Film Review of ‘The Revenant’: An experience into the majestic scope of wilderness, history and human endeavor

I had to put out of my mind all the lunacy of leftist Hollywood propaganda, the subtle messages within the film about the awe and majestic dominance of nature and Native Americans and Sean Penn’s associations with both the director and lead actors. But it wasn’t that hard to overlook those minor issues because the essential story contained within The Revenant was just jaw-dropping and a game changer for American cinema. The Revenant is the Ben Hur of our 21^st century. It is our Citizen Kane. It is our Gone with the Wind. It is something that I didn’t think was possible in the modern studio system and it emphatically granted Leonardo DiCaprio the unequaled designation as one of the world’s greatest actors. Politics aside—DiCaprio did great work—his portrayal of Hugh Glass was monstrously bold and awe inspiring—brimming with sheer masculinity. It was a movie done with the greatest love imaginable for such a hard topic and controversial time period. The Revenant was a film where everything works, and actually matched the marketing previews. The opening scene was a battle containing several one shot tracks that I can’t see being duplicated by even the most skilled filmmakers any time soon. It was ambitious, bold, sincere, and technically superior in every way that a movie can be. It was and will always be cinematic genius stepping beyond contemporary philosophies to a thread of common human experience rarely ever touched by all but the most tenacious human beings.

The Revenant is a 2015 American biographical western film directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu set in 1823 Montana and South Dakota, which was inspired by the experiences of frontiersman and fur trapper Hugh Glass. The screenplay was written by Mark L. Smith and Iñárritu, based in part on Michael Punke‘s The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter, and Domhnall Gleeson.^[4]

Development of the film began in August 2001 when Akiva Goldsman purchased Punke’s manuscript with the intent to produce the film. The film was originally set to be directed by Park Chan-wook with Samuel L. Jackson in mind to star, and later by John Hillcoat with Christian Bale in negotiations to star. Both directors left the project, and Iñárritu signed on to direct in August 2011. In April 2014, after several delays in production due to other projects, Iñárritu confirmed that he was beginning work onThe Revenant and that DiCaprio would play the lead role. It is the second on-screen collaboration of Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy (the first being Inception). Principal photography began in October 2014; delays associated with location and crew challenges resulted in its end date moving from May to August 2015.

The Revenant premiered at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles on December 16, 2015 and had a limited release on December 25, 2015, followed by a wide release on January 8, 2016. The film received highly positive reviews from critics, who praised DiCaprio’s acting and Lubezki’s cinematography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revenant_(2015_film)

With all that said, I had previously stated that I hoped The Revenant would be good enough to resurrect many stories from that particular time period in the American West, from 1750 to around 1830—which was a very key time for American philosophic development. Understanding this time period helps define America’s place within the world as most of the nations around the globe were fighting it out on the plains of the American West. The trouble is, doing such a thing is incredibly difficult. Capturing the ruggedness of mountainous terrain in the hard months of winter under terrible shooting conditions, snow storms, avalanches, animal attacks, freezing water and many other hardships is something actors and film crews aren’t keen to endure—so my hopes of taking the Allen Ekert novels and getting them put up on the silver screen are faint because of the reality of such difficult shoots. This novel relative to the mentioned Ekert work is simple. The story of Hugh Glass is more focused and isolated as opposed to the grand scale of The Frontiersman, which featured Simon Kenton, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Tecumseh and Blue Jacket all with roles similar to the hardships of Glass. Given the amount of money it took to put The Revenant on screen—approximately $135 million dollars it would take nearly ten times more than that to turn The Frontiersman into a novel with the same ambition—which is why nobody does it. So give Alejandro G. Iñárritu credit, he was grossly over budget and he pissed off most of Hollywood including old friends to make the picture, but he stuck to it and delivered a film that should be profitable in the long run and earn the studios that supported him with some reluctance a share in the Academy Awards that will be granted to The Revenant. The first weekend the film did well, nearly outselling The Force Awakens which is no small feat in January during the first round of NFL playoff games. The theater I saw it in was sold out on a Saturday afternoon and that experience was so good that I’ll write a separate review just for that. But there was no question, there was interest in this film and people wanted to see it—and when they did, they left the theater with more than they anticipated. Even saying all that, there is no way to spoil the film because it’s not so much about the plot as much as it’s the experience of viewing the world through the character of Hugh Glass.

The Revenant is the type of film that will still be talked about thirty years from now—even 100 years—it is a must see movie. It is gory in a way only hunters really understand, but the information is relevant to everyone. It was gory without being disgusting. The way that the hard nature of the world beyond civilization was captured is worth the price of admission alone. There is no downside to The Revenant, it is history shown relatively non-politically with honesty and love and it deserves the support of everyone who loves to watch movies. It was about love and romance without ever showing it and it was about honor even when all the tapestries of society had been stripped away. It is one of those rare movies that really put the audience into the character’s very souls. Give Alejandro González Iñárritu and Leonardo DiCaprio their Academy Awards now. Heck, give Tom Hardy his best supporting actor award as well. There is nothing wrong with The Revenant and everything right, sound editing, music, cinematography, set design, script, visual effects–everything. I’d suggest buying a movie ticket today and going to see it as a two and a half hour vacation to a vast wilderness adventure. It will likely leave you a different person upon your return—just as a hard backpacking trip into rugged country often does.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Why the NRA Didn’t Attend the CNN Town Hall: The tricks progressives play to advance their strategic objectives

When President Barack Obama agreed to the CNN Town Hall debate on Gun Control in America on January 7th 2016 immediately after he signed executive orders against them, I couldn’t help but think of the typical consensus building exercises that public schools use when they want to bend communities over their knees for tax increases. When my home district of Lakota conducted those types of meetings even though I was against the tax increases, I didn’t attend because I didn’t want to break bread with the enemy. So I can understand why the NRA refused the CNN Town Hall. There was little for them to accomplish having a public meeting with Barack Obama in a consensus building exercise unless you are willing to go to battle in front of everyone and embarrass the President. That is the reason I didn’t attend the Lakota meetings—because I didn’t want to make friends and find common ground due to the foundation philosophies being too far off between us. CLICK THE MANY LINKS TO REVIEW. With that said, I think the NRA should have attended and engaged the president the way Taya Kyle did and several others—but I understand why they didn’t.

The problem with progressives, which the president certainly embodies that definition–is that they use compromise to advance their plans. When you negotiate with them and give a little they always come back later to take a little more. Compromising with them only opens the door for more impositions. For instance, back on the public school debate, they always suggest that a little bit of tax today will save a generation of children tomorrow, so why not give a few dollars of your property value to the children who need it. However, because of the progressive management of public school systems and the escalating costs associated with their style of management, every five years those schools continuously return to voters with the same argument because they never change their essential behavior. The progressive oriented aggressors in this case always favor consensus building exercises because they know that no matter what concessions are achieved during a public meeting, that they will always come back to take a little more—and they continue forever until there is nothing left because the basic philosophy of a typical progressive is rooted in communism. So in the case of a school system, every five years school board management typically changes a bit as well as the top-level teachers who take up the most payroll in a budget so the same people aren’t always asking for the new tax increase. But, because the foundation philosophy of progressives is communism each new generation of progressives coming to consensus building meetings can trust that new concessions will be demanded and that the slow advancement toward a centrally controlled society will eventually be achieved once property taxes are too high to mandate private property ownership.

For instance, in my community, Liberty Township, Ohio, it is nearly impossible for a private owner to hold more than 10 acres of land because the taxes are so incredibly high. Those taxes are high because of community mismanagement—local government making too many concessions over the years to the school system of Lakota and other public employees. The only real decisions that large land holders have is to sell their old farms to developers who will turn plots of land to neighborhoods that put more kids in schools requiring more public employees to deal with the increase in children. Essentially two decades of tax increases created the problem so now there is suburban overcrowding and the golf courses near my home are struggling to justify holding so much land at such a high rate of tax to benefit so few people. This forces the land use to migrate from exclusivity among say country club affluence into more of a “community” centered use, which progressives have always been in support of. For the people who loved the open farm land and large plots of land under private ownership progressives within the school system and local government have managed to convert the land use to large plots of that same land being managed by socialist oriented neighborhood homeowner associations that collectively decide whether or not you can have up a garage door or park an RV in your driveway. As that same land used to be managed by a private family that might have had a target range in their backyard and a few cars being always worked on next to a barn, the land was converted into something entirely different and much more conducive toward the aims of progressives—which are aligned with the original communist goals of eradicating private property.

