Tag: education funding

Issue 3 Fails in Ohio: Now, reload for the next round–because they will try again and again like stoned idiots

Looks like Ohio has defended itself from the pot smoking scum bags for at least another year.  But get ready, the joint craving lunatics of the lazy youth will be back for another round of tradition destroying endeavor by progressive activists.  Interesting reactions by the general public, seen below as the results came in.

 

State Issue 3

Issue 3 permits commercial production and sale of marijuana by what amounts to a monopoly in 10 locations around the state, It allows individuals to grow limited amounts for personal use. (read more)

YES 478,815
NO 908,431

60

60 comments
Post comment as…
Newest | Oldest

 

Mousey

Mousey2 minutes ago

We all know the corruption never ends in Ohio – it’s where it starts. Talk about monopolies..get a grip folks

e2450just now

It’s a shame the amendment wasn’t structured differently. Clearly, at a minimum, medical use should be permitted. Ohio had a chance to be ahead of the curve for once. There goes that.

Chalmette02

Chalmette023 minutes ago

Soooooooo not to point out the obvious but didn’t you guys just outlaw monopolies? Anyone know of any electric companies with no competition in your area?

Did Republicans really just think that was a good idea just to stop weed?

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns

Aggrieved_by_CleClownsjust now

@Chalmette02  I hear what you’re saying, and respect it. I really didn’t want to have to vote Yes on Issue 2. It was promulgated by the GOP in the Ohio legislature, which I don’t trust … however, it was the ONLY way I could see ensuring that Ian James and his Irresponsible “We Feel the Need for Greed with Weed” crowd from bringing back Issue 3 over and over again — until it passed. Sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two evils — HEY!!!! I do that in every PRESIDENTIAL election! Who knew?!

ClevelandTchotchke

ClevelandTchotchke5 minutes ago

So far, so good!  Ohioans are proving that they are smarter than Ian James, John Pardee, their carpetbagging buddies, and their cronies!  Ohio may legalize, but it will NOT be with monopolization for fat cats to make money off Ohioans, and ship it back to their ivory towers!

THE CLOCK STRUCK TWELVE!   THE MONOPOLY IS LOSING!

What a great day it is to be an Ohioan!  ISSUE 3?  GTFOH!

david

david7 minutes ago

Ohio is the worst f****** place to live I f****** hate this place nothing but f****** idiots

BlingFingers

BlingFingers6 minutes ago

@david

hahahahah

LEAVE NOW Dopey

Chalmette02

Chalmette028 minutes ago

Expect to see a few people leave the state who have kids who need medical marijuana. Ohio is a strange place.

ultra51

ultra517 minutes ago

@Chalmette02 If these kids “really” needed it, you’d figure they’d already be gone.  If they “really” needed it.

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns5 minutes ago

@Chalmette02  I do feel for those who want to use medical marijuana to relieve severe pain including terminal illness … but you have to understand, IrresponsibleOhio’s greed grab of a monopolistic pot plan — leaving my entire Southeast Ohio region out of the pot “mix” when we po’ folk need the jobs down here! — alienated A LOT of voters. You have no one but IrresponsibleOhio to blame. Its celebrity greedy weed grab crowd could not be trusted and it showed in the polls – BIGTIME.

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns9 minutes ago

Today is like going to McDonald’s  — “I’m LOvin’ iT!” on these Issue 1, 2, 3 results!!!! IrresponsibleOhio lost on BOTH Issue 2 and 3 — the voters HAVE SPOKEN, so take your taxpayer-funded lawsuit idea, Ian, and go live in ANOTHER state where Monopolies can”take root.” And take weird hermaphrodie Buddie with you!

david

david10 minutes ago

Ohio is a terrible state

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns8 minutes ago

@david  Then move to Chokelahoma, or wherever you and your favorite cartel can go along to get along! Pal

Saganhawking

Saganhawking7 minutes ago

I’m having trouble understanding what you just posted. It was funny though. Am I supposed to agree or disagree with what you just said?

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns

Aggrieved_by_CleClowns3 minutes ago

@Saganhawking  Agree if you believe in free markets and the right to a responsible free market weed plan — let the best cultivator win — let it be about who GROWS THE BEST WEED — We down here beside Meigs Gold will win — and YOU should have the right to buy it without a cartel interfering!

david

david14 minutes ago

Well i can say Ohio is a terrible place to live

Saganhawking

Saganhawking10 minutes ago

Yuep, horrible place to live. I hear Colorado, Washington and California calling your name. It’s a free country, go for it. The doors are open to you. Now write legislation concerning weed here in Ohio we can all agree to and maybe more would vote for it…

BlingFingers

BlingFingers19 minutes ago

well the Cleveland.com poll sure was off this year wasng it.

marijuana got its leaf kicked.

way to go people, send the pot smokers back to Colorado so they can drive while impaired elsewhere. we don’t need pot smokers here

Syphon

Syphon16 minutes ago

You don’t live in this world apparently. You must have no idea how many people that are driving around are high. Go into a convenience store and count the amount of people that walk in there buying blunt wraps. I don’t smoke. I just know the real world.

avex11

avex1110 minutes ago

@BlingFingers There will be plenty of pot smokers here as there always has been. I guess most people here still favor a nanny state.

http://www.cleveland.com/election-results/index.ssf/2015/11/statewide_results_for_ohio_iss.html

 

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

Robert Tracinski, Rich Hoffman and Matt Clark on WAAM: Why ‘Star Wars’ is better than ‘Star Trek’

Matt Clark had me on his show to actually co-host with him as we spoke to Robert Tracinski who writes for The Federalist. He had written an interesting article about how it was unlikely that J.J. Abrams could screw up the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens, so long as he stuck with the formula. There were some condescending aspects to Tracisnski’s article which I was willing to overlook, because he was right about a lot of things. But more than anything Tracisnski had been dismissive of the original trilogy as not being very good—which I thought was odd. So I was eager to talk to him. It only took a few moments into the interview however to learn the root of his issues—he was a Star Trek fan and had only come to Star Wars through his children. His position was that Star Trek was philosophically superior to Star Wars and that these new movies were kid stuff that he was enjoying with his children. Listen to that interview here:

I don’t care much for Star Trek, to me it is the United Nations in space. While Robert Tracinski is not a liberal and is a pretty committed Objectivist, which is Ayn Rand’s philosophy—it was clear to me quickly why Robert didn’t like Star Wars much in his article. I disagree with him on a number of topics regarding the formula of Star Wars, or its appeal. I think the Star Wars films are deeply philosophical; especially The Empire Strikes Back—much more so than Star Trek. I mean, people are not lining up across the world to see the latest Star Trek movie, and Star Wars isn’t as popular as it is because it’s just adults living out their childhoods once again through a movie. It’s more complicated than that. As we were talking to Tracinski, because of his background with Ayn Rand I kept wondering if I had met him someplace before, so I wanted to cut him some slack. Everyone comes to things in their own time and if he came to Star Wars late in life through his kids—so be it. One aspect that Tracinski got right in his article was the perception that Han Solo is the key to the franchise—so I stuck to that topic in our conversation.

Matt and I spent the first segment of his Saturday WAAM show talking about Disney and their progressive activism with a gentle warning about messing with the formula of Star Wars and the impact that might have on their massive investment. Matt and I love Disney—the Uncle Walt version. I love that Disney is a family friendly entertainment group—so I am willing to overlook a little of their liberal activism. Something that Robert Tracinski did bring up on his show that was true.  George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were the best conservative filmmakers coming out of the 80s. I personally think they were both seduced by Bill Clinton in the 90s and have lost their minds since. The reason their early films were so successful was because they all had conservative leanings to them. Once both directors had achieved their monstrous success and essentially stepped away from the Objectivist roots of their film careers, their movies started making a lot less money. Without question George Lucas was at least attracted to Ayn Rand in his early days—when she was at the height of her influence—and Han Solo was a character that represented that struggle within George. As he become more liberal with age and success—perhaps feeling a little guilty that all his liberal employees were constantly berating him for his capitalist tendencies, he softened up on his stance for individualism and began to accept collectivism to a much higher degree, which was clearly represented in the prequel  films—which were noticeably absent of the Han Solo type of character.

