Tag: Lebanon Schools

The Brilliance of Donald Trump: Why being a little wild is a good thing

Amazingly, Donald Trump’s recent position of monitoring and restricting the movement of Muslim’s in and out of American borders is creating quite a stir—politically.  While most in the Beltway believe Trump is a madman, I would say that Trump is behaving like the brilliant tactician that he is.  No wonder the United States is losing around the world, because the people in mainstream politics are clueless about negotiation and strategy.  Trump’s comments are brilliant for several reasons.  First he’s playing the typical high low game needed in any negotiation.  He knows by taking an extreme position, he’ll force elected officials to at least consider some measures of security in relation to the Muslim religion.  The terrorist element is obviously hiding within that religion behind peaceful people, but there is no way to root the bad guys out if you don’t force the Islamic community to separate themselves from the radicals.  In the short run, radicals are forced into hiding until things calm down which obviously makes the world safer through the Christmas Holiday.  Additionally, all the idiots who are coming out against Trump, which is everyone pretty much in the Beltway—are demonstrating why they are unqualified to be president as Americans want somebody to make decisive decisions even if they are standing alone.  To understand the extent of the issue, watch this ABC Report on Trump with clips from a recent Barbra Walters interview.

Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.  Six months from now he’ll be able to say that he was the first Republican to identify the problem, which will prove to be quite extensive in its sleeper cell network, and he will show Republican delegates that he is willing to do anything and everything to beat Hillary Clinton ahead of the convention.  That is after all what they all share in common as a concern, beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head election.  No other Republican candidate has a chance because it will take extreme positions to outscore her in a media field that is clearly in her corner.  You can’t play nice with her and win.  You have to hit her lower than she is willing to go, which is lower than most anybody can fathom.

Trump has many business interests around the world, particularly in the UAE, so he’s showing Republican voters that he is willing to go against his own interests to do what he thinks is right—which dispels one of the concerns Republicans have with Trump.  The New York billionaire has had a friendly relationship with the Clintons in the past, so Trump has to prove that he will hit Hillary hard and not go soft as a candidate.  So this Muslim debate does several things that are needed for Trump and the nation and he has orchestrated it all very brilliantly.  It puts the issues of Muslim terrorist cells hiding behind the religion on the front burner for discussion which is needed.  Complacency will only lead to many more domestic attacks—particularly through the Christmas Season.  Trump has also thrown cold water on the millions of dollars of attack ads that Jeb Bush and John Kasich have taken out against him ahead of the primaries.  The money of those other Republican presidential candidates and their donors has been completely wasted, so of course they are mad at Trump.  Then of course there is the Obama administration that is quietly terrified of a Trump nominee, as there will be unfettered criticism and bombastic dissemination of Obama and his former employee Hillary Clinton in his last year as president, establishing his legacy forever as a complete failure. Of course they think Trump is unqualified to be president, because they have set the bar so low that Trump would be unable to live under that bar.  Trump is promising to make fools of all of them and that’s the real fear of the comments about Muslims.   They don’t care about those people of religion; they care about being exposed as political losers.

The way that ABC presented that report was interesting, it was essentially no different from school kids debating who the best band is, or what is fashionable or not fashionable.  If a kid in school distinguishes themselves as a stand-out from the crowd, they get picked on endlessly until they comply with the recommendations of mass association.  Peer pressure is what public schools are all about—fitting into a crowd and merging with the collective opinion on a matter.  But real leaders are those who stand against the tide, who are the first to see a problem and offer a solution—even if nobody else understands it.  I was always one of those kids; I never fit neatly into place and constantly pushed back against the masses.  I never did what was expected of me, and now many years later, I have been proven correct time and time again.  Eventually people in the masses follow a good leader—they do come around to the correct way of thinking by necessity of their own survival.

