The Driverless Car Debate: A response to Time Magazine’s article by Matt Vella

As my third grandchild was being born at the West Chester Hospital recently I carefully read Matt Vella’s article in Time magazine on driverless cars and felt it was necessary to offer a few important observations to the debate which will evolve over the next decade.  As a driver, I am fantastic.  If I wasn’t so interested in global mythology, business management, literature, archaeology, and the western arts, I would have been a stunt man for Hollywood movies.  I love driving cars, and I like the role they play in a free society.  They are the center of American culture.  However, I’m not against the driverless car as many conservatives like me might be.  I don’t see them as a globalist’s takeover of our independence—although I’m sure there are treacherous personalities who fall into that category.  I see the driverless car as an evolution of our species, but I don’t wish to see complete domination of non-thinking cars taking over our society.

When it comes to highway driving, I am 100% on board.  If I’m in a car for three to nine hours at a time—I would rather be sleeping, or working on something else instead of wasting my time driving.  In that respect I am quite excited about a driverless car.  As I’ve also said, I enjoy very much the idea of skycars which obviously would have to run automatically—so I fully support cars along the same lines.  Automatic driving is a more useful way to travel because it takes away the dead time in transit.  If I’ve been up all night working and I have a meeting in Chicago at 11 AM, it would be wonderful to leave and take a nap along the way.  I could arrive refreshed and maybe have time to get a review of a proposal finished before the actual meeting which would be a big step in human evolution.

However, companies making driverless cars will likely lobby to get rid of independent driving completely and that would be a mistake.  I would not want to lose the ability to make independent decisions with my car—for instance, to drive off-road or to take evasive action that no computer program could simulate.  There are times that I want to turn off the automated braking systems and take complete control of my vehicle—and I would not want to lose that.  There is something very important in the skills humans have nurtured to drive a car and the decision-making process it evokes is important to our continued development.

The technology should evolve along the lines of convenience for the driver not to protect the insurance industry from collision payouts.  Without question the insurance industry is salivating at the prospect of Vella’s Time article, because it would greatly minimize the accidents that are imposed on insurance companies each year by taking away human error. However, humans need to think and they should not automate their lives to the point where they no longer make decisions to survive.  It’s one thing to make decisions for a career, it’s another to stay sharp enough to make decisions that are life and death and driving a car forces humans to stay close to that ultimate responsibility.  If you make a mistake you could kill people and I think psychologically, that is an important distinction that our species needs for its furtherance.  What good is safety on the roadways if you lose the soul of our species?

We already see the effects on our society now.  My brother is a diver and he had to attend a safety class recently where an orange triangle sinker was thrown into the water.  They were questioned what if there is an active shooter above the water and the orange triangle was to signal the divers to stay underwater for their own safety.  Many of the guys in this class were Special Forces guys and their first reaction was dismay.  Their instinct was to surface then shoot whoever the antagonist was—yet here was some government pin-head trying to dull the instincts of the special forces guys into a safety compliance priority that preserved their life in a physical aspect but slowly destroyed it intellectually.  That is the problem with driverless cars—the life and death aspect of it is actually beneficial to the value we all have for each other as a species.

While turning onto a road in an industrial park this past week there was some road construction and the lanes had been narrowed to just wide enough for a tractor-trailer to drive between.  There was one tractor-trailer trying to turn left and another turning left across the lane of traffic of the other truck.  For about five minutes I watched some of the most amazing driving as the two trucks worked together to navigate to their intended destinations in opposite directions with literally no room to spare.  No computer will ever be invented that could perform that task and we should not have a society which diminishes that skill set.  Outside of those trucks the drivers were probably not very sophisticated people, but behind those big wheels, they were modern Mozarts of driving.  We should not have a society that destroys the skills which makes those types of people.

Safety is not the first priority if it destroys thinking in the process.  The value of a human life is not defined by its years lived, but by the quality that it lives—and driving a car or a truck enhances that quality immensely.  As this technology develops it needs to evolve around the randomness of human error and not the perfection of an automatic society where everyone is passive participants to the machines.  We should not dumb ourselves down to make it easier for Google or Tesla to put their driverless cars on the roads fulfilling the utterances of Matt Vella’s Time article. We should not surrender our liberty to insurance companies who will obviously support that automatic quest offered by the driverless car.  It should be optional not mandatory to drive a car that drives itself.  People should still retain the ability to take over the controls if they so desire.

On a highway I can certainly see the need, but in roads around town, automatic cars would just slow everything down.  Human beings move faster because they can account for the randomness of other human involvement, where machines never can be intuitive enough to compensate for random calculations.  Just last week I had someone come completely over into my lane of traffic.  If I had not jumped over into their original lane it would have been a head on collision at about 50 MPH.  My decision had to be split second and no computer program would have told my car to do the exact opposite in that situation that any logical decision gate would have provided.  Yet I made the decision quickly and as soon as the danger passed I was back in my lane and headed where I was going alive and well.  To celebrate being alive, I stopped by McDonald’s and grabbed a Sausage and Egg McMuffin—that is life in America centered around the car and the independence it offers.  I would rather have that randomness than the safety of automation.  So if it comes down to the machines won’t work unless human randomness is removed from the equation, then I’d say the technology isn’t worth the loss to intellect.  But if the two could work hand in hand—then I’d be a fan.    I would be one of the first to sign up for highway travel.  In that respect, it would be a tremendous benefit.  But giving up that ability to drive on everything but the highway—it would slow our society down too much—and that wouldn’t be worth it just to have the diminished car wrecks that occur as a result.  Such a thing should never be made mandatory—it should remain and evolve around voluntary participation.  And if the technology cannot be kept voluntary—then it shouldn’t become a reality in the first place.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Kong Skull Island at Universal Studios: At least its monsters and not a bunch of gay Disney propaganda

