Tag: education

Hoffman Laissez-Faire and the Metaphysics of Quality: Judging the good from the bad

Not everyone is suited for my style of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  In fact, I would say that less than 10% of an entire population is ready for it.  But if I were to pluck 10 people off the street, I could train 5 of them into it with success, giving an approximately 50% interview ratio of developing a person into a gradual acceptance of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  CLICK HERE for the foundation definitions to the laissez-faire system.  This is important because the only way out of many of the world’s problems is through laissez-faire capitalism and that requires people to function from the front of the train mentality as defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Essentially what I would look for in those 5 out of 10 people is a light on in the back of their minds to indicate that they resent the Theory X management styles so prevalent these days and are hungry for the ability to shape their own lives through their own ambitions.  Those are the types of people I would recruit and train into Hoffman Laissez Faire management.

When it is wondered why large, massive companies can be beaten by small ones it is important to understand the Metaphysics of Quality, as I’ve said many times.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  Essentially, you have to be a quality person to recognize other quality people.  Then you have to trust yourself enough to not feel threatened to give them the right to rule themselves, only providing guidance to keep them on the tracks.  But you have to encourage them to function in the scary front part of the train with you instead of in the back where it’s safe—with the other Theory X people.  The federal government for instance is extremely Theory X oriented.  If people do not comply with the federal government the IRS and other methods are used to force people into submission.  This is not good for the national economy and profit-making endeavors.  Only true laissez-faire capitalism will work properly for the most people with a trickle down effect from the few competent to the lax second-handers.

As most of the world functions from second-handers—those who live through others for their sustenance both leadership and their followers prefer Theory X as a kind of safe foundation.  Those are the back of the train people who are always analyzing the contents of the metaphorical train.  They often miss their decision gates because they are in the back of the train as opposed to the front and don’t know to take corrective action until the decision gate has passed.  The bigger the company, the bigger their train, and naturally the more people who are Theory X types who are safely in the back of it.  To put it more obviously, Hollywood has been making a lot of money for a lot of years.  They know what makes movies good and bad—or at least they should.  But the big studios still find themselves in a crap shoot with picking box office winners—which is why they are making so many retreads of old movies to keep their numbers up.  Collective decision-making does not make “superhuman” leadership decisions.  A room full of geniuses will not improve the net results if all those people are in the back of the train instead of the front.

Hoffman Laissez Faire offers a safe seat at the front with the leader who is a visionary.  The leader takes the brunt of all the statistical abuse so to keep it off the people following him leaving them to live as freely as possible thus making them immensely productive.  The leader’s job in such a case is not only to make decisions quickly at the decision gates, but to fight off the tendency of second-handers from the back of the train into slowing things down so that they can acquire group consensus in decision-making tasks.  The leader of Hoffman Laissez Faire keeps the throttle down from the Theory X types in the back of the train by any means possible, so that they cannot threaten the sanctity of those functioning at the front.  With the risk and harassment gone, the Hoffman Laissez Faire participants are free to invest of themselves without fear of being plucked dry from second-handers allowing them to directly benefit from their efforts.  When this power is unleashed a giant company is no match for a small one, or a group of powerful minds comparable to one unleashed of their social adhesion to the collective.  By allowing individuals to invest in the front of the train, everyone on the train benefits even if most of the population is at the back.

To properly accept such a thing it is important to know that the success or failure of the entire endeavor rests on the ability to recruit.  The examples I gave of two people I personally admire, Sam Wyche and Claire Lee Chennault were both extremely strong recruiters.  Wyche handed the Buccaneers their first Superbowl win by recruiting future Hall of Famers.  Other coaches later got the credit, but it was Wyche who scouted and recruited them.  The same with the military general Chennault who was head of the AVG Flying Tigers in China—his bounty hunting American volunteers maintained an extraordinary kill ratio through the early part of the war, of which General Stilwell took much of the credit for as a second-hander.  Stilwell was the typical Theory X type leader whereas Chennualt was using a very early form of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  It takes a good mind to find good people and the battle is won and lost during recruiting.  Not everyone is suited for Hoffman Laissez Faire so sorting them out during the recruiting process is the most important part of the task.