Nobody ever says it directly but if you get them to dinner away from a crowd’s ear people like Jeffery Stec who ran the Lakota “community conversations” have every intention of advancing progressive agenda concerns against all individual rights. Even though Anderson Cooper at CNN did a great job with the debate at the Town Hall featuring Barack Obama just days after the president’s executive orders angered gun owners immensely, both Cooper and Obama as progressives were working to whittle away the resistance to their eventual aims of collective assimilation. If you watch the debate carefully dear reader, you will see the tactics. For instance, when Obama had to deal with the widow of Chris Kyle followed up by the rape victim—both who were strong supporters of the Second Amendment, Obama took the edge off their resistance with compliments to ease into his eventual position. For either of the two women to attack Obama after he had provided such compliments would make them appear as the villains. So Obama took away their aggression with compliments in a public setting. The president yielded no ground, yet Taya and others had to, so to appear civil in the discourse. CNN gave president Obama the high ground strategically, and once he had that, there was no way to create leverage against him in debate. The public watching all this then assumed that Obama seemed reasonable. CNN appeared to side at times with Taya Kyle and other Second Amendment supporters. But in the long run, resistance to the gun control measures loosened allowing them to stand against scrutiny. Then when the next tragedy occurs, more laws will be proposed. Just like the land grabs of local public schools converting over time the use and philosophic position of the community toward such use progressives will gain and everyone else loses.

There is a way to attack such town hall effectiveness against the other side. It is difficult, but possible. In such a conflict, the NRA doesn’t stand to gain much—only to hold their ground. The real test of Obama’s consensus building exercise would be to speak at an NRA event, on ground controlled by gun rights supporters. CNN is certainly sympathetic toward Obama and all past and future progressives—so it was a safe zone for the president. But a NASCAR event or a gun show would be a different story. Obama wouldn’t give the same town hall in front of such an audience if he were invited because he would not be able to maintain the high ground in the debate. Under such conditions, Obama would be equal at best, and that would not give him the strategic platform to execute the progressive objectives. So it goes both ways. The NRA did not attend the CNN Town Hall because by the nature of it, the president controlled the high ground in the debate, just as Jeffery Stec in my community controlled the community conversations. All this is a variation of the Delphi Technique that I talked so much about over five years ago. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. The intent of such games is not to find mutual understanding—it is to advance the cause of progressives—which always lead to further impositions against freedom—so the only way not to lose such an engagement is to not participate. However, that only works so long. Eventually, a conflict is mandated and for that reason, the NRA needs to think of ways to go on the offensive. My suggestion would be to invite the president to the next NRA event and strip him of the security of dealing with the friendly studios of CNN. In the battle over public opinion a new strategy is needed. Yielding to progressives will not get the job done—as many homeowners who used to hold large plots of land now clearly understand. You have to know what kind of game we are all playing before you can win it.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Hillary the Communist: Admitting the truth, even when it hurts

I’ve been saying it for a long time; socialism is the basic philosophy of the Democratic Party. People used to think I was being an extremist when I stated that teacher unions expected socialism from voters and school boards essentially teaching it to students in public education. Most labor unions are functioning socialist enterprises which of course leads directly to small “c” communism. Worse than socialists are “progressives” who have a strong belief in communism as a foundation principle to their style of governing. Most progressives will deny it, but if you placed their belief system on a social scale next to the Bolsheviks of 1919 they would be indistinguishable from each other. There is a reason that progressives and other liberals don’t want people to read Ayn Rand, who as an American novelist wrote quite passionately about communism in her very good book, We the Living. I have known this for a very long time because I am an avid reader, and I understand history so I have been able to function from a position of knowledge and not just the marketing of ideas proposed in what people think is modern times. That’s why it was so ridiculously stupid of Hillary Clinton when pressed by Chris Mathews—who is a fan of the Democratic candidate for president, to declare that she was a progressive Democrat. That is equivalent to saying about herself under a proper definition that she’s a communist socialist.

This isn’t the first time this year that Chris Mathews on the very “progressive” MSNBC cable channel has asked someone of great importance within the Democratic Party what the difference between a socialist and a Democrat is. But this one had more bite because Hillary had no idea how to answer the question even though she knew the question was coming at some point, because he had asked it before. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. She couldn’t answer the question because there isn’t any difference. Democrats today in 2016 are essentially the communists and socialists of the last century—the only real difference is that they changed the name. Their essential philosophy is the same.

I don’t have much patience for stupid people—I’ll have to be honest. When I had this education debate years ago within the media, at school boards, in education reform groups—and with other politicians I thought people close to the situation already knew what I was saying, that the essential product of public schools was socialism. I had known it for years, so I assumed that we could have a conversation from a reasonable vantage point. But the mad mothers and fathers angry at me for proposing to take away their tax money for essentially a day time socialist training center—which is what every public school is—provoked a lot of anger which I had no tolerance for. Those idiots thought they would harass me online, come to my house, and attack me through social networks with all the socialist flair utilized in that novel, We the Living and that for some reason I’d just take it. No, that’s not how things work.

I have always known that socialists and Democrats were essentially the same because I have always worked hard to have the answers to things—even if those answers were inconvenient. For instance, everyone knows I have written a lot about Star Wars. It could be said that I’ve been a mega fan. I know Star Wars better than most people know their own families. However, I do not like the new films by Disney and I will not read the books or buy into their product any longer in a post George Lucas era. I see clearly in Star Wars now massive progressive influences and I will reject it—because I know better. When something lets me down, I drop it like a rock in less than a second. I went though a similar thought process with public education, our legal system, environmentalism, even family members who have not behaved properly. It really didn’t matter what or who they were, I have dropped them at the first sign that they do not comply with my ethics and values. And when the question comes as to who am I to judge—the reply is simple—an individual who works hard to be that way. When I said that socialism was embedded deep in our culture I was able to do that because I was able to emotionally divorce myself from attachments that might skew my vision from the reality of knowledge. So even when many were writing newspapers and television stations protesting my coverage by them because of my “extremist” language I never recanted or backed off because to do so would be to lie. To lie would be wrong because it would force a new definition for the things I knew to be true—and that wasn’t going to happen.

This charade has went on for a long time largely because members of the media, like Chris Mathews accepted the revisionist definitions of a party he obviously supports—the Democrats whom he probably believes is still the party of JFK or LBJ. The truth however is that Republicans like Jeb Bush and John Kasich are the new Democrats by proper definitions because the political lens of perception has been moved so far to the political left. So it appears that Chris Mathews and others like him are having a real debate within themselves about the differences between socialists and Democrats or even communists and progressives. The answer has always been there no matter how painful it might have been, or inconvenient.

I said it during many public education debates that if people wanted socialism and voted for it, then so be it—but they better know what it was they were voting for. It’s really not a firm indication of public sentiment if Democrats avoid the proper definition for what they are doing just to win support of the public hoping slowly to cook the American public from capitalism to communism with changed terminology. Democrats and progressives have arrived at this political climate by deceit, not by actually selling who and what they are. What provokes the debate even now is that Bernie Sanders as a president is openly calling himself a socialist which then forces Hillary Clinton to name the difference. Which of course she can, so she did the worst thing she could have done—she called herself worse—essentially a communist. But she hoped that nobody understood the definitions and would bother to look. Of course that doesn’t fly with me.

Hundreds of thousands of people read this blog site every year from countries all over the globe. Most of those people disagree with me about one thing or another. Sometimes they get so angry they call me names which always starts a small war of words. Over the course of the last six years that I have been writing at this site—every single day in voluminous amounts—nobody has been able to dispute my claims factually. Even the worst of the teacher’s union radicals within the state of Ohio could dispute it when I called them all socialists—sometimes quite publicly. I have talked about it on the radio and written about socialism in public schools and most government offices extensively, and nobody at any academic level has been able to dispute it under any circumstance. And believe me, the radical loser professors who call me an anti-education radical gun-nut would love to beat me intellectually if they could—but they can’t. The reason they can’t is for the same reason that Hillary Clinton couldn’t provide a different definition of socialism in comparison to a typical member of the Democratic Party. When the Party’s top voices cannot give a single instance of how Democrats are different from socialists, the truth is staring you right in the face dear reader. And I have been telling you that for a very long time. Once again, people should have listened.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Crying Bastard Obama: Why the political left is technically mentally ill

First of all, the crying bastard President Obama does not represent my views—he is not “my” president. I say bastard of him for two reasons, he is obnoxiously disagreeable toward traditional American views, and he was born to unmarried parents as there is a lot of questions regarding his father. So he fulfills the appropriate definition of a bastard by most accepted definitions—so it’s not a derogatory term. Regarding the crying, I said the same thing about John Boehner. In spite of what modern feminists and other progressives say, it’s not alright for a man to cry over stupid things. Gun violence and mass shootings are nearly exclusively the result of mismanagement by the government. Government in most cases has created the violent communities that shootings occur in, like Chicago. Or they have let terrorists fester within our borders without acting before terror activities have occurred. Americans have given up a lot of freedoms supposedly for the sake of security and that has turned out to be a stupid thing to do. Government has failed to do its job and now they want more power to do an even worse job—and to get it, the president resorted to crying like a child and that is pathetic.

The video above is a warning from Canada where their gun laws are pacing themselves to the rest of the so-called developed world—the kind of world the crying Obama referred to. It is the direction America is heading so pay attention to it. In it a gun rights supporter was condemned by the government every way they legally could for defending his property from some assailants launching firebombs at him. The Canadian government did not want him to defend his property especially with a firearm, so they did worse to him personally than the fire bombers. It is a very sad case and is the direction that gun laws in America by cry baby politicians want to take our society. It’s the wrong direction and should be reversed immediately.