Trump more than anything has shown himself to be a leader.  As the world turns against him he has managed to put himself on the front page of every newspaper in the world with hundreds of millions of dollars of free advertising showing himself to be willing to be a decisive leader—which is the most sought after trait that voters are looking for in the 2016 election.  There is no issue more important than that one to normal people outside of the Beltway.  The Trump comments were controversial, but there is no downside.  What he has done is made an investment that will pay off greatly by the time summer comes around in the northern hemisphere, and there will be no stopping him.

To prove themselves competent, authorities will have to bust terrorist cells during the Holiday season to prove they are doing their jobs—and they’ll do it to prove to Trump that all Muslims are not terrorists.  Because of their anger at Trump they will be forced to actually do their jobs for a change—something they wouldn’t have been motivated to do before Trump’s comments.  Likely we will all be a lot safer for the short run as Muslims themselves seek to push their radicals out of the darkness into the light of day to avoid association which will only help our Homeland Security investigations. And the Obama administration for helping these terrorists gain strength will be forced to pick sides—which they obviously don’t want to do.

All this will play in favor of Trump going into the fall of 2016 where he’ll be poised to take credit for it all—because it was his actions that provoked all the behavior change which left unchecked would have led to many more San Bernardino shootings.  Of course the political establishment doesn’t understand all these techniques of strategy, which is why they are the ones not qualified to be president.  All this that Trump is doing is outlined in his very good book on business, The Art of the Deal.  There is no secret—he spells it out for all to see.  Anybody with half a brain would know what he’s doing—and fortunately, many Americans do have a brain when they are given the right things to think about.

This is the only way to break loose the issues that are destroying our nation—the bad guys have to be rooted out and exposed in this fashion.  I know a thing or two about these strategies and have used them myself many times.  They work in both small and large situations.  But in Trump’s case, they will strike fear into his enemies when he takes the desk of the Oval Office.  He will be in a wonderful negotiation position by then, because it does pay to be a little wild.  Often it pays very well.  But to sell that wildness you have to be willing to carry out an act when called upon.  And if you have to pick something to display it, you do it with the most strategic subject possible so that if you do have to pull the trigger you accomplish another objective with the wildness.  That’s why Trump is the best.  And that’s why he SHOULD certainly be president.  You don’t win by playing patty cake.  You win with being a little crazy when it counts most.  Christmas of 2015 after a terrorist attack that the current president is avoiding to name is a good place to start.  New York will be safer because of Trump’s wildness, and so will everyone else.

 

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

 

Throwing Off the Cloak of a Coward: French collectivism, Islamic radicalism, European socialism–still American heroes emerge

For some bizarre reason French President Hollende called President Obama to think him for the heroics of the three American passengers on a high-speed train in Belgium who stopped a knuckle-dragging Islamic radical from committing terrorism.  At the first sign of trouble French employees on the train locked that particular car to isolate the terrorist essentially imprisoning all the people in that part of the train.  Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone took immediate action to subdue the slug and their childhood friend Anthony Sadler helped beat the terrorist into unconsciousness.  That type of bravado is common in people born free in a society that advocates that kind of behavior.  Stone additionally had military training in the Air Force whereas Skarlatos was from the National Guard.  But their heroics was home-grown in spite of President Obama’s attempts over the years to turn America more into France with collectivist endeavor and passive approaches to danger.

Obama if he had things his way would have done as the French employees did, and that would have been to sacrifice the members of that particular train car so to save the rest of the passengers—which is a collectivist mentality.  Hollende is an open socialist who somehow believed that Obama had something to do with the heroics by some American policy, just as he spoke on behalf of all France for thanking the three American heroes from saving their progressive country from their own failed policies.  Europe is breeding these terrorist idiots because of their lack of a philosophy that is centered on individuality.  A collective based society, which France is, is not far off ideologically from the collectivism of radical Islam, so these young religious fanatics like this terrorist on the train can feed off society’s passivity.  In this case it was 26 year-old Ayoub El-Khazzani from Morocco who had been on a French intelligence watch list since February of 2014.  Somebody obviously missed the fact that the Islamic terrorist had bought a ticket for the high-speed train complete with bags of weapons.  Not a very effective watch list.  El-Khazzani had been radicalized in the southern Spanish city of Algecians at a mosque which had been under surveillance due to its extremist teachings.