Needless to say, the timing couldn’t be better for me.  I have traveled a lot and been to many different places—around the world—but I can honestly say that there is no place on earth that I’d rather visit for vacation than Orlando, Florida. If I were given the option to take a $100,000 vacation to the Mediterranean or to have an all expense trip paid to Orlando to visit the several major theme parks there—I’d pick Orlando.  I have said much about my love of those amusement parks in Central Florida and it looks like through competition the great minds designing new attractions at those parks are giving fans everything they could hope and dream of.  I am of course talking about the Skull Island exhibit at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure.  I am absolutely enthralled by the prospect of that ride and attraction because when it comes to movie monsters—King Kong has always been my favorite—followed very closely by Godzilla. So this is exciting news to me.   Then of course is the Star Wars land that is opening at Hollywood Studios over the next couple of years.  I have my concerns about Star Wars—and my hope is that they’ll right their ship before that exhibit is completed—but I at least am hopeful at this time that they’ll do a great job.

It is a shame that Disney as a company has decided to take this exciting period and attempt to shove progressive ideas down the throats of their fans.  When I showed my wife the footage of what Disney did on their ABC television show Once Upon a Time she declared that she would never buy anything from Disney again.  It is one thing to put up with and not discriminate against gay people—but it is quite another to flamboyantly endorse the “lifestyle” and Disney is certainly guilty of that. Uncle Walt would be sick with rage at what his company is doing in regards to gay advocacy.   It’s not at all a family friendly strategy and it’s an insult to those of us who wouldn’t otherwise think twice about spending a $10,000 vacation there to give our families a good—wholesome time.  While at Disney World I don’t want ANY references to sex—especially gay sex.  I want higher concepts and heroic effort—not gayness.  I can tell Disney this—as much as I love Disney World—if they continue on with this gay pride crap—we won’t be spending voluminous amounts of money on their company any more.  My family has been big supporters of the Disney Company over the years—as recently as last week.  We attended a birthday party and it was all about Disney for gifts and balloons.  If Disney doesn’t pull in the gayness—I won’t go to their parks ever again—even though I might want to see their latest inventions.

Universal Studios is not a conservative company—they have their progressive trends as well, but they avoid getting into trouble with it.  Regarding the recent Jurassic World movie the characters were noticeably very traditional within reason.  Chris Pratt was very much an “A” type male who had a clear relationship with women.  If they had decided to muddy the water and have members of the same-sex involved with Chris Pratt from a sexual attraction standpoint—I would have a much different feeling about Jurassic World.  Call it homophobic, call it the acts of a hater—call it whatever you want.  I don’t want to see gayness in my stories.  I don’t want to see it at my vacation destinations.  And I don’t want it around me in public.  Keep it in the bedroom and don’t put it in front of my face.  With all that said, Universal Studios is certainly better at walking the line between social activism and traditional family behavior than Disney is—and their amusement parks currently are doing a better job of providing a safe environment for families.  Maybe that is because the bar is lower for Universal than Disney—as Disney is known for its family friendly material.  But I find myself much more excited right now for Kong: Skull Island than for the new Star Wars land at Hollywood Studios.

I have zero interest in seeing the new Avatar land at Disney’s Animal Kingdom.  Avatar is one of the most progressive films I’ve ever seen and even though up to that point I was a James Cameron fan—he ruined his reputation with me on that project.  Technically, Avatar was a beautiful film—but the anti capitalist message in the movie was just despicable.  Avatar celebrated tribalism and the whole global warming environmental message—and it was just sickening.  It is almost as gross as the gay agenda—the proposal that earth is a living conscience superseding human invention.   Its one thing to appreciate nature—it’s quite another to worship it.  Avatar is about worshiping nature—and I’m not into that.  Mankind should look at nature and think of it as paint for which it can make magnificent art.  Nature is a foundation for thought—not a dominate force against it.  So I may never go to Animal Kingdom to see the Avatar exhibit.  Not the best decision in the world for Disney execs.

But relatively safe from political contention is King Kong and the mythology of Skull Island.  We don’t have to worry about homosexual sex and environmental messages with monsters wanting to kill us—so it makes for a nice comfortable, thrilling adventure that you expect while on vacation.  Nobody wants to be lectured to about progressive politics if they are Midwestern conservatives spending many thousands of dollars on a vacation experience.  And there are a lot more of those Midwestern conservatives than there are progressive homosexuals and urban rap artists.  I understand that these large entertainment companies want to be as inclusive as possible so not to turn away the potential for making a good ol’ dollar, but in cases of politics, they have to pick their poison.  They can’t have it both ways.  Don’t put sexual lifestyles in front of us then expect good conservative Christians seeking strong family values to put up with the intrusion on their life. Nobody wants to spend $235 dollars a night to stay at a Disney hotel to see a bunch of rainbow gay people running around ruining the environment.  At Skull Island, there is no fear of gay themes because it’s all about monsters and destruction, and that is something to look forward to.

So it is just a little exciting to have the prospect of visiting Skull Island at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure—and I hope to see the major improvements to their Jurassic Park section of the part rolled into the mix.  It doesn’t get much better than dinosaurs and giant monsters and I will spend a lot of money to support that kind of thing.  When I’m on vacation I don’t want to see a bunch of fairies, and gay people—and I certainly don’t want to be lectured to about environmentalism.  That is why Universal Studios is pulling out in front of Disney in the theme park business.  Even though Disney is a sentimental favorite—Disney has shot itself in the foot with their progressivism.  Would Harry Potter be as popular as it is if Harry fell in love with a guy as opposed to a girl—of course not?  With such love and fairy tales there is always the promise of happily ever after with children and a continuation of the family name when romance is developed in a story.  But with gay people—it’s just sex—the love goes nowhere and as a plot device—is pointless.  Universal has filled its theme parks with superheroes, robots, and stunning action rides that allow visitors to truly feel like they are getting away from the outside world.  But more and more at Disney are the reminders of their pro-gay protests against state legislation in Georgia and North Carolina.  They are too progressively active to appeal to the American conservative base and it is starting to show.  I know if I feel the way I do about them, then others are not far behind.  With that consideration, Skull Island is looking more appealing than Star Wars right now—because I have a very strong hunch that Disney is about to ruin Star Wars with a gay story line just as they are with their Once Upon a Time television series.