That is the reason that governments and people in general are resistant to all forms of laissez-faire, because as second-handers they cannot participate equally with those at the front of the train—from the back.  By their natural inclination their desire for the safety at the back of the train makes them unqualified for Hoffman Laissez Faire.   As stated, it is the job of a leader at the front to make a safe environment and to encourage risk taking with personal investment.  That is how new recruits can be trained to accept such a method.  But there will always be at least 50% who are too timid to reside in the front of anything.  They are natural followers who will always desire to be at the back of the train of any thought.

Companies or governments who do not understand this dynamic relationship are doomed to failure. They attempt to hide that failure through Theory X behavior, but the productive output cannot be ignored if compared next to the results of Hoffman Laissez Faire.  The only way to avoid such a comparison is to hope to suppress the evidence.  With Sam Wyche he was fired from several jobs when new team owners were looking for familiar back of the train thinkers conducting themselves as variations of Theory X or Theory Y personalities.  The same happened to the great General Chennault.  One of the greatest flying aces of World War II was trained under Chennault, Tex Hill.  But Chennault was pushed aside by Stilwell and President Truman.  Chennault warned the American government of what would happen to China after the war, which of course nobody listened because decisions were being made at the back of the train by Theory X types, and communism swept across the region from Vietnam to Korea dragging America into two more major wars and a PR battle that continues to this very day. Hoffman Laissez Faire prevents such lunacy by not allowing the second handers an equal seat at the table of decision-making creating a climate where only front of the train people are respected for their roles in leadership participation.  Those at the back of the train are not ridiculed for their lack of courage, just not allowed to share in the credit with those who put themselves on the cutting edge and took all the chances.

By rewarding the strong and courageous Hoffman Laissez Faire out performs all other forms of management.  It may look like a hands off Theory Y approach from those at the back of the train, but it’s actually quite encompassing.  But the key to the endeavor is to recruit the right kind of people—in knowing the difference between a second-hander and a potential leader in their own right who desires to be free to live outside the controls of Theory X and invest of themselves for their own benefit.

If the world understood this concept better, they would be more adequately prepared to vote for the correct politicians in their government to think from the front of the train instead of from the back and to utilize laissez-faire leadership styles to unleash the market potential of their countries.  With such an understanding laissez-faire capitalism would thrive much better than under the Theory X style of most Washington bureaucrats.  Those Theory X types will always be there, and it is up to leaders under the Hoffman Laissez Faire system to keep them from contaminating the efforts of those who are at the front of the train under the understanding of the Metaphysic of Quality.  Failure to stop that contamination will prevent the best and brightest of us all from saving everyone else who needs saving.  They just won’t admit it until it’s too late.   A company cannot be measured as successful by its size alone, but by the quality of its leadership.  Governments are the same, there must be good quality people at the front, and those types are only found with proper recruiting.  And to find them, it takes one to know one.  Second-hander types are not capable of seeing such people.  They occasionally get lucky, but they can’t tell one from the other.  Under Hoffman Laissez Faire quality people are as easy to see as a blue sky during a mid day of cloudless summer sun.  And that is half the battle to achieving infinite levels of needed success.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an effective style to use when:

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

This style should NOT be used when:

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Politics of the DuBose Shooting in Cincinnati: Crimes driven by fear, stupidity, and the mob

I’ve said on many occasions that one of the biggest problems with police forces, particularly traffic cops, is that often they are staffed by young kids looking to prove their manhood, and that there are quotas driving their job performance. That is clearly the case with 25-year-old University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing who shot Samuel DuBose in the head on July 19th setting off a nationwide analysis over race relations centered this time on the Midwest city of Cincinnati. Tensing pulled over DeBose for missing a front license plate then discovered alcohol in the passenger’s side floorboard and that the driver could not produce a driver’s license which are all big problems. For the traffic cop, it is a number of citations that prove he did his job for the day and was easy pickings for a nice healthy fine in a court of law. DuBose was doing all kinds of things wrong culminating when he reached for the ignition to drive away when he realized that he was busted without his license. When he made a move to do something other than what Tensing was instructing, it set off the immature over-reaction that most officers are trained with provoking Tensing to prove to his peers that he was worthy of the badge. So he shot DeBose dead. As bad as all that was, it wasn’t the worst of it.