Where I disagree with Tracinski about the prequel films is that I don’t think George Lucas ever intended those films to be successes. They were dark movies about the failure of a Republic—and have great political merit to them. They are very philosophical from the position of how poorly constructed philosophies can destroy a body of government. Even though Lucas had been moving to the left—politically, his message about the failure of groups to detect evil, and how institutional failure is indicative of all government cycles is powerful stuff that set the stage for some pretty deep storytelling. As much as people dismiss the prequel films as silly, they are important in the larger scope of the intended message. The movies did lack heroics on the scale of a Han Solo, but that was on purpose. A lot of characters including Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi made mistakes that they spent the rest of their lives correcting. So the films were never supposed to be heroic repeats of the original trilogy. For that story Han Solo was the savior, he kept Luke alive, married his sister Leia and that set up the events of these new films. Solo is an Ayn Rand character and Disney even with all their activism against conservative causes—can’t ignore that the magic of Star Wars isn’t Luke Skywalker, or anything about the Force—it’s about Han Solo’s position against hooky religions and ancient weapons not being as competent as a good blaster at your side.

Just a few days before Matt and I had our radio show together Harrison Ford was on with Jimmy Kimmel dressed up for Halloween as a hot dog. It was a funny segment and of course Ford was asked about the new Star Wars film. I thought his comments were interesting to say the least. He stated that nobody would be disappointed—at all. That was a remarkable statement considering what’s at stake. He knows the potential cost of over-anticipated hype—so his comments had me very curious in relation to Disney’s strategy going forward. Han Solo is going to be playing a larger role in Star Wars than he has in the past largely because the character tests well demographically. His children will without question be the subject of the new stories but Disney will find every opportunity to insert a younger Han Solo into the movies at every juncture. To be successful at that, Disney will have no choice but to adopt the obvious aspects of Han Solo’s Objectivism view points—his natural conservatism and love of capitalist endeavors if they want Star Wars to continue being successful.

After Matt’s show I spent time at my children’s house going trick or treating with my grandkids—and kids. Late into the night my oldest daughter and I spent time talking about Han Solo and how it seems obvious now that Disney will find a way to put him in the stand alone films as much as possible just to use him as a springboard to success. Like Robert Tracinski and I spoke about on Matt’s show, without Han Solo, I think the Star Wars saga crashes and burns. If they try to turn him into a sacrificial collectivist Disney will lose a lot of money because people will reject the premise. The ticket buying public will only accept the Objectivist Han Solo—and nothing less—the hero who acts in his own self-interest. Even though the moment at the end of A New Hope was intended to show that Solo was able to act for others, the need to save Luke at the last moment was out of Solo’s self-interest because he was starting to like the kid. Like I said, Star Wars is a lot more philosophical than people give it credit for, and I’d think that as much as Tracinski likes Ayn Rand, that he’d prefer Star Wars over the United Nations in space—Star Trek and all that “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” crap. Screw Spock and his pointy ears—he’s a damn collectivist. Solo is a rugged, gun slinging individualist who acts out of his own self-interest. That’s why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.

We’ll see what happens, time will tell. It was a good conversation that was worth listening to, especially given what Star Wars will mean when it opens in a few weeks. There will be no escape; the opening of The Force Awakens will impact just about everyone no matter where they live. It will be impossible to not notice something about it as the merchandising around Christmas will be everywhere. Just watch the Duracell commercial shown above. Star Wars will literally be everywhere in just a few weeks of this writing. There will be nothing like it ever—history is being made both commercially and philosophically. The question will be whether or not The Force Awakens will be as anticipated on the 19th of December as it was on the 18th after people start seeing the movie. To be as successful as Disney needs it to be people will need to see the film several times. And to have that kind of power over the mind of fans—Han Solo will have to be a part of it with an Objectivist approach—otherwise the whole thing falls apart. It’s not the lightsaber battles and space antics that make Star Wars so great—it’s the Objectivist leanings of its basic premise:

Han Solo—“marching into the detention area is not what I had in mind.”

Luke Skywalker—“but she’s rich.”

Han Solo—“How rich?”

Luke Skywalker—“More wealth than you can imagine.”

Han Solo—“I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.”

Luke Skywalker—“you’ll get it.”

Han Solo—“I better!”

Luke Skywalker—“You will!”

Han Solo—“Alright kid, what’s your plan?”

That’s Star Wars—it’s an Objectivist love fest designed before George Lucas was overly liberalized. It’s also why twice during the broadcast with Matt that I uttered to his millions and millions of listeners—“Han shot first!” When Lucas changed Star Wars in 1997 to have the bounty hunter Greedo shoot at Han first in the Mos Eisley cantina fans were angry. It was a liberalized mistake for Lucas to cave under the pressure from the liberal film community to make Han Solo not appear as such a blood thirsty killer. But Solo acting out of self-interest shot first because that is the nature of his character—he’s an Ayn Rand survivalist and the heart of what makes Star Wars great.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

CNBC is Actually a Cable Television Station: The marathon race of people who already lost

I honestly didn’t know CNBC was still a cable channel until I watched the Republican debates on October 28th, 2015. What a pathetic mess those moderators were. They had a record 14 million viewers which is probably more than watch their network over an entire year and those idiots spent their time in the sun showing the world why they are such a ratings bust. I can’t believe those people are actually employed who work at CNBC. I know there is a liberal bias in the media—we know where it comes from as I’ve covered The Naked Communist for a number of years now, and that was one of the strategic objectives by the communists going into the 1960s was to take over both political parties and to control the media. They do—and have on both accounts—but come on. These idiots were just way too obvious about it. Who do they think their potential audience is—the Bolshevik Revolutionaries of 1917? Or maybe it’s the Cuban nut jobs under Castro. Perhaps even the Mao fanatics from China? I didn’t know that there was such a television network that actually had so many radical leftist on a payroll, because I can’t say I’ve ever watched the network—because they never appeared to have anything on that I’d be interested in. Now I know why—geez!

I’m not a fan of all the Republican presidential candidates, but after listening to some of the questions by the CNBC moderators, each of them—even Governor Kasich sounded like rock solid Republicans. Trump’s lambasting of CNBC at the end of the debate was spot on—and so was Marco Rubio’s comments—as were Ted Cruz’s—even Jeb Bush looked like a conservative next to the crazy lunatics on the CNBC moderations panel. Where do these people come from—Hugo Chavez’s personal bathroom? The presidential nominees had a right to be upset, during the recent Democratic debate the questions were so much easier for them—but for the Republicans everything was a gotcha question. They were deliberately designed to make Republicans look bad.

Although I generally liked all the Republicans on the stage that night for different reasons I am still a firm Trump guy at this point. The whole system needs a Teddy Roosevelt type who may very well yank the nation back away from progressivism—whereas Teddy pulled the bar so far to the left as a Republican. By the end of his 7 years in office, Roosevelt was more like Grover Cleveland than he was Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party now needs the opposite to happen and it will take a bombastic personality like Trump to do it. No soft talking Ben Carson will work, or soft faced Marco Rubio. Cruz is too hated by insiders while Rand Paul is not worldly enough. Fiorina is too weak—she is a good debater, but her track record as a CEO is not robust enough. Jeb Bush is too establishment and way too nice. John Kasich is too far behind the times, he’s like those marathon runners who cross the finish line three hours behind all the top-tier runners and then puts a picture of himself on his office desk showing that he’s a marathon runner.  He confuses participating in a marathon to being a contender. Huckabee is a nice guy—a pastor type but is way too passive to slug it out with the greasy slime of K-Street—which is where the real fights for the next president are really at. Nobody but Trump has the right stuff to be president on behalf of the Republican Party. Nobody likes to fight as much as Trump does, and the next president will have to LOVE fighting.

It would be my hope that either Ben Carson or Ted Cruz would be the Trump running mate so that a president Trump could set the stage for a 2024 election of a real conservative for perhaps the first time since Calvin Coolidge. Ronald Reagan was an actor playing the part of a conservative that he acquired late in life. I want a conservative that is that way in their marrow of their bones, and within Cruz, I think there is one. But he’s not ready yet and the environment is all wrong for him presently. The day after the debate Paul Ryan was elected Speaker of the House which many people think is the same as electing an establishment candidate, and he is. But the bar is at least headed to the right again as opposed to the left. Ryan is at least an Ayn Rand fan and deep down inside will lean in that direction if allowed. Under a president Trump I think he would move more conservative than he is under an Obama president, much more so than John Boehner. Like his friend Kasich, Boehner is another hour behind him in the marathon puffing away on cigarettes. The sun has set on Boehner a long time ago only nobody told him that the flashlights at his feet were from his supporters who didn’t have the heart to tell him that the sun had already set—and the race was over and the finish line was already disassembled. They didn’t want to hurt his feelings. Paul Ryan is not the best choice, but he was a Tea Party darling at one point, and is proof that the needle is moving back to the political right.