The attack on that individual gun owner has the very subtle inclination that property rights are not the value of any individual possession, so there should never be an instance where an individual should have to defend themselves or their possessions. To the progressive descendant of communism individuals should surrender themselves to criminal intent for the benefit of the greater good. If a criminal wants something you have, they should have the right to it under the umbrella of wealth redistribution and no individual should feel compelled to take a life for the protection of a possession. The same mentality resides within the realm of a spouse—this is why progressives seek to demean family value with gay rights and welfare programs—to weaken individual input. Therefore, guns should not be allowed to protect an individual from criminal intent because to their view as a mass society of collectivism, collateral damage is perfectly acceptable—if the greater good is placed as a value over individuals and their possessions.

But that is clearly not the type of society that we have in the United States. Our politicians do not currently represent the type of people who currently make up most of the American population between city areas. Most of those politicians manipulated their way by default into positions of power only to turn their eyes toward Europe for guidance and that’s not acceptable—especially when people like Obama standing in our White House cry to the world about how he wants to stop gun violence on a mass scale but fails to shed a tear when a white woman is gunned down by an illegal alien in San Francisco for no reason at all—but mass government mismanagement. The tears are only shed for the collective entity of our global population, not the rights of one woman, or her father when a cold-blooded killer took away from them the love they shared as a possession of emotion.

That is just how sick progressives are in their views of the world. They will support the mass extinction of babies through abortion, and support the terrorism in the Middle East but will take a hard stand against the rancher who wants to protect their grazing rights or an individual gunman who protects their wife or home from an assailant. Their broken philosophy is always an emphasis on mass collectivism as opposed to individual integrity. That is why so many progressives have mental illnesses—where their values are not reflected in their daily actions—because they associate behavior by the values of the collective as opposed to their own private behavior. So if everyone is acting poorly, whether they are drunken losers or a mob rioting in the streets they can justify the morality of bad behavior by the measurement of the group association. If everyone is doing wrong, then it’s OK to also do so—so long as a majority is in agreement.

That in essence is the largest problem that there is in regard to Obama’s executive orders against personal firearms issued on January 5^th 2016—because it gives those same masses the ability to define sanity. On the surface the proposals sound reasonable, background checks strengthening, gun show restrictions, and attempting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deficient. The trouble is that the door is now open for the government to determine that every person on some sort of pain medication or depression illness is subject to the interpretation of being mentally unstable to purchase or own a firearm. Additionally, the slippery slope of judgment for sanity will be interpreted by government with the same rationalization that we see among the current masses—the depraved lunatics of urban riots, public schools, and open socialists—the Bernie Sanders type of supporters. Mental acuity will then be determined by the victor of whatever political party holds the White House at any particular time which would be bad for both sides. With that additional interpretation the same government that decided that it was alright for the IRS to use a tax status to badger Tea Party groups will determine what constitutes mental health.

For the family that believes that a housewife should watch over the children at home in a very traditional way, and has a personal history of protesting Smart Meters—a progressive run federal government would likely view that behavior as insane and would prohibit those citizens from owning firearms. A similar family that has a Twitter history showing strong conservative views would likely put those citizens on a watch list banning further purchases of guns. It would be as simple as that. The pattern around the world from Canada to Australia is already in place, we have the fortune in America to see what our current politicians are up to, because they are copying those fools from Europe and other places on removing firearms from their society to make way for some strategy that certainly works against individual liberty. If allowed to feaster, Obama’s path would certainly lead to a similar letter as those proposed in Canada—be prepared to surrender firearms of a certain make and model until they are all gone from society and confiscated by the government. They never do things in swift strokes, but over a long period of time gradually wearing down resistance to their diabolical utterances.

I’ve had a Federal Firearms License before, so I know what it’s like for them to demand to see your paperwork in the middle of dinner, or on a Friday afternoon while you’re sitting naked in your hot tub with your wife just enjoying the day in your own backyard. When given the right for some pin headed bureaucrat to harass an individual, they nearly always do. Because their value system is not based on individual integrity, but mass approval—so if their peers approve of their behavior of harassment, then they feel validated to do so—they use government coercion to exert force on individuals so to preserve the collective masses and their whims of necessity.

Guns were always meant to protect the individual against mass tyranny and to guarantee that private property would remain valuable in the course of American history. Confiscation is the path to losing all freedoms and giving the drooling mouths of bureaucrats all the power they need to exact tyranny upon individuals and their possessions. Hidden behind the government and their global backers is the long diabolical yearnings of communism which fuels their effort, the Karl Marx war against individuality and personal property. So it is behind that premise that governments are at war with firearms and what drives Obama to cry in front of the world because deep down inside his essential being, he has a lot more in common with Karl Marx than he does Thomas Jefferson. It is because of menaces like Barack Obama and all his progressive friends that Jefferson uttered……………“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” You can’t very well do that if they are armed, and you’re not. Hence, the reason for gun control around the world.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Guns are the Key to American Exceptionalism: Why a crying President Obama hates them and western capitalist culture

I have to thank Brownells for their service over the Holidays of 2015. I was able to perform a “trigger job” on my Ruger Vaquero largely by the fine offerings that Brownells provided and I can say that I had one of the best holiday off-periods I can ever remember having. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW WHO BROWNELLS IS. It was quite nice to stand at my workbench and perform the job which ran into complications until the very small hours of the morning. Once completed I was able to test fire the gun from the same location and it was very nice to be able to do so as the clock on my garage wall indicated it was 2:30 in the morning. As Obama unleashed his pathetic gun control executive orders shortly after the New Year crying like a an epic wimp of magnanimous proportions in front of millions of people, I couldn’t help but think what an alien concept guns were to the little kid from Indonesia’s foreign raised mind. The idea of guns in a private residence is just something he can’t fathom because he has been taught incorrectly to his very core. To say he’s an idiot is to curse him from the benefit of not being raised to be an American. To be fair, he just doesn’t understand American culture and what an imposition he proposes as an inner city Chicago activist and lawyer to the freedom loving people lucky enough to be born and raised in the United States. However, with that said and disclaimer given—he’s still an idiot.

To me Obama is an idiot because he refuses to see the superiority of American culture in relation to the rest of the world and how guns are at the center of that proper mentality which advances American Excpetionalism. If he were smart, he’d see the writing on the wall and acknowledge cultural values appropriately. Instead, he has bought into the progressive notion of “fairness” and “equality” without considering the root cause of either. The gun makes the world fairer and more equal and Obama’s desire for executive orders puts too much responsibility on government management than individual effort. If a person was smart, in spite of where they were born or raised, they should acknowledge a superior approach philosophically to politics and ethics and adjust their foundation beliefs accordingly. Instead, Obama signed executive orders against the Second Amendment that even the AP news service thought was alarming.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s do-it-himself plan for keeping guns away from those who shouldn’t have them falls far short of what he’d hoped to accomplish through legislation after a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School shook the country in 2012.

Yet even the more modest steps Obama will announce Tuesday rely on murky interpretations of existing law that could be easily reversed by his successor.

Obama’s package of executive actions aims to curb what he’s described as a scourge of gun violence in the U.S., punctuated by appalling mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; and Tucson, Arizona, among many others. After Newtown, Obama sought far-reaching, bipartisan legislation that went beyond background checks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-initiative-on-gun-control-shows-limits-of-acting-alone/ar-AAgnxGd?ocid=spartandhp

I understand the situation clearly, and it is always made more tangible when I get to do gun jobs like the modification to my Vaquero, guns are about more than shooting other people. In my case, I am working on Cowboy Fast Draw which is a relatively new sport born out of necessity that makes reducing the trigger pull and hammer strength a need just to be competitive. It was very soothing to me to work on that gun, reload my ammunition, and troubleshoot my issues late at night when other people were sleeping. I had on talk radio and was able to hear stimulating conversation and work with specialized tools to perform the task. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. The last thing in the world I was thinking about was shooting somebody with my gun. I was thinking of making it work faster and being more accurate so that I could hit a target under pressure faster than a competitor in friendly all American competition. There was no malice or ill intention in working on my gun that night and I felt more joy out of doing it than most anything I’ve done for many years. It was craftsmanship that was specific to our American culture.

One of my son-in-laws is from Europe as I’ve stated before. My daughter and he just returned recently from Iceland where they vacationed, and I get from them lots of fine stories of family and friends who are shocked by their American love of guns. In England, where he’s from, it is unfathomable that any family would own one gun, let alone many. They have been conditioned as a culture to put their trust completely in others for their own survival, and we’re talking about a culture that was nearly taken over by the Nazis during World War II. Many grandparents there still remember airplanes being shot down in their towns and farmlands. In spite of those near dangers and long history of war with rival European countries, the monarchy of England seldom showed their people that they trusted them with their own firearms. So there is always a sense that Europeans are still the subjects of an aristocratic elite, which is still very common in all European countries. My son-in-law came to America to essentially get away from that restriction. He shoots somewhere several weekends a month and has quite a nice collection of firearms. Most of the people in our family do as well, and nobody we know personally are hillbilly tobacco chewing drunks—which is the stereotype that Hollywood likes to place on our Midwest culture within the United States. Everyone is affluent and well-educated. And everyone is armed—well armed.