Of course the thing to do would have been for Tensing to arrest DeBose once he got home; after all he had the license number, so there wasn’t far for the driver to go, and not many places to hide. Sure, the other officers would have chided the young officer for not containing his suspect, but everyone would have been alive to conduct themselves another day. Tensing was always in control and fully in the right to make the traffic stop. When it comes to cops, you have to assume they are all trigger happy idiots ready to shoot you in a moment. I treat them that way all the many times I’ve been pulled over, knowing they are always looking for a reason to pull the trigger on someone. Tensing obviously was adding up the elements in his head, the missing license plate, the alcohol, the missing driver’s license and assumed there was likely a gun somewhere in the car. I would have thought that, so any sudden moves would likely provoke that adrenaline which always accompanies that kind of activity. DeBose should have known that. He was in his 40s and had been around. You don’t make sudden moves around jumpy cops. It’s just not a good idea—they are like snakes, and will strike in a moment like the trained animals they are. So between the two guys, DeBose and Tensing, there was plenty of stupidity to go around.

Then came the real trouble, prosecutor Joe Deters pushed for a murder indictment against Tensing hoping to throw red meat to the national protestors who were pouring into Cincinnati looking to turn the Queen City into another Ferguson or Baltimore. Deters to appeal toward Mayor Cranley provided an expansion of the jurisdiction of the Cincinnati Police Department into the territory of the U.C. police taking shots at their lack of professionalism as a cause and corrective action. CPD after all had integrated many progressive measures in the wake of the previous riots within the city to avoid setting off the black community—as DeBose was a man of color. So the strategy of Deters was to expand the reach of CPD making Cranley happy while keeping the protestors happy with the red meat of a sacrificed officer. Clearly Cranley and Deters wanted more than anything to avoid mass riots instigated by communist insurgents, funded by George Soros, so they tossed the kid Tensing to the curb with a murder charge.

Repeatedly in an interview with Katie Couric on Yahoo News, Cranley told the world that CPD did not think it was appropriate to pull over people of color for missing license plates or driver’s licenses—that those are crimes they have decided to let go. This gives the criminal element what they need, confirmation that the CPD would rather avoid controversy then law enforcement and that the acts of intimidation against the city by groups of radicals has more power—and that they should stay the course by demanding more relief from law enforcement. Cranley came out sounding like a wet noodle soaked in pig fat—obviously more afraid of city-wide protests than in pursuing justice for criminal activity. That should really help investment into Cincinnati knowing that the inmates are running the asylum within the city limits. Smart.

Deters with all his tough talk to the contrary was clearly playing politics with the situation. He held onto the video weighing out all the elements to see how the mob would play their side. As national organizations poured into Cincinnati in the days immediately after July 19th, he pulled the trigger on Tensing with just the same lack of courage as the young cop had. The traffic cop panicked and shot his citation in the head out of fear—Deters prosecuted the officer out of fear of mass riots. All parties acted out of fear, not logic.

Without question, Tensing shouldn’t just walk away into the sunset, but a murder conviction implies that the officer got up for work that day planning to murder someone and that he was using traffic stops to commit the crime. Deters should know better, but like Tensing, his judgment is clouded by fear. The cause of that fear is the real villain. A traffic stop of a man of color that is missing license plates and has stashes of alcohol tucked by the seat is a sign of worse things. If that guy would rather run away than get out of the car and explain himself, there was something he was hiding. So a jumpy officer pulled the trigger rather than showing a little courage to find out the deeper story. But Deters and Cranley did far worse; they let the criminal element know what they can and can’t get away with, and showed that they feared more the mobs within black communities more than the protests of their unionized work force. Deters calculated that the union of the CPD would outrank the University of Cincinnati Police by expanding their territory shutting up their protests of eating their own to appease the mob, so everyone won, except for Tensing. As the trigger man, he is to be sacrificed as an immature kid who murdered in cold blood. All references to the many crimes of DeBose were cast aside so not to provoke the communist influenced mob. And that makes this whole case utterly disgusting.