So that’s the trend yet CNBC seemed so far behind the times that they hadn’t even started that marathon race that Boehner and Kasich were already proudly running well behind the front-runners. I mean, it was disgusting—that people actually think as liberally as those idiots at CNBC. I can’t imagine how they even pay for the cameras to keep the network on cable—unless those people work for nothing. It’s a good thing they had the debate because I didn’t even realize they were a channel—I had mistaken them for MSNBC which I used to give some credit to just because I liked Microsoft. But that loyalty went away after Bill Gates became the face of Common Core—and Jeb Bush with it. Microsoft’s influence on MSNBC is gone now, whereas in the early days it was on the tech side of news coverage with was good. But now they are all about progressive politics and are just ridiculous. I had no idea there was even a channel to the left of them!

I supposed I’m grateful that now I know, because of the debates, but I am seriously embarrassed for them as a network. There were so many stupid things that they said that even in hindsight it seems unfathomable. Yet they are real, and the questions they asked were to—all of them with a liberal spin. If there was ever any doubt that The Naked Communist had predicted such a thing successfully, that the media would be controlled by communists in the future—then CNBC is the proof as to that reality.   But even that terrible reality isn’t anywhere as sinister as it was a year ago. Now liberals are more of a joke than ever—their policies have been proven ineffective and rejected by sane voters everywhere. They just haven’t paid attention to the memo yet. And that was never more evident than at CNBC. Wow, they are out there and are a dying breed. Watch them before the go extinct, because in this climate, they are well on their way.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Americans Still Support Guns and the NRA: Firearms should be as common to wear as blue jeans

Yes it is good news to those of right mind, something the slack-jawed losers, the liberal malcontents, the communist gun-grabbers don’t want you to know dear reader, that a Gallup poll conducted on October 7th through the 11th confirmed Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA. Even better 52 percent of the respondents polled—which 56% considered themselves political moderates—opposed stricter gun laws. This is quite contrary to the type of rhetoric that carpet munching liberals—such as Hillary Clinton have been advocating when she said in May of 2015, We’re way out of balance, I think we’ve got to reign in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” I say “carpet muncher” not to be mean, but as she stands against the NRA in every way possible, she is quite an animated advocate of gay and lesbian rights and will go out of her way to support “transgender rights” as if those types of people were common place. They may be in her neck of the woods, but not in mine. I know a lot more people who carry guns and use them as a way of life than I do gay people. So she obviously runs with a different crowd than I do and if those people happen to be women while her husband is running around in the Caribbean with his wealthy friends having sex with underaged girls, what’s a girl supposed to do? Chew on some well-sculpted carpet and get mad at the NRA because they tend to oppose people like her legislatively, and morally. Well, in spite of her type or radicalism, the public hasn’t turned on the NRA.

I was eating at a restaurant the other day with my wife—we have known the owners for years, and they have a son who spends a lot of time at the place while they conduct their business. He’s often over in the corner playing video games on his laptop—and over the years I’ve watched him grow up. As I ate my food he was playing a first person shooter of some kind and he was really into the action. He’s a nice kid, gets good grades and is likely going to grow up to become a phenomenal young man because he has parents who really love him—and we all know how much that makes a difference in the life of a young person. But he was shooting hundreds of targets on his laptop with a wide range of guns, and he was having a great time doing it.

Video games, movies, and guns go together like butter on popcorn. Young Millennials love guns because of video games—which have become their primary exposure. If people like Hillary Clinton were successful at getting Hollywood to stop putting guns in their movies, or programmers to take guns out of their games—sales would plummet. So Hollywood liberals donate millions of dollars to Democrats—sliding money into the purse of Clinton like a guilty man in a gentlemen’s club slides a twenty into the G-string of a 20-year-old girl because she showed him her snatch. They want to shut that politician up to their industry so they can make money—with guns. Guns satisfy a primary need that human beings have of being in control of their own destiny, so they are still popular in movies, and very popular in video games—and that’s not going away.

While public schools have listened to idiots like Hillary Clinton and tried to keep kids from playing “gunfight” at recess, kids have tuned out of school and tuned in to their Playstations at home for some wonderful online gunfights that are a lot cooler than what I had when I was a kid using sticks for guns. These days virtual gunfights are so much more fun, and most kids play them. Those kids may pay lip service to the liberals at their schools without making the connection now, but in the not so distant future, they will grow up, have families, and vote—and they’ll be gun fans—likely more audaciously than I am now, because they get to play with them in the mythic environments on a daily basis.

So I’m not sure who Hillary Clinton and her gun-grabbing Democrats think are going to listen to their desires for more gun control. When those young people realize that they can buy guns of their own someday and get a concealed carry permit, they’ll do it, and they’ll love it. But here’s where the trouble starts–because people like Hillary Clinton have also spent much of their lives destroying the family structure of traditional Americans. Back in my day I shot guns with my dad, and grandparents—and I learned to respect them within my family environment. Kids today who have access to more virtual guns than I even knew existed when I was their age–don’t have intact family structures. Too often kids deal with two and three marriages between their parents and there are step brothers and sisters and all kinds of messed up conditions that have been caused by the government tampering with the lives and thoughts of the masses with progressive experiments. Kids are still playing “gunfight” just as I did, and kids will always want to play in that fashion because there is a human need for it. But unlike in my time, or those who came before me, modern kids don’t have the family structure to learn to respect firearms. That means that Hillary Clinton types of people have screwed up in two ways, they had tamped with the American family and contributed to its demise and they failed to address the human need for firearms in our education systems by denying that it exists. Those two things have proven to be detrimental to our modern age.

The National Rifle Association is dedicated to not only preserving the Second Amendment, but in educating gun owners about the proper handling of them. They are a truly wonderful organization that seeks to put American value in line with firearm ownership in a way that really public schools should be doing on their own. Rather than publicly funded schools advocating gay rights, and transgender roles to make Hillary Clinton fans happy, they should use the confiscated money they receive in taxes to educate children into the kind of society they really want—not the one that they seek to impose on people. Kids should be taught about firearms in public school and even learn to care for them—because guns are part of American culture—more so than most anything else that could be taught in school.

There would be nothing wrong with kids learning to target shoot during gym class, or learning how to reload ammunition in shop class. Proper history should be taught about the importance of the American frontiersman into changing the way human beings viewed themselves and a thorough study of the firearms of the early 18th century deserves some attention. For instance, Simon Kenton used to be able to reload is musket while on the run as the Shawnee were constantly harassing him for his land claims made along the Ohio River Valley. It took a lot of skill to do what he did and kids ought to be playing games featuring him at recess—instead of just naming a county in Northern Kentucky after him and calling it respect. If schools taught that kind of thing—I just might support a school levy. But why should people tax themselves into oblivion just so young people can learn a bunch of progressive crap that is useless to them. Because we know what happens to people who follow progressive philosophy—they end up miserable and dependent on government and end up spiteful and broken as grownups. An education system that teaches that kind of garbage should be rejected.

The NRA is an important organization in American culture. My membership card is one of the things I carry around with me every day that means a lot to me. I keep it right next to my Second Call Defense card in my wallet and it gives me hope that America isn’t lost each time I see it. In spite of all the progressive attacks against the NRA, Americans still support it, and I’m inclined to feel that the support will grow in time because of young people growing up after playing so many video games and wanting to know the truth about firearms as they re-educate themselves after a generation of slander. Hillary Clinton’s view of the world is a dying carcass. I can see a need for American women to wear their guns about them the way that they do earrings and high heels—to accentuate their natural beauty and roles within society.   I can see a real need for guns to become as much a part of people’s lives as blue jeans and t-shirts—because in America, guns are what make us great—and free. And it is the NRA that stands for that freedom as the gun-grabbers from the rest of the world try to work their malice to no avail as the people within the United States still support their firearms as well they should—against a tide of opinion that has not been successful in removing them.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

How the DOJ and Lois Lerner Demanded the need for more Guns: Government pleads stupidity as a defense

Let’s see if we can get this straight, the Department of Justice has used a legal criterion of incompetence to justify not prosecuting Lois Lerner as she abused her power at the IRS for political reasons. DOJ officials reported that “substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime,” thus establishing forever by attorneys everywhere that government can act against private citizens so long as they can prove they were too incompetent to manage a situation. So in essence, the DOJ has given all government employees a future way out of any abuse of power situation—all anyone has to do is plead stupidity to be relieved of whatever crime they may have committed.