I don’t have to worry about gay plot lines with King Kong and that is wonderful.  But if King Kong suddenly becomes about gay monkey sex—then I’m done with him too.  I don’t care how cool the monsters looks—I’ll be done with King Kong the moment he wants to play with another giant ape’s ding dong.  Because that kind of emotional stuff just isn’t cool.  Monsters that want to kill each other for dominance is—and for that reason I’m really looking forward to Skull Island at Universal Studios, Florida.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Holding out for a Hero: America’s final seconds–they need Donald Trump

I spent an entire hour talking about it on Matt Clark’s radio show over the weekend highlighting the necessity—but America is in a situation where it needs one last bit of hope at the last second.  Just like the heroics we sometimes see in sports where a three-point shot is drained at the buzzer, or a champion quarterback throws a ball from midfield into the end zone hoping that his guy catches it with no time left on the clock—or a batter steps off the bench to hit a home run with two outs in the ninth to win the game—we are there as a nation.  We aren’t talking about a sustainable nation anymore—we’ve mismanaged the entire last few decades and now we’re at the end.  Now all we can do is hope with one last shot by some miraculous hero who doesn’t know the word “quit” that we can sneak away with a victory as the years run out of the second decade of the 21st century.  Donald Trump is that big dreamer and flamboyant, reckless showman who might just have what it takes for a hail Mary victory before our  nation gets to 2020 and discovers that we lost 24 trillion in debt are being pushed around the world by deadly “wanna bes” and communist dictators.  The most extraordinary example of Donald Trump’s last second efforts was the Wollman Rink in New York—which I’ve written about before—but somebody unearthed this wonderful footage from the 80s just ahead of the Tuesday primary vote and is providing us some game film showing the possibilities.  

It takes a special kind of optimist to win consistently and it takes an even more unique personality to pull out victories when everyone else is ready to throw in the towel.  I’m a sports fan for only this reason—I’m always on the search for the miraculous—because it sometimes shows itself in our games.  But in real life, it is far harder to see—because we often do not have units of measure to capture such things since the ending of a clock and the parameters of success and failure are not so easily interpreted by rules everyone agrees on.  That is why the Wollman Rink lingered in disrepair for so long in New York City until the big dreamer Donald Trump stepped up and provided the much-needed private sector miracle that everyone needed—and as the video shows, it restored a bit of happiness to those who didn’t have it three months earlier.

The mayor of New York at the time was Ed Koch—seen in the video speaking.  He was a big time Democrat who didn’t like Donald Trump.  Trump had no choice but to work with the mayor for his various building projects, so the two had a contentious relationship.  It was with great reluctance that Ed let Donald Trump even touch the beloved rink—and to throw in the towel to allow the private sector to take a swing of the bat.  Donald Trump being the big thinker that he was immediately went to work thinking outside the box and talking to the right people so that he could make the right decisions.  If Trump was asked how he was going to do all the things needed before he did it, Trump couldn’t have told anybody because he didn’t know, just like a star athlete can’t put last-minute heroics down on a sheet of paper to show pin-headed bureaucrats how they can duplicate his success.  That is because the success starts with a state of mind and optimism derived from past accomplishments.  Then the execution of that optimism has to be communicated to others so that they can do the right things at the right time through unrestrained leadership.

Trump had no “plan” as politicians and other idiots at the back of the train regarding the “Metaphysics of Quality” CLICK TO REVIEW often require—he only had a trust in himself to do the right things at the right time—and that’s what he did the moment that Mayor Koch gave him the green light.  The first thing Trump did was talk to an ice maker who was in the business of making it for a Canadian hockey team instead of the current outfit that was located in Miami, Florida.  In hindsight it should have been obvious to the politicians involved that they should have had someone with great experience advising them on how to build the rink in the temperate outside climate of New York—but after seven years, they hadn’t yet figured it out collectivity.  They make the same mistakes in the military all the time, overpaying for things because nobody is competitively bidding and sources are usually generated behind political donations.  The same thing essentially happens to everything the government touches at any level—decisions are not made to work with the best and brightest because government is too focused on “equality” and opportunity to make decisions based on merit.  So they are weak to identify elements of success when they need to.

It is that system of government that Donald Trump has had to contribute to for so many years, and in the very liberal New York area—a Republican like Trump has had no choice but to pad the pockets of politicians to fund them away from tampering with his projects.  As Ted Cruz says, “Trump funded Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer—along with many other Democrats” he’s speaking from extreme ignorance.  Well, that’s simply not true—Trump paid them to go away because that’s how politics work—they are second-handers always looking to take from those that have.  The best way to get them off your back is to pay them off and if you give them enough money they’ll help you no matter what political party you’re from.  In the field of battle there is no room for such ideological nonsense as Cruz utters.  Here is a guy who has never built anything—never created a single job who only understands political theory applied in the vacuum of conservative thought and he thinks he actually has the right to judge someone like Trump—who has been doing things on a big scale for three decades and knows just how to work the system to get what he wants out of it.  When Cruz speaks about this topic of political funding, it is disgusting because he has no experience for which to utter the words.