The bad guys are winning. That’s not to say DeBose was a bad guy. I think he was just a guy living in the cracks who had such disregard for the law that he didn’t care if he had a license plate of proof of a driver’s license. Let alone proof of insurance. The bar has been set so low that those expectations are no longer possible within city limits for fear of setting off race riots. But out in the suburbs where I live, if I have a front license plate and driver’s license, just see what happens if I fail to produce proof of insurance. All hell would break loose—bet on it. It has nothing to do with color, but everything to do with values. White suburbanites likely won’t gather together to protest the local police force if something goes wrong, where communist infiltration into the black communities of poor inner city dwellers seek to advance a political agenda on the backs of every imposition. So as stupid as it was to shoot the poor guy in the head over a traffic stop, Deters did far worse; they threw more fuel on the fire, not toward the insurgents and their protests, but toward their overall intent—strategically–to paralyze white America behind a veil of guilt into inaction, so that they can move their troops against capitalism and value to topple the system with inaction. Mayor Cranley has shown to what extent he is already influenced into that inaction. And now we all see just how bad it really is—and who is really running Cincinnati. It’s not the elected officials—it’s the mob.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Second Call Defense: George Lang, and Sean Maloney on Matt Clark’s show as I perform to applause

About the same time that I was competing in the Speed Switch contest with my bullwhip at the Annie Oakley Festival in Darke County, Ohio, several of my friends were gathered together on Matt Clark’s WAAM radio broadcast to discuss Second Call Defense. Yes, I did win. It’s a hard contest for whip artists because it requires dexterity with both hands. You have to be able to hit an equal number of targets with both hands, and most whip artists are proficient with only one. So I usually do very well with that one. But I was thinking of Matt and his two guests George Lang and Sean Maloney of Second Call Defense as I was hitting my targets. I am pretty busy these days and can’t be everywhere at once. But I’m a pretty good manager of people and resources, so I can get a lot done with a lot of plates spinning in the air. Second Call Defense, the Annie Oakley event, Matt’s radio show and all my other hobbies, projects and interests are all part of my personal exercise of cracking whips against targets in a very precise way. For me the situation is a two-fold strategic advancement—both involving promotion of the Second Amendment. Where I was people openly wore guns on their hips that were real and nobody thought a thing about the theater shooting in Louisiana where calls for more gun control broke out after a maniac shot several people for no good reason. The people I spent my weekend with were nowhere near willing to give up their guns. It was a dramatic impossibility quite evident, which I always find refreshing. Meanwhile the solution to the Louisiana shooting was to make that theater a gun zone, instead of an area where people couldn’t be armed. And for people who do carry and find themselves in a shooting, they need to call my friends at Second Call Defense. Listen to the radio broadcast with Matt Clark, George Lang and Sean Maloney here:

The key point of the discussion was over the George Zimmerman issue. Second Call Defense could have prevented the national embarrassment that the case became, and they explained why in the audio clip, which is extremely important. At my Annie Oakley event I may have been in the safest place on planet earth, and I was surrounded by more guns than some countries have in their entire arsenal. Nobody was going to pose a danger to anybody while I was cracking bullwhips in my competition. Even our announcer at the event, Gery Deer was packing a six-gun, and nobody batted an eye. Meanwhile, a gun carrier could have shot John Houser as he began shooting 11 people. If someone else in the theater could have shot back, the incident would have been a lot less bloody.

Yet the impediment to corrective action regarding the Louisiana shooting and all the others over the last few years has been a desire to use tragedy to create more gun legislation instead of the correct effort at putting more guns into the hands of the competent. In the case of Zimmerman who did shoot someone it was decided upon first inspection of the case that he did what he was supposed to do, police are not always the friends of the property owner. As stated by Sean in the audio with Matt Clark, once you fire a gun, you and your property become a crime scene and you lose your rights until you prove yourself innocent. That is not how it should be, but that’s how it is. If you pick up the phone and speak with adrenaline behind your voice, what you say can and will be held against you, even under the best of intentions. Police work for politicians, and politicians are very vulnerable to political pressure. And that’s what happened in the Zimmerman case. It became political and soon there was a desire to sacrifice Zimmerman to the wolves of racism. The whole case would have been wrapped up in a grand jury shortly after the shooting if George Zimmerman had only called Second Call Defense right after he shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman went several weeks without legal protection, and he gave a lot of statements thinking that he was innocent because the police initially didn’t want to file charges under the stand your ground law. But politics demanded a sacrifice and thus George Zimmerman’s life changed forever.