Well, isn’t that interesting. That means hypothetically that if the President of the United States is given intelligence data suggesting that someone like me is a threat to national security and they send a squad of people to apprehend me—hypothetically speaking of course—but they go to the wrong house and bump into one of my neighbors who then opens fire and a firefight ensues similar to something like what happened at Waco, Ruby Ridge and other places—and a lot of people are killed–that those guilty of the whole thing would be let off the hook at the DOJ because bad management is not illegal.

Or suppose that a Secretary of State sets up a private server that she runs all her top-secret email through so she can scrub the information later for deniability—but then gets caught—that all she has to do is plead stupidity and all will be forgiven. They will even get the opportunity to run for president—wait, that’s actually happening right now with Hillary Clinton. That is not a hypothetical, but you get the point.

The DOJ has just provided the primary reason that government is too large and needs to be scaled back. They have just established why Washington D.C. should not be one of the highest per capita employment regions in the country—because they are too incompetent as a collective group to occupy so much wealth. Through their labor unions there are no expectations of performance and now with the DOJ decision over the Lois Lerner case regarding the IRS, there is no legal expectation regarding performance either making the federal government fully motivated to hire the dumbest people they can get their hands on so there is always an escape if something goes wrong.

The Department of Justice further stated, “we found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice. Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges.” That statement was provided in a letter to selected members of congress by Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik. So let’s strip away the legalese rhetoric there and get to the heart of what Kadzik was saying. In essence the investigation was run by government employees against government employees for the end goal of protecting government employment. Lerner was told to plead the fifth, say nothing, get out of public office and let the government clean up the mess with a defense of stupidity to conceal their tracks. The government declared of itself that they were too stupid to properly conduct themselves with tax payer resources and that there will never be ramifications for incompetence in public office. Without question, we will get a lot more of the behavior as a result.

Now you know dear reader yet again—with evidence provided from the highest law enforcement office in the land—why we have a Bill of Rights established by the anti-Federalists during the formation of our Constitution at the start of the American concept. We have freedom of speech so that we can call such abuses of power by their true implication—because obviously the DOJ has no interest in doing anything but protecting government employment as a direct arm of radicalized union labor. And we have the right to arm ourselves in case our military and police fall under the malice of future incompetent idiots like Lois Lerner at the IRS. If the IRS can abuse its power why not the local National Guard post? We need guns to protect ourselves by the DOJ definition of incompetence, because they have shown that they will take the side of the fool over the righteous expecting the good to surrender their lives to the bad for the “greater good.” Greater in this case is established by all the hoards of knuckle-draggers who are employed by the federal government. Their employer actually permits stupidity so those of a sane mind out of the Beltway need a way to protect themselves from the stupid—because nobody else will take up the job.

Because of this ruling by the DOJ we now have evidence that under no circumstances we should reduce the number of firearms in our society, because in a time when the DOJ is using stupidity as a defense the only way we can enforce respect among the corrupt is by promising to end their life—because they don’t respect the law. So they must respect the guns we possess—because in reality, that’s all that really protects us from the bad management decisions of the federal government. When they think they can abuse their power—as they have many times and been caught—they are very inclined to continue the behavior. The IRS attacked my friend Justin Binik Thomas and my local Tea Party group at Liberty Township because they assumed that everyone were nice people not inclined toward rambunctious violance—so they were easy targets for showing the vast authority of the IRS as a way to build up their brand of enforcement. As nice as Justin was however, they didn’t expect him or the Liberty Township Tea Party to stick up for themselves using the First Amendment. So the situation backfired on the IRS in a spectacular way. The IRS was clearly guilty of abuse of power and the only way out for them was for the Obama controlled DOJ to plead stupidity to avoid prosecution. If the case had been allowed to fester, the original guilt would have put it within the White House through union connections which was the likely origin Lois Lerner’s radicalism.

These same idiots are the people declaring that we need fewer guns in society. It’s like a robber scouting out potential hits complaining that people have bars on their windows to prevent break-ins. The government wants easy targets and a compliant people, because they are too stupid to deal with a challenge or any philosophic position in favor of freedom, so they want to confiscate guns to have their way and be allowed to mismanage our society. Without guns people like Lois Lerner would be in charge of everything and the abuse of their offices completely unfettered. It is for this very reason that gun sales are so high in America right now. It makes us sleep better at night knowing we can at least take care of ourselves if something dreadful happens. It is quite obvious that we can’t count on the DOJ, the IRS, the White House, the Secretary of State, local law enforcement, the National Guard or even the local school, because they have been given the gift of stupidity to protect them from the ramifications of their own devastating decisions. In the end the thin blue line that resides between justice and chaos is not law enforcement led by more government employees—its in the Second Amendment and under the right to bear arms that Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That militia is not a group of idiots ran by the federal government—its individuals fighting for their right to protect their private property and to take back their government when and if that government fails them in the future. With the decision by the DOJ over the IRS case—it is clear that there was a lot of wisdom in Thomas Jefferson’s assumptions. So the best thing to do is to protect yourself from future stupid people. Join the NRA if you haven’t already. Sign up for Second Call Defense. And buy a gun. If you already have one, or two, or a hundred—buy another gun so that the DOJ can get a taste of what their bad decisions cause regarding social behavior patterns.   And if you live near me, buy that gun from the good guys at Right 2 Arms, which is essentially at the end of my street in Liberty Township. It’s government’s problem for their bad decisions—not yours dear reader. Protect yourself from them by using the rights provided at the outset of the country. The lawyers, politicians and theatrical fools have strayed away—and Lois Lerner is the proof of just how bad it really is. The DOJ just confirmed it.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

 

The Politically Incorrect Review of Liberty Center: How the future allows people of value to enjoy life

I have written about the Liberty Center development for a long time because I had the fortune of knowing quite a lot about it during the early stages, and have been fascinated by the people building it. I have had the opportunity to travel a lot and know what’s out there, and what’s good and bad about the places I’ve been. Of course since it is in my community I have spent a considerable amount of time there over the last week—and I have to say that I really enjoy it. But if people want a politically correct review of Liberty Center, they can go to the Chamber sites, or read about it in the newspaper. Since my concerns are more philosophically based regarding humanity, and I’m not so concerned about my social status within my community—I can say things that other people can’t—so I will in regard to the monstrous success that Liberty Center has seen during its first week of operation, and the subsequent months and years that it will enjoy, articulate the reason and necessity for its construction.

I was a bit surprised that Tom Farrell who is a trustee in my community and a pretty good guy revealed a bit about why he thought Liberty Center would be successful in the mainstream news. He quite flatly stated that from a trustee point of view—the management of the community—that Liberty Center provided a city-like experience without the crime. I thought that was a bit bold for an area Republican, and it gave me hope that he and others just might be learning something from Donald Trump. It’s far better for everyone if you just tell it like it is. It might hurt some feelings but in the end, it will help everyone. After all, if you take your car to the shop to figure out what’s wrong with it, because its ticking in the engine someplace unseen—it doesn’t do any good for the mechanics to tell you your tire pressure is too low—because those things are not connected. If you want to fix the problem, an accurate diagnosis is needed. Tom hit on a very, very important point that I hope the rest of the country will learn from—because within Liberty Center is the solution to much of what’s wrong with America—which is why I’ve been so excited about it for such a long time.