I don’t see any way out and I am an eternal optimist.  I am that guy who wakes up every morning and always believes he can win no matter what the odds.   I am all that and then some—and I’m saying America is at its end—we get this one election and that’s it.  We are losing in the world and our enemies are sensing it.  If we want the Republic of America to survive to 2020 we have to act now and hope that someone like Donald Trump can do for America what he did for the Wollman Rink.  To him it is simple; it just requires more advisors to speak with which he loves doing.  It will involve a whirlwind approach that has never been seen before in the White House.  Trump will work day and night and he won’t take vacations—and our many problems will get fixed quickly—relatively—just as the Wollman Rink was.  And if I’m the head coach trying to figure out who needs to be on the field in these last seconds—I want my best guy doing the job—not some political hacks who are responsible for us losing the game in the first place at this late stage.  I want the private sector guy who has a track record of doing the impossible—and Trump is that guy.  We just have to give him the opportunity and to get out of his way and hope for a miracle—because that’s where we are as a nation.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

‘Pee Wee’s Big Holiday’: We have a lot to thank Paul Reuben for–see it on Netflix

This might seem strange to some, but I love the concept of Pee Wee Herman.  It was quite a lot of fun for me to watch the first Pee Wee film in over twenty years on Netflix called Pee Wee’s Big Holiday.  It’s an exclusive for Netflix but has shown in a few theaters across the nation.  Pee Wee to me is such a wonderful character.  I get a lot of joy out of watching Paul Reuben play an adult who essentially never entered puberty.  His Pee Wee character is a fantasy look into what we all might look like if we never stopped being children—which most of the time I think is a shame—that we all do grow up.  I can say that my first daughter was literally born while watching Pee Wee’s Playhouse at the hospital in 1989, which my wife and I never missed together.  We looked forward to every Saturday so we could watch it together.  During that particular episode she laughed really hard.  There were no doctors in the room at the time as they were waiting for her to dilate, and my daughter was born.  I actually had to hold my daughter’s head to keep her from falling out into that little bag that is supposed to capture all the afterbirth.  Ironically it was that same daughter who was doing a photo shoot of me and we were finished for the day and had a rare afternoon together with only me, my daughter and my wife all in the same place when I noticed a Hollywood Reporter article about the new Pee Wee movie. So we sat down and literally watched it the moment that Netflix put it on their site.  It was one of the rare joys I have had in a number of years, I simply loved it!

I suppose this little proclamation requires a back story.  It has become a consistent observation that when a major social character who has the public eye out-lives the requirements of whatever system they are a part of, strange stories emerge to destroy their careers.  For instance, when Brett Favre was having a hard time retiring from professional football, stories about him sending pictures of his penis to females emerged to force him into retirement following a scandal to knock him off his pedestal.  Payton Manning was going through something similar; he was on the fence as to whether or not to retire when a story emerged from his college days attacking his squeaky clean image with sexual imposition.  The clear message to Payton was, “get out while you are on top so we don’t have to tear you down.”  The college story which had been kept under wraps for over two decades was a warning shot, and Payton wisely listened.  Paul Reuben had dominated 1980s comedy during a vibrant Reagan era and had outlived his shelf life.  This will just let you examine how much things have changed in just a few decades dear reader. 

After the movie that essentially got Tim Burton his big directorial break, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure came out in 1985 both Paul Reuben and Tim Burton launched themselves into successful careers that were wildly imaginative—and boyishly playful.  Reuben from 1986 to 1990 did a children’s show on Saturday mornings called Pee Wee’s Playhouse which featured Laurence Fishburne and many others on the smash hit—which was the show that my first daughter was born to.  In 1991 Paul Reuben was noticed by a sting officer masturbating at an adult movie theater and was arrested.  Paul Reuben offered to do a charity spot for the local police to make the whole incident “go away” but the press got a hold of the story and it essentially destroyed the career of Reuben and his Pee Wee character thereafter.

Toys “R” Us dropped the Pee Wee Herman toy line and CBS stopped airing immediately Pee Wee’s Play House and the character was effectively wiped off the map. Within months Paul Reuben was forced into hiding disgraced.  Of course over the next ten years as the Clinton’s moved into the White House that same media effectively destroyed the office of president by letting out all the sexually charged secrets of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  By the end of the 1990s masturbation in a movie theater was the least of our worries and with the advent of the Internet and home video markets, pornography exploded into virtually every home.  Masturbation was normalized and no longer taboo—in fact it was encouraged by teachers of progressive society. If Paul Reuben had been arrested just five years later, his story would have died before it ever got started, but forever after Pee Wee Herman had been established as a pervert dangerous to children.

Boldly Reuben appeared in Batman Returns which of course was one of the original superhero films that launched this modern era we see today from Warner Bros and Disney. Tim Burton loyal to Reuben because of their friendship from the set of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure cast the actor to play the father of the villain “The Penguin.”  Ironically on the modern television show Gothem, Reuben reprised his role from that 1992 film playing the father of the modern Penguin.  One thing that I greatly admire about Reuben is that he has been very tenacious—he has stuck around and fought his way through obvious discrimination to make a living for himself—even though the parts offered to him were greatly limited ever since that original arrest.  Reuben tried for years to get his Pee Wee character up off the mat and back out into the media world and he just couldn’t get any takers.  Nobody would touch it.

However, in 2015 because of the wild success of video streaming to give Hollywood a run for its money in production values, Netflix announced that they would take on the Pee Wee character once again giving Reuben a second chance.  They shot the short picture which I’d call essentially a remake of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure—only without all the special effects—and it was released in 2016 as an exclusive on Netflix.  So I was quite proud to be one of the first to sit down and watch it.  I have not laughed that hard in a long time.  Even at 63 years old Reuben played the eternally youthful Pee Wee perfectly.  It was a wonderfully innocent film full of fun and laughs.