There are bad guys out there and they are the goons, the punks and the creeps who stand against the American Constitution. That is the best way to frame good and evil in reference to our present society. Trayvon Martin was in a place he shouldn’t have been and he acted in a hostile way when approached by someone checking him out. Private property is to be defended by the Second Amendment. The world is not owned by collective villages and communist sympathizers created by the music industry—it is owned by private investment. Gated communities are meant to keep out undesirables who don’t respect hard work and effort. It can be argued that not everyone is worthy of privilege, and that some are born into circumstances where they have a disadvantage, but in America if you want something, you can have it. And those who do have it deserve to protect it from those who might deface, or take it. Sometimes the unfortunate situation occurs where someone attempts to impose themselves on your private property, or even your life and you have to defend yourself. That’s when you’ll need Second Call Defense. It’s as American as Apple Pie.

That of course stands in stark contrast to the direction of progressive society. But that’s OK, they’re wrong in their position—clearly. They cause far more damage to people than they help with all their rules. The correct path is the one that I know well from my cowboy friends who seek to preserve the lessons learned during westward expansion. The gun in American culture is probably more important than the sword is in Japanese society. The gun made America great and I think every human being should wear one on their hip, just as they were able to in the early days of the Gold Rush. Wear them on the golf course, wear them to dinner, wear them to the shopping mall. Sell little fringe stocking accessories for guns at Victoria’s Secret for the ladies—in other words embrace more fully the gun in American culture and stop listening to these idiotic progressives. Two well armed people sitting next to John Houser in Lafayette could have put him down in about 1.2 seconds and the situation would have been over. Help could have been on the way for the first victims and a lot of trouble would have been prevented.

At 1:35 PM on Saturday July 25, 2015 I was finishing up my round of the Speed Switch contest to an applause that I never get tired of hearing. I enjoy the hot sun, the smell of popcorn and hot dogs and the sight of cotton candy in the stands held by children watching us perform. I like seeing little kids wonder how I am able to move so fast. Every year I attend that Annie Oakley event as a spectator and competitor, it renews my resolve into not just protecting the American Constitution, but in defending the Anti Federalist Papers which challenged it during the Constitutional Convention. Yes I know the young guys are gunning for me who compete with me, and they hope that I won’t show so they can win, but it’s my job to push them along—to make them want to get better. And we all get along well in the end and have a good time. I don’t always win everything. Some of the young guys are getting pretty good—and that makes me happy. But it was about that time that my friend George Lang came on WAAM with my other friend Matt Clark and as the applause abated I wondered how the show was going in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was to me an important strategic moment as it gave even more radio coverage to something I think every American should have—Second Call Defense.

I appreciated the call out from George and Sean at the end of the broadcast. Southwestern Ohio is Overmanwarrior country, and they know what that means. A lot more people use Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom to guide them through these tough times than people would care to admit, including many very serious national personalities. My role in all that is in shaping a philosophy that is needed for a new century of American greatness—complete with magnificent innovation. There are many very important people across the nation who read every day, and I am happy to help them sort through some of these difficult tasks. Matt and George are part of that offense, and they know what to do. But for me, I get my energy in the heart of America, in places like the Annie Oakley Festival where guns are as common as stars in a clear night sky.

There was a family that I watched shoot all that day from the Single Action Shooting Society—a husband and wife team with their two teenage boys. They competed hard all day long and were really into their work. I admired their effort, and determination. At the end of the event they all walked around the other exhibits holding hands and openly showing that they loved each other. They were good people; some might say “God fearing people.” I would just say they were people of good quality. They walked with a sureness that came from knowing where they stood in the universe. And on all their hips was a fine six-shooter .45. They were unafraid because they where all highly skilled in the art of shooting, and knew they could handle anything that came their way. If they had been in the Lafayette theater it is unlikely that John Houser could have gotten off a shot once he showed himself as a threat. The father of the family was getting routine times of about .380 of a second in his draw times. Houser wouldn’t have made it past a second shot if that guy had been sitting in that theater packed with his guns. That is the solution to gun violence. And for those who use guns to defend the American Constitution, they must have Second Call Defense to protect themselves from the parasites of progressive society who don’t even know who Annie Oakley was, or where Darke County, Ohio is in the world, and why it’s so important.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Trump and Scott Walker: Dealing with bullies, and then some