Lately as I puzzled through my thoughts about Liberty Center I spent some time in downtown Cincinnati. After a recent Bengal game my family walked around the Banks development just as we have enjoyed Newport on the Levy a lot over the years. I have also spent considerable time at Fountain Square, Mt. Adams, Kenwood, Eastgate, Florence and many other places that I consider to be quality “living centers” where shopping complexes and living are brought together in unique ways. I also have the fortune to have in-laws who live in one of the most unusual communities I’ve ever seen in Brevard County, Kentucky right near the intersection of I-265 and I-71. Most of the homes are million dollar bits of real-estate that contain their own office park, shopping and restaurant experience providing a very self-contained experience. Residents can go to the doctor, shop, eat and live within a mile of their home and crime is non-existent. If some slug walks around that community, there is security that runs them out post-haste—no fooling around. You don’t see slackers standing around on street corners, you don’t hear cursing, and you don’t get “undesirables.”

What are undesirables? Well let me define it for you with an example of the new Over-the-Rhine renovations that the city of Cincinnati has spent a lot of money trying to resurrect. My daughter is a professional photographer who spends a lot of time there because people want to capture the history of the area with a photographers spin on the topic of downtown. Her customers want the romance of downtown without the garbage. What her camera doesn’t pick up are the thugs standing on street corners with their pants half down cursing every other word making embarrassments of themselves. Yes Cincinnati has a nice streetcar they are building, yes Over-the-Rhine has been cleaned up a bit—they have some nice restaurants, and during the days it’s a pretty nice place-now. But there are still undesirables standing around everywhere—and that’s not race related activity. If people like Ben Carson were standing on the street corner there would be no problem. But when people who look and act like they want to kill you are standing around looking like detrimental thugs it takes away the fun of going out on the town. Undesirables are people who have personal conduct that is equitable to animal behavior—where their primary objectives are sexual pursuits and pecking order mentality. People of a higher level in life don’t want to deal with undesirables—because they have other things on their mind than just primal desires.

Liberty Center understood this problem from day one in their design. They intended to do something similar to the development I mentioned in Kentucky—which is primarily occupied by horse racing families close to the sport—certainly the upper crest of Louisville society—and do something on a much larger scale in Liberty Township. The residential buildings at Liberty Center are all around five stories to give the illusion down below that people walking on the streets are within a city-scape. The buildings are positioned around the shopping complex so that the area within feels removed from the rural landscape on the outside. Also, useable living space is stacked to utilize bridges and staircases to provide the illusion that there is more complexity to the area than there really is, which is actually a video game programming trick that is quite effective to giving the impression that there is a lot more to something. For what Liberty Center is trying to do, it’s enormously effective.

The sum of the experience is to provide a city simulation without the crime and displeasure of an actual urban environment. My mom for instance stopped going to Tri-County over ten years ago when undesirables essentially pushed her out. I know many people who won’t even go the Costco in Tri-County just because they are afraid of the type of people who now reside around that old shopping district. Undesirables come in all shapes, sizes, sexes and colors—but what they all have in common is that they function from the basic animal instincts of a pubescent teenager. Teenagers are supposed to grow out of that phase with careful parental supervision, but in our society of today—where being a forever teenager is desired, there are just too many people out there who are grown-up teenagers functioning from raw animal instincts, and older people with money and success in their life don’t want to be around those low life scum bags.

After working really hard at your life and making smart decisions—it is fun to dress up with your spouse and go have a nice dinner—and a movie. Liberty Center allows me to take my wife to a nice place and be around nice people. I can go to a movie where only adults can attend, who are older than 21 keeping the teenagers out, so you don’t have to worry about bratty kids kicking the back of your seat, or giggling at boobies on the theater screen. You get to have an experience free of undesirables as much as possible. It’s a free country so low life scum bags can come to Liberty Center, but unlike a real city ran by progressive city governments, the shopping complex is privately owned as opposed to publicly owned. Liberty Center management can hire their own security to make sure that nobody causes any trouble as they are more competent than a city council or a mayor to deal with such issues.

The real benefit of Liberty Center is that it’s a private enterprise managed by competent people who are motivated by profit as opposed to elected bureaucrats. It will stay looking nice and will give everyone what they want from a city without the mess of mismanagement. Liberty Township doesn’t even have a police department which is wonderful. Trustees aren’t running Liberty Center; they just enjoy it with everyone else. The Steiner Group runs the place, and that puts it in the hands of competent management who provide their own security—much better than a bunch of unionized, expensive government workers who are politically accountable to a mayor and city manager. The presence of competency is what makes Liberty Center feel different. It’s not a public park or a community owned monstrosity where thugs, derelicts and panhandlers will be allowed to accost the affluent from Wetherington. Those types of people will not be allowed to bring down the level of quality within Liberty Center. In America being a derelict is a choice. There are too many opportunities for people, all it requires is for people to reach out and grab them. For those too lazy to reach for anything, they will become undesirables because they are parasites on those who aren’t lethargic.

I remember well what it was like when Forest Fair Mall opened over two decades ago. It was like Liberty Center in many ways—it had high hopes of appealing to the upper-class while maintaining the lofty goal of elevating the standard of living for Forest Park and Fairfield. Unfortunately, people who work hard to have money do not like conversing with people who are on welfare, or are just plain lazy, and the two demographics just didn’t mix. The money went to Tri-County for another ten years, or to Kenwood. Forest Fair Mall died slowly because the people around the community were not the type of people who financially affluent people wanted to spend their leisure time with. People are not just people—some are better than others and that is usually determined by their ambition. The Mall was directly reliant on city governments to create the demographic who would shop at their establishment, and the politicians screwed it up. The Mall out of desperation turned toward the nightclub crowd to bring life back to the once promising palace. But that brought more undesirables and pushed out the money. Soon all the Mall had to offer were cheap pieces of crap aimed at teenagers or adults who wanted to be teenagers leaving everyone else to shop somewhere else.

Liberty Center is not reliant on city government for its success. They bring their own management to both living and commercial enterprises and take care of both. And like everything else, things run better as a private sector enterprise than they do as public endeavors. The local government gets to collect a little bit more tax money each year, but they don’t have to make any management decisions about the complex itself. That’s up to Steiner’s people and they are a whole lot more motivated to make sure consumers get what they want—as opposed to professional politicians who seek to coddle the masses to get votes to stay in office. In a lot of ways Liberty Center is a creation out of necessity. People don’t want to associate with undesirables. They want to be around people with shared values and Liberty Center promises that type of experience, without the hassle of low-level people. Not everyone in the world is equal. Some people work harder and more valiantly than others and they deserve a place to go where they can enjoy life. For them, Liberty Center is that place. They get all the benefits of a city without the hassle of cat-calls, and panhandling. And for people in Liberty Township who have been losing their children to the exotic nightlife of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, Liberty Center has just given those kids an alternative without being too far away from home and can have all the fun without the downsides of crime. It is the way of the future, and the reason for it is a direct response to the gross mismanagement of public officials as opposed to private ones. That is why Liberty Center is so special and why it will become the standard everyone else in the future will have to live by. Cities will have to clean up their act or they will lose everything to private sector driven developments—which is fine with me.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Attacking Gunslingers: Why “shooting from the hip” makes a great business leader

I have a bit of a reputation professionally and personally for shooting from the hip, metaphorically speaking. People who say that about me speak it as if it were a bad thing that indicates recklessness. They also say the same type of thing when professional quarterbacks are quick to throw the ball down the field under risky circumstances—they call those people “gunslingers,” as if the term concocted abandon of calculation and patience. So I need to set the record straight on a couple of things that I have been thinking about as I have contemplated the root cause of my sudden obsession with Cowboy Fast Draw. Like my bullwhip work, most of the targeting is done more through feeling than in properly lining up the barrel with a target with careful assessment. I happen to be good at quick targeting, as I have shown under many competitions of speed and accuracy with bullwhips and am routinely very good at the Ohio Bullwhip Fast Draw that we perform each year at the Annie Oakley Days in Greenville, Ohio. There is no time to take care and to aim the bullwhip at a target. I have learned through muscle memory where all the points of trajectory are, how wind affects my aim, and to consider all the factors of targeting under stressful, timed conditions. I have it down to seconds with a bullwhip, and my new obsession with Cowboy Fast Draw is to further speed up my thinking to the hundredths of a second instead of just a second or two. That’s why I’m personally attracted to those types of hobbies—but I find society’s labeling of those types of people to be disturbing and indicative of something much more symptomatic of an overall disease that is crippling our country.