There is nothing wrong with looking at the human species and criticizing its evolution—we have minds and were meant to think and question the nature of things.  Saying that, I think it’s a mistake to surrender our innocence as children to the barrage of hormonal ineptitude that we find after puberty—where biology takes over and we become a sexually based species.  I can’t help but think that this world would be so much better if we just took sex out of it and could interact with each other the way children do—innocently and full of inquisitive playfulness.  For context, I approach everything I do in life with playful optimism.  I just steered a multimillion dollar project to completion using a playful approach that kept everyone’s creative juices flowing without pretension through a very hard project with lots of technical complications.  So I clearly understand the benefit of Pee Wee Herman as a cultural character in our complex society and there is something very important about him—which was an invention of Paul Reuben.  We should all thank him for his philosophic contributions to the essence of our very foundations as human beings.

If you get a chance to watch Pee Wee’s Big Holiday, you should do it!  Its great fun, wildly original—and innocent.  I don’t think there was one sexually provocative innuendo within the entire story.  It was very much the kind of movie a 6-year-old child would have made, and I mean that as a compliment.  I wish more youthful innocence would find its way into the adult consciousness because when I look around at my contemporaries I see defeated people—people who gave up their childhoods and retreated into biological entities of procreation and easy marketing for product placement.  What Reuben has done with his Pee Wee character is very hard—he has maintained a youthful playfulness that most people lose at age 11 and kept touch with it well into his 60s.  And I admire him for it.  Now, if you don’t mind “I’m going to let you let me leave.”

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

God Bless Dolly Parton: Send this to all the socialists, cross-dressers and detriments of liberty

Sometimes it can feel pretty overwhelming what’s against us.  So for a little refreshment watch this from Dolly Parton.  God love her.

Do us all a favor and send this to your favorite socialist loser and cross dressing bastard.  They have a right to live, but not to change our nation from what it was, to what it’s becoming.https://soundcloud.com/clarkcast/obama-on-socialism-vs-capitalism-just-choose-what-works

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Socialists of California: Porter Standsberry was correct–and the west coast is the first to fall

During the last Republican convention it was a big deal that the debt clock hit $16 trillion dollars.  At the time it seemed like an insurmountable number to overcome.  Yet in four years since, and a Republican controlled house and senate, nothing has been done to even slow it down.  Now as we approach the 2016 Republican convention, the number is $19 trillion and looks to jump to 20 to 21 trillion within a very short time—it is quickly escalating out of control and is my number one concern.  You might remember the article I wrote five years ago about Porter Standsberry.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  Well, it’s all happening now.  Corporations are moving overseas to avoid the high corporate taxes, socialists are running for president, and capitalism is about to be sentenced guilty by the looter Washington class of public officials and know-nothing politicians.  All these things have been quite deliberate—the communists and socialists have infected our political system and made decisions that are directly designed to topple our capitalists system of government with debt and excessive expectations while on the other end they have destroyed the means of production.

This has never been more evident than in the city of Detroit—utterly destroyed by socialism.  Chicago is not far behind and is currently propped up exclusively by debt incurrence.  Chicago doesn’t have the wealth building ability to pay their debts at the rate that they are acquiring them.  But they are small potatoes compared to California—which was once one of the great economies of the world.  Now it’s quickly on its way to becoming an empty husk of what it once was and now they have delivered to themselves one of the final nails into their coffin—they approved an increase in the minimum wage with a plan to get to $15 dollars per hour within a few years.  Without question, based on the strength of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the West, the entire coastline has been destroyed by progressive politics greatly crippling the American economy.  Now with the minimum wage hike they have fully committed to socialism which of course will deplete their once great state of its wealth quickly.

As I’ve said before, I have worked in fast food for a number of years as a second job.  I understand the nature of it—and how hard it can be—and at no time did I ever consider that those positions should be paid any kind of “living wage.”  Nobody should seek to make a long career out of a fast food job.  They are entry-level jobs that should encourage people to improve their skills and value to the capitalist marketplace.  For instance—when I worked in fast food, while other people goofed off on their breaks, I read books so that I could become smarter for better things to come.  I worked many odd jobs for essentially the first 15 years of my adult life—up until about 35 years of age.  Some of those odd jobs were at fast food places—like Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Frisch’s and so on.  During that entire period I never wasted one single break on needless exercises.   I was always reading books and trying to improve myself—and there isn’t one person from my past who could step forward and say otherwise.  I learned a lot of things in these jobs which obviously helped me later on in life.  No, I didn’t get paid much, but the wealth I took away from those jobs was invaluable.  But always there was a hunger to do better for my family which pushed me to continuously improve.

Without that motivation to step away from fast food, a lot of talent in America is sure to be wasted.  Getting paid so much money for the entry-level workforce weakens all the market mechanisms which make capitalism so successful, which of course is the point of progressives who have been advocating the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage.  Of course if the minimum wage is set at $15 then all the jobs upstream from fast food will have to increase which is how the socialists have always planned to attack the American economy—by striking at the profit of corporations for the good of the “people” as if they had equal ownership of the means of labor.

The unintended consequence is that companies like McDonald’s will either downsize and further automate their operations lessening their reliance on labor, or they will relocate to some other area of the country that does not have such hefty financial burdens toward their profit margins.  Every video game player should understand this concept.  Without some measure of profit—whether its points gained, or trophies won in competition with others—there is little incentive to play a game or open a business—if there is no profit.  Human beings are driven by profit.  As an example—I am a big fan of the Assassin’s Creed video games.  There are lots of ways to “profit” in those games—as you succeed you get to open up new areas to explore, you get achievement trophies to share online with the friends in your network, and of course you earn upgrades to your playable character.  Every Silicone Valley geek understands how this works—yet they have a hard time applying these lessons to real life—such as in politics.  The same young people who will play an online game for 24 straight hours trying to grind it out to earn bonuses—will stand on a street corner protesting McDonald’s for a minimum wage hike without understanding that they are weakening the game of life for which we all live by.  In their minds the two worlds are separated by fantasy and reality—but in the human mind—they are one in the same.

