Tag: drug cartels

Dueling Needs to Make a Comeback: The American tiger in a cage being poked by “social justice warriors”

Anyone can see what the root cause of the problem witnessed in the following Alex Jones video was.  In it there was a group of people that we might call, “social justice warriors” who have grown up in a society deliberately softened to allow for their rise by a political class hell-bent on staying in power—no matter what.  These kids, and the adults that they will grow into, have been empowered by essentially removing the ramifications of their lunacy—the consequences of their personal assault against individual liberty.  The blame clearly falls on our global education system and the forces which gathered to perpetuate their stated curriculum. It has made me realize that a practice long forgotten for its perceived barbarity needs to be dusted off and inserted back into our American culture—the gentlemanly practice of dueling.  As radical as that may sound, we must find some version of it to emerge in this modern century otherwise we won’t make it into more advanced stages. To see why, watch this video then all of the following for substantiation.

A version of dueling still existed in the Old West as towns erupted across the vast frontier of North America guided by flimsy laws enforced by even flimsier sheriffs.  I practice that type of dueling nearly every day with a group I’m involved in called the Cowboy Fast Draw Association.  A friend of mine made a comment that I was thinking of while shooting that day and it was, “if dueling made a comeback, people these days would be a whole lot less offended.”  That’s when I thought of those snot-nosed, liberalized socialist losers in that Alex Jones video.  What was missing from their lives was the respect that comes from asserting an insult at individual integrity.  What those kids have been taught in that video—and anywhere these days that “socialist justice warriors” gather under storm clouds of collective effort—is ramifications for their individual mistakes.

The duel as it was inherited from Europe was widely practiced within the United States for quite a number of years by our early presidents and was a declaration of individual honor.  In that society from which our Constitution was written, an individual’s honor was required to have a civil society.  If some rogue threatened that sanctity then ramifications just outside the grip of the law were required to keep the peace and maintain an orderly society.  We all know about the famous Alexander Hamilton duel with Aaron Burr—which I think about quite a lot.  I was born in the Ohio city directly named after Hamilton who lost his duel with Burr and died.  I also think of President Jackson a lot when I think about duels and the kind of attitude which formed the country of America.  Dueling and honor went hand-in-hand which provided a foundation for our laws.

When I was growing up the Department of Education had just been enacted, so they didn’t have time to drive this trend out of our culture.  Even one hundred years after the Wild West, dueling was still a common practice among kids in my school of Lakota in Liberty Township, Ohio which was essentially settled by war heroes of the Revolutionary War.  When something which insulted individual honor fell outside the established law of the school or the society outside which controlled it, boys would settle the issue with a fight after school—which I found myself in a lot.  Failure to show up to one of these fights would lead to extreme scorn and a loss of respect up the pecking order of male influence among both sexes.  If you were challenged to one of these fights, you didn’t fail to show up.  I always did, and most of the time, just as it was when the dueling action was pistols—handshakes and respect were given out and sometimes friendships were forged.  People respect courage and when two people faced down each other over a dispute that couldn’t be legally worked out by putting a hand on the Bible and letting God sort through the details—individualized respect was the only real option which bound our society together.

Think about it, when you are in the grocery check-out, what keeps you from belting the person in front of you in the head and taking their place in line—is it fear of the law—of being arrested for assault?  Perhaps for most, that is their first reaction—but these days people have a lot less respect for the law as police officers and their methods of control have come into question.  So what is the next layer of defense which prevents you from acting—you look the person over and decide that you could physically overpower them and take their place in line.  What keeps you from doing it?  Essentially, fear…………….fear of what that person might do if you challenged them in some way.  If you push them they might turn around and clobber you, or they might have a gun and shoot you.  That threat forces you to respect their individual boundaries at a primal level which then paves the way for respect at the legal level.  Without a foundation of respect for individual integrity, no laws in any land can have real influence.

And that is the primary issue, public schools are in the business now of teaching collective rights, not individual ones.  As seen in that video, the Donald Trump supporters represented individual values whereas the social justice warriors represented collective values—and our society has put its priorities on the collective effort over the individual ones and that’s how we find ourselves in this current mess.  Those social justice warriors have no fear of individual retribution so they are free to attack anything, anywhere over anything.  They have grown up lacking respect for individual property or sanctity and are acting on behalf of collective efforts for achievements which extend beyond their personal gains.  The way to fix that whole problem is by empowering the individuals to defend their positions with actual respect–and unfortunately that means with all human beings—an imminent fear of being removed from the face of the earth so that a proper dialogue between two parties can emerge.

Years ago I was with a group that was buying a mechanical bull for a nightclub I was involved with and we were at one of those honkytonks to see it in action.  I had on my customary cowboy hat as I have since I was a little kid and I was standing in front of a couple of guys at the bar who were obviously drunk and looking for a quick ego boost to their reputations.  As I watched people ride the bull in question I felt something rub against the brim of my hat from behind, so I turned quickly and saw the hand of some sappy looking bastard removing his hand quickly hoping that he wouldn’t be caught.  Of course I confronted him angrily and I told him that if he did it again I’d beat the rat piss out of him.  He and his friend were two tobacco chewing rednecks who thought they were more authentic than me, and they didn’t need to wear hats to country bars—which essentially was what they told me.  My response was to take them outside and show them that they weren’t “shit,” both of them.  Of course they headed for the door to protect their honor as they were with women who were both at the bar urging them not to fight.  When we got outside they saw the anger on my face and realized that the fight was not going to go well for either of them.  A bouncer stood on the porch and watched, letting things play out respectfully.  Suddenly the two guys apologized for touching my hat and they were quick to want to make friends.  I accepted and we returned inside where they bought me a beer and were nice to me for the rest of the evening.  Their dates were grateful and everyone had a pretty good time the rest of the night.  When I left they even went out of their way to say goodbye and shake my hand.

Protests are getting out of control in our country as socialists, communists, and various anarchists raised in our public education system to not respect private property, personal integrity, or any level of valor have no fear of the law or the individual integrity for which laws were written to protect—and honestly, they need their asses kicked.  They are the result of what happens when you don’t retaliate for someone touching your hat, or insulting your personal name in a newspaper.  Without that basic respect for other human beings, there is no society to build from and everything plunges into chaos, which is exactly the goal of liberalized social justice warriors.  They aren’t warriors at all, only instigators who don’t expect to be punched back in the mouth once they’ve leveled their insults.  We live in a society now where they can touch my hat yet don’t expect to be punched in the mouth for it.  Once you do, they want to retreat to the law to settle their honor—which is essentially what has been happening at Trump rallies.  The society which created these losers doesn’t want to acknowledge that individual liberty is the key to holding all of society together.  They want to believe that it is the acceptance that the tapestry of a global society brings that will garner respect for each other—and they are miserably failing in their psychological assessment.  Just because they have de-clawed a tiger and removed its teeth, and even castrated it of its aggression, a tiger is still a tiger.  You can’t put a bunch of snot-nosed communists into a cage with it and let them poke it with a stick and not expect the tiger to attack those idiots.  At some point the individual temper of the tiger will break through the social constraints placed upon it.  And in many ways, there are a lot of people in this country who have been treated as such, castrated intellectually, and tied up individually to make the collective masses feel equal.  This has given rise to a period in our history where just about everyone is offended at something that somebody else says and that is leading us to a disaster—legally.  But, if the practice of dueling were to make an official comeback, and even become legalized again as it once was—then people these days would be a whole lot less offended, so easily.  And then, we might just find a way to work together toward achievements that require teamwork. First however, a respect for other individuals must be established, and that only occurs when acknowledgement of those other people is based on a foundation of integrity.  That is what the old duels established and that necessity is every bit as strong today as it was 300 years ago.  Only now we see what happens when we outlaw the mechanisms for achieving that respect—we have a mad, runaway society full of losers, imbeciles, and malcontents.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

The World War Against Donald Trump: What we can learn from Ferris Bueller

It is quite stunning that more people don’t understand what Donald Trump is to the Republican nomination for President of the United States.  Some of what I am about to say will require some additional information and review, so CLICK HERE for the start of that understanding, as well as all of the following hotlinks for further substantiation.  The typical run for POTUS has established in the American electorate certain memorized hot points largely shaped by the media and the political class to always protect themselves from outside insurgents.  Was I concerned that Donald Trump didn’t know the three primary functions of government with an answer “security, security, security” then further created a problem for himself by declaring that healthcare and education were the next priorities?  No, I wasn’t.  He gave a typical response of the everyday American who really hasn’t been a part of the political establishment—and has thrown money at politicians his whole life to purchase what he needs to get done to ensure his success.  He gave a slightly better answer than the average businessman hanging out on a golf course.  Does that make him out-of-touch?  To people who spend their whole lives studying constitutional law, worshipping the integrity of past presidents like a king, and insisting on having a POTUS that rivals some European royalty—Donald Trump is a nightmare of bumbling irrational statements.  But what I see is a down to earth guy who gets most of his information about the world the way the average cab driver does—and he’s clearly grounded—remarkably, untouched by pretension by being a “political insider.” To me, the weaknesses he is coming under fire for are his strengths. I want to see someone totally different in the POTUS role—and I want private sector influence instead of political experience. I want competent people managing the government, not a political class.