There is a new breed of American, and world bureaucrat educated with modern scholastic emphasis on metaphorically taking more aim before one shoots in life who have deliberately, and maliciously sought to smear the name of the bold and the reckless that stand behind just about every profitable enterprise in the history of mankind.   This has left our nation and world in a state where the very timid and fragile minded rule the world through paperwork, regulations and an emphasis on calculation as the mode of representing quality instead of how quickly a target is hit. Using guns as a metaphor, the modern bureaucrat believes the quality of an endeavor is in the form of the aim, not in the objective of shooting. The reason of course is that since the masses cannot think and act fast, they have placed upon the world a mandate through democracy that the weakest and most timid can rule the corporate world by handcuffing the strong and decisive with mundane regulation and law that they create to give themselves a shot at equality.

With the Cowboy Fast Draw Association what I love most is that the aim and accuracy of the endeavor is all performed by shooting from the hip. If a shooter takes the time to aim, they will lose. Too much time is taken off the clock unless a shooter literally plucks the gun from their holster and levels the barrel just above the rim with a quick pivot and unleashes a shot within a hundredth of a second from seeing a light indicating that action needs to take place. I have thought about this concept for years with my bullwhip work and the net result for me is that when I need to make a hard decision fast, I can and do with tremendous accuracy. I have a great track record of making good decisions in a split second manner. But that’s not good enough for me. I want to be faster, so I am taking up Cowboy Fast Draw to improve myself. When I say that I intend my official career to be that of a gunfighter, this is part of why I reference it this way.

Just because something is shot from the hip or struck without a proper aim—traditionally defined, it does not mean the act is reckless or without skill. Quite the contrary—in many ways shooting from the hip for those skilled in the act is a way to encompass both speed and accuracy into as seamless of an action possible.   Whereas the typical academic is focused on only one of those elements, they have attempted to define the quality of an endeavor based on the time it takes. If speed is desired, then they instantly reference more people to accomplish the task because it plays into their overall collectivist mindset. They don’t like that an individual can provide both speed and accuracy when it comes to complicated tasks, so they have found countless ways to instill laborious monstrosities of inefficiency to give themselves more time to think—which they love to do. But they hate action—actually pulling the trigger at a decision gate.

That is why in many manufacturing fields across the United States, from aerospace to auto manufacturing our ability to produce has been greatly crippled by allowing these timid types who require of themselves to aim very carefully in order to hit a target to strangle our productivity because their primary objective in life has been to diminish the input of the traditional gunslinger—the bright eyed problem solver who shoots from the hip often and hits most of the time. Their jealousy and need for social equality have actually crippled our manufacturing capacity with mundane academics that are so timid to pull the trigger on anything for fear of not landing a mark that they shoot slowly and miss often. When they declare that “so and so” “shoots from the hip” they mean it as an insult, but what they reveal is the source of a vast detriment—the root cause for the declining effectiveness of American manufacturing through improper association toward definitions of quality.

In Cowboy Fast Draw the rules are strict, just as they are in the world of manufacturing. You must have your gun holstered and your hand cannot be in the trigger guard. You must use a single action firearm. The distances you shoot from are 15’, 18’, and 21’, which is quite a distance for a firearm. You cannot shoot before the light comes on. Within that context, you must figure out a way to draw your gun, hit your target and do it within a fraction of a second. If you miss, yet beat your rival to the draw, you don’t get a score. You must have speed and accuracy—just like in our bullwhip competitions. The goal of the skill is to develop both, not just be strong in one facet. You have to be accurate and fast, not just fast, not just accurate. By that unit of measure the timid fuddy-duddy is just as wrong as the hasty fool who is often referenced as a “gunslinger.” So when the bureaucrat says that the person who shoots from their hip is reckless, they are just as dangerous, because their inaction is just as detrimental as a mistake. Just because a shot isn’t taken doesn’t mean it wasn’t needed.

In the field of life, there are many targets and most of them have to be hit at 21’ or less, metaphorically speaking. And they require speed and accuracy to deal with them. Necessity dictates that the quickest to the target gets the prize, and in the competition of life, the first to draw and hit their target wins. Time does not wait for the timid to pull their gun, aim the sights, take a deep breath, let out half of it, then to squeeze the trigger at just the right moment. In life, you have to draw and shoot before an eye can blink. Bureaucrats try diligently to stop time itself with mountains of paperwork to hide the fact that they don’t have the courage to draw and fire. Both actions require decision-making rooted in having a conceptual understanding of the target and hitting it without the aid of eyes and time to guide the bullet to the intended destination. You have to know where the target is in space and time and trust yourself to hit it faster than a mind can think about it.

Those who are successful at shooting from the hip are those like the people in Cowboy Fast Draw. There they dress up in cowboy outfits from the late 1800s period of American history. But they might as well be the deal makers and job creators who have made the economy of America the greatest in the world. Shooting from the hip for them is necessary, and a skill that few have. In their hands, it’s a competent task. But in the hands of the bureaucrat it’s a serious risk that is nearly a guaranteed failure.   Bureaucrats are incorrect to assume that all people shooting from the hip are reckless just because the skill in being successful at it is something they lack. Rather, they should work hard to become better and to stop trying to stop the world with paperwork so that they can “feel” successful. In life you have to hit your targets and you have to do it quickly—before someone else does. The world doesn’t stop for anybody—especially those laced with indecision and timidity that lead to massive bureaucracy. Success finds those who shoot from the hip, because they are able to do things in life with the two ingredients necessary for accomplishment—to perform tasks with speed and accuracy. Nothing else is suitable for a definition of success—and that is why the term “gunslinger” has been slandered to hide the real incompetence of the typical bureaucrat.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Should Women Lose the Right to Vote: Ignoring the facts about Hillary Clinton

If women are so contaminated with collectivist ineptitude as they appear to be around sentiments regarding voting for Hillary Clinton—just because she’s an old hippie lady—then it begins to explain the logic as to why there were fears about their rights to vote in the first place—because they obviously aren’t functioning from the assembly of facts when making decisions. Of course it’s not all women, but as a collective group—they appear to be radically deficient on their ability to make decisions as individual people. That makes them a serious problem toward the maintenance of a Constitutional republic. I say all that because of two things really, Carly Fiorina’s comments about how in a general election Clinton, with all the baggage she has, would beat Donald Trump in a head to head election. Then of course it was the media reaction and obvious blind reference to the century long women’s suffrage movement by completely ignoring the facts of the 11 hour testimony Hillary Clinton gave to the Republican led Benghazi committee during the third week of October 2015—declaring her the winner. Some of these people were either smoking crack cocaine or they were just plain stupid. Here’s why.

The “media” obviously doesn’t have much of an attention span, and they blanked out while watching most of the hearing on Capital Hill. Hillary was caught in a serious lie, it was revealed that after the Benghazi attack which killed four people, including Ambassador Stevens, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that it was a terrorist attack, yet she knowingly mislead the American people the very next day, and upon meeting with the families of the victims with the false dialogue that the attack was caused by an anti-Islamic parody film. She revealed to people close to her information showing that she directly and knowingly mislead the American people. She abused her position as a public servant as a person of authority.

Recently while at a Bengals football game Adam Jones on a kick-off return signaled a fair catch—sort of half hearted, but he did lay down the signal calling off a Seattle Seahawk swarm that was poised to tackle him immediately. Once he caught the ball and defenders pulled off, he ran anyway for a large gain. The referees called the play back and gave Jones a penalty. The crowd around me erupted into anger feeling that the call was bogus and that the referees were being unfair. Yet I was sitting right there—I saw the same thing everyone else did, and even though I was rooting for the Bengals to win the game, which they eventually did, it was clear to me that Jones signaled a fair catch, then when he was caught he actually got into the face of the referees and argued his case against the call. The stadium erupted into further anger at the “bad call” and the Bengals sideline had to contain Jones to keep him from getting ejected—because he at this point had pulled off his helmet as if he was going to throw it. The NFL could have really come down on him but they didn’t. Within a few minutes play was reset, the Bengals scored a touchdown anyway, and everyone forgot about the Jones penalty as they were caught up in the elation of an overtime victory. But I thought about that call as I watched the media cover Hillary Clinton after her testimony. The media, like the Cincinnati Bengals fans, were clearly ignoring facts so that they could maintain the illusion of their personal success—and women as a collective group show that they are willing to do the same—which is detrimental to their cause as a legitimate voting bloc that encompasses half our population.