No video gamer wants their achievements and hard work penalized so some newbie can just come into a game like Assassin’s Creed and instantly be as good as everyone else.  They are expected to work hard to earn the right and respect of everyone else.  Well, the same holds true in a capitalist society.  No top executive wants to see some snot nosed kid step directly into a corner glass office in a high-rise firm who hasn’t fought and earned the right to be there.  And no straight out of college kid should earn $6 figure salaries unless they’ve done the work to be the top of their field of endeavor.  By giving fast food workers an instantly high minimum wage—they are penalizing all those in life who play the game of capitalism hard and create all the jobs for which socialists are so eager to give away for free.

The net result will be fewer jobs in California, higher prices because of the lack of competition, and a general gradual lessening of their global economic prowess. The benefits that so many Californians take for granted today, such as having a McDonald’s down the road for a quick coffee and a breakfast will evaporate the higher that the minimum wage increases rise.  McDonald’s will automate and implement those new devices into their stores to protect their margins—which is the lifeblood of their company—it’s not to serve society—it’s to make money—to earn points in the capitalist system.   Then what California will end up doing along with socialist Seattle is force McDonald’s to reduce their staffing levels all across the country minimizing job opportunities—not increasing them.  For the guy like me who just wanted to earn a little extra money and experience—those jobs may not be available if McDonald’s has to drop their minimum staffing levels from 6 or 7 employees to 3 or 4 to maintain their current margins.  Once they develop a formula in California for dealing with the increased costs—they’ll implement that strategy to every store they have around the world.

So it is very sad to see that California took the plunge further into socialism.  But I did tell everyone a long time ago that all this was coming—and we know what it looks like—and what impact it has—yet they did it anyway. It further prevents our national GDP from ever having a chance to overtake our massive debt with increased productivity.  It certainly puts us all further in the hole—which was always the strategy.  How does that make you feel America?  It should make you VERY angry.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

America Needs to Abandon the United Nations: Donald Trump’s AIPAC speech and a short history freedom’s experiment

It was the type of speech that made you want to stand up and cheer within your own home, and I did.  It was just my wife and I but it felt so good for somebody in politics to finally say it.  Donald Trump while speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington DC on March 21st 2016 trashed the United Nations especially in reference to enforcing safety for the nation of Israel.  I have been saying for years that the United States should withdraw support of the United Nations because of the lack of personal sovereignty that it intends to apply toward our own history—and given the amount of financial resources that America provides just to keep that token government operating with any kind of authority—it is clear that the UN has not appreciated it, and it has instead embolden them to believe that they are equal to the United States in global respect.

Most of the countries within the United Nations are functioning from a position of socialist or communist economic systems and thus bring very little to the table regarding financial input leaving the United States alone in providing the foundation that the entire concept rests upon.  Without America, there would be no United Nations and many believe as I do—that Roosevelt and Wilson should have left the whole concept alone and listened to the electorate way back to the two World Wars and stayed out of European affairs and their reckless warlike escapades.  The United Nations does very little good for anybody and has become a giant wealth distribution scam mainly consuming the resources of America just to survive.

You might remember dear reader the anger I felt when comic book writers proposed that Superman was going to give up his citizenship to fight for the United Nations instead of American ideals such as “truth, justice, and the American way.”  Progressive artists of the new 21st century had decided that Superman needed to be more global and that the new fight for planetary survival needed to focus on the United Nations—as if that would be our next governmental body.  I have additionally said often that the Clintons were positioning themselves to be leaders with the United Nations ushering in a new era of global government led by the socialist participants at the UN who shared membership with Socialist International.  There have been attempts by the United Nations—such as Agenda 21 to impose themselves into American sovereignty with crazy ideas like how to steer communities back into urban environments, degrading the value of private property through increased taxation, and imposing the will of the ‘state’ into the families of our youth through multiple methods, both at home and within their public educations.  The United Nations has been a joke and I urged over six years ago my congressional representative, John Boehner to withdraw American support to teach those presumptuous European aristocrats that without us, they’d be nothing—to learn their place in the global marketplace to position us for a better deal, and more sovereign respect.  I’m all for helping the world so long as they copy America and our system of capitalism.  To weaken American interests so to prop up socialist and communist nations has never been an option to me.

There are essentially three phases which defined the concept of American freedom.   The first was of course the democratic invention of a pirate republic as established between the years of 1650 and 1710.  For really the first time in known history people threw off the cloak of state ownership and declared themselves a free people as they made the hard decision to become pirates.  There was a lot of debauchery that took place, and a lot of blood spilled, but the concept of pirating as it evolved in Port Royal, Jamaica caught the eye of John Locke who wrote down his thoughts which later inspired Thomas Paine and many others to break from England during the American Revolution.  Without the Pirates of the Caribbean—literally, there would have never been a Declaration of Independence.  Pirates had shown the colonists how a free country of sovereign citizens might throw off the tyranny of a king for the opportunity to live as a free people.

Of course the Revolution in America was the result of much contemplation within Scotland and other Illuminati circles that were going philosophically down a path for which the world would never be the same.  Ben Franklin in particular, along with Thomas Jefferson drove much of that European contemplation into the new world to fan the flames of rebellion toward a free republic.  It was hard for many to take up arms against the king of England but the result was a free nation in the New World.  Once the smoke cleared and the frontier opened up mankind for the first time could look West and carve a life out for themselves using a method of economy called capitalism as communicated by Adam Smith into settling a rough frontier and allowing the best of them to become gloriously wealthy—proving the new economic theory to be more than justified by actuality.  But first the European concept of slavery had to be ended and it was by the mid—1800s. Within America a war was fought and the slaves were freed—another first on the world stage.  Only in America could a European inheritance such as slavery be eliminated with an emphasis on freedom for all people no matter what race or sex they might be.

