls and essentially read the news to listeners, which for me is a valuable service. But Doc and Skip go just a bit further every day consciously mixing comedy with some rather pointed commentary on contemporary events. They know their subjects and relish in breaking down some of the most complicated topics of the news cycle.

In a lot of ways the Doc and Skip Show on the Morning Blaze reminds me of something that would come out of Atlantis in the book Atlas Shrugged. I know Doc enjoys that book—I wasn’t sure how much over the years he had retained his enjoyment, but obviously he enjoys it enough to wear a shirt featuring it. Ayn Rand for many conservatives is tricky stuff, mainly because she was an atheist, and I know that Doc is a Christian. In my own life, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian, and I wouldn’t say I’m a libertarian—I’m certainly not a social liberal. I’m not loosy goosy on topics of conduct. There is a lot I like about Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism just as I like a lot about the Christian faith as a religion, but neither tenant of thought goes far enough for me. The problem with Christianity is that I love the values, but I hate the notion of surrendering life to a deity in a spirit of sacrifice. Ayn Rand is really one of the only writers to emerge to capture the spirit of productivity and to embrace capitalism as a moral premise. But the religions of the world—Christianity included—are at odds with it. Rand dared to ask why sacrifice was necessary for a productive society, as capitalism is the mode of the creative. If people are creative and make things from their minds, why is sacrifice needed in a culture at all? That is the greatest moral dilemma of our age and humanity is facing it for the first time.

Over the years I have become less religious not leaning toward atheism in any fashion, but in developing a thought process that has the values of Christianity, but the empowerment of Objectivism. Current religions don’t go far enough in my opinion to solve the riddles of our age—and instead stay too far anchored into the past. I want to see more responsibility out of individuals instead of just pointing to the heavens and declaring that God wills something to be done in my life, so thus it shall be done—good or bad. That doesn’t work for me and never has.

Henry Rearden from Atlas Shrugged, the head of the company on Doc’s shirt—was a very self-empowered person, and there is a serious lesson to be learned from that book which should be expanded and promoted in a much greater fashion.   Of those in modern media, there aren’t many like Doc who has not run away from an association with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. He may not agree with everything about Rand’s Objectivism—but he understands the message of personal responsibility that pours from it in defining why some people do things that are really important in life, and why some just become parasitic entities for their entire existence. Without that very important distinction, there would be no proper identification in our art to properly explain why capitalism is important to societies.

Much of what Doc does on his show is paint the world from a vantage point as though he were broadcasting from a real life Atlantis featured in Atlas Shrugged. Viewed through the prism of a person who has read and understood the Ayn Rand classic, the news on the Morning Blaze is unquestionably in that spirit—which is why it has become a must in the morning for me. As the world crashes down around us, there are pockets of sanity popping up around the country that are migrating to The Blaze to live our lives independent of the wrecked economies of socialism, including the embrace of American culture of more European style collectivism.

In my own life I feel like every character who was a protagonist in Atlas Shrugged wrapped up into one person—and I’m living that life currently. I have a little Ragnar, a lot of Rearden, but even minor characters like Richard Halley I understand all too well. In my own work I am seeking to step beyond Rand’s musings, which is now over 50 years old and explore topics spawning off her initial concepts. I am less interested in pleasing the masses of society, and have instead come to broadcast them to a much smaller audience in a metaphorical Atlantis for the same reasons that Halley did in Atlas Shrugged. My Curse of Fort Seven Mile is one of those projects that I know going into it that will not be accepted in New York literature circles, and I don’t care. I write those stories for people like Doc Thompson—not for the pop culture icons of progressive definitions of coolness. Since I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead I have wanted more to the story, but there just isn’t many writers out there who can write that kind of material with the authority and definition that Ayn Rand did. First of all they lack the experience, but mostly they lack the personal conviction and couldn’t write such a thing in their wildest fantasies. Just as there are a lot of talk radio hosts, there really aren’t any like Doc Thompson who puts forth just a bit more effort shown proportionally throughout his endeavors, like his police blotters.

Doc Thompson could be a talk show host at the level of Howard Stern if he wanted to be. I remember when he was brought to Cincinnati to take over as the primary man on WLW. But Doc has never really played well with others, not where it had to compromise who he is—even if the opportunity for more money and fame threw themselves at his feet. He has stubbornly been like Henry Rearden from Atlas Shrugged and conducted his radio show his way for his own purposes, and it took someone like Glenn Beck to recognize the benefits and to give him a prime slot on a global network. But even with the reach of The Blaze, the primary audience is an extreme minority—like the members of the fictional Atlantis from Atlas Shrugged. For those people Doc and Skip put on a great daily show. To the rest of the world, they are sadly being left behind. Even though the broadcast is easy and free to them, most of the time they will find themselves the butt of Doc’s jokes, instead of on the side of the typical audience member—and laughing intellectually at the follies of the world.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

I’m Sick of Homosexual Marketing: Their lifestyle choices are imposing, and disrespectful

Personally I’m really sick of the whole social homosexual issue and don’t have much sympathy for the Indiana and Arkansas governors under protest from gay groups over their recent legislation which should be covered already by the 1st Amendment anyway. I’m not gay, and don’t personally associate with gay people because they typically don’t share my values, and I have no plans to change that value judgment. I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show was a terrible movie, and I hate gay pride parades because of all the stupid color combinations. Yet in spite of the opinions of the progressive left and right, that does not make me a homophobe—as they like to call people who don’t share their appreciation for anal intercourse—which is gross in any fashion—man or woman. When I look at people I try not to think about what kind of sex they enjoy, just as I don’t want to know if they like fried chicken or sushi. Whatever their choices—keep it to themselves, because I likely don’t want to know. Sex is a very small part of existence, so policy should not be built around any sexual orientation. Gay people don’t have a right to molest straight people with audacity and gross behavior in public—then cry foul when people don’t like what they see. When those people utter such, they don’t deserve to be called names and attacked socially by a collective mob to change their behavior under coercion, which is what has been happening in Indiana. At that point gay people lost their sympathy and have simply become bullies. They may have a rainbow inspired aggression—but they are still bullies.