Obviously there were a lot of fails, El-Khazzani slipped through security, the French employees on the train behaved like a bunch of wimps leaving a couple of American guys trying to have a good time in Europe to quell all the failures with their bravado.  The heroic actions are something to feel good about for all Americans—but I would remind everyone that it’s also expected.  That’s not to take anything away from what they did, it’s just that America shouldn’t be the only culture on earth with some testicular fortitude left in its up and coming heroes.  This kind of thing should be a lot more common—specifically, somebody should have kicked the snot out of Ayoub El-Khazzani way back in Spain well before he ever got on a train in Amsterdam.

Collectivism in every aspect breeds the kind of cowardly behavior that made Ayoub El-Khazzani possible and put him on a train to inflict danger to innocent people.  France, and essentially all of Europe functions under that same brand of collectivism as a culture believing that the needs of the few must be sacrificed for the benefit of the many.  That’s why French employees isolated that train car—to protect the rest of the train.  Such people make easy targets which empowers radicals seeking to impose their version of collectivism on the masses.  Lucky for the French in this case, there were Americans nearby to stop the furtherance of such terror.

This brings us back around to why the socialist President Hollende would even call Obama.  I can understand him thanking the guys who stopped the terrorist attack.  But why would he even think to call Obama—as if the American president had done anything to contribute to the endeavor.  That is an insult to the heroics of the young men.  Rather, they behaved heroically in spite of Obama’s efforts in creating a socialist utopia hell-bent on extreme leftist political positions.  Those young men went to American schools which teach socialism these days, but thankfully they had a love for American film and had in their minds a little heroics put there by an art that still relishes individualism.  I saw a picture of one of the boys with their mom which featured Clint Eastwood from the Fist Full of Dollars films.  Probably not a coincidence.

It is good to see the young men so happy after they discovered that they wouldn’t die from their heroics.  I’m sure Spencer Stone would not trade his nearly severed thumb right now for a comfortable night in a Paris hotel, and without question Alek Skarlatos is proud of the blood on his shirt and may never wash it again just so he can remember it.  This is something that President Hollende and Obama do not understand about this terrorist attack.  Sure the young men saved lives, yes the terrorist son-of-a-bitch nearly shot Stone and luckily the gun was jammed.  But those young men are happy to have proven themselves under duress and that is something they will live with for the rest of their lives—and it will carry them all to lofty highest for which no amount of money can ever provide.  The injuries Stone endured he will tell this story proudly each time he gets the opportunity. Most young men would trade these three, even with the possibility of death, for a chance to feel what they are feeling right now—and that is a foreign concept to Hollende—obviously.  Those guys didn’t attack that terrorist thug for any other reason than raw heroics—the need to do what was right.  They didn’t do it to save France from the embarrassment of another terrorist attack by Islamic radicals.  They did it because it felt good to act heroically rather than cower like a chicken in a seat trapped by French employees to seal their fate awaiting an afterlife—totally at the mercy of a 26-year-old Moroccan who wanted to kill innocents in the name of Allah.   Being a hero is the best feeling in the world.  It’s worth doing even if death is the result—because no young man wants to be condemned to a lifetime of suffering knowing they were too wimpy to face down danger when it presented itself.

I’m proud of those boys, but they didn’t do it for me, America, or France.  They did the right thing because it felt good to do.  All it took was for Alek Skarlatos to tell his friend to get the terrorist, and those guys in that moment got the monkey off their back which plagues all young men—the nagging question of whether or not under a dangerous situation they would have the courage to act heroically.  And thanks to a radical Islamic terrorist, those American heroes can now carry with them a badge of honor that will last a lifetime.  And they deserve to be proud of it.  Because in American culture we still have as a standard that an individual life lived under the cloak of a coward is far worse than death.  And young men, and old in America because of their focus on individuality—still know that when such an opportunity presents itself—you do what you have to in order to remove that cloak from personal identification forever.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Real Life Howard Roark: Donald Trump’s quest to bring value to the “Pronoun I”