There is a measure of security of having so many firearms that puts in the American mind the knowledge that nobody will barge in on our homes in the middle of the night unfettered. It is nice to know that we can defend ourselves. But owning guns is a lot more than that. It’s about the craftsmanship of owning them, cleaning them, shooting them into small little targets that have a majority of the appeal. Sports like Cowboy Fast Draw are emerging with roots in war and carnage—but so is football, and soccer. The trigger job that I performed was all about specialization and achievement. I ran into trouble when reassembling the Vaquero which drove me nuts for quite a long time. After replacing all my springs with the lighter ones from Brownells I found that the gun would not cock while pointed down into my holster. When I withdrew it and pointed it up it would then work properly. That made no reasonable sense to me whatsoever. After taking the gun apart several times and putting it back together trying to pin point the problem, I eventually figured it out. I thought I had lost some kind of gravity activated spring that would cause such a condition but eventually figured out that the base pin spring was not pushing up against the transfer bar properly causing it to get caught under the firing pin. Once that situation was rectified, everything worked wonderfully, and the new springs had really sped up the cocking mechanism.

It was New Years’ Eve by the time I got the gun working right and was enjoying shooting it over and over again to make sure there were no lingering problems. It felt great to work through a problem that seemed really hard at first, but to overcome it with logic and craftsmanship. In a lot of ways it defined the essence of the gun debate. People who have similar stories to tell such as mine understand the magic of gun ownership. People who have not found a way to leave Europe to the Dark Ages, or other places in the world who have not yet discovered such a hobby do not understand. They are the ones who seek gun control because they have not yet fully embraced being an American. Obama is not an American because he has trouble with his birth certificate, or because he was raised in Indonesia by a second father trying to tame a restless wife. He’s un-America because he has not embraced the art and values of the culture within the United States. Instead, he’s always trying to change it through radicalism and executive orders. That is why I say that he’s an idiot. Rather than learn about the value and success of our culture, he wants to change it into something the Europeans understand which is really stupid. CLICK HERE FOR WHY. The type of people who most want to change America are those who still look at Europe as the dominate culture and they are in our military, our politics, and just about every high level office in corporate and entertainment America. They typically reject American Exceptionalism because they can’t bring themselves to the truth, that other countries essentially suck, and that is largely because they don’t allow their people to own firearms—which entrusts in them the ability to act freely and with responsibility. In Europe, even to this day—most people are considered “subjects” to an aristocracy and that is just a foreign concept in America.

At that late hour with my gun fixed, talk radio broadcasting interesting debate, I felt wonderful not just for repair job successfully performed, but because the gun as a hobby was a reminder that in America I don’t have to worship at the feet of any aristocrat or noble character of any kind. If the President walked up to my home at that moment there wouldn’t be any bowing or pandering going on. I’d simply look at him like some little girl selling Girl Scout cookies—since he likes to cry so much. I’d listen to what he wanted then decide to help him or not. But I wouldn’t be compelled to do anything—and it is the gun that gives me that freedom and keeps us sanctimonious even as radical politicians create executive orders to make America into something they are more comfortable with—because they were essentially too lazy to embrace our culture and do the work themselves of adopting its values into their lives. That is why Obama’s executive orders are such an insult and why Brownells continues to be one of my favorite companies on planet earth. I just love those guys!

http://www.brownells.com/

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

How the Government of Qatar Runs Hillary Clinton: Short of an armed revolution, Trump is the best answer

Did Hillary Clinton deserve what Trump did to her in Biloxi, MS on January 2, 2016? Yes, absolutely! As I reported yesterday, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW, Hillary is guilty of working with the government of Qatar to advance ISIS. ISIS is her creation along with Barack Obama, so she had some considerable gall blaming Trump for being the greatest advertisement for ISIS. So be sure to watch this speech then read some information about the government of Qatar below to learn more about who Hillary Clinton associates with, and why.

The political system of Qatar is an absolute monarchy, with the Emir of Qatar as head of state and head of government. Under the 2003 constitutional referendum it should become a constitutional monarchy.^[1] Sharia Law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar’s Constitution.^[2][3]

Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar’s Constitution.^[2][3] Sharia law is applied to laws pertaining to family law, inheritance, and several criminal acts (including adultery, robbery and murder). In some cases in Sharia-based family courts, a female’s testimony is worth half a man’s and in some cases a female witness is not accepted at all.^[4] Codified family law was introduced in 2006. In practice, Qatar’s legal system is a mixture of civil law and Islamic law.^[5][6]

Flogging is used in Qatar as a punishment for alcohol consumption or illicit sexual relations.^[7] Article 88 of Qatar’s criminal code declares the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes.^[8] Adultery is punishable by death when a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man are involved.^[8] In 2006, a Filipino woman was sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery.^[8] In 2010, at least 18 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to flogging of between 40 and 100 lashes for offences related to “illicit sexual relations” or alcohol consumption.^[9] In 2011, at least 21 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to floggings of between 30 and 100 lashes for offences related to “illicit sexual relations” or alcohol consumption.^[10] In 2012, six expatriates were sentenced to floggings of either 40 or 100 lashes.^[7] Only Muslims considered medically fit were liable to have such sentences carried out. It is unknown if the sentences were implemented.^[11] More recently in April 2013, a Muslim expatriate was sentenced to 40 lashes for alcohol consumption.^[12][13][14] In June 2014, a Muslim expatriate was sentenced to 40 lashes for consuming alcohol and driving under the influence.^[15] Judicial corporal punishment is common in Qatar due to the Hanbali interpretation of Sharia Law.

Stoning is a legal punishment in Qatar.^[16] Apostasy is a crime punishable by the death penalty in Qatar.^[17] Blasphemy is punishable by up to seven years in prison and proselytizing can be punished by up to 10 years in prison.^[17] Homosexuality is a crime punishable by the death penalty for Muslims.^[18]

Alcohol consumption is partially legal in Qatar, some five-star luxury hotels are allowed to sell alcohol to their non-Muslim customers.^[19][20] Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol in Qatar and Muslims caught consuming alcohol are liable to flogging or deportation. Non-Muslim expatriates can obtain a permit to purchase alcohol for personal consumption. The Qatar Distribution Company (a subsidiary of Qatar Airways) is permitted to import alcohol and pork; it operates the one and only liquor store in the country, which also sells pork to holders of liquor licences.^[21] Qatari officials have also indicated a willingness to allow alcohol in “fan zones” at the 2022 FIFA World Cup.^[22]

Until recently, restaurants on the Pearl-Qatar (a man-made island near Doha) were allowed to serve alcoholic drinks.^[19][20] In December 2011, however, restaurants on the Pearl were told to stop selling alcohol.^[19][23] No explanation was given for the ban.^[19][20] Speculation about the reason includes the government’s desire to project a more pious image in advance of the country’s first election of a royal advisory body and rumours of a financial dispute between the government and the resort’s developers.^[23]

In 2014, Qatar launched a modesty campaign to remind tourists of the modest dress code.^[24] Female tourists are advised not to wear leggings, miniskirts, sleeveless dresses and short or tight clothing in public. Men are advised against wearing only shorts and singlets.^[25]

As of 2014, certain provisions of the Qatari Criminal Code allows punishments such as flogging and stoning to be imposed as criminal sanctions. The UN Committee Against Torture found that these practices constituted a breach of the obligations imposed by the UN Convention Against Torture.^[26][27] Qatar retains the death penalty, mainly for threats against national security.

Under the provisions of Qatar’s sponsorship law, sponsors have the unilateral power to cancel workers’ residency permits, deny workers’ ability to change employers, report a worker as “absconded” to police authorities, and deny permission to leave the country.^[28] As a result, sponsors may restrict workers’ movements and workers may be afraid to report abuses or claim their rights.^[28] According to the ITUC, the visa sponsorship system allows the exaction of forced labour by making it difficult for a migrant worker to leave an abusive employer or travel overseas without permission.^[29] Qatar also does not maintain wage standards for its immigrant labour. Qatar commissioned international law firm DLA Piper to produce a report investigating the immigrant labour system. In May 2014 DLA Piper released over 60 recommendations for reforming the kafala system including the abolition of exit visas and the introduction of a minimum wage which Qatar has pledged to implement.^[30]

Cases of ill-treatment of immigrant labour have been observed. The Nepalese ambassador to Qatar, Maya Kumari Sharma, described the emirate as an “open jail”.^[31] Qatar does not have national occupational health standards or guidelines, and workplace injuries are the third highest cause of accidental deaths.^[32] In May 2012, Qatari officials declared their intention to allow the establishment of an independent trade union.^[33] Qatar also announced it will scrap its sponsor system for foreign labour, which requires that all foreign workers be sponsored by local employers, who in some cases hold workers’ passports and can deny them permission to change jobs.^[33]

On October 10, 2005, for the first time, Qatar was elected to a two-year term on the UN Security Council for 2006–2007.