An example of how gays step over the line all too often occurred when I was much younger—I was at a video game arcade using the rest room when a very wiry person came up to the stall next to me. Now it was a big bathroom so there were many other stalls he could have used, instead he stood right next to me. That was problem number one, because I don’t like people too close to me unless there is no other option—and there were options. Then he tried to have a conversation with me, which was mistake number two. I really don’t like to talk to people when using the restroom. I like to get finished as quickly as possible and get out of those places—because they usually smell bad. So I didn’t want to talk to him. Then he tried to look over the divider at my assets, and he was not shy about it. I’m not ashamed of anything there, so that didn’t bother me so long as I’m dealing with a heterosexual. But as it turned out, the guy was gay, and he asked me if he could perform oral sex. That was it. I called him a fag. He called me a hater and grabbed my shoulder to look me in the face as if he had authority to touch me, so I punched him. I heard a pop when my fist hit his face and he went down and stayed there. I stood there for a moment to see if he would move, which he did a little. I finished with my bathroom visit taking extra time to see if the guy would try to engage in conversation—but he didn’t. Instead he stood up, refused to engage in any further conversation not even bothering to wipe the blood from his face in the sink and left. It was a really strange ending to a really uncomfortable trip to the restroom.   He was obviously embarrassed that he ended up on the floor after trying to engage in sexual activity, and left quickly once he could stand again. I expected security to come, but they never did so after waiting around for about 15 minutes, I left never to see that guy again. If that had been today, I would have had an army of PC police there to put my face on the news and the newspapers would have written about it until they ran out of ink—but back then distinctions in such behavior were still judged as something negative—and the sentiment toward change has not enriched our culture. There have been similar incidents over the years, but that was the worst and most obvious—and the question I’ve always had is–why should I have to put up with those people?

Men and women have separate bathrooms for a reason, so that sexual conduct doesn’t get mixed together. But with gay people, there are no barriers, and they defiantly have the advantage because only they really know if they are gay or not. If a guy wants to use the stall next to me in the restroom, my wife has a right to know if some rival for her affection is trying to get a mental picture of her private affairs. If the guy is heterosexual, she doesn’t have a rival, but if he’s gay, she does. This is a problem, as a straight person, I should have a right to use the restroom without sexual advances—and in this modern society—you never know. If you’re endowed, you can’t hide that stuff behind a stall, so the eyes of a gay person can see everything clearly—if they want to. So where are the rights of heterosexuals in this whole discussion over non discrimination—because in order to protect ourselves from sexual advancements, one must make a value judgment against those who clearly are willing to cross the lines of acceptability?

It is baffling to me how critics of the new Indiana law interpreted The Religious Freedom Act. Gay advocates as reported by The Blaze in the following article reflect the lunacy.

MSNBC host Ed Schultz clashed with a conservative guest from the Heritage Foundation Tuesday night over Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law.

The liberal host opened up his show asking Ryan Anderson, “How does this law open it up for blatant discrimination?”

“This law doesn’t open the door for discrimination,” Anderson quipped back. “This is the law that’s been on the federal books … and it governs over 30 states.”

“Wait a minute, that’s not true,” Schultz responded, contending those laws don’t have “the definition of a person connected to a corporation.”

“No, no it does,” Anderson rebutted. “The Supreme Court held just last term that the definition of person in the federal RFRA includes corporate persons.”

“Cut his mic off! Cut his mic off! We’ll bring him back if he wants to be courteous.”

Share:

Schultz disagreed and reiterated his view that the law opens the door open for discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.

“Corporations do have rights!” Anderson said. “The New York Times has free press rights. It goes not just to each reporter, but to the institution. … In the same way, people who form organizations also have their religious liberty rights protected.”

Schultz then asked Anderson if it was the position of the right-wing that business owners should be permitted to tell gay people to “get the hell out” of their restaurants.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/31/msnbcs-ed-schultz-loses-it-on-conservative-guest-over-controversial-indiana-law-cut-his-mic-off/

To make matters even worse, members of the UConn coaching staff are boycotting the Final Four in Indianapolis because of the Religious Freedom Act saying “UConn is a community that values all of our members and treats each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of their background and beliefs, and we will not tolerate any other behavior.” Well, given that they are a progressive institution to begin with, their statement is consistent with the teachings of the progressive movement—but they fail to identify one glaring issue. In order for this whole thing to work—this equality thing, it requires people like me to put up with swanky perverts who want to turn our bathrooms into pick-up joints and to treat them with some level of restraint. If I were to walk into a women’s bathroom undoubtedly there would be quite a stir as woman would likely scramble to cover their private parts from my male eyes. But we are supposed to disregard this restraint in the presence of gays and allow them to view without any feelings of guilt the fruits of our privacy for the benefit of their sexual perversions. The action on their behalf requires nothing. But for someone like me, it requires an abandonment of value and preservation reserved typically between the sanctity of a husband and wife.

If there is a business that typically caters to a religious crowd, don’t they have a right to discriminate against those who might drive away other members of their business who seek refuge in their endeavors? Don’t straight men and women have a right to use the restroom without being eye candy to the deviant—or will UConn protest the term deviant to describe a person who spends too much time thinking about sex? Don’t businesses have a right to sport productive enterprises that might be negatively impacted by a couple of dudes making out in public with pink tights and a hat full of flowers? Of course they would. To argue otherwise is insane. Yet the progressives have done just that and revealed to what extent they wish to impose themselves on society. They want normal people to lower their expectations to the level of the valueless, and to allow themselves to be sacrificed to the mass whims of collectivism. And when faced with such a vile understanding, the conservatives don’t even have the guts to speak out against it—except for Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. He defended the law quite well and you saw what progressive Ed Schultz did—he cut off his microphone.