As I listened to the ongoing fallout from the Fox News Presidential debate that set historic records with more viewers than watched the World Series the volatility surrounding Donald Trump continues to erupt.  I find it personally fascinating because what Trump is doing is something I have been pushing for a long period of time.   Ross Perot didn’t have quite enough in the emotional tank to pull it off in 1992, or in 1996.  Ron Paul never did much more than come away from his presidential campaigns than represent a near retirement old man with more warning than bite.  Other than that, there really hasn’t been anybody to shake things up the way Trump has, except for classic Clint Eastwood films.  To do the job, the person has to enjoy the fire, understand the value of the “Pronoun I” (click to review), and the candidate has to be the smartest guy in the room.  It takes a lot of gusto to stand in front of the world and declare that nobody out-thinks you.  Trump for all the smoke, fire, and explosions seems up to the task which gives me hope that he may be the one. 

I’m not talking about a politician like the ones the world has become used to.  Rather Trump is much more reminiscent of the type of office seeker that we would have had stepping purely off the pages of Ayn Rand’s two great American novels, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged—both personal favorites of mine.  As I read carefully the statements about the exit of Donald Trump’s campaign adviser Roger Stone in the wake of the Megan Kelly feud, I noticed something distinctly different about this round of controversy.  Trump is moving into uncharted political waters which Stone was clearly not comfortable with—and Trump recognizing it, is pressing to move on with the methods that have given him success.

The system is set up to protect itself from individual merit.  Stone, Kelly, Bill O’Reilly even Roger Ailes of Fox News are members of the system.  Glenn Beck years ago tried to press against that system, and he is currently doing a good job with his own little network, The Blaze, which I listen to every day.  But Beck never really survived his run-ins with George Soros or his expulsion from Fox News.  When individuals push back against the system, they tend to be destroyed in the process.  Along comes Donald Trump who has made his living by underlining the pronoun I.   His 1987 book The Art of the Deal is a great book about a very passionate man who comes across larger than life because as he says, if you’re going to think, you might as well think big.  But before you can do that you have to truly know who you are as an individual, not as a member of the collective and Donald Trump clearly knows who he is.

I have never seen or read anything from Trump that points to Ayn Rand as a source of inspiration—which doesn’t surprise me.  The characters from her novels—people like Howard Roark and John Galt were just who they were.  They didn’t point to a philosopher on the horizon as the origin of their thoughts; they just were who they were.  Yet Trump clearly is a hero from those pages whether by default, or through inspiration.  He reminds me of the kind of man Howard Roark was in The Fountainhead.  I have a lot of favorite books.  One is The Art of War by Sun Tzu.  Another is The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musahi.  Another is The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell.  Way of the Fighter is another treasure of mine written by General Claire Lee Chennault.  Most of my favorite books have something to do with combat and fighting—strategy.  Like Trump nobody out thinks me.  It would likely be a stalemate if he and I would ever come into contact with each other because I wouldn’t yield an inch to him, and neither would he.  He would likely chose to fight with verbal insults to shake me off my position whereas I tend to use many more subtle means built off many years of reading voluminous books providing me with a robust vocabulary and strategic options. That is why out of all my books one of my favorites is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because it is about these types of people, those who clearly understand themselves and know that they are the source of all material from which all things pour forth.

The Fountainhead is a uniquely American concept and was inspired by the bright-eyed young woman Ayn Rand who escaped communist Russia to work as a screenwriter in Hollywood.  Her first impressions of America were the New York skyline and the buildings which made it up erected because of capitalism.  Nowhere else in the world had such sights, and she built her philosophy of Objectivism off that vision.  One of her strongest and most explosive characters was the architect Howard Roark from that first big hit by her written in 1943.  He built buildings for that skyline and was directly inspired by the real life Frank Lloyd Wright.  Throughout the novel Roark refuses to collaborate with others on projects so to maintain his individuality, even when it costs him dearly.  Donald Trump is the closest personification of Roark that I’ve ever seen which most adequately allows for the philosophy of individuality to finally see the light of day which it deserves—which seemed to be at the center of Roger Stone’s issues.  The American presidency has been accepted by default to be a sacrifice to the collective, and Donald Trump is changing that perception rapidly much to the anxiety of those who have molded their lives to the system and are unsure of how to conduct themselves in that vacancy.