Yet again Donald Trump shows why he is gaining support. I certainly support the way he conducted himself in regard to the Scott Walker campaign and the Des Moines Register leaving Amalia Nash to issue a statement after being banned from a Trump event, “We are disappointed that Mr. Trump’s campaign has taken the unusual step of excluding Register reporters from covering his campaign event in Iowa on Saturday because he was displeased with our editorial. As we previously said, the editorial has no bearing on our news coverage. We work hard to provide Iowans with coverage of all the candidates when they spend time in Iowa, and this is obviously impeding our ability to do so. We hope Mr. Trump’s campaign will revisit its decision instead of making punitive decisions because we wrote something critical of him.” That something that they wrote was that he was “a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines, name recognition and polling numbers not by provoking thought, but by provoking outrage.” Ahhhh, did the Register get its little feelings hurt? And again from one of Scott Walker’s top supporters who called Trump a “dumb, dumb” in an email—what were they thinking?

What the press is trying to invoke is that silly little game that is taught in all public schools, the peer pressure application of majority rule. The press and these other campaigns can’t fight Trump toe to toe, so they are seeking to build consensus against him with name calling and other insults hoping to paint him a certain way to slow his momentum. This is because their methods of advancement are not built around aggressive offense, but manipulative defense. The Register wants to be able to editorialize with immunity Trump’s campaign, but they don’t want to get an editorial about their behavior back. And Walker’s supporters want their man to stay in front, so they think some peer pressure insult will preserve that. We live in a world that does not expect conflict these days allowing for passive aggressive types to rule in their usual manner—through non confrontation feeding their manipulation abilities. In this way 5’ 5” runts can take down a 6’ 3” billionaire who is obviously more gifted in verbal insults and financial backing—not to mention physical presence. That is the spirit behind their insults. They don’t want peace, or a good campaign ran cleanly by all candidates. They just want to shoot without being shot back.

But Trump engages everyone he can. I’m sure he can’t get to every insult, but he gets to as many as he can, which is refreshing to see from someone who is running for a political seat. We have had to endure many years now of President Obama’s skinny little ass manipulating his way into power unchecked, largely because nobody punched him in the nose directly for the insults he casts out like water over Niagara Falls. That silly behavior goes back to all our school days where if a bunch of kids make fun of you, the implied assumption is that it is your burden to change the behavior to avoid the insult.   But that’s not the right thing to do. When someone challenges you, you have to meet that challenge with either equal force, or greater force. My policy of course is greater force. It works very effectively. When someone takes a shot at me I go well out of my way to make their life a living nightmare. If they do it with passive aggressive implementation, I’ll give it back to them 20 times over. If they do it with force, I’ll match it or surpass it. But I typically answer every insult eventually. Sometimes it’s good to play a waiting game with those challengers, to let them think you’ve forgotten and that they’re off the hook. But that’s part of the game in winning. Sometimes it takes me ten years or more to collect on a debt, but collect I always do—with interest. It’s a policy I’ve lived by all of my life. I don’t go out of my way to make trouble. I live and let live until someone takes a shot. Then the cannons turn toward that target and I’ll hunt them down until I get them and then some. 100% of the time. I’m 47 and have always been like that, and it’s not going to change now. Trump I’m happy to say is precisely the same way, and I LOVE IT!

I understand what he meant regarding Walker when Trump said “Finally I can attack,” now that the rival presidential candidate has openly made a move against him. It’s hard sometimes to know who is doing what. In the passive aggressive world that we live in it’s hard to know friend from foe, so I usually do a lot of checking before making a commitment to hunt someone down. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I know it will be hell for them, and I don’t want to do it unjustly. Walker is a good presidential candidate under regular circumstances and he did a good job in Wisconsin under hard conditions. But now that I know more about his wife, I’ll never vote for him. She’s not the kind of woman I want to see as first lady—that’s for sure. But Walker as Trump said is a fighter so that makes him worthy of consideration, and some respect. That respect can make one pause when a punch in the mouth is needed. So now that the Walker camp has been caught as not being such a nice presidential candidate, Trump can now look beyond that initial respect and unleash his fury on the Wisconsin governor. It’s a very liberating feeling to know who your enemies are, because it gives a clean target to go after.