The only way that gays can win their position is to stop the debate against them with name calling, or break down any moral retribution that might be cast in their direction due to them being entirely too focused on sex instead of higher elements of mental acuity. In both cases they act as a parasitic organism against society at large, and personally, I’m tired of hearing about their feelings. Homosexuals represent between 2% to 10% of the total population depending on the survey source. At best they are asking 90% of the rest of the country to put up with their marketing efforts toward finding more dating options. That’s pretty much what it boils down to. And for the rest of us, particularly me, I’d say we’ve heard enough from them. I’d like to go to the can without worrying about some rainbow princess trying to watch me, and if two drag dressing transvestites want to suck face in a business of mine, I should have a right to toss them out to keep from intruding on the privations of the other customers, and all their kids. At some point enough is enough, and we’re there.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Iranian Obamanation: A socialist apocalypse in the Middle East

So the deadline came and went between Obama’s administration and Iran yet the result essentially was nothing but to talk more. The Obama people lost their momentum well before Bibi came to speak before congress. They lost it when the administration set the deadline in the first place and let those hostile to America—and capitalism in general—know that there was a light at the end of the tunnel on sanctions if they played their cards close to their vest. Meanwhile, many in the streets of Iran chanted, “death to America” as John Kerry tried to spin the situation into something positive. Yet again, the actions of the Obamanation showed just how stupid the President is, and the people around him—how tactfully ignorant they truly are. It is the second time in the course of a week that I have been too embarrassed by President Obama and his team to even utter a criticism, the first was the Bowe Bergdahl situation. It is simply unbelievable that an American president could be so stupid.

Iran has a long history with communism and socialism, in the 1920s it was the Hizb-e Socialysist Party. Into the 50s, 60s and 70s a variety of Marxist groups penetrated Iran and the rest of the Muslim world ranging in the spectrum between Trotskyist to Moaist recruited largely through universities and inciting the working poor against the capitalism of the West. Several generations of Iranians now have been nurtured into a hatred of capitalism because of the long history that Iran has with socialism. They have destroyed their economy nearly completely because of their commitment to socialism. The people of Iran are so under developed that they cannot ever hope to embrace the gifts of the West in their lifetimes—so hatred has seethed there for decades made worse as time has went on. When the United States launched sanctions against Iran it cut off the only hope that common people in the nation could have had for a good life—since internally the socialism of their country destroyed all potential prosperity. Most Iranians would have loved to have the arrangement that communist China has with the United States—because at least there are jobs given to them, but since Iranians are now two generations of sanctions into years of a dismal economic activity they really have nothing left to lose but to lash out at others like parentless children desperate for attention.

Cut off from capitalism, and some resemblance of an honorable living, the Iranian people are stuck fighting among themselves like dogs over scraps of meat—since their economy is so dismal, due to their choices. As a strategy against the world they have nothing to offer the world but a reprieve from violence—because that is what their adherence to socialism has done for them masked behind Islamic faith. To get the attention of the developed countries they have sponsored terrorism, and created anxiety over nuclear weapons to maintain some relevancy on the world stage.

The Obama administration, leaning toward socialism in their own way, is sympathetic to the collectivism efforts of Iran over the capitalist leanings of Israel—and they despise any trace of the West in the Middle East—not so much due to religious differences, but in the differences between a capitalist economy and a socialist one.   They want to lift the sanctions in a similar way as Obama did for communist Cuba—and Iran knows it. So the power in negotiations goes to Iran. America also wants everyone in the Middle East to have equality without the qualifier of a capitalist country or a socialist one using collectivism to destroy commerce. This again gives power to Iran over America. Yet the worst of all is that America has a deadline whereas Iran has all the time in the world. They have absolutely nothing to lose in negotiations with America—whereas Obama wants to make Iran a part of his legacy as President. Of course Iran has the upper hand in such an exchange giving nothing to Obama’s team in the form of leverage. Like insane fools they have rushed to enter negotiations against an adversary that wants to kill all Americans as a collective society.

Choking on ideology and really poor strategy, Obama lost before he ever went to the table against Iran—and they were at least smart enough to realize it. They should have seen what was clear to everyone from the beginning, but they ignored the evidence and chose to view the world with rose-colored glasses and the pipe dreams of typical liberals taught through academia to trust logic to the gods of speculation and wishful thinking. And in Iran, there is nothing to wish for leaving only desperate foes and scandalous bandits seeking with great desperation to get their hands on a nuclear weapon so that they might bomb their way to a loaf of bread, or a used 1970s American car—because in the beginning—they chose socialism over capitalism, and their world is suffering an apocalypse as a result.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Rich Hoffman Hosting WAAM Radio: Matt Clark’s Honeymoon and Hillary’s destruction of evidence

The news is fresh; my friend Matt Clark at WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan is getting married in June 2015, and has asked me to cover for his show while he’s on his honeymoon. Of course I said yes, because I like the station and what they are doing in a part of the country that is typically a blue state. Matt’s show is a shout in the darkness toward entrenched liberalism with their hand firmly on the light switch. Yet Matt does his show each week even though he doesn’t need to financially, just as I do with my blog. The show is an extension of himself in the perpetual fight for freedom. We always have a good time on Matt’s show, which was obvious from the clip shown below where we discussed Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

Several years ago I was offered a similar deal at 700 WLW with Doc Thompson just prior to his own honeymoon, which eventually cost him his job. Not because he asked me to fill in for him, but because the station was preparing behind the scenes to get rid of him. After Doc’s termination I more or less cut my ties to WLW and Clear Channel in Cincinnati including 55 KRC. Some of that led to the controversy the following month—they were as eager to part ways with Doc’s memory as I was of them. The other person I was loyal to at WLW was Darryl Parks, and he was not far behind Doc as far as a termination—the station obviously wanted to go into a different, more moderate direction, which did not fit the scope of my concerns. So I drug my feet with Doc because instinct told me something was wrong. I wasn’t sure what, but it was obvious that something was brewing, so I knew to stay away. I turned out to be more than right—as usual.