Once the war was fought and the slaves were free the West opened up into what is my favorite period—westward expansion.  The period of the Old West was a time where government was smallest, but the foundations of capitalism were running at its fullest—and the wealth created by this period essentially pushed up the skyscrapers of Manhattan and Chicago as railroads brought back great wealth from the West to the East.  The concept of the frontiersman is a defining element of American capitalism.  Most people failed, and many died of disease and personal misery—but a few managed to give rise to a nation on the backs of individual effort.  The California Gold Rush fueled our young country with great wealth that made it the envy of the world—and it all occurred because individual people were empowered to carve out a life for themselves on the open land of the West if they dared.  It wasn’t always pretty, but it was effective and is something to be very proud of as a period of adventure and honor which evolved on the backs of the American Cowboy.

The Roaring Twenties happened when the great president Calvin Coolidge promoted capitalism with great audacity and massive amounts of wealth generated from this entire American endeavor lifted up all members of society for the first time in human history—even the extreme poor benefited.  Average people everywhere were living the kinds of lives that nobody on earth had thought possible just twenty years prior.   Common people had access to food, jobs, and shelter as the spillover of capitalism from the very top provided a new security for everyone within the American experience.  Several World Wars and other global wars against communism would take place in the years thereafter which were ultimately endeavored upon as a means to share the wealth of capitalism into countries drowning in communism—like Vietnam, Korea, China, Central America, Cuba, Mexico—and so on.

Then the audacious United Nations came in on the tail of all this work done in America—and all the blood spilled on behalf of endeavoring for personal freedom and assumed that it was their role to take control of all this activity and make the world into a melting pot of progressive value—ignoring the hard gains won in America for personal sovereignty—which was extremely disingenuous. Their version of a global government is a socialist one—and they are insisting that America give up its capitalism and embrace socialism so that they can more adequately manage us.  So my hatred of the United Nations isn’t just some flimsy conspiracy theory—it is rooted in a firm knowledge of history and understanding how difficult it was for America to arrive at this point in time.  It is also an awareness of how valuable it was for people within America to reach the kind of freedom that we have as a human rights endeavor.  Americans are the masters of freedom and human rights—nobody else on earth has done as much as we have to make people free—and equal.  People in America are equally allowed to reach as far as they dare.  There is nothing to say that the journey will be easy—but they are free to reach no matter who they are—and that is something very special.  So how dare the United Nations assume otherwise—and they have.  That is why it was so refreshing to hear Donald Trump say what he did on such a large stage.  If that is a hint into what kind of president he’ll be—he should win in a landslide!  If I was a fan of his before—I am even more so now.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

 

Superman, Batman, Zach Snyder and ‘The Fountainhead’: How to define a Trump supporter

With all the press over the new Batman vs Superman movie the director, Zach Snyder told The Hollywood Reporter that one of the next projects he’s working on is an updated version of The Fountainhead.  The faces of nearly everyone in the liberal community of media and entertainment nearly melted off.  Snyder is a highly respected film director and is at the top of his game.  But it doesn’t surprise me that he and a growing contingent of Warner Bros. directors and screen writers are showing themselves as Objectivists—Ayn Rand’s philosophic dispute against Kantian collectivism.  It’s no secret that I was very supportive of the film makers of Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a successful cliff note to the great American novel—Atlas Shrugged.  That book is what America is all about and could have only been written here by our culture.  Ayn Rand was onto something with her work and I personally think The Fountainhead is one of the greatest novels ever written and I’ve read Finnegan’s Wake—and I understand it—just for reference.  Finnegan’s Wake to me is probably the greatest novel in the history of mankind as far as its scope—but within it there are way too many Kantian limits.  Ayn Rand takes away those limits and delivers us to a time before Plato and Aristotle’s great debate—to a time when mankind was contemplating that it was not the gods of Mt. Olympus who ruled the universe, it was the minds of mankind.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-v-superman-married-creative-874799?utm_source=twitter

This is extremely important to understand because the candidacy and potential presidency of Donald Trump is the kind of story which might be a sequel to one of those Ayn Rand classics—he is a clear combination of characters from both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Trump’s popularity is very similar to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels even to this day nearly 60 and 70 years after their release.  Atlas Shrugged is the most reviewed book in the Library of Congress behind only the Bible for a reason—people are curious—but the life around them built largely in the summation of Kantian philosophy doesn’t assimilate well to what they feel in their heart and souls.

I know people from every side of the argument regarding Donald Trump.  I know the Glenn Beck Tea Party types, I know hard-core Objectivists, and I know traditional Republicans and I see their difficulty in understanding Donald Trump and his supporters.  Some of them like Glenn Beck and even Ted Cruz are staunch Atlas Shrugged supporters—they love Ayn Rand—yet they don’t understand her—because religion clouds their thinking on the philosophy of the matter.  Ironically, that is their same aversion to Donald Trump—that he’s a godless heathen who lives for himself counseling only himself not seeking the advice of God in times of crises.  Trump declares that he relies on his own mind to make decisions—which is a very Ayn Rand type of thing to say—and Beck along with Cruz followed by a contingent of Tea Party supporters are frazzled by such a proclamation.  Establishment Republicans hate Trump because he isn’t Kantian enough—meaning he doesn’t think in a Platonic fashion deep enough for them.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES)  Then of course Objectivists aren’t sure what to think.