What Trump has that nobody else does is the ability to hire better people than him for a job, which is how he’s made most of his money.  He has raw instincts about people who gives him tremendous leverage over someone like Ted Cruz.  Cruz would be someone who Trump would hire for a staff position, but Cruz would never be in a position to identify and establish a similar criterion.  Trump hires people, listens to them, and then formulates his objectives—so he doesn’t need to know all the details. He pays other people to do that.  His job at the front of the train is to make important decisions at the proper time with the courage to actually do it.  The current political order is stuck in a “static pattern” of what is considered normal behavior whereas Trump is mostly a “dynamic influence.”  His very presence is changing the entire way that politics is run and those profiting off that “static pattern” are justifiably terrified of it—so they are throwing everything they have at Trump trying to drag him into their “static pattern” value system.  Those static patterns consist of very rigid party guidelines on both sides—for Republicans, a calculated approach to abortion, a party established position on Israel, taxation, and healthcare.  Essentially, the beliefs of the typical Republican candidate are formulated by the party instead of the actual beliefs of the candidate.  Trump jumps into things, tests the water, listens to people then figures out what will work without thinking about any group affiliation.  He is not prone to group assimilation which makes him far superior to any other offering.

The political establishment expects its presidential candidates to adopt a “static” position that they can then build a party around.  Trump is so “dynamic” that things could change in a moment’s notice.  Anybody who has witnessed any success in their life understands that one of the biggest attributes of success is a dynamic presence that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and formulate them toward the original objectives.  Politicians often can recite all the party positions but are statically welded to Capitol Hill politics and can seldom ever do anything that they promised on a campaign trail.  So Trump figures, why waste time on things that might change completely within a year from now.  It’s a pointless exercise.  He knows what we need to do, and he has a track record of success—and he will find the right combination of resources to implement it.  Genius can’t yet be plotted on a chart and no college has figured out how to teach it—so Donald Trump is something completely outside of their static understanding.  That certainly isn’t his fault—it is the failure of the static system that we have all become addicted to.

That static system now to protect itself is looking at the statistics and noticing that there are a lot of people lacking a college degree that support Donald Trump and those same stats are not prevalent with other candidates.    College trained people have a tendency to support static patterns because after four critical years in college learning what those patterns are right after high school, from the ages of 18 to 22—the final nail in the coffin for a lot of people is placed toward all future dynamic influences.  I have been to college, my wife has to—I even spent a few years living on a college campus—and let me tell you dear reader, I hated it—because I am by nature a very dynamic personality.  I relate to Trump because of that dynamism.  To put it in terms that average people can understand think of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which is a popular 80s film featuring Mathew Broderick, that most everyone understands.  Ferris was an example of an extremely “dynamic” personality and he would likely grow up to become like a real life Donald Trump if he were allowed to be free enough to survive the static systems  that imposed its will upon him.  When I was a teenager, I was very much like the character of Ferris Bueller in that movie and I did impulsive things like he did all the time—and I always managed to come out on top no matter how dire the situation.  People loved and hated Ferris Bueller for all the reasons that they love and hate Donald Trump.  He doesn’t always know how or why something will work, Trump simply wakes up in the morning meaning to achieve success in whatever it is and he uses his dynamic personality to overtake whatever static imposition is in front of him.

So the reason that the people who lack college degrees—or those who live in rural areas support Trump is because they have not been conquered yet by the static pattern progressivism that has been imposed on college graduates and the urban settings which often force people to concede their natural desire for individual integrity.  Nothing about Trump fits well into a debate format or the media driven talking points.  He is best when he is clashing with static patterns with great dynamic authority and bravado.  Trump has slipped a bit lately in the polling because he was trying to fit his personality to the static pattern of the Republican Party—as the head of it.  He backed off the thrusters to show that he can be more “conciliatory.” But he shouldn’t, he needs to just do his thing and stay as dynamic and unpredictable as possible.  If Cruz wants a debate, Trump should accept the challenge but to demand that it be done on ground he controls, such as Trump Tower’s lobby in New York.  That way Cruz couldn’t say that Trump is chicken when in fact all Trump is concerned with is being pulled into the senseless static pattern of Cruz and the Republican Party which has actually given us all these problems. Cruz is a great debater, but his key weakness is that if he can be taken off his “Holy Roller” persona and beaten into submission with sheer force—especially in the surroundings of a person who has had actual success in life–Cruz could be embarrassed beyond recovery.  The press conference with Carly and Cruz over the sex scandal showed a major weakness in the Cruz façade which will be exploited sooner or later.

But the trouble between Trump and everyone else is not that the billionaire is “stupid” or his supporters.  It’s just that we know that Trump is a needed injection of dynamic persona that is desperately needed in our political system.  Just as I’m hoping that Warren Davidson, my new congressman holds to his values when he gets to Capitol Hill, I have watched all this before and am always disappointed by the results.  I stood shoulder to shoulder as a major supporter of Rob Portman when he ran for office.   I knew him as a normal guy that would go out to eat with me after a debate.  He blew it after years in Washington.  And John Kasich went from a Tea Party darling to a softer version of Hillary Clinton.  He is a major letdown.  Actually, I could go on and on for quite some time naming politicians just like Ted Cruz that showed lots of promise when they were running—memorized all the things that the media wanted to hear, then turned around and was just a terrible representative.  I don’t so much blame them as people—I blame the static nature of politics.  It needs a major infusion of dynamism to change it forever.

Now that Trump has shown what’s possible, every celebrity who thinks they can will try running for president in the future.  The party system is essentially over—and that is a good thing.  Within the decade we will likely get stars like The Rock running for president and major rap artists who have the money and celebrity to gain media attraction on a daily basis.  Four years ago Mitt Romney wouldn’t hardly go on any talk radio shows or cable shows—not even Bill O’Reilly—because he feared being knocked off message.  He certainly wouldn’t do Chris Mathews—who is a flaming progressive.  The whole abortion topic is something Romney and every other presidential candidate for the republicans would have avoided with diversionary tactics.  Trump has forced all these candidates to do these shows to compete—because he is so confident himself—even when he steps in it—that he can find a way to come out smelling wonderful.  That is why all these static pattern addicts hate Trump so much, but also why he has such strong support from an electorate that recognizes that the static system of politics that has nearly destroyed our country needs a major infusion of dynamic influence.  Now that the dynamic influence has wrecked the previous static patterns—for both parties really—there is no going back.  The Republicans either embrace Trump or they will get worse in 2020 and 2024.  Celebrity will be the new criteria for better or worse.

The old methods of electing a POTUS have not been effective and America needs to develop something dynamically different.  I’m not looking for a George Washington to lead me to some salvation.  I don’t need an authority figure of any kind.  All I need out of government is to manage the resources it takes to keep the country running and to stay the hell out of my way.  I don’t need the government for much.  I don’t even need their protection.  Them standing between me and villains likely makes for a more civil society—which is good for most people, but I personally don’t need them—and I certainly don’t need a “leader.”  I want a more dynamic government that isn’t afraid to sell capitalism to the world.  Trump is the best candidate I have ever seen or heard of for that very dynamic job. Like Ferris Bueller, I know that Trump can wing his way through anything—and I want someone representing our Republic to the world who has that ability for a change.  And I certainly don’t want a political party in charge behind the scenes.  I’m ready for a major change, and for me Trump is it.  Whether he makes it or not, politics is changed forever.  So Republicans if they want to survive might as well embrace it.  Failure to do so or to stick to the old static patterns will lead to their self-destruction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference

I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.”  To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative.  I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.)  Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative.  A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster.  It’s not the fault of women.  But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition.  Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.