I have no such concerns at WAAM and have no problem making a commitment to the station even this far out. It will be fun to fill in for Matt, and I’m sure it will make his honeymoon just a bit sweeter knowing that someone of like mind is taking care of his show while he’s traveling. Like me, Matt does quite well for himself so his radio show is mostly a labor of love for the republic that is America. It means more to him to have the show do what he wants it to do while he embarks on one of life’s great adventures—marriage.

As far as the content of the show we did together about the Hillary emails, his take on it comparing her to The Office was spot on. Obviously she is obstructing justice by destroying evidence and covering up her involvement in the death of people who lost their lives because of her actions—or inaction. Her management of the situation in Benghazi led to the death of people and empowered the terrorists in the region on her watch to grow into the threat it is today. We had some fun with it on talk radio because the only other option is to grow depressed about how far we’ve fallen as a nation where the expectations of people in positions like Secretary of State have become simply a stepping stone to the presidency. The message behind the Hillary emails is that no evidence of incompetence would be allowed to be seen to derail that objective of obtaining the Oval Office. Hillary is the ultimate case of why institutionalism is nearly always a failure when individual responsibility is not nurtured.

Hillary Clinton is such a bad person that she will literally stop at nothing to obtain her personal quest for power and prestige—which is gained from collective enterprise and social acceptance. She’s a disgusting person, and is the reason that people like Matt Clark does a radio show every week. There are bad people in the world, and somebody has to call them out on their treachery and on Matt’s show, it’s a way to do that even if the task might seem like a drop in an ocean of corruption. Calling out the actions of one bad act, or even five during the airtime on WAAM is better than allowing them to go unanswered.

So yes, I’ll enjoy hosting Matt’s show. I’m sure we’ll light some fireworks and fire them off in a way that might be a little different. But I know that Matt wants what I do—and that is to save the Republic one broadcast at a time, one blog post at a time, one speech, or sometimes a whip crack all in the name of justice. The books I write and activities of enterprise I embark on are not necessarily for the immediate gratification of financial security—as I am a productive person, and already have those bases covered. They are for a functioning philosophy for the 22nd century. It will take that long to turn back the wheels of progressivism and get people thinking of a new and better way of maintaining and preserving a free republic with an intellectual aptitude that is required to sustain it for subsequent centuries. America has not yet come to those terms—and neither has mankind for that matter. But it never will so long as people like Hillary hide evidence of their incompetence to fulfill personal ambitions rooted in collectivism. The inept and treacherous find it too easy to hide under the covers of collectivism—which is why they support such things, and are often the loudest voices in favor of progressivism, socialism, and communism.

I will promise one thing, and those who read here every day know full well, I will make it count on the airwaves. It may be for a short time, but I will promise to give people something they haven’t received before—just because that’s my tendency when doing things like this. Otherwise, anybody could fill in for such a spot. Since Matt asked me, I will give him what he’s looking for. And for the listeners of WAAM, they will enjoy it immensely.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why Grover Norquist Lost His Value as a Republican: A battle within the GOP that has to happen

In the debate between Grover Norquist and Glenn Beck the battle for the Republican Party of our modern age is clearly articulate. Beck had Norquist on his television show and did a considerable amount of radio about the ties that the machine political leader had to the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Abdurahman Alamoudi who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Through his Islamic Free Market Institute, Norquist has apparently fancied himself as a kind of insurgent in the Arab world, hoping to spread free market capitalism to the socialist leanings of the Middle East. The trouble is, the Muslim extremists had the same idea and they appear to have come out on top in that battle for the minds of the world. Here is the interview where Norquist came on with Beck to defend his record, and intentions. But as you can see in the subsequent videos dear reader—it is obvious that Norquist—Mr. Republican inside man himself shaping the mind of the party for all to follow—was the one seduced by the sentiments of Muslim radicalism. He likely wasn’t always this way, but in 2004 just a few years into his attempts to convert the Middle East into a capitalist zone, he married Samah Alrayyes a Palestinian Muslim and Kuwaiti PR specialist. After this marriage he appeared to radically support the position of Muslim causes. He wouldn’t be the first man to adopt the views of a woman in exchange for a good bed mate—but when he is advising the entire Republican Party on policy and strategy—it makes him a liability. Watch closely.

This game where Republicans think they can out-wit the loose liberals of political ideology is a failed tactic. The typical liberal has very little personal conscience and view themselves as part of a collective whole, so they tend not to take personal responsibility for their actions. In the extreme, this is why they are willing to blow themselves up as terrorists. In the norm, they will lie to your face because they have no sense of personal responsibility—rather they focus on collective salvation. Norquist I believe thought he was smarter than his political opponents, and that he could get the White House to support his actions as a change agent in the Middle East. But he fell in love with a Palestinian woman and began to soften his position. From there his enemies, the people he was trying to convert, used him as a platform of insurrection from the inside out. In the battle Norquist tried to wage in the Middle East, it was he who lost and it likely started in his bed.