My favorite scene in The Fountainhead is not the ending where Roark becomes his own lawyer to defend himself in court for blowing up his own building. He conducted the act of vandalism to maintain his ownership of his property. The best part for me came when he was invited to be a part of a panel of the country’s greatest architects to commission a project for the World’s Fair.  Roark declared upon the invitation that he would work alone or not at all, that committees do not work.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.  I was reading the book silently in public and when I ran across that passage I shouted at the book with over 40 years of pent-up energy.  FINALLY SOMEONE HAD SAID IT!  I had to read a book from 1943 to get it, but finally someone understood something I had been trying to explain for a very long time.  Of course that type of thinking runs counter to everything we have built our political lives around—so it’s a gross violation of any form of collectivism—which human beings have just accepted without question. Roark as a fictional character challenged those thousands of years of human thinking.  Now Trump is the living embodiment of Roark—and if he can stay with his campaign, he has a chance to do something that has needed to be done since the start of America as a country—invoke a full philosophy started by Adam Smith and Thomas Paine into a fully realized explosion of thought and action inspired by an intellectual emphasis on the pronoun I.

I don’t want the system of politics that we inherited by default from Europe.  I want something uniquely American.  I want a real life Howard Roark as president—which is precisely what Donald Trump is.  Now that I’ve gotten to know Trump better through all these media escapades and watched his behavior more accurately, I think I would get along well with him.  Even after all the years that he did The Apprentice, I had never watched a single show until recently, because I don’t waste time on network television.  I’m just too busy.  So outside of his book The Art of the Deal, I didn’t know much about Trump or his empire.  I don’t like casinos, so I lumped Trump into that parasitic category of human being—a crony capitalist who was part of the problem.  But I see now something else, a long-held strategy centered on evoking pride in the pronoun I to the extent of saving America from the collectivist parasites which have embedded themselves in our political culture.  They are scared of Trump, and he is relishing in aggravating their anxiety.  Because he truly wants to save America, not just to provide an ego boost to himself.  For all of the reasons that Howard Roark refused the World’s Fair commission, to maintain his integrity and love for a country that has made him extremely wealthy, Trump is trying to save America not through more rules and regulations, or even executive order.  He’s trying to save it by invoking in the people of the nation, the spirit and power of the pronoun I.  Because he knows that through individuality and values invoked from within, America can only survive the systems which currently encumber it.   Committees never have worked, Howard Roark said so in a 1943 novel about individualism and the power of a philosophy built from it.  Now Donald Trump is in forbidden territory, and he appears ready to thrive in that task.  And for that he has my full support!

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Military Objective of Mexican Illegal Immigration: Understanding the Constitution of 1917

Did you ever wonder dear reader why so many liberals want an open border policy with Mexico, and why they want to pull Republicans into amnesty debates with illegal aliens? Did you ever wonder why they are seeking to overwhelm the American welfare system with illegal immigrants and why they want to change the name to something more “respectful?” It is good to ask questions. It is even better to know history. It is extremely important to understand Mexico itself and the extreme liberal investment that progressivism has made into the region for the last hundred years so to properly understand the politics of the present. Specifically it is important to understand that the Constitution of Mexico written in 1917 was essentially a Marxist revolution that was as radical as the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. They were spreading communist banter among the working poor years before Cuba fell to communism leading the entire Central American region to teeter politically with communism and socialism. That disease would then spread down into South America where it has impoverished every country south of the United States border for a century now. And presently, the communists are banking on flooding America with the descendents of this revolution through a weakness for illegal narcotics and praying for a revolution in the United States of an even greater socialist uprising. Mexico as it is today is a socialist region with roots in radical communism and they are not friends to our capitalist country. They are drowning on their choice of socialism and the political left is using them to topple American capitalism by flooding our political system with people trained to think like socialists spreading their roots into Marxist expectations. Here is some of the history of the Mexican Revolution for reference.