I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids.  I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort.  Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.

In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work.  I know this because he’s a friend of mine.  Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition.  He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative.  In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.

I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice.  But I do judge them as lacking conservatism.  There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy.  I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes.  Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing.  It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity.  Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs.  When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built.  That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.

Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement.   They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated.  The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism.  Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.

When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial.  They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement.  But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures.  A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village.  That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty.  This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump.  When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important.  The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism.  Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur.  But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them.  And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.

I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be.  But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren.  The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen.  Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass.   But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.

So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism.  Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.”  I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves.  The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence.  They are mistaken.

Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue.  If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment.  If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes.  But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards.  I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News.  The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow.  These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism.  And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality.  Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives.  But they are not.  Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great.  Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper.  The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming.  Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else.   And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage.  Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism.  All it really is, is embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Photos of a Modern Gunfighter: The many benefits of a healthy passion

 

IMG_0159You might have noticed dear reader that I have some different pictures on my websites.  It has been a long time since I’ve updated any profile pictures and it was appropriate to reflect my new stage in life.  So my daughter at Brooke Townsend Photography.com set up a time to do a photo shoot with me and the result was some of these pictures that you are now seeing.  I have a complete life, I do a lot of things—I’ve been all over the world and done a lot of important tasks that people think are important.  I’ve raised children that I’m very proud of and I’ve been married to the same woman for over a quarter century.  By all accounts I am a very successful person bulging with skills and accomplishments that many would be envious of.  I don’t say all that to brag, but I work hard every day to be the best that I can be, and I have certainly done that.  So my daughter and I were talking about what kind of pictures to take of me—how to sum up my world views and essence into a simple photograph.  It’s not just my opinion, but those of her clients, my daughter has emerged on the world stage as a highly sought out photographer and her rates reflect the quality and uniqueness of her work, so I trust her professional recommendations.  She and I set out on an early spring morning recently to capture my essence that best represented this stage of my life and the result is what follows.IMG_0217

Of course I can pretty much buy whatever I want these days so it should say a lot that the possession I most love is my fast draw holster rig for my .45 Vaquero.  It is specially made and is my single most cherished item that I currently have.  With that said we focused on it for these photographs because as I said some time ago, I consider my new career to be that of a gunfighter.  Standing up for the Second Amendment, taking constitutional positions that are regarded legally as Anti-Federalist instead of Federalist—and my love of history really prevents me from any other type of career.  I like to stand up against bullies, at every level of the social spectrum—in manners of career, politics, and private life—that life as a gunfighter is really my only choice.IMG_0303

Being a gunfighter to me isn’t what it was during the period of the Old West.  It’s not about killing other people—it’s more of a sport, like being a basketball player, or a football star.  Being a gunfighter is what I enjoy most in this case within the sport of Cowboy Fast Draw which I practice at every day in some fashion or another.  A lot of men my age get heavy into golf—and I can see the appeal.  It can be magical to go to Dick’s sporting goods and pick out top-of-the-line golf clubs and spend many afternoons playing rounds of golf with the material acquisitions acquired through financial success.  But that is too stereotypical for me to really enjoy because so many people do it.  I need something that represents my unique life, and a gunfighter embodies my decisions much better—to the level I am quite excited about it.IMG_0254

My daughter did a wonderful job of capturing the light in a way that embodied how I feel about this stage.  If I look proud wearing the gun and holster rig from Mernickle it’s because I am.  For one reason or another I spent ten years planning on how I could incorporate these things in my life.  Most of the reason was that I worked too much so I didn’t have time for a hobby, or career as a gunfighter—because it takes a lot of work to do it right.  It’s the same situation with my .500 Magnum from Smith & Wesson.  I thought about those guns for a very long time and finally picked them up when I was able to make a clear decision to commit some time to caring for them as a sport.  I’m not the kind of person who just buys things to have them, then puts them on display in my home for other to look at.  I actually have to make them a part of my life.  The Mernickle holster rig is something that I plan to make a part of my daily life, so it is now a constant companion to me.  I thought about it so long that of course finally wearing it made me proud.IMG_0283 (2)

I think it’s a shame that firearms in general have such a negative stigma applied to them.  To me guns are all about great precision machining, and science—the combustible elements of lead projectiles mixed with gunpowder in closed dimensional quarters guided by human skill toward an intended target are the keys to their utilization.  To get an idea of what I’m talking about click the picture on the sidebar next to this article, the one where the gun is pointed toward the camera.  That is a reaction timer test that records your ability to identify a target and react to it within thousands of a second. A good time is anything in the .100 range, from the time you see the light to when you click the mouse button.  Mastering those types of skills don’t just help you in shooting sports, but in all aspects of life—because it forces your brain to think faster and to work more efficiently.  The difference between a time in the .300s and .100s is barely perceptible to human measurement—but by practicing, you can begin to feel it when you get a good time and when you don’t.  For instance, it might be remembered that I survived a very serious motorcycle crash last year.  It was only because of lightning reflexes that I managed to walk away with all my body parts and only a few cracked bones.  My $12,000 motorcycle was totaled, but I still made it to a very important business meeting an hour later because of how I develop myself though my hobbies—with an emphasis on speed and accuracy through working with bull whips for so many years.IMG_0248

Dedicating time toward the skills it takes to be a gunfighter has a spillover effect into all aspects of life, so I see it as a tremendous benefit.  While it might be out-of-step with mainstream thought, my gun rig with my Vaquero is my most prized worldly possession and my daughter did a good job of capturing it in our photo shoot.  I wear it all the time at home and whenever I’m in my garage, it has become mandated to always be at my side while on my property.  Whether I’m in my shop reloading ammunition, or target shooting for hours on end, my new Mernickle holster rig has become emblematic with my personality, so we are making it an important part of my life going forward—which is reflected in the pictures that will be taken of me in the future.  Guns have always been a part of my life, but they’ve always been in the background.  Now they will be very much more a part of the foreground.  As society has become more progressive, those of us who love traditional American concepts should stand up proudly on its behalf.  And that is what I intend to do with each year that emerges hereafter.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Bill O’Reilly’s Question about Donald Trump: Defining a divided party and why Glenn Beck has lost his mind

Bill O’Reilly asked an important question when he wondered why members of his network, Fox News were so divided over Donald Trump.  The same could be said about the different between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—who are the clear front-runners in the 2016 presidential race. The divide is unusually deep because the two candidates properly represent the philosophic divisions that are taking place within the Republican Party.  As much as hard-core establishment supporters would hate to admit it, Ted Cruz represents what they seek in a president, someone from within their political ranks that is a person of faith who gets their guidance from prayer and deity submission—religiously pious.  They also hold that the presidency is America’s version of royalty, and they that take that oath of office very seriously.  Trump on the other hand represents the fighters, the businessmen who have bent over backwards to one too many regulations–the financially independent—the self starters.  Trump appeals to people who turn toward themselves first for an answer before soliciting government help or prayer to a deity whom has never physically manifested in a logical way.  That last type of conservative has never really had a candidate—they have held their nose and hoped that they might get lucky because options were limited—which is often not how they do most things in their life.  But with Trump, they finally have someone running for the White House who thinks like them for a change.  To confirm my statement just read the linked article from Glenn Beck about why no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and you’ll get the gist.  Glenn Beck whom I used to like—has lost his mind.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274267-glenn-beck-no-real-christian-supports-trump

Personally I liked that Thomas Jefferson answered the door to the White House in his night robe.  I liked that Teddy Roosevelt skinny dipped in the Potomac River—just a century ago.  I liked that Andrew Jackson would target shoot from the White House grounds.   I’m not big on formalities and in regard to the President of the United States—I feel as Jefferson did, as an Anti-Federalist, such tokens of ordainment should be cast away in America and dropped from assumption.  We should go out of our way to strip away formality anywhere we can in regard to the White House, not increase it.  We don’t elect a king, we elect a public servant—and we should treat them that way.