As much as Republicans like Norquist try to utter the conservatism of their actor president Ronald Reagan, they discover quickly that they are too easily led astray under pressure. I have a lot of personal experience with this from my own community, which contains some of the strongest Republican elements in the United States. I have been invited into their inner circle, but I keep my distance because they lack conviction. They don’t stick to their principles as stringently as I require and are too in love with the power of their position instead of the essence of their political philosophy.

Norquist as much as the political left wishes him to be the face of extremism for his desires toward tax reform and smaller government is a dangerous moderate because of his softness on issues of conservatism when the rubber hits the road. Clearly his marriage to Samah Alrayyes was a turning point for him, which led to likely a prolonged war in Iraq because of Norquist’s proximity to President Bush. The strategy formed by the Republican Party through Norquist and Karl Rove was one that favored his bed mate, and not the hard lined conservatives from Kansas—which is a polite way to put it.

Norquist likely has more in common with Bob Bergdahl today than he ever would Ronald Reagan. As Bowe Bergdahl defected to the Taliban his father who encouraged the behavior tried to justify the issue by growing his beard and reconciling with the enemy. The Taliban had his boy—because of his bad advice, and he tried to reconcile the situation with appeasement. Norquist as a power broker and social climber went to the Middle East hoping to convert them to western ideology—but once there he saw that many on the other side were just like he was—social climbers looking for power. Instead of using political parties to control people and money, they used religion—so they found common ground. He married one of their women and began to soften his position against them. But, all along, because the radical Muslims in question identify themselves with collective salvation, they were able to easily outwit the Republican Party, and they already had domestic penetration ideologically in the Democratic Party—so their influence spread in North America instead of the way Norquist originally intended. His plan backfired.

I’m sure Samah Alrayyes is a nice lady—people tend to become friends and lovers with people who they share some things in common—whether it is a love of power, prestige, or a breakfast ritual. When a man decides to put a ring on the finger of a woman, it is usually not just so that he can have sex with her, it’s so that he can share other parts of his life with a spouse. But a man is crazy to think that a woman won’t have an influence on him once she’s in his daily life. That’s usually not a problem so long as the man isn’t trying to sell himself as the savior of the Republican Party while trying to bring peace to the Middle East with the kind of mind games that belong on day time soup operas. At that point a line was crossed that Norquist cannot return from. He blew his credibility and his years of fighting for conservative causes because he fell for the exotic appeal of a foreign culture.

It is one thing to respect a culture and its people—to even be friendly to them. There are a lot of people who I like from different cultures—some of them come from communist backgrounds and I try to help them see the wonders and joys of capitalism because I want to see them improve their lives. But, I have to maintain my emotional distance from those people because they think differently. If I feel I cannot convert them over to a right way of thinking according to my viewpoint, I don’t bang wine glasses with them. I drop them like a dirty rag before they get too close. It looks like that’s what Norquist should have done in 2002 and 2003—but he didn’t. He might make a nice husband and friend to the Arab world but a leader in the Republican Party he has forfeited. Conservatives like me aren’t going to put up with it. So we are having this ideological battle now because we are between major elections.

The left may enjoy the spectacle because they don’t fight each other—they assimilate toward the same collective ideology easily. But to me they also aren’t relevant to the debate. Republicans have to stand for something or they will be like Grover Norquist—full of a lot of tough talk, but soft in their core and easily swayed by skirts and lobbyists because their real love is not the ideology or philosophy of conservatives, its in the power they wield as beltway insiders. I don’t think Norquist is a bad person, or even had bad intentions. But he’s weak at his core and has allowed himself to be a carrier of Muslim radicalism into the roots of American politics and that means people like him have to be shoved aside for more conservative representatives less in love with power, and more in love with conservative philosophy.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Rich Hoffman on Matt Clark’s WAAM Radio Show: Why Ted Cruz is considered a radical

I was on with Matt Clark’s WAAM radio show over the weekend covering the Ted Cruz presidential candidacy when a topic of some importance came up—the reason why he specifically is considered an extreme and dangerous radical. This was a topic I have personal familiarity with as those types of terms have been thrown in my direction as well—so I have a clear understanding of why members of the left, center and even the political right cast those aspersions in the direction of their foes. Matt and I talked a bit about these issues in the following clip.

Speaking from personal experience, and I imagine Ted Cruz went through this in a much grander fashion, I remember when I first started this blog and why. I had come out openly against a new tax increase in my school district and the union thugs instantly targeted me with name calling and searched deep into my closet looking for skeletons they could use against me—to keep my mouth shut. That made me very angry. I have dealt with much worse in regards to evil people before, but it was clear to me why they were doing what they were doing and I had to imagine how many like me were forced into silence with such terror tactics. I was in a unique position, as a bullwhip handler and long time Wild West enthusiast with a martial art background I am uniquely suited to deal with personal threats to my safety and those of my family. I didn’t have to worry about personal violence against me. I am also not a social climber in a community fashion or in a career—so I don’t worry an ounce in what people think of me. But more than anything I have lived a life consistent with my utterances and I have a long history going back to my earliest childhood memories of standing up to bullies, fighting on the side of a well-defined, “good,” and being uniquely bold in my proclamations. At the time just before this blog I considered that I was likely one of the few people in America who didn’t have skeletons in his past that he was ashamed of—there were no stories of whores from wild weekends in Vegas, no drugs from my past, no personalities who would emerge to call me a hypocrite—I have always been what I am, and was always extremely proud of it. I have been consistent in my beliefs from the time of my first memory to the present. The conclusion was that the battle before us was worth fighting and I was qualified, so it was my responsibility to embark on the journey.

This position is important because much of what the political left does to disarm those who threaten them is apply guilt as a tactical move to shake off their opposition. All of their Saul Alinsky tactics center around using guilt as a weapon of perpetuity constantly moving the bar of righteousness further toward their tactical objectives—which have largely been shaped by a Karl Marx philosophy. The way to beat them, and to do so badly, is to force them to fight people who don’t feel guilt and are immune to their tactics and thus force them to answer questions that they can’t—because their entire premise is one built on emotion. If their opponent does not feel guilt and cannot be moved off their position, the left and center political radicals lose a lot of their tactical advantage.