But in this passive aggressive world that we’re living in, that’s not how people do things. So they are a little shocked when they get it back when they give it. I learned this method in public school and took those lessons into my adult life. As a kid I resisted joining with group affiliations, which seemed to be the entire point of public school. I think the facts easily support that assumption. Kids picked at me for a number of years as I studied their behavior. Instead of complying I learned how to deal with them through bullwhip training, martial arts and essentially learning to fear nothing. By the time I was a junior in high school I had a reputation of having no fear of anything under any circumstances. And when I fought someone, they didn’t get back up on their own. It started with me actually on the first day of school in kindergarten. I never complied with bullies. In the first grade I actually stabbed the biggest bully in school in the eye with a pair of scissors. He tried again to come after me in the 7th grade, many years later and I fought him in the hall so hard that I actually threw him into the principal’s office. Yes I got into a lot of trouble, but it was well worth it. Once I hit high school starting with being a freshman I was already refining myself into what I would become as an adult. By the time I was a senior, I was untouchable, it didn’t matter who or how many. The only real vulnerability was from close friends who you’d think you’d never have to fight like that, but of course, sometimes you do. By the time I was 19 and married I turned my attention not to individual bullies, but companies and politicians, which is something I’ve been involved with now for almost thirty years. I hate bullies but I love to punish them and I can give it to them any way they dish it. And it feels good to bring justice to their antics.

Trump obviously understands everything I just said and he likely has a similar background. People who avoid being broken as children make much better adults. You can tell who is who based on their behavior. Passive aggressive types are largely those who have been broken through peer pressure in the past, so they resort to those strategies to gain control in the future. They will lie right to your face, and then do something entirely different behind your back. Because they were broken at some point in their past, they resort to manipulation to rise to the top hoping that they can sneak past the other bullies with passive aggressive domination. And it works with most of the world, except for people like Trump. Being an unbroken man he has no idea what failure is, or losing to someone else-not to a level where he didn’t recover his loses in some way or another. It’s true; you can’t win everything all the time. You can’t control the success or failure of other people. They may have luck in their sails and may come out on top in a rivalry with you. But you can control your reaction to it, and if you keep the pressure on and press, and press, and press—eventually they will open up and you can take your shot.

I want a president who will take the shot. I don’t want a wimpy soothsayer, I want someone who will pursue his enemies to the ends of the earth and destroy them utterly if needed. I have no problem with that. I live by the same code and clearly understand it. The world would be filled with a lot more respect if everyone behaved like that. For instance, I don’t bother people until they bother me. I put up with a lot to give other people their individual freedom, even if I don’t agree with their choices. I do not impose myself on others. But when they impose on me, that’s it. They make enemies of me for life. I never forget, or forgive. And the more Trump talks, the more I learn that he is the same type of personality. That is why if the press and other candidates want a civil debate with Trump, they better not fire any shots toward him. He’ll thrive on their attempt and will pursue them forever. It’s in his nature. If they start something the bets are safe that he’ll finish it. If he’s like me he’ll still be thinking about such things 20 to 30 years later and will have the silent checklist in his head that he’ll only erase once they’ve departed the earth in the form of a grave.   For me, not even then. But not everyone wants to carry around grudges that long, so I wouldn’t expect that of every A type personality. But a lot of them do, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump isn’t one of them.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Being Free: Donald Trump’s Anderson Cooper interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Skycar in the Mainstream: The future has always been now, people are just now learning about it

A long-ago Scientific American article proclaimed:

“The 21st century feels like a letdown. We were promised flying cars, space colonies and 15-hour workweeks. Robots were supposed to do our chores, except when they were organizing rebellions; children were supposed to learn about disease from history books; portable fusion reactors were supposed to be on sale at the Home Depot. Even dystopian visions of the future predicted leaps of technology and social organization that leave our era in the dust.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/billrobinson/techfuture-hold-on-paul-m_b_5092345.html

I was just a little impressed that Scott Sloan from 700 WLW actually put Paul Moller on his radio show to discuss the exciting prospects of the M400 Skycar. As readers here know, I have been a fan and supporter of the Skycar for many years, going all the way back into the early 90s. I have pitched its benefits to every company I’ve worked with over the last 20 years and included it in my works of Cliffhanger fiction in both The Symposium of Justice and The Curse of Fort Seven Mile. I think it is one of the most important emerging market technologies on planet earth presently. Paul Moller is one of the good guys and has the potential to change the world as we know it. So it surprised me that Sloan put him on a very mainstream talk radio show.