We also need a president who makes decisions based on their life experiences and the use of cold hard logic.  I don’t want a president who gets his decisions from “praying.”  For instance, let’s look at the reasons that John Kasich decided to expand Medicaid—which he did in Ohio against an amendment to the Constitution passed to protect residence from the grips of Obamacare.  Kasich claimed when he went against voters and the Ohio legislature that God told him to expand government so dramatically when pressed by reporters.  Well, screw that.  We didn’t elect “God” to run our public offices.  With all the bad dreams and insanity that goes on in any civilization it is difficult to tell God’s providence from the claws of insanity.  While I can claim many similar stories of providence—as miraculous as Andrew Jackson’s assassination attempt by the unemployed painter who tried to kill him with two guns—that both misfired—I don’t make decisions based on providence or the hope of it.  You can only make decisions based on what you know or see.  If God decides to help out, that’s fine.  But such an ill-defined character cannot be a part of any strategic plan—because there isn’t enough evidence to count on such things.  You don’t think with your heart—you do with your head—and having faith that things will just work out is not enough.  When faced with a problem I want a president who works through it, not one that sits at the side of their bed and “prays.”  I don’t care what George Washington did—if he prayed less and acted more—he probably would have won more often.  If you want to pray, be a preacher or volunteer at church.  If you want to lead a nation—come to the table with self-reliance.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jasonahart/2013/06/19/gov-kasich-god-wants-ohio-to-expand-medicaid/

Kasich, the closet liberal that he turned out to be could have misread his inclinations.  We as a voting public have no way to know if what Kasich said about God’s desire is true or not.  God did not have a press conference with us and tell us to expand Medicaid.  And we didn’t elect a “leader” to be some ancient go-between between God and man in the form of a priest holding some kingship based on the merits of “godly access.”  This is exactly why we were supposed to have a separation between church and state—not one where the church runs the state.  If people want the church to run the state—as Glenn Beck seems to—you might as well sign up for communism.  Capitalism requires self-reliance and logical thought—not altruistic sacrifice to divine will.   The worst time to make a decision of any kind is after a bad dream where some figure speaks to you in the form of some disembodied spirit.  The even dumber thing to do is to assume that the voice is “God.”  It in all actuality could be anything—some ghost from the past, some vengeful demon, some inter-dimensional terrorist—or it could be the lingering effects of an emerging insanity where deep-seated insecurities manifest into a mythological story played out among the brain’s neurons.  You never know.  When we elect a president, we elect a manager and we expect that person to make hard decisions based on reality as we can observe it.  That is the best that we can do given the limited scope of our human senses.

Then there is this ridiculous notion that the presidency should be beneath earthly squabbles.  I watched Republicans for well over thirty years play the moral high ground game and lose every time—especially George W. Bush.  He thought the office of the president was so elevated that he could not, or should not answer his many critics.  Well, that was the old alcoholic coming out of him, and the kid who was in the Skull and Bones society who participated in embarrassing hazing rituals.  When you are elected by the people for the people—you don’t surrender yourself to the political left by becoming a punching bag—using the “high office” excuse to mask internal fears.  You don’t sit in the White House on my behalf and make yourself a “pussy.”  You are expected to fight when attacked and to represent the constituency that elected you into office.  The office is not a higher authority than the people who put you there.  That kind of thinking leads to kingship—and we should not think of an American President as a king or as royalty.  He’s just a manager.

Just a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to shake Donald Trump’s hand.  I could have certainly had him sign any of my books–easily.  But I didn’t do either—even though I love the guy for president.  He’s on a job interview as far as I’m concerned and I’m the boss.  The boss doesn’t seek autographs and tokens of friendship from the people they employ.  Given that, if President Obama broke down in front of my house and needed to use my car jack or even the phone—I would tell that bastard to get off my lawn.  I wouldn’t shake his hand; I wouldn’t be getting a selfie to show that I had managed to get my picture next to a “powerful” person.  To me he’s just another person and in the case of his actions—he’s conducted his presidency as a domestic enemy that any constitutionally minded person is sworn to protect the nation from.  Needless to say, I will never shake the hand of president Obama under any circumstances.  He doesn’t rule over me, he doesn’t make decisions on my behalf, and he is a proven incompetent that has not earned the right to shake my hand.  And to be fair, I feel the same way about George W. Bush—he blew it.  I don’t care that he made some mistakes—but he was a lot like Glenn Beck—a former alcoholic who turned to “God” to straighten out their weak lives. I don’t fault them for their mistakes but they are smoking crack if they want to tell a person like me—who has never been addicted to anything, who doesn’t drink, has never smoked, has never done any drugs of any kind—who even avoids pain killers for surgery or at the dentist—and assumes that they have some place between me and the everlasting.  Give me a break!  They are not qualified to be in that position, and really, I can’t think of a single person on earth that is—even religious leaders.  If they have my high standards on personal living, I might listen to them—but short of that—forget about it.

Ted Cruz is way too much of a “god boy” to me.  I don’t want someone in the White House praying for answers.  I want someone who can extract answers from reality by sheer will.  I don’t want someone who will only enter the Oval Office with a jacket and tie on.  I want someone who will work there for 14 to 16 hours straight if needed to accomplish whatever task is on the table.  And I certainly don’t want a king—but I equally don’t want a self-sacrificial lamb that is willing to be plucked apart by the political opposition.  So to answer Bill O’Reilly’s question about Donald Trump there are still too many Republicans who want a president for all the wrong reasons—all the types of things that George W. Bush represented—meekness, sacrifice, divine providence-and policy concocted by voices from God which in all actuality were their addictive pasts calling out to them to return to the bottle.  For all those reasons I support Donald Trump—he’s a self-starter, he’s never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, and while he’s respectful of religion—he tends to guide himself before seeking the council of some otherworldly creature.  That’s good because I don’t have to worry about him waking up and starting wars based on dreams he’s had about “weapons of mass destruction,” or expanding Medicaid because God told him in a dream to help people.  I just want someone to do the job as president for the first time in the modern era.  I don’t want a king—I want someone to do the job—and I certainly don’t want a politician with ties to any lobbyist.  The deep divide over Donald Trump within Republican ranks is that not all conservatives quite understand what they want out of a public servant.  They know what they’ve had and are basing everyone on those examples.  But to me, what we’ve had was never good enough.  And the answer is not in more of the same—but in an entirely new direction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Lyin’ Ted’s Sex Scandal: The fire behind the smoke of Super PAC investment–spilling the beans

Let me say this, I don’t like Heidi Cruz.  I felt that way before the Cruz Super PAC went after Melania Trump recently.  From what I’ve seen about Heidi she reminds me of all the school levy supporters that I have called latté sipping prostitutes in the past.  I tend not to trust people who are too religious because to my experience there are skeletons in their closet that they use religion to conceal.  I also don’t trust people who hide behind children.  However, when Roger Stone was talking about the percolating sex scandal on the Alex Jones Show a few weeks ago concerning Ted Cruz, I wasn’t all that surprised.

  When a man or woman has power, members of the opposite sex do try to seduce them as a lottery ticket toward advantage.  When you are a senator and working with a lot of young people—and you are middle-aged on top of the normal temptations, it is not hard to imagine how something scandalous might happen to Ted Cruz.   But when the National Enquirer came out with a major five woman scandal in their latest issue they either put themselves in a serious libel situation, or there is fire behind the smoke.  Given where things are in the presidential race and the premise of the Cruz candidacy—the pure-hearted Christian conservative that is Glenn Beck’s second coming—this revelation provides insight that needs to be explored further. 

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/94574273-8-things-you-need-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-sex-scandal

I wasn’t going to say anything, but what the Cruz people did—in a roundabout way with the Super PAC in Utah made me mad.  It was a holier than thou presumption that either means Cruz is pure as snow—which part of me has hoped that he was—or he was using religion in the same fashion as so many ministers have–to hide their sexual antics.  And all this would point to Heidi Cruz—there is something not quite right about her.  I don’t want her as a first lady.  Ted Cruz has seemed too good to be true, which usually means he isn’t.  So it will be interesting to see how this story plays out.  I don’t put a lot of trust in the National Enquirer, but apparently this story has been on ice for several months by multiple sources and it was only the Enquirer who took the first step to break it.  Given that the information was first discussed by Roger Stone over a week ahead of this announcement and that one of the women is Katrina Pierson—who is a Trump spokesman, it looks clear that Donald was willing to be a gentleman about the issue until the line was crossed with Melania.  And I don’t blame him a bit. 