That has largely been my story and the essence behind Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, the blog I have written for over five years now—every day.   I know from experience that there isn’t a single person on the left, or middle who can match my efforts and I use my ability and position like a sledge-hammer against them day after day gradually pulling the mind of America back to the right—where it has always belonged.

At the start of the above radio show I joked a bit with Matt that I was politically to the right of Ted Cruz—that the new presidential candidate is likely too far to the left for my liking. The joke is that Cruz is clearly one of the most conservative right leaning candidates running for president in 2016. However, in reality, I am likely quite a bit further to the right fiscally and socially than Ted Cruz is—and I don’t consider myself a right-winged extremist by any means. Many on the left have tried to paint people like myself as part of the Nazi wing of fascism—which is simply laughable. Hitler was a socialist—and I am the complete antithesis to people like him. I am probably one of the least fascist people currently on earth. Such a definition doesn’t even meet a unit of measure on my political spectrum because such a position is still way too far to the left for me. I don’t want to control anybody. By default, because I’m a responsible person, I do have a lot of people who look to me for means—but there is never a day where I take joy and contemplate how I might leverage them to my advantage so that I might massage some intellectual desire to rule over others.   So the typical left-winged definition of the extreme right-winger is completely wrong and does not apply to me in any way. And I know that they don’t have an answer for it, which is why there aren’t more comments on my pages—because I can put up millions of words of opinions and thoughts about a great many subjects and they can’t answer to any of them. They can only ignore you and hope you go away.

Ted Cruz likely is a similar personality and he had to make the decision before entering the senate if he wanted to even play this game with the left. He appears to have went through the same process I did and decided that he was a personality that could handle the scrutiny, would not be subject to the bribes and deals from K-Street, and would be poised to stand in the fire like a block of ice and not melt under the heat. The big fear from the left about Cruz, as well as the right, is that they will have a hard time matching up to him. Cruz brings to the field of candidates a difficult match up for which the left does not have—a person who can function without an ounce of guilt and is therefore immune to the Saul Alinsky style attacks.

As an added bonus Ted Cruz was a champion debater at Harvard and may well be one of the most capable minds currently in the world who can go toe to toe with anybody on any rhetorical argument—including the slickest beltway lawyers. Ted Cruz will likely give thousands of interviews over the next two years and will have very few gaffs.  His confidence alone will win voters who either didn’t vote in previous elections or convert those who are on the fence.

In the Matt Clark interview I brought up my experience with the Ross Perot campaign from many years ago—in 1992. I had been deep in that campaign and learned a lot about politics during that time of my life. I was on Fountain Square in downtown Cincinnati passing out literature for Perot when most people came up to me and showed an interest but stated that he didn’t have a chance of getting elected—so why vote for him. The problem was that if everyone who wanted to vote for him actually did, Perot would have been president instead of Bill Clinton and the disasters of the next century would have likely been averted. But people didn’t vote for Perot, and they received eight years of the Clintons, another eight years of the moderate Bush family, then eight years of a socialist oriented Barack Obama—and now an America going over a fiscal cliff as a result. All that damage could have been avoided by voting for Ross Perot who wasn’t even as well positioned as Ted Cruz is now.

Perot was a candidate who likely went through the same process I went through and undoubtedly Cruz underwent as well—which is why it took him so long to announce his candidacy which ultimately hurt him down the stretch. Perot was able to tear up Clinton and Bush in the debates because he was functioning without guilt and that made him very dangerous to the established powers. Cruz is a better candidate than Perot in every capacity—so this should be exciting. What will get accomplished are things that must be addressed. There is no option at this point; America needs a presidential race that battles out the philosophy of good and evil once and for all. And for that fight, Ted Cruz is uniquely poised. It will be an exciting two years for sure to watch the left and political moderates scramble to hold their positions without the weapon of guilt at their disposal. My prediction is that like this blog, they won’t be able to do it—leaving Cruz to always be the last man standing in an argument. That is not a way that the establishment can hold onto power. And they know it—and they are genuinely terrified—as they should be.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Obamanation: Just too embarrassing to discuss

I don’t like Obama, I think as a president he’s an idiot, and he’s at best one of the worst things that’s ever happened to America. But today I actually feel sorry for him. It would be terrible to live in his shoes, to have such an intellect that has led to so much destruction—and to be solely responsible for it. What a mess his presidency is—its not even dignified enough to have a closure as Nixon did—with a resignation ahead of impeachment. Obama’s time in the White House is such a miserable failure that it can’t even end with dishonor and an apology. He is so bad that such things wouldn’t even help.

“Was it worth it?”

That’s the first question Fox News host Megan Kelly posed to State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Wednesday night, several hours after the U.S. Army announced they were charging Bowe Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The Obama administration released five Taliban commanders to free the former Army sergeant from captivity last year.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/megyn-kelly-gets-tough-with-state-dept-spokeswoman-on-bergdahl-swap-was-it-worth-it/

I hate to say it, but I reported on all this in 2014 when Obama brought the Bergdahl family to the Rose Garden for a press conference as if his actions in releasing a very controversial figure would give him a chance to wipe his hand across the ass of the deserter’s mother and allow the father to show the radical roots of their son through his speech. Obama stood by and smiled a knowing smile looking fully supportive of the misunderstood terrorist of the Taliban as Bob Bergdahl spoke Pashto–as if the Bergdahl family represented the future fate of all Americans—soon to buckle under the weight of Stockholm syndrome complete with a Taliban beard and worship of Allah from the White House. Obama had just made plans to release 5 terrorists for a deserter and had the parents of the weak-kneed solider thank the god of the terrorists in front of millions of people. Somehow Obama calculated that his Saul Alinsky tricks would wipe the minds of America so that they wouldn’t see what he was doing.