According to BBC, in April 2006 Qatar announced that it will give US$50 million (£28 million) to the new Hamas-led Palestinian government. Hamas, an ally of Iran and Hezbollah, is considered by the US and the EU to be a terrorist organization.

In May 2006, Qatar pledged more than $100 million to Hurricane Katrina relief to colleges and universities in Louisiana affected by the hurricane. Some of this money was also distributed to families looking to repair damaged homes by Neighborhood Housing Services of New Orleans, Inc.

With the advent of the Arab Spring in 2011, Qatar has been seen as meddling in the affairs of other Arab countries, supporting insurgents, generally and increasingly radical Islamists and Salafists.^[45] This policy has led to rebukes by neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.^[45] Qatar joined NATO operations in Libya and reportedly armed Libyan opposition groups.^[46] It is also became a major provider of money and support for rebel groups in the Syrian civil war.^[47] With close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood the emirate’s funding for rebels strongly favored Islamic and Salafist forces in both Libya and Syria.^[45]

The government of Qatar owns the Al Jazeera television network. The network has been accused of being biased and taking an active role in the affairs of other countries specifically during the Arab Spring in 2011.^[48] Numerous countries have complained about biased reporting in support of Qatar policy.

Most of the developed countries (plus Brunei and Indonesia) are exempt from visa requirements. Citizens of exempted countries can also request a joint visa that allows them to travel to Oman as well.^[49]

Qatar is member of ABEDA, AFESD, AL, AMF, ESCWA, FAO, G-77, GCC, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDB, IFAD, IFRCS, IHO (pending member), ILO, IMF, International Maritime Organization, Inmarsat, Intelsat,Interpol, IOC, ISO (correspondent), ITU, NAM, OAPEC, OIC, OPCW, OPEC, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, and WTO.

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

The House of Thani (Arabic: آل ثاني Al Thani‎) is the ruling family of Qatar, whose origins can be traced back to the Ma’adid clan of the Banu Tamim tribal confederation.^[1]

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

When Trump said in his speech that the Iran deal was so bad that it was suspicious he’s talking about this history with Qatar and Hezbollah. The plan from Democrats like Obama and the Clintons have been to deplete American resources so that the Middle East can rise up and strengthen as an independent region with Palestinian leanings working closely with Iran. To show the extent of Qatar’s activism into American politics consider the effort expensed by Al Jazeer America to expand its operations within the United States even with a zero share in the ratings. The system is completely rigged against us and Trump is exposing it.

Al Jazeera America had been a disaster from the start. Its $500 million buy of Al Gore’s Current TV had been expensive but considered worth the price to get access to a huge number of cable households through Gore’s sweetheart deals with big cable companies. But the cable companies knew the difference between Al Gore and Al Jazeera and they wanted that oil money Qatar was throwing around.

So did Al Gore.

Gore had initially protected Al Jazeera by accusing cable companies who wanted to drop it of Islamophobia, but then turned around and sued Al Jazeera when it backstabbed him by using millions of dollars of his money in a slush fund to pay cable channels for airing its propaganda.

The House of Thani was forced to dig deeper to get Al Jazeera America into as many homes as possible, but it still wasn’t getting any actual viewers. Its average daily ratings of 13,000 viewers were less than half the already miniscule 31,000 viewers of Gore’s failed Current TV project.

Qatar had paid $25,000 per viewer and with some nights registering a zero in the demo, recouping that money through advertising was not a realistic business plan.

And then things got even worse.

Al Jazeera America’s biggest hit was “Real Money with Ali Velshi” with 54,000 viewers. Those were the kinds of ratings usually associated with cable hits like the deceased FOX Soccer Channel, but that was as good as it got for Qatar’s $500 million investment. And like all good things at Al Jazeera, it wouldn’t last.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-fall-of-al-jazeera-america/

That is just the tip of the iceberg but it gives a good idea of why Hillary Clinton has been promoting Al Jazeera over domestic news organizations. These are crooked people up to no good and the best weapon we have against them is Trump. For all the reasons articulated in his Biloxi, MS speech, Hillary deserves everything she’s getting. Clinton and her conspirators have been working with foreign governments against American interests and that idiot wants to be President. The bottom line is that we can’t trust anybody else to do the job because they have allowed the Clintons to do everything they have up to this point. And it’s time to end that—and only Trump is willing at that level to do the job. And it’s about time. The establishment is corrupt beyond belief and short of an armed revolution, Trump is the best answer in 2016.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Columbus Did Not Discover America: Indians are not “Native Americans”–understanding the infancy of archaeology

I’ve said it before, George Lucas has left his mark on the world not as a great filmmaker and creator of franchises like Star Wars and Indiana Jones—but on the world of archaeology and anthropology—which is what he originally wanted to be when he grew up. Archaeology as a science is a very young profession. It’s only just over a hundred years old as one of the big academic platforms of most universities. I myself originally wanted to be an archaeologist—but pulled away from it when I realized that the women weren’t very attractive, the money was too infrequent, and that most of the job was digging up junk in bad regions of the world then being restricted by university politics on what you could say about them.

And for me, archaeology didn’t allow for guns to be fired while on the job—so I stepped away. But many thousands of people didn’t essentially because they wanted to grow up and be like Indiana Jones. This has allowed for some really good minds to enter the field and for money to find its way into excavations and television programming that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. So it shouldn’t be shocking to many to hear broadcasts like this one below where lots of archaeological evidence is presented showing quite clearly that Minoans had settlements in the middle of a Tennessee region several thousand years ago—like up to eight thousand B.C. Watch this!

It was really immature, and scientifically stupid to take the young field of archaeology and declare that everything discovered in the first half of the 20^th Century guided largely by the Smithsonian would declare the history of the world for all time. There just wasn’t enough evidence in the young field and not enough people doing the investigations. To take a few finds from Howard Carter and declare for all time that “The West” understood the history of the world and that the case was closed to protect religious politics and university prestige from further discoveries was just a mistake. There is a lot more to archaeology than that and our history as a human race. The evidence is abundant that no history book is 100% correct. It is really only because of George Lucas that further questions have been asked and thousands of Indiana Jones fans are running around the world uncovering that hidden past even when the politics of our societies is attempting to castigate them for doing so.

For instance, in the case of the above video, where it is quite clear that the Minoans were in America during a time well before Aristotle was having debates about individuality over collective Republicanism with Plato cultures were rising and falling in America many thousands of years before Columbus ever found a map of the ocean routes to what he thought was China from black market vendors in Calcutta that found itself hidden from the public in Portugal. That’s a story I’ve told before, and is only relevant here because it points to the tip of an iceberg of basic archaeological foundations that are deservedly being tossed out the window as the evidence dictates. Columbus didn’t discover America. He only rediscovered it for Europe and the Roman Catholic Church—the rest of the world already knew about the “New World” and had been traveling there for a long time.

The first sign of evidence is that there are accents to Cherokee Indian speech that reflect regional infusion from the eastern Mediterranean cultures. I often talk about the giants found in American mounds—people standing eight feet to nine feet tall who were in North America well before all the known Indian tribes now documented. I have also written quite extensively of my disgust that the Miamisburg Mound near my home has been virtually untouched by modern science and had a massive government project set up around it preventing proper excavation techniques. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. I have also written about my extreme disgust about what happened to the Nework Mound complex just east of Columbus, Ohio. Of course Columbus is named after Christopher and was established to preserve the European version of historical discovery. So the way early settlers around Columbus dealt with the strange mounds at Newark was to put a housing development right thought the middle of it, and then put a golf course right through the northern octagon. The Newark sight is a massive archaeological site that has been mostly destroyed by the third major culture to inhabit its terrestrial placement. I say third because the European migrants only recently replaced the Hopewell and Adena cultures that had been second-handers to the primary culture that built the mounds and had artifacts that were clearly from the same region as the archaeology found in the Tennessee Valley.

I have even went so far to show in great detail how the entire city of Lexington, Kentucky was built on top of an ancient city that would have been much more at home in the Tigris and Euphrates, area than what is typically associated with the American Indian. I have covered the mysterious archaeological evidence found inside a major mound for which the center of downtown Cincinnati was built on top of, and is presently found in the nearby museum—mysteriously placed but completely unidentifiable by current scientific understanding. A very good argument that the current highway system of I-75 is one of the most mysterious lines of road built anywhere in the world could be made. Not only did it give us Kentucky Fried Chicken during its construction but it shows an almost human memory of a trade route that used to connect all these archaeological regions across a vast span of American frontier thousands of years before known history has attributed anything logical occurring before the nomad culture of the Indians were discovered in North America from 1492 to 1850.

A study of Indian myths and legends are all that’s left of an obvious advanced culture that spanned the entire world before the philosophy of Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality in China during 551 – 479 BC. There were cultures in America referred to only in the Bible’s missing Book of Enoch that had been around for many millennia and had risen and fallen following the Vico cycle. The Indians were obviously part of that cycle and were capturing that earlier period through their mythologies, which they interpreted the best they could as a second-handed society of nomads.