I had been watching the Netflix show House of Cards and was enjoying it, except for the sex.  There was just too much sex in it for me.  I finally turned it off when Frank Underwood played by Kevin Spacey and his wife had three-way sex with their treasured Secret Service agent.  It wasn’t just two guys on a girl, it was guy on guy sex and that is something I won’t support.  However, the sex in the show is there for a reason.  People want to see it, it reflects their desires, and is very much indicative of Washington D.C. culture.  There is a part of me that hopes that this Ted Cruz sex scandal is all smoke, and if it is—I hope he sues the Enquirer into oblivion.  But there is something about Heidi Cruz which tells me that it isn’t—and that Trump was alluding to that when he defended his own wife against the Super PAC ads about Melania. 

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-mistresses-cheating-claims/

Further angering me was the finger waving Ted Cruz calling Trump a sniveling coward for attacking Heidi.  There are obvious problems with the Cruz marriage and that does not give Ted the authority to preach to Trump or anybody else what’s right.  His campaign continues to have these kinds of scandals, where third-party participants do hit pieces on his behalf that have been downright dirty.  At least with Trump, he’s out in the open about the things he does.  Ted hides and now it looks like we all know why.  If he can’t keep things cleaner than this during a campaign just think what he and his wife would be like in the White House.  Even after Cruz’s little public refute of Donald Trump—the presidential front-runner was extremely quite on Twitter not posting  anything for over 20 hours as this story developed.  That tells me everything I want to know because that hasn’t happened over the entire six month history of Trump’s run.  Why tick off all of the Cruz supporters when Ted let them down himself?  The reason is that this is more than smoke.

After hour 20, this is what Donald Trump said about this issue, written 34 minutes prior to this writing:

I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it.

Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.

I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again.

– Donald J. Trump

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Communism in America: Rush Limbaugh’s shock at Chris Cuomo’s sentiments behind the Democratic Party

If I wanted to, I could probably have a pretty successful career in talk radio.  I do occasional guest spots here and there and have in the past made talk radio a big part of communicating hard ideas to people.  But, on the front end, it doesn’t pay much money until you build up a syndicated show, and honestly, I don’t have time for that.  It is one of many things that I have as a substantial talent wheelhouse that I enjoy.  With all that said it does sometimes surprise me that I say things well ahead of the curve before mainstream audiences are prepared to understand them.  I don’t listen to the big talk radio people every day—sometimes I go years without listening because I am busy with my own things—but independently—often—I come to conclusions at the same time as many of the big names—like Rush Limbaugh.  That gives me often a feeling of self-satisfaction in knowing that the things I often say are on target—and not some random thought barely dangling from reality.  If I say something, then a big name talk radio guy says something similar—arrived at independently—it is a good sign that you’re on the right track.

But I felt a little sorry for Rush Limbaugh and his many millions of listeners as he played a clip from CNN’s Chris Cuomo spouting off the benefits of communism as President Obama’s rapturous trip to Cuba unleashed a pent-up orgasm from the political left toward the long-awaited day of fulfillment.  As the world burned in Brussels due to terrorism, Obama was getting pictures of himself in front of Che murals and doing the wave at a Cuban baseball game.  Obama and his supporters who have sweat sweet love for communism for years were unable to contain their excitement and were showing mainstream America what has always been going on within the Democrat party and all progressive affiliations. The sound bites and Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to it are in the above clip.  He was noticeably caught off guard by the love fest toward communism—because as a person who does nothing but analyze the news every day from a conservative view—he had underestimated the level of socialism and communism that has been percolating in America for several decades—really since the 1930s—aggressively.  The communist efforts with strategic implementation peaked during the 1960s on college campuses, and then subsided a bit by the time Ronald Reagan was elected president and went back underground for a while.  It emerged again in small doses during the Clinton presidency—for which Rush Limbaugh made his name so popular.  It went’ back underground during Bush the younger’s presidency especially in the wake of 9/11 terrorism and concerns over the War in Iraq—and other places.  But always brimming under the surface was a progressive push toward socialism then communism—it was evident in the No Child Left Behind act signed by George W. Bush, it was also in the creation of new governmental departments like the TSA and Homeland security—all ushered in on the back of mismanaged crises.  Socialism from both political parties was what led to the 2008 recession as government had been making bad loans all in the name of “equality” and bailing out companies “too big to fail.”  The American people elected a socialist in Obama because the emphasis was on “equality” not merit and the rest is history leading up to this Cuba visit—which for an admirer of communism—appears to be one of Obama’s lifelong goals hatched among his Marxist friends at the University of Chicago in the company of his friend—the terrorist Bill Ayers.

Well before I ever wrote on this site—more than six years ago as of this writing—I talked about these things.  People thought it was a bit conspiratorial. People sometimes looked at me cross-eyed and whispered behind my back often—but it didn’t change the facts.  Those who know me well understand that I’m far from some tin-hated conspiracy theorist.   I’m usually always right when I say something and if I care enough to reveal it to somebody—I feel pretty strongly about it.  It has always been a gift of mine to see right through the thick of things beyond layers of deceit to the truth which is always carefully hidden.  Most adults tell “little white lies” about just about everything and I am extremely good at breaking down reality very quickly to discover the truth of a matter.  When I listen to people say things I am always listening to what they don’t say behind the words.  To me that is the most important voice—and believe me—there are always hidden things behind all forms of communication ranging from body language to Freudian slips of the tongue by selecting certain words to use under specific conditions.  Most of the time the person speaking doesn’t consciously realize they give away hints as to what they are hiding, but like a dog whistle that only I can hear—I pluck from their depths the evidence.

Public schools have for a long time been teaching socialism—and I have always spoken out against it.  Any time a teacher tells a student such as they do starting now in pre-school—that it is the obligation of a child to “share” their toys with others—that school is committed to teaching socialism with the hope that someday that student will embrace communism and vote for some political person like Bernie Sanders or the entire city council of Seattle, Oregon.  These days most of our music is subtly advocating socialist ideals, most of our movies–especially films like the Best Picture movie from last year that I enjoyed a lot called—Birdman.  Socialism is communicated from virtually every sector of our modern society and I have been pointing it out for as long as I can remember.

It’s often easy for people to forget about the hidden messages because they like the product wrapping it comes in.  For instance with Birdman—which was a very good film that was metaphorical to the real life events of Michael Keaton who started all these superhero movies with the 1989 movie Batman—the film direction was so interesting that many of the little socialist messages were easy to ignore because the product was so entertaining.  But the movie did hit all the usual “Best Picture” categories required to win an Academy Award—it had a lesbian scene, it showed the protagonist at war with his I.D. and his collective consciousness, it attacked the nature of art valued in this case by a stage play on Broadway compared to the blockbuster status of a Hollywood film career.  The movie Birdman was very good at doing what it set out to do.  But I also noticed a little rebellion in the movie—the director clearly knew what he was doing—while appealing to the Hollywood left of the Academy—making a movie he knew they would like—he at the end tipped his hat toward capitalism.  It was very subtle, but he did it in clear rebellion of the socialist trend—and I’m seeing this more often from several Hollywood directors.  At the end, not to give anything away when Michael Keaton’s daughter looks to see if her father had jumped out of a window to commit suicide.  Instead of seeing a mangled body down below she looked up at the birds flying above and smiled as if acknowledging that her father was flying with them.  Metaphorically of course she meant to imply that he had decided to give up the ridiculous art of his theater career and embrace his Birdman heroic persona crafted by the Hollywood blockbuster culture which was the central conflict of the entire picture.  Does art mean personal fulfillment in material possessions acquired or is itself sacrificial in going to the extreme of blowing off one’s nose in front of a live audience to commit suicide on stage to show the world the extremes he would go to be an “artist?”  Michael Keaton answered the question—he became the physical manifestation of who he really was in the end even though any Hollywood leftists would obviously miss the point.  Birdman is a brilliant movie!  Watch it!