It took the army most of a year to release their findings but finally they had to agree that Bowe Bergdahl was in fact a deserter and had actually caused the death of American soldiers trying to retrieve him from his defection to the Taliban. There was no way for them to spin the situation in the White House but Jen Psaki tried—but to no avail. What was she thinking even going on the Kelly File to try to spin the story? As I watched I couldn’t help but feel sorry for her—as all her words would go down in history and never be forgotten. Even worse was the thought that Obama himself was watching and hoping for a half court miracle shot by Jen to turn the tide against public opinion. But she only dug the Obamanation deeper into the quandary of failure.

It was ugly. So ugly, I can’t even write any more about it. I’ve said all this before, and as usual, I was more right than I wanted to be. But even as much as I despise Barack Obama as an American president, I don’t hate anybody that much—to watch them make such complete idiots of themselves—the failure of the White House is complete. And they have nobody to blame on earth but themselves—and that is the worst punishment for their crimes imaginable, because it will be stuck to all of them for the rest of their lives. This Bergdahl situation is simply that bad. It is embarrassing, insulting, and deeply revealing all in a single action. And it is a story that will have legs for a long time, and go down in history books for centuries.

Even worse look who is defending people like Bob Bergdahl. Here is a quote from the extremely liberal New Yorker.

“Imagine that you have a child, a wanderer by nature, who gets caught up in a war that has persisted aimlessly for many years; his roaming has festered into a chronic pathology for which there is no known cure. Then imagine that the child, who had hoped to help make a change for the better, becomes so disillusioned that he or she decides that there is no choice but to just walk away into unknown territory. If that were your child, what would you do?”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bob-bergdahl-good-father

Clearly, Bob and his wife started the process of imbedding in the young Bowe the type of weakness that made him a deserter. For that family, as bad as the embarrassment is for Obama—it will be worse. What a mess!

These are just embarrassing human beings.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Cincinnati Tablet: B.L. Freeborn’s answer in mathmatics

One of the great miracles of our day, as I have stated often is the decentralization of intellectual aptitude. Although it’s nice if sound science comes from some intellectual at Harvard or Oxford, it’s no longer necessary. In fact, most of the time it’s a handicap because most colleges teach to an agenda shaped by the political currents of our day—which is not the way college was ever envisioned. It is however a grim reality. So not having to move through gate keepers in the industry any longer–adventurers, scientists and armchair archaeologists are now able to behave as fortune hunters did at the turn of the last century—with open ability not limited by anything but their personal dedication and imagination. On the downside the quality of presentations and research typically go down, but on the upside, the proposals of theory driven by imagination have increased dramatically. This is certainly the case for B.L. Freeborn who wrote a very interesting book, The Deep Mystery: The Day the Pole Moved.

Even though the book has the obvious sign of self-publishing—lacking the fine finish of a good editor, there is a genius to it that is worth noting. I would say that B.L. Freeborn is functioning from intelligence that few have the sentiment for— brilliance in the beauty and patterns of numbers. Freeborn sees patterns in numbers that might be purely speculative, or formed around a mythology of his choosing just because of his sheer mastery of them. It is probable that some of his assumptions are incorrect. Likely, with some of his proposals, perhaps only 15 to 20% could be assumed as a likely theory backed by scientific evidence. That does not mean that everything he says should be discounted just because his average is not 100%. Unfortunately, his competition, the orthodox science of the university system is reluctant to discuss 15% of a truth surrounding a theory because they are not motivated to extend themselves beyond the previous claims of the establishment without 100% of the truth being confirmed. Because of the way science is often funded—through grants and donations—it is unlikely that any university would desire to reverse a previous opinion such as what is demanded by the obscure relic found in Cincinnati, Ohio called The Cincinnati Tablet—which is on display at the Museum Center just a few miles to the west of its discovery location.

Few know it today but in the location of the current Fountain Square area within the city was a gigantic burial mound common to Ohio. It was part of the massive and mysterious mound building culture so prominent in the area typically attributed to the Adena Indians. Before one building was ever erected upon the founding of the Queen City, the mound was there and excavated around the middle of the 1800s and within it was found parts of a skeleton and The Cincinnati Tablet. The Tablet was very intricate for a hunter and gatherer culture leaving many to speculate that it was a hoax. However, time has declared that there is something more to it, and if it is added to the many other discoveries from the Mound Builders emerging it appears that the culture that made The Cincinnati Tablet was part of a vast society with very intricate and advanced mathematics. B.L. Freeborn is one of many new age archaeology enthusiasts who commit vast amounts of time and energy to uncovering the past with new tools available to them. They often don’t get paid, they occasionally write a few self-published books that sell a copy or two, and spend most of their time in obscurity digesting vast amounts of information trying to puzzle through the mysteries left behind by a historical record that was carelessly erased through institutional arrogance. At first cities were built and archaeology was destroyed without any real desire to understand the cultures that came before—because that was the way that things were done prior to the 20th century—mainly for religious preservation. The religions of previous cultures were destroyed to enable a new cult to hold the minds of their societies—sort of like what ISIS is currently doing with Christianity. When a city like Cincinnati was erected, or Lexington for that matter—which has been built on the remains of an entire ancient city—settlers didn’t look at relics like The Cincinnati Tablet and declare themselves to solving the riddles of the forgotten culture. Typically they donated the findings to a museum or historic society for others to figure out—and if the relics were really, really lucky—like The Cincinnati Tablet is, it ended up in the dark corner of a nice museum like the one at Union Terminal. Typical professionals in academia would take such a find and attribute it to their published findings on the Adena culture. In the case of The Cincinnati Tablet, mounds had been associated as strictly burial mounds built by the Adena and Hopewll Indians and any further inquiry might cost grant money for further research. So it was much easier for archaeologists and anthropologists to consider the case closed, and head to the next charity event sponsored by their funding structure.