So there is a lot of work to do, and without George Lucas, I don’t think there would be so much independent investigation which is uncovering all these marvelous revelations occurring outside of academia. I’m not against academia, they are most poised to do the work, but they have not been open to the evidence pouring in from finds all over the world, and they have too much of a relationship with government censorship obviously motivated to preserve their version of history—likely to protect the religious foundations of their societies, whether that be European pride, or American Christianity. Many of the most important archaeological sites around the world are off-limits because they exists in war-torn areas always brimming with political mismanagement that often looks to be to be deliberate. Whether it’s the ISIS destruction of ancient cities in the Middle East, or the communism which has hidden Cambodia from legitimate investigation by a sex trade industry that flourishes to keep legitimate investigators away from the vile horror often associated with Phnom Penh.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/12/world/cambodia-child-sex-trade/

Communism is a big part of the problem; try getting a dig permit in China where there is a lot of untouched archaeological research that needs to be conducted—which looks to reflect much of what has been found in North America. Look at Central and South America where poverty from socialism has destroyed those economies leaving people desperate to make a basic living for themselves. Only really seasoned travelers like Josh Gates—whom I think is a wonderful person often seen on the Travel Channel, can go to such places and resist the temptation to embark on the debauchery of a people who would sell their entire futures in exchange for a piece of bread—then stay for years studying archaeological evidence that no university in the civilized world wants to publish, for fear of it tarnishing their relationships with the British Museum, the Louvre, or the Smithsonian. In the United States we can’t even get a reasonable excavation of the Miamisburg Mound by nearby University of Dayton, or the Great Serpent Mound by Ohio University, Athens, or the University of Cincinnati—let alone why no legitimate research into Shambhala in the Himalayas is taking place.

The Dalai Lama can’t even have an afterlife without the Chinese Communist Party demanding that he reincarnate by their direction. (Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up). So having a legitimate scientific investigation into Shambhala is off-limits because of the communism of China and its impact on the surrounding countries. The communist Chinese do not want to know what happened in their culture 8 to 10 thousand years ago. They are more worried about the Dalai Lama’s afterlife. Not even the great Ohio State can tell us Hebrew-like artifacts were found at Newark, which is only a 45 minutes drive to the east in a pretty nice part of town relative to the rest of the world’s archaeology. There’s even a Wendy’s restaurant at the front door to the historic site. But Ohio State can tell us how they plan to win another national football championship. No really serious investigation occurs there but to attribute the site to the Hopewell Indians descending from the Archaic period.

http://www.joshuagates.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/asia/chinas-tensions-with-dalai-lama-spill-into-the-afterlife.html?_r=0]

Do I believe that it was Minoans who were in America during that Archaic period? I think there is lots of evidence that shows that they, or a culture that either spawned them, or the other way around was directly involved in trade between China, North America, and the Middle East likely 10,000 years ago and many of the cultures of that period have either been built over by successors or remain hidden by years of erosion. They are right in front of our faces, but we do not see it because of modern religion and government vice. The cause for instance of Cambodian sex trafficking is their authoritarian rule and history with communism. As a French colony—which is a first world socialist utopia in Europe—the people were conquered and left to communism, which crushed their economy leaving families to sell their children to the sex trade. The West keeps it going because they want access to the young virgin children which prevents any real science from occurring there by guilt of association. Anybody with a trip to Phnom Penh on their passport feels they have to explain to people at a museum fundraiser that they were only there for “work” not sex with children. So no legitimate scientist wants to spend years studying Ankor Wat, but for the occasional photographer who goes there to get the fantastic pictures of a culture long gone and mysteriously sophisticated. The ones who do don’t get much of a voice on the world stage of academia—by design. We are led to believe that such societies were not connected to places like Cahokia on the Mississippi River in North America, or the Tigres in the Middle East—but was a standalone culture that was a self-contained Hindu religion shut off from the world by terrain.

The lesson here of course is that one century of archaeology was not enough. We really can’t formulate the history of the human race with just a few decades of a young scientific field. Thanks to George Lucas, he pulled the restrictor plate off the science through imagination and now there are a lot of people like Josh Gates exploring the world living out their internal fantasies of being like Indiana Jones. And that’s a great thing—because we deserve to understand who were are and where we are going. But one thing is certain, Christopher Columbus did not discover the “New World” and the Indians were not “Native Americans.” They came from someplace else as well and took over sites from a culture that had risen and fallen in the United States well before they built their first mythology for Tirawa—The One Above from the Pawnee Indian tribe. Following the Vico cycle, the Pawnee like all the others were second-handers to a culture that had receded into a primitive state only to become nomads once again leaving a culture to clamor at the truth only through myths and legends. But our true history is still being uncovered—and established archaeology is only just now getting started. The history books will not be complete for several thousand years going forward—that is if we can avoid the Vico cycle ourselves. That is the challenge of our present states. Hopefully we can learn from that hidden history before it’s too late for us as well and we are reduced to a fragmented regional memory of a future country who thinks they understand the human race because they uncovered a copy of Star Wars under 50 feet of soil and reported to the government then that they have it all figured out.

To substantiate what I have said, click all the links in the text above and you will find dear reader enough free information to fill several books. Then watch all the videos and you will discover enough evidence to last a lifetime, and it will change how you see everything. I promise–all you have to do is look and read for yourself. The evidence is more than abundant.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Bullies of the Beltway: Standing with Trump and Arpaio to do the right thing

To further illustrate the level of the fight we are facing in 2016 have a look at this 2011 video of the White House Correspondence dinner. The first video is of Barack Obama roasting Donald Trump and the second is of Seth Myers from Saturday Night Live doing the same. The issue of tension was that Trump had been the one to push for Obama to release his birth certificate—which forced the White House to finally do it after stonewalling for over three years. It was quite a mystery and gave rise to the “birther movement.” Trump after a lot of persistence pushed, and pushed, and pushed until a document was produced leading to the victory lap in front of the media at the special 2011 engagement roasting Trump who was forced to sit stone faced in the middle of the action and take it.

But that wasn’t the end of the story. Sheriff Arpaio from Arizona put together an independent group of people to analyze the released birth certificate and what they discovered was that the document Obama’s people released was a fake created recently, and not in the year of the president’s birth. All of this was reported of course reported by me, CLICK HERE to review. The rest of the media relegated the material as “conspiracy theory.” For some reason, they didn’t want to know, as a collective entity—they wanted to believe that Obama was something that he wasn’t. And when he was caught lying, only a few really held his feet to the fire making them easy targets like Trump was at that White House Correspondence dinner in 2011. The purpose of that roasting was to show others what happens to people who dare to take on the Bullies of the Beltway.

All that seems like ancient history now—Obama won his election in 2012, and Trump decided not to run for president that year against him. It seemed for a long time that only Trump and Arpaio were the only legitimate voices willing to yell against the tide that something was really wrong with President Obama. Shortly after the 2012 election, we had the IRS scandal with Lois Lerner involving the White House, and then we had Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearings featuring her poor decisions leading to that disaster. Then we had the destruction of Hillary’s emails on her private server so the scandals and stories mounted up to such a degree that everyone forgot about the birth certificate issue being a forgery. The White House had produced a forged document and passed it off in a way that was more concerning than all the mysterious reasons that Obama refused to release it in the first place—which was always troubling. I mean if you and I signed up for a new job, they will demand that you produce a driver’s license and/or a birth certificate to satisfy their screening criteria. Becoming president of the United States is a pretty important job, so at least a birth certificate should have always been a high priority. Yet it wasn’t and the president avoided it, and when pressed by Trump—day after day after day for several years, the White House finally managed to produce a document that could only have been created in the modern age—certainly not in the early 1960s when such technology wasn’t even invented yet to produce a computer generated layered document instead of a scanned replicate of an original. If you and I were to scan our birth certificate into a computer program such as Adobe, you’d get a single flat layer of imagery. There would be no way to separate the fields of what we scanned because the computer would have recognized only the image scanned from the source. In short, if the document had been scanned into a computer like it was claimed, there would be no way to manipulate the various fields within the document presented by the White House. The Obama birth certificate was a fake produced under great pressure by Trump. In spite of all that evidence, Trump was laughed at by just about everyone. Trump being a guy who saw a fight and the depth of that conflict knew what he had to do to clear his name—and that was to run for President in 2016 so that he could work from the top position to solve some of these diabolical problems. And that brings us to the present where Trump is way ahead in the polls and poised to be the Republican nominee in 2016 to run directly against Hillary Clinton. The people who presented that forged document among other scandalous cover-ups are terrified of Trump in the White House, because it’s obvious that he’ll expose everyone for everything to prove his point.

I took a lot of flak for supporting Trump for president so quickly in July of 2015—I do occasionally cover conspiracies and strange phenomena, but I’m not a conspiracy theorist. When I say something it holds up—and a review of the many things I’ve covered will show that to be the case. I know that something is very wrong with our political class—which extends over directly into our entertainment culture. We have real criminals in very powerful positions and they need to be removed. Yet congress showed no desire to take on the Obama birth certificate and most in the media completely ignored the issue. Even people like Glenn Beck stayed away from the “birther” issue no matter how justified it was. This left Trump and Arpaio to hang out on a limb with all their hard-fought evidence as the media proclaimed, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was there to hear it—it didn’t happen. The media collectively refused to hear the tree fall on the Obama birth certificate leaving Obama to rake Trump over the coals at that 2011 correspondence dinner. Trump fuming to do the right thing at his first opportunity. I believe that Trump made his decision hell or high water to capture the White House after that roast.