I see more film directors now than ever putting subtle messages in favor of capitalism in their films that are meant to be concealed.  It used to be the other way around, which is why the Chris Cuomo references were so shocking to Rush.  We all grew up on certain kinds of influences, and in American culture, movies and music are huge reflections of our culture so unless you know what you are looking for, it is easy to miss.  For instance, go back and watch the original Robocop and the anti capitalist messages are quite obvious—the villains are capitalists and the good guys are public sector employees.  Still a good movie—but the subtle influence shaping the elements is obvious.  Dirty Dancing had a harsh anti-Ayn Rand message, Dances with Wolves an obvious progressive dialogue that fully embraced Native American versions of westward expansion—which directly led to political legislation.  The list goes on forever really—those are just a few examples.

But the pro-communist message has been spread for decades very quietly and carefully, and not even Rush Limbaugh understood the enormity of it.  Conservatives have always joked about it, but assumed that the situation was overstated in regard to Democrats.  It wasn’t.  If anything, even people like me understated it because it forced us to admit that there were domestic enemies that were seeking to topple the United States from within and that they were our neighbors, our teachers, our firefighters and other public servants—which was just too much to deal with.  It is much easier to think good of things than to admit that there might be a problem.  It’s similar to the wife married to an alcoholic where the abusive husband is in denial.  America has been in denial that the political left always intended communism—even many on the left themselves.  But now that Obama is in Cuba—Marxism has infested the thinking of the entire Islamic community and is inspiring terrorism against “western—capitalist” targets, it was too much for Rush Limbaugh to even admit.  A sitting president was in Cuba at a baseball game with a known criminal dictator as Brussels exploded with terror.  Many thought Obama should come home and address the nation.  Instead he was having the time of his life doing the wave in a Cuban crowd with a Castro communist.  It might have shocked Rush Limbaugh—and I understand it, but it didn’t shock me.  It only confirmed what I have been saying for decades.  My only reason for reminding people about it now is in the hope that they will shut up and listen in the future.  When I tell you something dear reader—you better listen.  I don’t write all these things to make money.  I do it to save the human race—because what good is money if nobody is around to use it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Addict John Kasich: Begging for money like a derelict one last time

If you ever wanted a way to explain to your kids why they should never do drugs, just point them in the direction of the Kasich presidential campaign.  It always comes up if you dig deep enough; illegal drugs are a terrible aspect of modern culture—especially in Ohio.  If there is one reason to despise illegal immigration, it is because of the horrendous effect that narcotics passing into our country hidden within that act entails—drugs turn good people into bad every time—without fail.  Now based on his behavior it would appear that John Kasich has become a serious drug addict.  What he is saying and doing makes no sense—he is delusional.  The day after the Super Tuesday presidential results where Donald Trump won five American territories and lost only one to John Kasich—Kasich complete with a confetti style victory party had his team put together this video.

Uuuuuuh, we are halfway through the election of more than fifty American territories who produce electoral votes and Governor Kasich of Ohio has only won one state with a measly 66 delegates—and that was Ohio on March 15th.  For him and really everyone else the election is already over except by defying the will of the American voter who has supported the Republican Party.  There is no other way for this election to end for Kasich other than a concession speech.  Yet, Kasich and his people sent me this email looking for money just two days from a miserable showing on Super Tuesday where he barely even stacked up any votes in most of the states—except for Ohio.  Nobody in their right mind—who has any money to speak of—would dump money into Kasich—these are supposed to be smart people.  But this email clearly shows the rationality of a crack addict looking for just one more hit before plunging themselves into bankruptcy.

Rich, want to defeat Hillary Clinton and win the White House? Only John Kasich can do it.

Gov. John Kasich is the ONLY Republican polls show can defeat her in three critical swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

Following our big Ohio win, we’re now focused on collecting delegates in Utah (will caucus on Tuesday) and the other major upcoming states like Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania and many others.

We will go into the convention with more momentum than any other candidate. 

Governor Kasich will be our nominee because he is the only candidate who can do the job of President and the only Republican who can WIN.

It’s critical that we continue to build on our momentum!

Chip in $25 or more right now to ensure we win the nomination.

Rich – not only will we continue to gain momentum before the convention but we’ll unify our party and defeat Hillary Clinton this fall.

We have an 8-point lead over Hillary nationally and would defeat her in Ohio by 21 points!

Our positive message is working and it’s gaining more attention every day.

Trump and Cruz are terrified to face Gov. John Kasich in the GOP convention. Here’s why:
Politico released a survey where 45% of respondents said that John Kasich is the best Republican candidate to go on and defeat Hillary Clinton this fall. Kasich finishes 12-points ahead of Cruz and a whopping 23-points ahead of Trump!
While the other candidates have run campaigns that divide us, Gov. Kasich is the lone candidate who’s run a positive campaign focused on working together to solve our greatest challenges with real, achievable solutions. 
Utah will caucus on Tuesday and Wisconsin voters will head to the polls on April 5th. We need your ongoing support to ensure that we can keep growing on our momentum from the big win in Ohio.
We WILL stop Trump from getting the nomination and we WILL win at the convention – and then we’ll go on to defeat Hillary this fall and begin the hard work of fixing America, together.


>>Chip in $25<<

>>Chip in $50<<

>>Chip in $100<<

Onward to victory,

John Weaver

Chief Strategist

JohnKasich.com

That guy should be fired if he is the chief strategist for Kasich—and Kasich needs to enter re-hab immediately for signing off on it.  To even talk about going to a convention with the most momentum at this point is insanely stupid.  I know area Republicans are having a hard time with the Donald Trump eventual nomination because it will completely change the way they do business inside the Beltway–Lobby money for politicians is like heroin or cocaine is to a drug addict—for the sake of the American Republic—the practice has to end.  Politicians have not done the job correctly for two centuries, and American voters are pulling the plug on them—especially people like John Kasich.  How any Republican within the party leadership could look at the loser and conclude that he should be taking a victory lap after winning Ohio is just delusional—and it’s no wonder that so many people support Donald Trump.

We all speculate on how bad the “political class” really is, and have great fun making light of their efforts. But up until recently we didn’t have any alternative.  Trump gives us an alternative.  Cruz is too rigid for the job, and he is clinging on for dear life, legitimately.  He doesn’t do well in most of the states that are coming up–especially California and New York and now Lindsey Graham is actually joining sides with the hated senator for the sheer preservation of their Beltway addictions.  But Kasich hasn’t really been on the radar but in a few very progressive states who only vote for him because he’s like voting for a Democrat.  Everywhere else, he has bombed badly.

That can only lead us to believe that he has lost his sanity.  And he, along with many establishment Republicans have surrendered their logic to the gullibility of addiction.  They share with the most despicable of our national citizens a love for illusion conjured up by drug use.  Addiction to lobbyist entitlements to the brain of the consumer is no different essentially than a line of cocaine—because the result is the same—avoidance of reality, artificial stimulation of the present circumstances, and undeniable escape from the conditions of one’s environment. John Kasich and his team have shown that they are no different than the scum bag drug addict who would sell their children into the hands of villains just to feel the rush of their drug of choice one last time.  My answer to them is no different than if a homeless person missing all their teeth and wearing tattered clothing draped from their arms asked me for a few dollars in downtown Cincinnati.  You know by giving them money that they are only going to turn around and buy a bottle of alcohol or a hit of crack—that’s usually why they are in the situation that they are—because they made bad decisions based on a reality they couldn’t come to terms with.  And that is certainly the situation with John Kasich.  He has lost his mind in addition to losing the election during the presidential primary.  Now it forces us to do the hard thing—and that is to starve him out for his own good.  He has embarrassed us enough in Ohio.  Now it’s time to turn off the money—I certainly won’t be giving him any.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Eden of America: Why we should repeal The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Previously I published a very short book called Eden of America by Zophar Roberts which was written between 1800 and 1801.  Within it are the observations of a frontier world that pre-dates all present day politics except for the presumption of the implementation of the American Constitution.  It was a new nation learning about itself and what came before.  During that time there was quite extraordinary interest in the land that America inherited—and the mounds of the Ohio Valley which contained the remains of a giant race of people.  These people appeared to thrive during the Archaic Period of North American history and their descendents appear to have interbred with travelers from the Orient who were sailing all over the world in the days of the Phoenicians, the early Vikings, and of course the Chinese.   Following perfectly the Vico cycle, China after the 1420s closed off to the world and moved into a nation of anarchy then aristocracy abandoning their history at that point and allowing Europe to believe that when Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, that they had been the first into the new world.  Europe believed the people he discovered were “Indians.”  What he really found were the remains of a people long abandoned to their roots that had devolved into nomadic tribes–(for a modern fictional example think of the Mad Max movies).  In the Ohio Valley they were called Adena and Hopewell Indians and they had lost their vast and sophisticated culture to time.  They occupied the lands that strange burial and ceremonial mounds were built on, but they had no clue as to how they were made or what they signified.  These mounds resembled quite similarly the types of earthen structures seen all over the United Kingdom and Ireland and have a rich history of mythological stories.  Additionally, earthen structures like those found in Ohio were similar to those in China and Siberia.  The Indians in America simply inherited them by default the way a modern-day urban dweller inherits the skyscrapers and architecture of a city.  They played no role in building the city, but they enjoy their construction as generations leave the earth and their memory with them.  That is the case of the “Indian” tribes who have been associated with the culture of pre-Columbian archaeology.