People like B.L. Freeborn aren’t motivated by any of those concerns so most of their energy goes directly into solving the puzzles. And one thing is clear about Freeborn, he has put a lot of thought into The Cincinnati Tablet—and similar archaeological discoveries. His theories are as good as anybody’s and in my opinion better. Much of what he declares below I would consider a reach—but he presents a strong enough case to indicate that he’s on the right path. The only way to really understand history when so much of it has been erased and destroyed by politics and religion is to turn toward mythology and decode what the past has to tell us. And with that, B.L. Freeborn has a marvelous theory that deserves attention. As a reminder, this tablet can be seen in the Cincinnati Museum Center currently and indicates that there was much more to the people who lived in North America than anyone previous accepted.

  1. L. Freeborn’s report on The Cincinnati Tablet and understanding the forgotten culture that made it—click the link at the end to learn more.

If they understood longitude and latitude they should have understood where they were. The longitude and latitude of Cincinnati at the location where the tablet was found is North 39 degrees 6′, West 84 degrees 32′. The sum 39 + 84 is 123. The sum of 32 + 6 = 38. Twice 38 is 76. The sum of the longitude and latitude values of nearby Milford where several complex mounds were built is 123.45. The sum at Fort Ancient is 123.5. The location of the Great Serpent Mound is 83 degrees 25′ 48″ W, 39 degrees 1’31” N and the location of the Newark Earthworks is 82 degrees 25′ 50″ W, 40 degrees 2′ 26″. This is exactly one degree of longitude apart. The location of the Seip Mounds is 83 degrees and zero minutes west and 39 degrees 22′ N. The sum of these two numbers is 122 and 22. Beyond coincidence?

Since we have begun counting we shall continue. Prominently at the top 7 spaces are marked out (or 8 lines). At the bottom there are 6 spaces (or 7 lines). This creates the number 76 and as noted in previous posts, it suggests the period of Halley’s Comet which is 76 to 77 years. This confirms the topic is about comets. Combine the numbers as 77 and obtain another reference to the comet. Combine them as 86 and obtain a reference to the diameter of the Sun (864,000 miles). Combine them as 78 and obtain the diameter of Earth through the pole (7899 miles). Sum the 6, 7, 7 and 8 and obtain 28 or half of 56.

Even more eloquent, notice that there are actually 9 spaces at the top but only 7 within the hash marks and 2 outside. Create 792 easily from them and compare this to the diameter of the planet at 7920 miles. Similarly, count the bottom as 8, 6 and 2 or create 862 which reminds one of the diameter of the Sun

The very edge of the top and bottom are scored with small marks. J. Ralston Skinner counted the marks and reported them in his 1885-1886 report on this stone. He noted 24 spaces/ 25 hash marks on the top and 23 spaces/ 24 hash marks on the bottom. The sum of these numbers is 96 and the average is 24. There are 24 hours in a day. The top has 23 spaces. There are 23.934 hours in a sidereal day. Combining 23 and 96 obtain 23.96 or very nearly this number.

 

Count out the dots. There are 16. The Earth travels 1.6 million miles in a day. There are 2 bars. The 2 and 16 combined creates 216. The diameter of the Moon is 2160 miles.

There are 8 dots in the upper third. There are 6 dots in the middle third. There are 4 dots in the center. There are 2 dots at the bottom. This creates the series 8642 or it refers to the diameter of the Sun at 864,336 miles.

The upper third has 3 dots left and right and 2 in the center. From the center out then is found 23. Reversing it is 32. The Arctic Circle ends at 23 degrees and 30 seconds. The tilt of the planet is this same value. The square of 5.65 is 32.

The center third provides 222. A square of sides 2222 has a diagonal equal to the constant pi (3.14) times 1000. The sum of 22 and 22 is 44. Divide the circumference of the planet by 44 and obtain 565 miles. Forty-four is found in the center bar as well. Count the 4 dots and notice there are 4 bump outs. Recall also a square with sides of 4 has a diagonal of 5.65.

The dots on each side number 6 which creates 66. The velocity of the planet is 66,600 miles per hour. In the center there are 4 dots. Below this is the one dot in the negative. This creates the number 5. Combine this with the 6 on each side and obtain 56 once again. Or count it out as 1 and 4 which reminds us of the fingers in the Gaitskill Clay Tablet. Combine them and create 14 and then recall there are 4 bumps in the center. 4 x 14 is 56.

The exterior dimensions of the stone and its shape provide numbers that appear familiar. It was measured in 1885 by Skinner to be 3.00″ x 5.00″ x 5/8 inch thick. The width of the narrow middle is 2.5 inches. The sum of these three numbers is 3 + 5 + .625 or 8.625 which recalls the diameter of the Sun. The diagonal of the piece is 5.831 inches. The distance Earth travels in a year is 584 million miles. The thickness expressed as 5/8 repeats this value. The circumference of the piece is 16. The Earth travels 1.6 million miles in a day.

The curved portion on each side recalls the idea of a crater. They are 4.5 inches across and .25 inches deep. The area of the curve on each side is .563 inches. The ratio of the narrow width to the length is 2.5 to 5 or .5. The ratio of the width to the length is 3 to 5 or .6. The ratios are .5 and .6 or a reminder of 56 once again.

 

2014 B. L. Freeborn

 

http://noahsage.com/2015/01/17/the-adena-tablets-of-ancient-ohio-the-cincinnati-tablet/

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.