Hillary lied and she got caught doing it. That was the story of the Benghazi hearings and most everyone missed it, except for some conservative oriented outlets. Everyone else clearly didn’t want to look at the facts for what was presented; they had “collective amnesia,” males and females alike. They were just like the Bengals fans who refused to see that Adam Jones had called a fair catch, yet advanced the football anyway—and was penalized for it. Women as a voting bloc are notoriously guilty of that trait and Hillary seems to think that her dominance of various progressive voting mechanisms will be enough for her to win the presidency. Meanwhile, Republicans were lackluster when there was blood in the water as they patted at Hillary Clinton like a kitten with a ball of yarn—except that yarn was a poisonous snake—and they got bit a few times. Rather than attack Clinton the way she deserved, they listened to all the K-Street types who were afraid of a committee of Republican men cornering a defenseless woman over her job incompetency and looking like the bad guys to the voting public. Because the female voting bloc is a sensitive lot who vote not with logic most of the time, but emotion—and Republicans who are usually overly analytical find the topic like Kryptonite. They are paralyzed by it which is why Hillary requested a public hearing instead of a private one. She wanted to appear as the helpless victim to the public, not the incompetent loser that she really is.

So then comes the question of a head to head matchup with Donald Trump who has proven that he’ll do and say anything to win anything. He’s not a traditional Republican by any means and he has more media contacts that will stand by his bed and listen to everything he says than Hillary. There is no way he loses to Hillary Clinton. He will rub her into the ground and smear her to no end in a head to head election. He will take her record and her faults and expose them every time he opens his mouth. He’s not afraid of the women voters because he knows that many of them are just looking for a strong opinion, which he’s happy to provide. Trump because of his self-confidence is the best weapon that Republicans have in dividing the women vote from those blindingly adhering to progressive unification and those who actually do think for themselves but have not yet been given the opportunity to back anybody they actually like. Hillary lied and Trump will beat her to the end of time with the facts because he knows what leverage that is on a faulty candidate.

Much of what has been said about Hillary and a potential matchup with Donald Trump is media fantasies to protect their ideological investment into making a “first female president” with the power of persuasion. Its more of a collective ego satisfying exercise for them to declare Hillary a winner in all categories—in spite of the evidence—than it is of any reality presented. That reality says that Trump would destroy Hillary the way that no other Republican has yet and that Hillary is a confirmed liar who has likely committed serious perjury—just as her husband had. There is no way to hide from the facts of the matter—all it takes is someone who can present the case without fear of how voting blocs work or what political pundits might do with information presented in a way not favorable to Republicans.

I don’t think its time to take the right to vote away from women just because they tend to be collectively stupid—based on their polling, history, and ensuing trends. But it is time to break them up with the type of candidates who know how—such as someone like Trump. Its time for Republicans to stop being afraid of a bunch of girls and to keep their actions in the light of honor, and justice regardless of the sex. Its time for Republicans to truly liberate women the way they did with blacks during the Civil War—by standing up for what’s right, and to break up the collective unification of a voting bloc intent to maintain evil by hiding it behind women’s suffrage. Women who wanted the right to vote and to head the own destinies certainly didn’t do it by leaving behind the abusive drunk who beat her nightly and refused to let her drive a car because the man was afraid she might cheat on him. That woman jumped from those male abusers into the arms of even worse abusers—people like Hillary Clinton who openly lie, cheat, and steal to further her own intentions. The only difference is that Hillary hides her malice behind collective identity so that through radicalized behavior her vile acts of evil are hidden from scrutiny and the ramifications of poor opinions. Republicans need to truly free women from the abuse they are seeing conducted against them by progressive Democrats. And Donald Trump is the man to do it.

I say that women should be allowed to vote, but that Republicans need to truly free them into thinking for themselves instead of a bunch of Hillary Clinton supporters who put as much thought into being President of the United States as they do into purchasing a new purse. Is that derogatory toward women? Hey, I might have been the only person in that stadium besides the refs who thought Adam Jones called a fair catch. Well, I was right. I may be one of the few who will say what I have about women’s voting rights—democratic majorities cannot take a fact and make it into the shape of their desires. When women show that they are willing to think for themselves—as a group—I’ll respect that right a whole lot more. Hillary assumes that the female voting bloc will forgive her sins of stupidity. That assumption alone indicates a major failure of our election system and the philosophy backing it.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Welcome to the Future: Liberty Center opens and a city unfolds within a small town community

imageI really didn’t think it was possible. I always did love the Back to the Future films, especially the second one when they traveled from 1985 to October 21st 2015, which was just a few days ago as of this writing. So I had those old movies on my mind when Liberty Center opened in my neighborhood on October 22, 2015—one day after Back to the Future Day. I parked in the back parking garage behind the new movie theater a little displaced because for my entire life this area had been an empty field alongside I-75. I never imagined that anything of any importance would ever be where I parked my car on that sunny October day. I was meeting my family at the Rusty Bucket but wasn’t quite sure where lead to where, so I made my way south until I found the main road which ran through the center of the complex. It was ironically just like the scene in Back to the Future II, where I came out of an alley into the hard sun of a fall afternoon and the future hit me right in the face. It looked just like Hill Valley from that famous movie series, square and all.

Short of hover boards and flying cars, it was the future as I never would have imagined it. The stores were modern versions of the type I grew up with, but the way they were presented were very tech heavy and architecturally specific. Living space was stacked in creative ways to make a dynamic world that really has not been possible before in any other shopping experience I’ve ever seen. As I thought of some of the places I’ve been, such as Downtown Disney, La Isla in Cancun, or the Americana in Glendale, California, nothing was like what I saw at Liberty Center in my hometown. It was more astonishing than I thought it would be. The reason we ate at the Rusty Bucket was because it was next door to the Cobb movie theater which is extremely important to me. I wanted to talk to the owners about some upcoming plans, and that was why my family was there on opening day. It was as nice as I would have imagined a luxury theater to be that has made its mark in Tampa, Florida where another shopping destination that I love a lot, The International Mall is rather common.

As a guy, I don’t like shopping very much—my wife does, but I don’t like the task of actually shopping. I do love the exhibition of capitalism, especially when it’s as openly unapologetic as it is at Liberty Center. As I’ve said many times, I have a soft spot for developers because they are often the first cogs in the wheel toward economic development. Because of their creations money moves through an economy and in an age where the shopping experience is competing directly with online sales, something new has to be tried, and they did at Liberty Center—a long time in the making.

Yes they have an Apple Store. Yes, they have a really nice Victoria’s Secret which is good for me and my wife. She likes the quality of that store and it makes me happy to see her happy. Yes they have a number of upper crust restaurant experiences. Looming over the square I was in was a large facade of a Marriot hotel looking down into the action below. It replaced the clock tower in the Back to the Future film regarding iconic skyline. As I hiked and drove the back roads that used to pass through that location way back in 1985 I never would have imagined that in 2015 there would be terraced gardens exotic fountains, and advanced shopping destinations in such a place, unless I could have been placed into a time machine and shown first-hand.

And that’s where my family found me, they were perched above the shops on a patio waving to me to come up and join them in the sun. Step for step I felt just as Marty McFly when he first saw Hill Valley in 2015. It was a strange experience that I couldn’t have anticipated even as I watched them build the place brick by brick. Liberty Township instantly had a downtown district that was every bit as cultured and sophisticated as any of the big cities of America or the world for that matter. As I thought of the countless hours I’ve spent around Fountain Square in Cincinnati on business and pleasure surrounded by skyscrapers and dozens of neatly tucked restaurants situated everywhere, the rural community of Liberty Township had instantly built for itself a downtown that looked big time, but was small enough to still have the feel of a tight-knit community.

If engineers designing living conditions for intergalactic space travelers had to design something that divided function, luxury, and necessity into an all-encompassing package Liberty Center would be it. It was small and enormously large all at the same time and surrounded shoppers with an all-encompassing experience. People walked the streets without worrying about prostitutes and beggars—which is impossible in most big cities these days totally ruining the experience of economic frivolity. A quick trip down Times Square in New York or the strip in Vegas as a couple out for a night together means you are often molested by whores and malcontents. Vegas is terrible for that kind of thing. Times Square is nearly as bad. Liberty Center was free of that mess—but it had all the good things left behind. It was for all matters of thought a conservative utopia. If John Galt had built a shopping center, this is what he would have designed, from the famous novel Atlas Shrugged. It had all the plus elements of an economic development without all the trash created by liberal city governments who mismanage their downtowns into a trash heap of mixed values and nonsense. Liberty Center was built for people who like the good life, and know how to live it.

I heard up to his opening that Liberty Center would essentially be a carbon copy of The Greene in Dayton, or Newport on the Levy in Northern Kentucky—but it was obvious that it was different right from the start. It was the infusion of sophistication mixed with rural charm that really is unequal and reminded me almost of a movie set, something that is common at Universal Studios where complicated streets change the whole feel of a place just one block from a previous position. Clearly the designers had learned something from those entertainment complexes in Florida as far as space utilization where geographically the terrain may seem simple, but architecturally a visitor might feel like they had visited a new world getaway by the time they walked from one end to the other.

It was special more for me because I picked just the right spot to walk in at just the right time of day to nearly simulate a Back to the Future moment. As I stepped onto a sidewalk out into the Center square a car went by, a modern looking Cadillac nearly on queue with the events of when the same thing happened to Marty McFly. All that was missing were the flying cars and the holographs, but that technology isn’t that far off, and Liberty Center looks staged up to take advantage when it does hit the market. On one end was an enclosed mall that led to Dillards and Dick’s Sporting Good, both marvelous stores in their own right. At the other a Marriott hotel and a gorgeous movie theater that really was designed in one of my dreams—and in the middle was everything else.

It was for me, the future.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Boycotting Disney: To do so, or not to do so–that is the question

It is worth listening to. Alex Jones during a recent show had several melt-downs as the subjects of the day overwhelmed his commentary. I think Alex overreacts a lot of times, and I don’t think the “global elite” are as smart and sinister as he thinks they are. I do agree with him that they “think” they are the smartest people in any room and that they do have global plans to eradicate borders, cheapen values, control people through their drinking water, and generally take over the world with a one world government dissolving national sovereignty completely. I do believe “they” are guilty of many false flag operations and malicious activity ranging from the recent trend of tattoos among young people to the collapse of the United States economy. But much of what they are doing they get by with not because they are the smartest people on planet earth, but because most people are too lazy to challenge them. That’s really what it all comes down to, and the reason they get the illusion that they are the “illuminated” ones who should rule us all is because not enough people tell them what a bunch of idiots they are. Sorry, that’s not going to happen—but it won’t stop them from trying. So to understand the scope of the situation, I suggest dear reader that you watch and listen to this Alex Jones show which goes on for a while. It is well worth the investment of time.

Like Alex, I do believe the primary media corporations—Disney included—are all wrapped up in this psychological game of remolding the human mind toward progressive sentiments. George Soros has been a major player in shaping that vision and it concerns me greatly that Marvel comics has moved in such a progressive direction—going so far to make Alex Jones one of the villains in their storylines—where a black Captain America fights against the Tea Party types in favor of global politics. That is not the Captain America I grew up with, and under Disney’s watch they are allowing for this mass progressivism to filter in and attempt to reshape the thinking of the consuming public. That is one of the reasons I am concerned about Star Wars. I am hopeful that it will be what I want it to be, but there is a real fear that they might attempt to blur the lines between good and evil putting a progressive twist on a storyline that was molded out of American westerns.

Unlike Alex, I won’t be boycotting Disney. I love Disney World and I do like Disney films—some of them—not all of them. I do get angry, and I would spend more money at Disney if they stayed away from cramming gay rights down my throat with rainbow-colored castles and employees who are too gay to assimilate properly into society. When a ride announcer is talking, I don’t want to be made aware that the guy might be a butt-plugger because of the tone of his speech. Disney is a family oriented company—at least that’s the way Uncle Walt planned it—and if Disney as a corporation strays too far off the path of American tradition—they’ll lose a lot of money. In the end, money talks and ideology walks, and the board at Disney will pick the money over progressive George Soros inspired social assimilation strategies.

That doesn’t mean however that Alex is wrong. Rather than boycott and not enjoy the family aspects of Disney I vote with my wallet, and believe me they do know what works and what doesn’t. I’m not going to buy comics of superheroes who fight for United Nations goals over United States sovereignty. Young people may be seduced by the stories, but the end game will cost Disney and their shareholders will notice the drop in interest among their readership. The Disney Channel and much of the content at the Florida parks are some of the best family entertainment in the world currently. I even like ESPN because it has a bit of family fun to it—it’s fairly clean and optimistic, the way you’d expect Disney to be. But I notice it a lot where individual employees, or even producers and directors attempt to slide progressive ideas to young people under the door, which people like Bob Iger likely don’t notice. Iger and even George Lucas lean too far to the political left these days, but I don’t think they are overtly trying to reprogram the youth into becoming fluoride seduced homosexuals who want to stick their junk into every knothole in the fence. I think they want from their perspective to do the right thing and they have a lot of liberals radicalized by creative institutions to think too far to the political left working for them and that radicalism shows up in their products. I can promise this, if the mainstream American public feels uncomfortable with the product Disney produces, they won’t buy it.

For example, take Demi Moore for example that played the lead female in the Disney film The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1996. That same summer Demi who had been a top box office superstar prior to that year also stared in Striptease, which was essentially an early version of Magic Mike. Demi got naked and was supposedly a stripper in that film to take care of her kid because she was a single mom. It was a heavily progressive movie that was a joke and people rejected it. It sold a few tickets because people wanted to see Demi Moore naked, but once they did, they were done with her, and her career tanked—immediately. It didn’t help that she was in the Disney film. Notice you don’t hear the Alan Menken songs from that cartoon at the Disney stores these days. The film only made $325 million at the box office—which was good, but the repeat business wasn’t there because there were a lot of moms who had been turned off by Demi Moore who didn’t take their little kids to see The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney hasn’t really recovered from that tragedy in their animated film division until Frozen broke the spell a few years ago.

As Alex Jones says, the entire industry is being controlled by these progressive idiots, and I can say that he is largely right. Hollywood would make a lot more money if they would step of the ideological bandwagon and make movies that Americans want. But a lot of producers and directors are hoping that a lack of competition will force America to adapt their values to the products they are producing. What they are discovering however is the opposite, that people are just tuning them out in favor of some other entertainment option. If Disney puts a couple of gay people on the screen kissing in an animated feature, they may never recover their reputation and they know that. Society won’t change the way that the progressive radicals hope it will, and Disney won’t have the patience to play the waiting game of a century long reprogramming of the human mind. They are expected to maintain profit growth each business quarter. Right now Bob Iger has positioned the Disney Company around Star Wars which shows strong signs of maintaining that anticipated growth through at least 2021. But, if Star Wars becomes more progressive, that whole formula is in serious jeopardy, and the company is at risk.

For Disney to crash and burn, the way Alex is preaching—because of their participation in progressive political theater, a boycott isn’t necessary. All it will take are declined revenue streams from books, t-shirts, park attendance and Wal-Mart toys. A drop of 5% would destroy Disney, because of the extraordinary cost of their business model. So even if Disney execs were at the Bilderberg meetings—which I believe some are, or if they attend the Bohemian Grove meetings and burn effigies of sacrifice to pagan gods of a time long past—they aren’t that smart. If Disney abuses their mythological product making devices for the sake of Bohemian collectivists, they’ll come up short because the American public will reject that product in favor of something else.

To me the “global elite” aren’t that smart. They make a lot of mistakes and the only way they hide those mistakes from the public is by keeping the media they largely control from reporting it. But people do reject their products—often, and they do feel the pain. Even if Disney executives wanted to make a romantic comedy animated feature about two gay guys getting married and living happily ever after—they couldn’t because the American public would reject it. Just as Marvel owned by Disney is making a huge mistake by trying to make their superheroes more progressively oriented. Young men grow up to become conservatives once they start raising a family and they’ll abandon the Marvel product in the future if Disney goes in that direction.   People are people, and their desires are innate—meaning they come from raw instinct and evolution. Of those innate desires are sexual unions between a man and a woman because that activity advances the human race with new generations—that strong lead male characters are preferred, and that Disney princesses should not take off their cloths—or the public will reject them. In the end the marketplace of capitalism takes care of everything. But it’s important to know who is trying what and for what reason. And on that topic, Alex Jones is 100% correct. Intentions are quite obvious. Competency is another matter.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.