However, prior to the start of the Smithsonian Institute and the rise of the National Geographic society by Alexander Graham Bell—and many others, there was plenty of armchair archaeology going on as farmers settled the Ohio Valley and were finding the bones and relics of an ancient—and advanced culture which appeared to rival the Mesopotamian society in the Middle East—and the Indus Valley–the region of modern-day India and countries to the immediate east.  As many who settled the New World especially after the Civil War had cleared the politics of slavery from contention a strong desire inspired by the churches of Europe had a lot at stake to ensure to themselves that they were the ones on the cutting edge of something new—and fresh.  They were strongly motivated to ensure that America would be a Christian nation so they did as most European conquerors did for really the entire history of their religion—they erased the past and all evidence of it and used established science which the political machine controlled from a central Washington authority to preserve a dialogue which suited the politics of their migration from Europe to America.

Essentially from 1800 to around 1850 it was commonly known in the Ohio Valley and down into Kentucky that very large statured people lived in America and had a thriving culture of mysterious origin.  But for the frontiersman, they had a curious speculation, but little investment to the contrary.  They were free to pick up skulls from their farms and hold them up to their human heads and proclaim their observations freely of which people like Zophar Roberts likely observed.  But with the new nation and its Christian heritage from Europe came the advent of academia shaped by politics to unseat the observations and steer societal consciousness toward religions and government desires which suited the continuing flow of immigrants who wished to make in America a “sister alliance” with the homeland after the brave souls who first fought the Revolution and declared themselves independent—even to the global practice of slavery—had done all the hard work.  They made treaties with the “Indians” then purposely broke them slowly over time building a storyline which would later justify all public attention.  That storyline was maintained by secret societies and conspiracy theory deliberately spread to hide the truth from generation to generation.  After the Spanish-American War, then the Civil War followed by westward expansion and the lust for wealth during the Gold Rush the destruction of those past civilizations was complete and the observations from yesteryear nearly quelled.

To further suppress those early American observations of a species of giants who left behind an advanced culture lost to history laws were created to protect the Indians who were naturally associated with being present before the arrival of Columbus.  Even though archaeology became an established science really at the turn of the 20th century organized under university tutelage seriously between 1910 and 1940 some good work was being done to answer some of these lingering questions.  As momentum began to pick up as to the origins of some unanswered questions regarding “Indians” the political class seeking a preservation of their aristocratic tendencies for control established in 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act which essentially made it impossible for any archaeologist to obtain permits to conduct a dig into some of these mysterious Ohio Valley mounds to learn more.  Since then, archaeology into those ancient cultures have nearly stopped.  It is clear to a mind that asks questions and makes observations based in reality that the Native American Graves Protection Act was to serve as a similar means of historic scientific editing as the barbarians that burnt down the Library of Alexandria which I think was one of the most epic catastrophes that ever occurred on earth—not in enormity—but in what was lost to history.  By utilizing the Smithsonian Institute interpretation of historical documentation—which has done some fantastic work over the years but is in all actuality—a single source only validated by National Geographic which  also has a Washington D.C. home base—laws were written to protect a line of dialogue that supported a progressive interpretation of Native American occupation supporting a world view using Christopher Columbus as a benchmark in history.   I’m not one to say that those scientific organizations are not valuable, but they are certainly inspired by the climate of politics within the city that they operate.  Thus, they are committed to the progressive outlook shaped by legislation and the dialogue of abused rights attributed to an invented class of citizens called, “Native Americans.” 

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

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

As proof, the ancient city of Cahokia was noticed as recently as 1923 while a neighborhood was being constructed upon its ruins.  Builders at the time thought the pyramids on the site were just hills.  By 1966 it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Then in 1982 it was listed as only one of twenty-three World Heritage Sites.  It is one of the most archaeologically significant places on earth and standing atop the large mound there, which is the third largest in the known world—you can see downtown St. Louis—that’s how close it is yet so far away from mainstream thought.  Since then there have been excavations but the work has been extremely limited.  It’s a wonderful state park but scientists are no closer to understanding the people of Cahokia than they were in 1982. All the theories were essentially published at that time and the park system of the historic site has maintained that dialogue since.  Because of the Native American Graves Protection Act all science in that area must be given approval by caretakers of Indian tribes as if they had anything to do with the Cahokian site. But because of politics, they have been given authority to limit scientific evaluation—incorrectly. The process is essentially the same as using the EPA to stop business development, or a township zoning commission to prevent healthy new economic growth within a community. The Native American Graves Protection Act keeps the story of the Ohio Valley giants suppressed by authentic science leaving us only to speculate.

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

When you hear of firsthand accounts such as what was provided by Zophar Roberts, which then was reflected by Abraham Lincoln as he traveled prior to his presidency on the campaign trail and saw many of the same speculations—we get a glimpse into the archaeological world as it should have evolved—with an open mind and a natural human curiosity that could evolve with the facts as they were presented.   Over the last century there have been many political factions tied directly to religion and a global dialogue shaped but a philosophy established on Greek assumptions that whatever happened prior to Christopher Columbus didn’t matter.  All that does matter is from the perspective of a modern interpretation of a reality formed by religious foundations.  These giants which likely reside today in the unexcavated mounds of Miamisburg, Ohio—and many, many other places are part of a history that modern politics wants to forget—and so far they have been allowed to edit the scientific fact toward that reality.  But thanks to stories which crawl out from under unmolested sources—we sometimes get a window into the world before such corruption took place.  And to really understand America and our very lives within a historical context, we must always accept new evidence as it makes itself known.   To that effect, I give a lot of weight to the account of Zophar Roberts.  It at least inspires further excavation in places untouched by science—Miamisburg is the perfect location.  If nothing is within that mound contrary to the Smithsonian account of the Adena and Hopewell Indians—so be it.  But we’ll never know unless we look.  I suggest a repeal of The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  Then I suggest funding excavation of these sites without political limits by private sector money and what we will find is more along the lines of Zophar Roberts rather than National Geographic.  We will never know unless we give it an honest shot and so long as the government has its hands in science—we never will.  Science needs to be driven by the private sector—and then the truth will be revealed.

For further proof please click on the hotlinks within this article for further reading and evidence of a world long-lost to history.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

 

Ann Becker Wins, Patti Alderson Loses: A new dawn for a Constitutional Republic–not turning the other cheek

For me it was the best election I’ve enjoyed in quite some time.  All my people didn’t win but the one I most supported did—and that was Ann Becker knocking out Patti Alderson off the Ohio State Central Committee.  Patti is part of the party establishment that speaks about Republican values but behaves like a Democrat and she along with several like her gave us John Kasich.  There were several Tea Party challengers to the establishment State Central Committee candidates who are all just as bad as Patti relative to political philosophy—and few of them broke through like Ann did—but now Becker can begin to do valuable work from the inside that will help guide the Republican Party back toward real conservatism instead of just RINO namesake—using the party to win elections then run like their more progressive rivals.