Not long ago I compared Donald Trump to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead and Objectivists sent me private messages concerned about my sanity.  They declared that Trump was not ideologically pure enough to be an “Objectivist,” and he certainly wasn’t the hero Howard Roark.  But a real life examination into the way that Trump has lived proposes a direct comparison.  Trump has always had a very Roark-like certainty about hm.  I don’t claim to be an Objectivist.  Personally, I think mankind is at a stage where we need to deep dive Rand’s thoughts expanding on Aristotle’s original concepts—but perhaps either going back to a time well before Greek philosophy or into a new period that mankind has never been before.  I am personally concerned with flushing out these kinds of thoughts over my years.  I see Objectivism as a first step in that process and Ayn Rand was certainly onto the scent.  However, Rand’s books were relatively simple-because they are exploring complex concepts and needed a host of adult characters to drape those concepts off of—for instance, there are no children in Rand’s books, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged—which makes it easy for the characters to act on their authentic natures.  The world is neatly aligned in a way that represented Ayn Rand’s time period and her personal decisions which was to not have children with her husband and to carry on lavish affairs of her own with other men and force her husband to watch essentially.  In the end Rand was a bit broken-hearted with some of her decisions and it hurt her following regarding Objectivism.  That doesn’t mean she was wrong—it just means she wasn’t completely right.

I think the life of Donald Trump would be a sequel to Ayn Rand’s classics—and I think his third wife Melania is the key to his present success.  I think Donald Trump fits right into the pages of Rand’s heroes with John Galt and Howard Roark and that is essentially why people are so bothered with his presidential candidacy.  Objectivists would obviously disagree, but they share with most religions an almost sanctimonious relationship with the purity of Ayn Rand’s characters that they have become Holy figures to them similar to religious fanatics who insist that the life of Jesus Christ as it was written in a book 1700 years ago is testament to the precise way that we must all live today—and that the interpretation provided over the years and nurtured along by Immanuel Kant followed by many others—like Karl Marx would formulate political philosophy around the values of altruism.  Donald Trump was a great person before he met Melania—but after she became his Lady of Tubber Tintye.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She was his hero’s journey much the way Dagney was brought to such a figure in John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.  In that case Galt was the type of treasure found in the classic story of The King of Erin and the Queen of the Lonesome Island.  In real life, Melania was the treasure that Donald Trump found and what we have today is a presidential candidate who has successfully completed a hero’s journey equivalent to a classic novel and he is here to bestow upon mankind the boons of his adventure.

While many people think their version of reality is the correct one, the established political people have their Kant, while Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and their Tea Party followers have their Bibles and the Ayn Rand at war within their very souls trying to fit a square peg into a circular entrance.  Conservatism to many of these people means “obedience to God.” The education class has their Marxism—which was formed by Kant to proclaim that Trump is too stupid for the right to “rule” because that is how archaic they still think of mankind—as a species that needs to be ruled over by an aristocratic elite.  And Objectivists hate all of the above, but they don’t think of Trump as equivalent to John Galt or Howard Roark.  Yet to know Trump through his many years of work, he is clearly willing to stand his ground for the authenticity of his creations, like Roark did at the end of The Fountainhead.  There aren’t any other people on earth in any positions of authority or wealth that have ever done as Trump is doing now—and that is to risk it all for a chance to fix everything for the sake of American authenticity.  He’s not retreating from the world the way that John Galt did to let the system collapse on itself the way that Ayn Rand suggested.  His stand is a much more masculine one—and one not yet defined by any art or literature—at least those known in establishment circles.  Donald Trump is the next step in that eventual evolution.

Trump supporters have been lied to and manipulated by all the groups mentioned above, religious groups, political groups, activism groups—everyone, and they still see things sliding into an abyss.  They have been told that they are bad because they are a particular color, that they are bad if they think well of American sovereignty, and that they are bad if they aren’t willing to give the skin off their very backs to those too lazy to make their own way in life—and they are the majority.  People like Trump were allowed to the table of power so long as they brought their check book, but they weren’t invited to help fix anything.  For Donald Trump I think love brought him full circle and into this political theater and the instincts of the American people understand it in spite of what everyone is telling them.  Trump has great love for his wife, his children, and of course himself.  People don’t comprehend it yet, but they know to trust it because literally everyone else has let them down.

From what I know of the new Superman movie with Batman, the debate is going to be precisely what I have been talking about.  Superman represents the type of Ayn Rand hero that evolved under American philosophy—essentially Objectivism.  Batman represents the law and order of a Platonic society—which migrated from Kant to Marxism riding on the back of organized religion—all denominations.  Can Batman simply let society fall in line behind a man who is superior in every fashion—and could destroy the world if he cared to in a moment?  That is the theme of the new Zach Snyder version of Batman vs. Superman—arriving in theaters soon as of this writing.  But filmmakers must make their livings looking five years into the future to anticipate the trends of that future time.  Given Trump’s impact on the world of politics it does not surprise me that Warner Brothers is looking to Snyder to provide an update to The Fountainhead.  Even though many might fight the words I’m saying about Trump today, our civilization will be looking for answers in the years to come and only Ayn Rand has offered a plausible explanation into the nature of Donald Trump so far in the entire history of the world. 

 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche before Ayn Rand likely started the chain reaction—but prior to them in all of known history only gods of some mystic realm held such power of mankind.  It was the job of human beings to appeal to the egos of their deities.  Trump is not that kind of offering.  He is something else that nobody has ever seen before in politics—or philosophy—and Trump supporters feel innately that they can trust it—because they still hope that its possible in America to step beyond the shackles of Immanuel Kant—even if they’ve never heard the name before—and live their lives as free people for the purposes ascribed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels.  Zach Snyder as a filmmaker has his hands on that pulse—and is working on The Fountainhead to show it to us for later analysis.  For decades in the future we will still be coming to terms with this time period—and it will be through our art that we understand what has happened.  In hindsight, we’ll be glad that it did.  But we will rely on art—as we always do—to define it in our lives—even if the Trump train is moving too fast now to do anything but vote in favor of that gut we have in our stomachs.  That is the very definition of a Trump supporter.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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