The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución mexicana) was a major armed struggle that started in 1910, with an uprising led by Francisco I. Madero against longtime autocrat Porfirio Díaz, and lasted for the better part of a decade until around 1920.[5] Over time the revolution changed from a revolt against the established order to a multi-sided civil war with frequently shifting power struggles amongst factions in the Mexican Revolution.

This armed conflict is often categorized as the most important sociopolitical event in Mexico and one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th century;[6] it resulted in an important program of experimentation and reform in social organization.[7]

A number of Mexicans began to organize against Díaz’s policies that had welcomed foreign capital and capitalists, suppressed nascent labor unions, and consistently moved against peasants as agriculture flourished. In 1905, a group of Mexican intellectuals and agitators who had created the Mexican Liberal Party (Partido Liberal de México), drew up a radical program of reform, specifically addressing what they considered the worse aspects of the Díaz regime. Most prominent in the PLM were Ricardo Flores Magón and his two brothers, Enrique Flores Magón and Jesús Flores Magón. They along, with Luis Cabrera Lobato and Antonio Díaz Soto y Gama, were connected to the anti-Díaz publication, El Hijo de Ahuizote. Political cartoons of José Guadalupe Posada lampooned politicians and cultural elites with mordant humor, portraying them as skeletons. The Liberal Party of Mexico founded the anti-Díaz, anarchist newspaper, Regeneración, which appeared in both Spanish and English. In exile in the United State was Práxedis Guerrero, who started an anti-Díaz newspaper in San Francisco, Alba Roja. Although leftist groups were small in number, through their publications they became highly influential and helped articulate the reasons to oppose the Díaz regime. Francisco Bulnes (politician) described these men as the “true authors” of the Mexican Revolution for agitating the masses.[20] As the 1910 election approached, Francisco I. Madero, an idealistic, political novice and member of one of Mexico’s richest families, funded a newspaper Anti-Reelectionista, in opposition to the continuous re-election of Díaz.

Labor began organizing, then striking against their employers for better wages and more just treatment. Demands for better conditions for labor were part of the Liberal Party Program, drawn up in 1905. Mexican copper miners in the northern state of Sonora taking action in the 1906 Cananea strike, where, among other grievances, they were paid less than U.S. nationals working in the mines.[21] In the state of Veracruz, textile workers struck in January 1907 at the huge Río Blanco, Veracruz factory, the world’s largest, against unfair labor practices, especially the payment of wages in credit that could only be used at the company store.[22]

One of the major issues that faced Obregón’s early post-revolution government was stabilizing Mexico. Regional caciques (chiefs) were still fighting each other in small skirmishes. The populace was demanding reforms, promised by the 1917 constitution. Many issues faced the working poor, such as debt peonage and company stores that kept the populace poor. The military had generals who wanted to overthrow the regime and take power for themselves. There were also foreign governments, primarily the United States, who feared Mexico would take a communist turn such as Russia was to do in 1918. Obregón was in a difficult position; he had to appeal to both the left and the right to ensure Mexico would not fall back into civil war.

With regard to the masses, Obregón, who was conservative but still a reformer, started listening to demands to appease the populace. Obregón’s first focus, in 1920, was land reform. He had governors in various states push forward the reforms promised in the 1917 constitution. These were, however, quite limited. Former Zapatistas still had strong influence in the post-revolutionary government, so most of the reforms began in Morelos, the birthplace of the Zapatista movement.