Arpaio was sued by the Holder Justice Department soon after the birth certificate report and Trump stopped short of running for president so that he could solidify his position. If he was going to do it he’d do so from a position of strength. Trump spent the following three years doing just that. Knowing all this, that’s why I was so quick to join Trump for his White House run. He’s doing what I’d do myself if I were in such a position, and that is to treat the whole thing as a war that had to be won. When Trump said he viewed running against Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton as a war for the White House, this is what he’s talking about—an establishment that seeks completely to control everything political with the banter of school yard bullies who determine the trends of the day with raw force and mass persuasion. These people who have been occupying the White House for a number of years, people like the Bush family and the Clintons have the whole system rigged in their favor and the press eats out of their hands. Obama is associated with that culture by default. The same system that ignored his birth certificate problems allowed Lois Lerner to get by with IRS abuse and a massive cover-up of the top-secret emails destroyed and utilized on Hillary Clinton’s private server. I know how Trump feels to be the only one speaking out for what’s right.

But here’s the secret dear reader, these are bullies who are running our country right now—it’s not Trump who is the bad guy—as much as they’d like to make him appear that way. Just like in grade school when you stand up to them, they have nothing to throw back at you. They can threaten to beat you up with IRS audits, they can harass you at work, through the media, and they can follow around your loved ones and harass them if it doesn’t work on you. They can intimidate and harass you until you do as they are doing—comply with the orders of the collective. Well, I’ve had everything mentioned above done to me and my family and I have done just what I did when I was in grade school, which is the basic mentality of most people working in government—they are still 15-year-old kids looking for a date to the homecoming dance. The entire Beltway culture is made up of those types of intellects and they have only one game plan—harass individuals who flock away from the herd. Well, when I was in grade school, there are plenty of stories of what I did to bullies and I never yielded to them. As an adult, I dealt with bullies in the same fashion. When they came after me—which they did for over 15 years—during my entire 20s up until I was about 35 and had essentially outlasted them—I fought them the way Arpaio and Trump did over the birther issue. What’s right is right—not what the masses accept as right. Right has to be the priority in every circumstance, especially when it’s obvious that there is a massive cover-up going on. Somebody has to be willing to stand up to fight for what’s right, even at great personal risk—because the real bullies have to be stood up against.

I’ve been called a bully myself. In fact I hear it more now than I ever did. I have more expression in the English language and natural verbal ability to sidestep the bully accusation than many people who are similar in personality to me, but are functioning without as many tools in the intellectual tool box. But what I want, I get, and Trump is made of the same stuff. When he is called a bully, it’s because the real bullies have been denied the ability to beat people up without mercy, to impose on them the imposition of collective sentiment. But that’s where serious crimes are hidden—behind the “Bullies of the Beltway.” They only make fun of Trump because they have no other means to exact their will. The secret to beating them is to be tougher, and rougher than they are. Because they are liars, they are scum bags, and they are maniacal fools fit for defeat and only that. They deserve to have their asses kicked. They deserve to be pushed and to have the tables turned on them, because it’s the only way that we get our country back in the hands of the competent. We have to start by getting the liars and Bullies of the Beltway out of our White House and into the gutters where they truly belong.

You can’t appease a bully. You can only kick the shit out of them when they challenge you. They might cry about it, but they put themselves in that position to begin with. When they do come, that’s the only way. That is why I support Trump. He has a long history of doing the right thing even when it costs him to do it. Because he’s learned how to deal with bullies-you do it directly and with great fanfare. And you outlast them because in the end, they have to hide from the public and that is their true weakness. When it comes to beating Hillary Clinton, the only way to capture the White House for Republicans is to expose Democrats one great weakness—their necessity to manipulate the public from their true intentions. And in the fight for what’s right, that is what I look forward most in 2016. For that reason, it is a Happy New Year. The best thing we can do is support those who are willing to fight the Bullies of the Beltway because in that way, you are making a decision to not be pushed around any longer. When Bush says that Trump is not a serious candidate, he is talking about playing the Beltway game of surrendering to extortion by those bullies in power. But its time for a new game. For the evidence, just watch the above videos completely, and you’ll understand the enormity of the problem before us and the very nature of the elections of 2016. We won’t get a second chance any time soon.

Rich “Cliffhanger” 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 Open Society of George Soros: Understanding forces at war with American sovereignty

I know long time readers here understand, but many of the gaining masses have not been thinking about the inner workings of mass global conspiracy and the desires of people like George Soros to create an “open society” meaning essentially a global population governed by a solitary socialist government—likely a spawn of the current United Nations. But they should have. After all, it’s the Holidays, and when it’s not this particular festive time of year, its Halloween, Thanksgiving, it’s the Superbowl, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July—it’s always something fun to distract our attention from the insurrection of jealous socialists and their designs of international tyranny.

These global insurgents have a lot of money and there are many in the United States press and entertainment groups who want some of what they have to fall in their lap—so they do what Soros wants to get it. Much of the politics Donald Trump is fighting against—in both parties—is a system greatly influenced by internationalists like Soros and their open society networks. The reason that outsiders like Trump are so popular is that a large portion of the American population is learning, as people like me have said all along, that the system is broken at all levels in government, from the education system, to the Executive Branch and we need to fix it starting by getting people like Soros out of American politics for our own good. Here is a letter from Soros to his supporters warning against supporting politicians like Trump and Cruz sent between the Christmas and New Year Holiday of 2015.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

George published the essay below in the Guardian today. He argues that we must not give into the fear created by terrorism. All best, Michael Vachon

The terrorists and demagogues want us to be scared. We mustn’t give in. The Guardian By George Soros December 28, 2015 Open societies are always endangered. This is especially true of America and Europe today, as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere, and the way that America and Europe, particularly France, have reacted to them. Jihadi terrorist groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaida have discovered the achilles heel of our western societies: the fear of death.

Through horrific attacks and macabre videos, the publicists of Isis magnify this fear, leading otherwise sensible people in hitherto open societies to abandon their reason. Scientists have discovered that emotion is an essential component of human reasoning. That discovery explains why jihadi terrorism poses such a potent threat to our societies: the fear of death leads us and our leaders to think – and then behave – irrationally. Science merely confirms what experience has long shown: when we are afraid for our lives, emotions take hold of our thoughts and actions, and we find it difficult to make rational judgments. Fear activates an older, more primitive part of the brain than that which formulates and sustains the abstract values and principles of open society. The open society is thus always at risk from the threat posed by our response to fear. A generation that has inherited an open society from its parents will not understand what is required to maintain it until it has been tested and learns to keep fear from corrupting reason. Jihadi terrorism is only the latest example. The fear of nuclear war tested the last generation, and the fear of communism and fascism tested my generation. The jihadi terrorists’ ultimate goal is to convince Muslim youth worldwide that there is no alternative to terrorism. And terrorist attacks are the way to achieve that goal, because the fear of death will awaken and magnify the latent anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe and America, inducing the non-Muslim population to treat all Muslims as potential attackers.

And that is exactly what is happening. The hysterical anti-Muslim reaction to terrorism is generating fear and resentment among Muslims living in Europe and America. The older generation reacts with fear, the younger one with resentment; the result is a breeding ground for potential terrorists. This is a mutually reinforcing, reflexive process.

How can it be stopped and reversed? Abandoning the values and principles underlying open societies and giving in to an anti-Muslim impulse dictated by fear certainly is not the answer, though it may be difficult to resist the temptation. I experienced this personally when I watched the last Republican presidential debate; I could stop myself only by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies. To remove the danger posed by jihadi terrorism, abstract arguments are not enough; we need a strategy for defeating it. The challenge is underscored by the fact that the jihadi phenomenon has been with us for more than a generation. Indeed, gaining a proper understanding of it may be impossible. But the attempt must be made.

Consider the Syrian conflict, which is the root cause of the migration problem that is posing an existential threat to the European Union as we know it. If it was resolved, the world would be in better shape. It is important to recognise that Isis is operating from a position of weakness. While it is spreading fear in the world, its hold on its home ground is weakening. The United Nations security council has unanimously adopted a resolution against it, and the leaders of Isis are aware that their days in Iraq and Syria are numbered. Of course, the outlook for Syria remains highly uncertain, and the conflict there cannot be understood or tackled in isolation. But one idea shines through crystal clear: it is an egregious mistake to do what the terrorists want us to do. That is why, as 2016 gets underway, we must reaffirm our commitment to the principles of open society and resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, however hard that may be.