 

http://www.700wlw.com/onair/scott-sloan-226/flying-cars-are-coming-soon-13781383/

When I talk about the terrible situation of the current American debt and the most primary reason I support someone like Donald Trump for president over a mainstream politician it is due to the extreme danger we are in relating to the creation of money versus the implication of monotonous debt. The only way out of the debacle is to first lower taxes, stop the bleeding in spending, and then create new markets with a global impact to infuse wealth back into our economy. There are no stable markets that can perform this task, such as oil, food, or even aviation as it traditionally is positioned in the marketplace. New wealth would have to come from markets that emerge from the ground up and touch the entire world, such as like what Microsoft did in the 90s and Apple has done in the 2000s. But those emerging markets would have to be even larger, and more profitable. Regenerative growth is one such field, but the growth there would be negated by the pharmaceutical industry decline—kind of a one-for-one trade. Skycar is the type of industry that would be the perfect infusion of a new transportation concept as revelatory as the railroad was in its opening days.

Skycar would be about more than just a transportation system that carried passengers from their homes to work, it would be a complete lifestyle change that would touch many more lives than just the owner of the vehicle. Along the skyways across the United States and throughout the world, industries would rise to support the Skycars flying along those GPS controlled routes. Fuel supply, maintenance, communications, and Skyports would all support a thriving business that presently doesn’t exist. Regular automobiles would still be valid, and used. Truck drivers would still use the American highway system to get products to and from their intended destinations. But the frequency and duration of travel for individual people would increase because of the ease of use.

Skycar initially as I’ve said before would emerge best in resort areas like Disney World where they could shuttle passengers from their hotel chain to their Disney Cruise ships at Cape Canaveral. That would build up the public confidence in the reliability of Skycar to get to and from their destinations without maintenance hazards. Eventually FedEx and UPS would move from delivery vans to personal shuttles making point to point delivery that would be much more efficient freeing up the roadways of heavy traffic by taking the activity to the air. Such delivery would speed up business and thus stimulate the effects of capitalism.

I can foresee a day where for business travel instead of dealing with the cumbersome nature of regional flights at a TSA controlled airport, that I could fly my own Skycar from the local skyport and land within a few miles of my intended destination in hours instead of wasting an entire day of travel. Business in Chicago could literally be concluded from Cincinnati in the same day bringing one home for dinner with time to spare because of the direct travel. If a person wanted to live 100 miles from their work in the middle of the country, they could live that peaceful life and still fly directly into the city to live a productive life. If his family wanted to fly into an urban area to partake in the arts, they could, and return home late by GPS sound asleep without worry of crashing. It would be a complete change in personal transportation and the options created by freedom.

Without an emerging technology that is significantly better than our current forms of travel, there will be no way to create the kind of wealth that will significantly help the United States solve its debt problems. Skycar by itself won’t be enough, but it will be a big help in the right direction. Skycar has been incorrectly considered a fringe science for at least four decades. But it was never fringe science, but instead quite legitimate, and justifiably orthodox. The hint of that legitimacy into the mainstream was what I heard on 700 WLW. I was happy for Paul Moller who has dedicated his life to the Skycar, to see his dream slowly becoming a reality. It’s not the science that is working against him, it’s the fearful resistance of the masses that does. So to that point, Scott Sloan brought the world to Moller’s doorstep in a way that enthusiasts like me have not been able to—because he represents the average and static past of a society spiraling into oblivion based on their own weak philosophies. With the Skycar, those philosophies will expand in ways that the human race craves to go. And with it, a dawn of a new age where Skycars rule the latest edge of transportation innovation.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

Only in Washington!

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.