Despite pressures from the U.S., Obregón flirted with the newly formed USSR. To appeal to intellectuals and left-leaning peasants, official Mexican propaganda began having a very Marxist spin. Murals with Lenin and Trotsky began to appear in government buildings. Despite the sympathy towards socialism, the government began to ferment nationalism amongst the peasantry. This was accomplished by memorializing revolutionary figures and creating anti-western murals. Among the artists employed was Diego Rivera, who had a Mexican nationalist and Marxist tinge to his government murals. Despite these moves towards an anti-western and pro-socialist regime, Obregón did not separate the Mexican economy from foreign capitalists, allowing free trade with some restrictions.

Meanwhile, in 1927 another military coup was attempted, this time receiving support from land owners. Calles quickly crushed the rebellion with help from the newly mobilized peasant battalions, who later on were used to fight against the Church. In the midst of the mobilized worker’s militias, land reform, and anti-church actions, the American government began to openly declare Mexico a Bolshevik regime. To recover from the backlash, Calles began to tone down the radical rhetoric and slowed land reform policies in 1928. A year later, Calles defeated the church ending the rebellion.

After the war ended in 1929, supporters of Calles and Obregón began to form a united political party called the National Revolutionary Party or PNR. This was to unite the various revolutionary factions of the civil war to prevent further Cristero revolts and build stability.

After a series of interim presidents controlled by the party, Lázaro Cárdenas took power in 1934. Cárdenas was a socialist and began to base government policy on class struggle and empowering the masses. However, not all of his reforms were completely socialist, making him somewhat more centrist than purely socialist. Regardless, his rule was the most radical phase of the post revolution, social revolution.

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

 

Now, if you look at the violence that took place in Iran during the 70s, it is important to understand that it was a Marxist philosophy that was being implemented against an aristocratic regime friendly to the United States. China of course in the late 40s was taken over by communism, Cuba was hit with communism in the late 50s and of course the Soviet Union fell to communism during the early part of the Twentieth Century. And at that exact same time as communists were taking over the U.S.S.R, Marxism was attempting to rise in Mexico under the guiding help of progressive intellectuals. They of course didn’t call it communism in Mexico, until the socialist regimes were firmly in control with a social justice oriented constitution. It took about thirty years to fully reveal what they had really been trying to achieve with their revolution. The same slow flood of communism is still moving across the earth, Europe is now drowning with it, all of South America is submitting to it and in all of Asia, only Japan and South Korea are reminiscent of capitalist countries. Then there is the United States where progressives within American culture are trying to overtake the political system of the freest country on earth with a socialist revolution by flooding the borders, then giving amnesty to the illegal aliens to vote socialist in upcoming elections and topple the country away from capitalism into socialism, then communism.

This move has already been underway within black communities. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Communists have been working within the black communities for years to exploit them away from capitalism and to embrace socialism. The proof of what that strategy has created can be seen in Detroit, which presently looks much the way Tijuana does in Mexico. Everywhere that socialism takes root, the lights of hope go out in people and their roads begin to litter with crime and dilapidated evidence of finer times. The most disgusting place I’ve ever visited was the suburbs of Cancun, Mexico. It was unbelievable to me that such a slum could exist so close to so much wealth and investment as the resort city is known for. But the socialism has killed the town and left them completely at the mercy of tourism and foreign investment. I have felt incredibly sorry for the people of Mexico suffering under the socialism of their nation, and the corruption of their government. Hope is gone from their eyes, and it is truly sad—and that same look is in all eyes of every human being in every socialist country—from the slums of Rio to the shanty towns of the African continent, to the once great streets of Greece. All those places have parents who would sell their daughters to sex slavery to buy a loaf of bread—and that is so incredibly sad. And it is those people that progressives in America want to send to voting booths to keep Democrats in power by redistributing wealth directly to the poor in exchange for a vote. And Republicans are foolishly playing along with the game to their own demise, because they don’t know history and underestimate the radical intentions of the communists within.