The intelligent person who stands for capitalism and American sovereignty should do exactly the opposite of what George Soros wants. That is the reason there is panic within the established parties, because the trend of our day is to move away from any influence these international activists might have had over American politics, which is quite an extensive network. From the push for marijuana legalization to open borders and deviant sexual practices, the strategy of Soros has always been the destruction of individual Americans and the rise of a global government. The ISIS threat was largely created by the Obama administration to help with this open border policy. You don’t see Syrian refugees fleeing to the UAE or Saudi Arabia. They are being moved into Europe and America to facilitate multiculturalism—essentially a break-down of individual sovereignty between nations to usher in a global population without distinction. The influence of Soros can be seen in everything from the latest Star Wars film A Force Awakens, to every pot legalization initiative on each state ballot. And he’s not alone. It’s a massive movement that despises the United States and its capitalism and it is presently at every level of American culture.

Trump and Cruz are the candidates that can either intellectually withstand this corruption, or financially. I have talked about this being a true war of the billionaires in the United States, Trump and Carl Icahn against Bloomberg, Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and Buffett—among others. To understand the scope of this battle, you have to think unconventionally. Everything in the middle, the media, entertainment, publishing, corporate American, international trade—virtually everything are pawns in the chess game between these interests, because they have the money to play the game—whereas the rest of us don’t. As older Americans with a history of interest in patriotism, I believe Carl Icahn and Donald Trump are sincerely interested in preserving America’s place as the dominate force in global markets. Everyone else—literally, has placed their bets on global unified government at the expense of American sovereignty. Those are the words of ill ease behind George Soros and his subtle letter above. If you want to hit Soros in the pocket-book and take down these global insurrections by several pegs, you must vote for Donald Trump. Nobody else stands a chance—and hopefully in his wake Ted Cruz will find a place eventually in the Executive Office. But not until Trump has cleaned house and put in place a proper management system that puts American interests above the global billionaires like George Soros and their open society push. There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism, so long as those other cultures are aspiring to be like Americans. We must not surrender our values to the insurrections paid for by George Soros.

George Soros and his alliances have created the terrorism we are all dealing with. But the American reaction in supporting Trump is not something Soros or anybody else counted on as a result. Their plan is backfiring, and it is up to us to make sure it blows up in his face—as he deserves.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

France is a Socialist Country: Understanding the intent of Four Horsmen and climate change arguments

I recommend that you watch this documentary called the Four Horsemen by Ross Aschcroft, who is an English director whose provocative film shown below evokes how the modern-day Four Horsemen continue to ride roughshod over the people who least can afford it. It provokes a new kind of socialism that is supported by young Millennials like the group Anonymous and the Occupy Walls Street protestors. It essentially is a repackaged hatred of capitalism that represents European socialism attempting to spread to every corner of the world, particularly in America. It’s important to understand how the attacks on American enterprise come, how it’s being sold, and what the history of it is. When Obama and French president François Hollande celebrated their climate change agreements in Paris recently the communist strategy behind their emphasis was not reported by the press and to those who don’t know any better. Films like the Four Horsmen sound like reasonable suggestions—just like climate change might seem reasonable on the surface. But it’s not reasonable, and many Americans don’t understand how deep the roots of socialism run in Europe—and how politicians in the United States have sought to mimic much of what they’ve seen there in American policy.

France is not a capitalist country that represents the values of the “west.” It has a very long history with socialism and they are quite open about it. Here is a bit of the history of France and its political system which was quite evident in the Four Horsmen film. Of course the point in exhibiting this information is to show how France has influenced all of Europe, particularly Great Britain and liberal filmmakers like Ross Ashcroff. The Socialist Party (French: Parti socialiste [paʁti sɔsjaˈlist], PS) is a social-democratic,^[4] centrist political party in France, and the largest party of the French centre-left or center-right. The PS is one of the two major contemporary political parties in France, along with the Republicans. The Socialist Party replaced the earlier French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO) in 1969, and is currently led by First Secretary Jean-Christophe Cambadélis. The PS is a member of the Party of European Socialists (PES), the Socialist International (SI) and the Progressive Alliance.

The PS first won power in 1981, when its candidate François Mitterrand was elected President of France in the 1981 presidential election. Under Mitterrand, the party achieved a governing majority in the National Assembly from 1981 to 1986 and again from 1988 to 1993. PS leader Lionel Jospin lost his bid to succeed Mitterrand as president in the 1995 presidential election against Rally for the Republic leader Jacques Chirac, but became prime minister in a cohabitation government after the 1997 parliamentary elections, a position Jospin held until 2002, when he was again defeated in the presidential election.

In 2007, the party’s candidate for the presidential election, Ségolène Royal, was defeated by conservative UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Then, the Socialist party won most of regional and local elections and it won control of the Senate in 2011 for the first time in more than fifty years.^[5] On 6 May 2012, François Hollande, the First Secretary of the Socialist Party from 1997 to 2008, was elected President of France, and the next month, the party won the majority in the National Assembly.

The PS also formed several figures who acted at the international level: Jacques Delors, who was the eighth President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1994 and the first person to serve three terms in that office, was from the Socialist Party,^[6] as well as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund from 2007 to 2011,^[7] and Pascal Lamy, who was Director-General of the World Trade Organization from 2005 to 2013.^[8]

In 2014, the party had 60,000 members.^[1] In 2012 the party had claimed 173,486 members.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (French: [fʁɑ̃swa mɔʁis mitɛʁɑ̃] ( listen); 26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was a French statesman, who served as the President of France from 1981 until 1995. He is the longest-serving President of France and, as leader of the Socialist Party, the first figure from the left elected President under the Fifth Republic.

Reflecting family influences, Mitterrand started political life on the Catholic nationalist right. He served under the Vichy Regime in its earlier years. Subsequently, however, he joined the Resistance, moved to the left, and held ministerial office repeatedly under the Fourth Republic. He opposed de Gaulle‘s establishment of the Fifth Republic. Although at times a politically isolated figure, Mitterrand outmaneuvered rivals to become the left’s standard-bearer in every presidential election from 1965 to 1988, except 1969. Elected President in the May 1981 presidential election, he was re-elected in 1988 and held office until 1995.

Mitterrand invited the Communist Party into his first government, a controversial move at the time. In the event, the Communists were boxed in as junior partners and, rather than taking advantage, saw their support erode. They left the cabinet in 1984. Early in his first term, Mitterrand followed a radical economic program, including nationalization of key firms, but after two years, with the economy in crisis, he reversed course. His foreign and defense policies built on those of his Gaullist predecessors. His partnership with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advanced European integration via the Maastricht Treaty, but he accepted German reunification only reluctantly. During his time in office he was a strong promoter of culture and implemented a range of costly “Grands Projets“. He was twice forced by the loss of a parliamentary majority into “cohabitation governments” with conservative cabinets led, respectively, by Jacques Chirac (1986–88), and Édouard Balladur (1993–95). Less than eight months after leaving office, Mitterrand died from the prostate cancer he had successfully concealed for most of his presidency.

Beyond making the French left electable, Mitterrand presided over the rise of the Socialist Party to dominance of the left, and the decline of the once-mighty Communist Party (as a share of the popular vote in the first presidential round, the Communists shrank from a peak of 21.27% in 1969 to 8.66% in 1995, at the end of Mitterrand’s second term, and to 1.93% in the 2007 election).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mitterrand

To many left leaning political people capitalism is what America is, where corporations are the targets of crony deals between politics and free enterprise. The bar of understanding has been set so low that capitalism has been defined as the mess that currently makes up the Washington beltway. This is largely because we have allowed Europe—specifically the socialism of places like France to define capitalism as a definition allowing film and television producers in love with Paris and London to create the standard understanding of money’s measurement in our culture with films like Four Horsmen. But socialism and communism did not go away during the McCarthy Hearings, or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is quite alive and well, and being taught in our local schools, in our media, and in our admiration for the Europeans by a class of people in America who really don’t understand capitalism—particularly pure capitalism without the crony aspect.

It is important to understand history and to know that as far back as most people alive today can remember, France has been a socialist county. It must be understood that when there are climate change discussions in Paris that it’s not protecting the environment that they are after, it’s more of building sympathy for proposals like the ones expressed in Ross Ashcroff’s film Four Horsmen. These are not people who want a free market economy, they quote Plato in the film, but ignore that it was Aristotle who built the philosophy of American politics and economy. And that for America to work correctly, Plato’s prehistoric socialism must be eradicated and replaced with competitive environments full of inventiveness and productive enterprise rooted in profit. It is to understand that before a true indulgence of the market forces at work can be comprehended proper definitions for things must be clear. And clearly the kid Ross Ashcroft missed the mark as do many. That is because they were bred to believe that Europe is still relevant and that their long history with socialism is the standard of the day. But for us in America, we need to sever that relationship until places like France get the clear message—that they are entirely on the wrong path and are destined for continued failure. The only way they can hide that failure is by sabotaging through any means possible the economic power of the west, and the productivity of free enterprise.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

	Anonymous on Why Christianity Survived as a…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…
	Anonymous on Is God an Idiot: I don’t…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Scaling Move…
	Rich Hoffman on The Jonathan Edwards Study Bib…
	Anonymous on The Jonathan Edwards Study Bib…
	Anonymous on The Day the Past Arrives in th…
	Rich Hoffman on The Day the Past Arrives in th…
	Anonymous on The Day the Past Arrives in th…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: