Tag: Free Will

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face

Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.

The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.

Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.

“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”

“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Kate Scanlon / @scanlon_kate / July 22, 2015 /

Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.

Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]

Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]

This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.

Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]

In 1917, she started publishing the monthly periodical Birth Control Review.[note 3]

On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]

Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]

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

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/04/man-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-reveals-the-hardest-part-of-undercover-investigation/

 

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Disgusting Amy Schumer: Being lectured about guns by a farting, belching, slutty reject

I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.

Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.

I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.

It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.

My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.

It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.

Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.

Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.

Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that!   Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

HitchBOT Failure in America: Hitchhiking in a self-reliant society

Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.

(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.

HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.

Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.

“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/hitchbot-robot-beheaded-philadelphia-feat/

Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.

The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.

Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.

The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?

To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.

Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.

In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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.

‘They Live’s’ Rowdy Roddy Piper: Kicking Ass in the afterlife

Rowdy Roddy Piper died in his sleep at his home on Thursday July 30th 2015 at the relatively young age of 61. He was a popular wrestler and media personality who starred in one of my favorite movies, They Live by John Carpenter. He had one of the best lines in cinema history in that film where his character declared to the half human insurgent aliens taking over the human race, “I’m here to chew bubble gum and kick ass—and I’m all out of bubble gum.” Piper in his older years began to take on a personally more of a world outlook similar to the character he played in that cult classic speaking out openly against the Illuminati and the elements of the New World Order that are so evident. When I found out he died that was the first thing I thought of—was that “they” killed him. In all actuality he was a wrestler who lived a fairly hard life. Cardiac arrest is not all that uncommon for older men, so it’s a valid way to exit the world, but given his anti-Illuminati stance of late—particularly the work he was doing with Alex Jones—it is the first thing you tend to think of if you have knowledge of these types of things.

Rowdy Roddy Piper died in his sleep at his home on Thursday July 30th 2015 at the relatively young age of 61. He was a popular wrestler and media personality who starred in one of my favorite movies, They Live by John Carpenter. He had one of the best lines in cinema history in that film where his character declared to the half human insurgent aliens taking over the human race, “I’m here to chew bubble gum and kick ass—and I’m all out of bubble gum.” Piper in his older years began to take on a personally more of a world outlook similar to the character he played in that cult classic speaking out openly against the Illuminati and the elements of the New World Order that are so evident. When I found out he died that was the first thing I thought of—was that “they” killed him. In all actuality he was a wrestler who lived a fairly hard life. Cardiac arrest is not all that uncommon for older men, so it’s a valid way to exit the world, but given his anti-Illuminati stance of late—particularly the work he was doing with Alex Jones—it is the first thing you tend to think of if you have knowledge of these types of things.

If a body is in a weakened state due to cancer or other illnesses, then it is prone to the micro attacks by ultraterrestrial insurgents under fairly normal conditions. If those insurgents were purely fictional, like many claim them to be, I think Rowdy Roddy Piper would still be alive today. But, experience says there’s something to them, and when you make a stand against their strategies, they do impose their manipulations. So if an older man finds themselves in a weakened state health wise, they are prone to dying in their sleep. Healthy people might find themselves in car wrecks or in an avalanche of stressful circumstances designed to throw the curious mind off track, but for a pro wrestler who spent their life abusing their bodies, cardiac arrest in the quiet of night is the best option for removing a mouth piece against their tyranny.

Then again, sometimes people just die. There’s not always a conspiracy in everything. Often however, things are not always as they seem. Given Piper’s stance against the Illuminati of late right in the heart of the communication center of its activity–Hollywood, my suspicions are quite properly placed. I thought the same thing about Andrew Breitbart, where microbots were probably used to destroy his cell structure hoping his publishing empire would collapse in his absence. Piper wasn’t anywhere near as a threat compared to Breitbart was, but his pop culture status did make his opinions dangerous to those who desire control.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think the Illuminati or the globalist types are such scary people. To me they are just more parasites in competition for life on planet earth. They have their point of view which they seek to impose on others. What makes them evil is that they have no respect for the rights and thoughts of other individuals whom they seek to pull under their control and manipulation. In my judgment, any group that has to hide their intentions is weak, and what makes them ominous is their strategy of subtle subterfuge—as they often say one thing, but intend totally different things.

When Carpenter wrote They Live, he meant it as a cry against Reaganomics, which I emphatically support. He’s not completely right about all things, but his concept behind They Live is very interesting, and quite valid. There is more at work behind the efforts of the political elite, and it is attached to crony capitalism and socialism—which are methods of control. I am a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism and management styles, which is a totally different kind of capitalism from the crony kind. Reaganomics was more of a “let do” approach than the tightly controlled government regulation that we saw before and after Ronald Reagan, so I’m a supporter of the type of economics that allows for more people to participate in the creation of GDP. John Carpenter saw elements of crony capitalism under Reaganomics and deemed it part of the problem of economic inequality. So the context of his articulation was wrong as to the villain of the New World Order, but his concept was correct. It was the fictional mechanism of the Hoffman Lenses, the sunglasses that Rowdy Roddy Piper wore in They Live, which showed the true nature of the hidden world within society.

In reality it’s not so simple as aliens running around among us looking like skeletons under the view of Hoffman Lenses. The real villains are within the quantum realm and share space with us. They are not visible because they live in the very small realm of the 5th dimension and higher. They have their motives and they are in competition with the human race for attention within the context of life. They are not our friends or helpers. Religions have been concocted to appeal to them, but they do what they want when they want to do it. Fiction like They Live and vibrant personalities like Rowdy Roddy Piper are threats to them as the art of humanity can sometimes intrude on those ultraterrestrial plans—but its all fair game. “They” do no have a right to rule us, just as we don’t have a right to rule them. But they try to we have a right to fight back. But before you can fight them, you have to understand who “they” are—because they hide themselves from us for a reason.

In his closing days Piper was quite vocal about the hidden rulers of our planet. Some might think it was the ramblings of a former pro wrestler who wasn’t very smart and had endured a hard life to emerge a little crazy in his elderly years. But I think he realized that there was a genius in his John Carpenter movie role that he embraced more and more as he become older and more aware of the way the world really worked. Young pop icons like Miley Cyrus do not think about such things in their 20s. They just know that if they sell sex, drugs and music, that they become wealthy, which is a typical sell-out approach to those who rule over us all. When I was a kid my dad told me that if I didn’t start learning to “play” the game that “they’d” get me. He didn’t realize at the time what he was telling me, because I was the same kid who used to sing the song in church, “Yes Jesus Loves Me” but would refuse to sing the line, “because we are weak and he is strong.” I fundamentally challenged the concept of control within the church, even as a 7-year-old. So I certainly wasn’t willing to surrender my personal integrity to any human control mechanisms if I was challenging universal order. You see dear reader, I was born with Hoffman Lenses and I started viewing the world with them from the very first moments of my life. I always needed to know who “they” were, and I was always intent to refuse submission to them. To do that, you have to know who and what you are fighting.

Towards the end, even though it was a lifelong journey, I think Rowdy Roddy Piper was learning who “they” really were. But his real heart wasn’t as big as his intellectual heart, and if failed him in the middle of a night within his home. Age, lifestyle, and of course ultraterrestrial pressure likely did him in. Doctors will say it was natural causes—cardiac arrest. But their science ignores the 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensions, so that’s all the further they can go for diagnosis. But Hoffman Lenses say otherwise, and I will miss the Piper. He was a good dude, but he will live on. In the future, as silly as some think They Live was as a movie, it may become one of the most important things Rowdy Roddy Piper ever did. And I will be forever grateful that he played his part. Where he is now, he may have no need to chew bubble gum, but he can still kick ass.

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.

The Fight Du’a Khalil Aswad Deserves: Facing down evil from collectivist cultures

To learn more about the background of this article read my work on the Troubadours by CLICKING HERE. It was the Troubadours who stood for the first time against thousands of years of human desire toward collective salvation to challenge the orthodox and suggest that a person marry someone their heart picks as an individual, not as an arrangement for the benefit of a society. For instance, it was and still is commonplace throughout the world for a family to arrange the marriage of their daughter to another family for political fulfillment. That political arrangement has value among collective assumptions. The girl is supposed to share her bed not with someone she chooses, but with someone society chooses for her represented by her family’s desire to fit within the cogs of that social wheel. The Troubadours challenged that notion and eventually those ideals evolved into what would become the United States. But this isn’t that kind of story. It’s a much darker one that illustrates the face of a great and terrible evil.

One of the reasons Barack Obama has such a problem with his open support of gay rights and Islamic radicalism when it would appear that the two factions are completely opposed to one another only joined together by the sympathies of a sitting American president, is because both subjects share a deep love of collective salvation at the core of their social value system. Islamic radicals have such extreme views of women, religion, and money that they actually kill known gays in their culture without any remorse. Obama as a champion for gay rights should condemn those Islamic extremists, but he can’t because he shares with the radical Muslim and the gay, a love of collective salvation of which communism and socialism are natural offshoots.

Collective salvation is where individual rights are superseded by the rights of a collective whole, where majority rules even if that majority is made up of complete idiots. It doesn’t matter to a collective based culture because their value salvation comes from collective acceptance. Those types of societies are what America has always stood against, because of their very nature. And the roots of that evil from the perspective of American value was never more evident than in the brutal killing of a beautiful young woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad. This story is a few years old, and newer examples could be found as early as just a few minutes ago somewhere in the world. But this poor woman has always broken my heart. I want so desperately to help her, because what happened to her was absolutely abhorrent. Following is a bit of the story as it was reported to the world along with a link to the source material.

The killing of Du’a Khalil Aswad is shown in the included videos. Up to 1000 men from the Yezidi Kurdish community of Mosul killed a teenager who’s only crime was running away to marry a Muslim man whom she loved and for possibly converting to his religion. For four months the girl had been given shelter by a local Muslim Sheik. It was reported that in the last few days her family persuaded her to return home, convincing her that she had been forgiven by her parents and relatives for her mistake. In a short mobile video clip which appears to have been taken by locals, the girl is seen being ambushed on her way home by a group of up to 1000 men who were waiting for her to return; the men killed her in the most brutal way possible, by throwing large stones on her head. The following clips show that while she is alive and crying for help she is taunted and kicked in her stomach until someone finishes her off by throwing a large stone on her face.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/07/23/1000-muslim-men-stone-17-year-old-virgin-to-death-caution-very-graphic/

In spite of the brutality of that episode and obvious evil of killing the girl, the vilest aspect of it was that the community of 1000 men with the obvious endorsement of her family felt they had the right to destroy her life to protect the collective will of her village. That is the reason there were only a few arrests, that went nowhere, because the entire society was in on the killing—with either their stones, or their silence. It is because of this dangerous brand of collectivism that America has the Second Amendment, and is the reason that there are more guns than people in the freest country on earth.

If young Du’a Khalil Aswad had been carrying a gun, those maniacs would not have been able to harm her. There would not have been an ambush in the streets and her young lover might have had a recourse to assist her. But the culture that killed the young woman is a barbaric one, not just in their 12th century belief in religion and economics, but in their commitment to social collectivism, a trait that the Troubadours long ago abandoned, for the betterment of the human race.

A woman should have a right to marry whom she wants, to build a family along the lines of her desires and to raise off-spring under that independent philosophy. And if anyone stands in her way, they should be destroyed—because nobody should. No woman should have to endure what Du’a Khalil Aswad did. There is nothing she could have done that was worth that kind of insult and horrendous death.

So dear reader, you think about that when you hear Obama preach about equality, or hear some left winged loon speak against the Second Amendment. Even though American liberals think we should accept people who prefer anal intercourse over a vagina, they also think we should take a few notes out of the pages of the loons in the Middle East, people who think they have a right to kill poor young women for doing nothing but falling in love with a man outside of their social circle. I personally have NO tolerance for that kind of thing, and I am more committed than ever to helping poor people suffering under collectivism such as young Du’a Khalil Aswad was. Social collectivism may be the preferred choice of the modern academic, but they are all wrong, and dreadfully out-of-step with the direction of humanity. It was the Troubadours who put a stake in that European practice changing forever the direction of the human race. The rest of the world hasn’t yet caught up, but those who escaped from that life after centuries of trying settled America. And that fight will not die, let me tell you that. There are a lot of Du’a Khalil Aswads out there; they die every day just as she did. And they shouldn’t. They need our help, not our silence.

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.