It never fails to shock me even knowing all that I do about how things work—to learn to what extent the Republican Party led by John Kasich in Ohio had a lock on voters through the machine of politics.  I have been supporting Donald Trump for president and was happy with his wins on Tuesday, March 15th.  I was hoping he’d get Ohio but based on the feedback I had from area Republicans attending a Trump event recently I was continually baffled to hear them talk about how they feared to let it be publicly known that they liked Trump.  I mean these were grown adults and they were fearful of the wrath of some little hunchback progressive who could get his ass kicked by a falling leaf.  There is nothing to fear about John Kasich.  Yet politicians afraid of harming their rise to power within the party did not want party leaders to know that they were at this epic Trump event but only to get an autograph of the celebrity.  The head of the Republican Party was supposed to be seated next to me, but he never showed up because obviously the party was in the bag for Kasich and he was expected to strong-arm his party members into supporting the current governor over Trump.  That is precisely what is wrong with politics.  Those politicians didn’t represent the people who elected them—they represented with real anxiety the desires of the party bosses and largely that temperament has been shaped over many years by people like Patti Alderson.  So it was wonderful to see her go down in flames to someone I know will truly steer the State Central Committee into the direction of a constitutional republic.

As the nationwide results came in I was embarrassed for Ohio and the Republican Party that was so proud of their ability to turn out votes for John Kasich—in spite of him being an extreme loser who has no chance nationally of winning anything outside of a complete insurrection at the National Convention.  Trump and Cruz are the clear favorites among voters leaving all the establishment types in the dust of recollection.  Listening to Kasich talk you’d think he just won the Super Bowl.   What was painful to me was what many of those area Republicans and their donors said to me just a few days prior at the Trump event.   If given a choice, they’d vote a different way.  I’d say to them that nobody knows how you vote when it’s just you in the booth.  That’s when they’d say to me—“yes they do.”  They didn’t want it to ever be discovered that they supported anybody but Kasich for President in 2016—even though the guy had no chance to do anything nationally. With all that strong-arming by party bosses Kasich won a measly 66 delegates.  To date he has barely broke 100 which is deplorable.  Only career politicians would think such a thing was something to celebrate.

Patti Alderson in spite of the people who will tell me and you dear reader that she’s a pinnacle of virtue is exactly the type of person who is bad for the Republican Party.  She supported increases in taxes—has used charities as a means of extortion against children by blocking out people who actually tried to help then smeared the people who were really trying to point a light on what she was doing with the unionized educators embedded deeply in our community.  I know firsthand what she’s like behind the smiles and the charity—and she went after my name rather viciously once all other means of stopping my anti-tax group ran out.  In a lot of ways what she did locally was a lot like what the Republican Party is doing now to Donald Trump.  They don’t know how to stop him so they are attacking him.  And like him I have a similar social policy—I never forget, I do hold grudges and even if it takes 100 years, I look to get even against those who have done me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with that type of animosity—it is the difference between winners and losers.  All this turning the other cheek stuff in my view is a stupid position to take on anything—it certainly isn’t a path to any kind of victory.  If they hit you, you always hit them harder and harder until they stop and give up.

It was four years to the day that I had to dig in like Trump and defend my record by an onslaught of media and public sentiment coordinated by Patti against me to essentially preserve all that she had built connecting the Republican Party to Lakota Schools and the tax increases that she wanted.  I encouraged all my Republican friends to stand with me, that what Patti was doing with her tax increase support around the community using charity to help sell it would lose in the end in spite of the mudslinging—that all she was trying to do would backfire if everyone would just hold their ground.  But they listened to her because she was a party insider instead of me and history told the rest of the story.  I am proud to be the first that I know of in modern politics to do as Trump is now on a national stage.  I tried to tell area Republicans to dig in and stand for something and some did.  Most continued listening to Patti—like Judy Shelton who was strong-arming local Republican members to hold the line of the party even if the party was wrong philosophically.  (CLICK TO REVIEW)  Thankfully good people have been challenging the Republican establishment ever since and many have broken through.  Ann is only the most spectacular and recent example.  But many before her have been pounding away at those fences and now they are starting to break through.

Trump is a result of that offensive strategy, he would not have had the kind of success he is now prior to 2012.  I said to an NPR reporter for WVXU at that Trump event standing in front of the Bernie Sanders supporters that politics was changing forever.  Trump was paving the way for a new kind of politician—part entertainer, part private sector success story, and part WWF.  It takes those entertainment attributes to break the party lines and establish yourself independently from any collectivist rule.  I proved that 100 days after an onslaught that Patti Alderson led against me within the Republican Party to remove me from her plans by using a little authentic theatrics to gain supporters away from her way of thinking. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  I was astonished by all the people who were happy that my methods had actually worked—they stopped me everywhere and thanked me for what I had done—which was simply to stand my ground when everyone else literally abandoned me at Patti’s direction.  I wrote about my experiences extensively and now many thousands of people have read about that strategy.   I said it in 2012—the way to win as a Republican was to hit back at Democrats harder than they hit you.  Many being good Christians couldn’t get their mind around it.  But the Saul Alinsky playbook exposes that tendency among Republicans to turn the other cheek and that’s how liberals have continued to beat conservatives time and time again, and there has been no end in sight, until that moment in 2012.  So it gives me great satisfaction to see Ann Becker beat out Patti Alderson and to see Donald Trump using that same strategy on a national level.  Not that Trump adopted any of my ideas; he’s certainly his own man.  But enough people have been thinking about these things and a chain reaction within politics has taken on a life of its own.

It was quite enjoyable for me to watch Trump’s speech after he won essentially all the states on the March 15th election except for Ohio—knocking out Marco Rubio from the presidential race.  Trump attacked the media, the GOP establishment and showed that he was standing by his campaign manager when there were calls for his head—and he did it with a smile on his face to the outrage of the media.  I remember how it felt for me March 12th through March 15th of 2012 when Patti Alderson led her group of people to attack me in every way that she could without actually getting her hands dirty.  I remember my hatred of Michael Clark from The Cincinnati Enquirer, the betrayal of Scott Sloan at WLW, and my supposed friends within No Lakota Levy who abandoned me while speaking to hundreds of thousands of people on the air in the moment when I needed them most.  They did what they did because Patti had led them to their actions—I have the emails to prove it–still.  But I stood my ground as hard as it was.  Professionally, if I had been anyone else I would have been finished as a person in Butler County—but people like Patti didn’t care in the least.  For her the needs of the many out-weighed the needs of the few and if I was getting in the way—even if I was technically correct—then disposal was the option.  It was a hard period of time for me.  But I dug in and stood my ground and people thanked me for it.  And now, just four years later my friend Ann Becker has replaced Patti Alderson from her Central Committee seat and Donald Trump is running for president and is essentially using the same methods I did to advance his tactical position.  And this time the Republican establishment can’t stop him.  Because those of us on the cutting edge have seen the weak spots in the party system and now it is coming apart.  And that gives me great satisfaction for really the first time in over thirty years of political observation.  March 15th was a good day for our Constitutional Republic.  And things are just getting started.  It’s not that anger and flamboyancy are the proper means to defending a republic, but when fear is used to keep party members in line and to force people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t on their own—the best way to deal with it is to throw it back in the perpetrator’s face and stand up to the bully—whoever it is.  There is one thing in this world that I have no tolerance for and that is a bully.   Trump isn’t the bully—it’s the people who use party members to hold people to a worthless vote that goes against the voters.  And of that class—Patti Alderson was one of the most frequent violators.  She didn’t bully people with force—she does it with a smile on her face and a large check book.  But the methods are conducted under coercion nonetheless—and that has to end at every level of government, from local to international.

So how did Ann win that important election—well, I’ll tell you.  She was at the Trump rally in West Chester even though she’s a Cruz supporter—she went where the people were and she talked to those many thousands who were standing in the rain trying to get into the packed venue.  Those were people who were definitely going to vote in West Chester for Trump and she gave them her name on the ballot.  Most people reading through such ballots have no idea who Patti Alderson was, but they knew Ann because she handed them literature with her name on it working the crowd.  She went door to door.  She was on the nightly local television news.  She had write ups in the newspaper.  She was on the radio.  And she had commercials on 55 KRC.  In short, she took nothing for granted and she actively worked every angle possible to the largest extent possible.  She simply out-worked the incumbent Patti Alderson who sat back and expected her reputation to carry her through the election.  That is how you beat these incumbents dear reader.  You simply outwork them.  That is how Trump is doing it, and that is how Ann won.  If everyone who is a freedom lover did the same—the establishment would cease to be.  You don’t have to play party politics and fall in line with the leadership.  You simply outwork everyone else and stick by your guns no matter what.  That is the best path to success in any endeavor—and it needs to become the standard mode of operation in politics.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.