And the assault continues. Left leaning revolutionaries are now in the American White House and their military objective is to overwhelm our capitalist system for a socialist regime change and they are using Marxist trained illegal immigrants to topple our economy. It’s not a matter of humanity for those insurgents, they are but pawns in a century long military struggle sharing with the world a philosophy rooted in Karl Marx. The great evil has destroyed many lives, which is obvious the moment one travels south of the American border-anywhere.   And that evil is coming to America—not in the innocent lives used as political pawns, but in what they bring with them. Communism and a love for it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The American Gun: Remembering Adam Smith and the heroes of westward expansion

It does not escape me; especially when I travel or experience cultures abroad that the cultures mostly seem proud of their histories.  Of course the Japanese are proud of the samurai culture which is obvious in their business dealings.  Australians are proud of their outback ruggedness, the English of their Empire, the French of their topless beaches, wine and ability to throw down a rifle at the first sign of trouble thinking that Napoleon’s empire was enough to show they had testicular fortitude for the next millennia.  Only in America do we find this notion that we should forget our past and reject our historical figures.  Like the samurai America had a period of valiant heroes and desperate villains that were exacerbated during the period of time referred to as the Old West.  Unlike the samurai warriors of old the Wild West characters exemplified by this period were driven to their glory by guns instead of a sword, and allowed for what may be the first time in all of human history a true path toward individual achievement.  The samurai had some of the same noble tendencies as a typical Wild West gunfighter, but the Japanese warrior was usually bound in service to some noble land owner—whereas the cowboy was pursing their own unique life.  That is the dramatic difference.

The moment that a few rival motorcycle gangs in Texas fired shots at each other the national American media jumped all over the story personifying the incident as a shoot-out in the Old West hoping to throw logs on the fire of further gun restrictions to prevent the violence.  Progressives especially refer to the Old West as if our society had “moved on” beyond such primal achievements.  Then once an Amtrak train jumped off the tracks in New Jersey for some unknown reason they filled the airwaves and print media with demands for more tax dollars for such an ancient means of transportation—that was ironically invented during the Old West and the expansion across the New World to the opposite ocean.  We’re supposed to feel guilty that the Gold Rush brought out too much greed to mankind, that the saloons across the new nation were filled with gamblers and prostitutes and that the streets were often bathed in blood from so many human beings carrying around personal firearms.  We have been told by progressives that our society today is much better because of rules they made and that if only we listened to them, we might someday be more like Europe is today.  To accomplish this we are supposed to forget our heroes of the American West, give up our guns, our music, and our culture as if it never was—and that is a mistake of epic proportions.

I remember some of the stunned poetry of William Blake—whom many believed was part of the Illuminati movement that was taking place in America during his young years into the early period that would become the Wild West.  By the time there was an American Constitution he was in his mid-thirties and as a painter and poet watched as the New World throw off the chains of a kingly society for the first time in history.  There was no “leader” in America—no King Louis, Edward, or Henry and this was extremely unusual to the world stage.  In America people made their own way.   They were free to pursue their own dreams at risk of peril or plunder and as a result New York City rose up to rival Paris and London in just s few short years.  The world was shocked and the bloodshed was considerably less than all the battles between England, Spain and France during the previous centuries.  The story goes that the Bavarian Illuminati was the shadow government of the United States working to bring the Scottish Rite to public acceptance through backdoor means to overthrow the grip kings had on the world.  In this way “illuminated” individuals could rise up to their own levels of competency without having to suck up to a king in order to achieve success.  Blake watched as this experiment blossomed into an extraordinary success which led directly to the freeing of slaves to the invention of the most powerful economy the world had ever seen.  And for that the progressives want to erase the memory.

For many the Old West was a hard place.  It might have led to direct conflict with Indians, with some despot in a bar over a card game, or dying of ill-health while panning for gold.  But, for the first time in human history if a man wanted to make their way in the world to wealth, they could grab a horse, a gun, and head for the horizon to make a life anyway they saw fit.  This would be a byproduct of the capitalism invented by Adam Smith as he envisioned the invisible hand of enlightened self-interest in his great book, An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  That enlightened self-interest would give rise to heroes like Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, Kit Carson, and Wild Bill Hickok.  It would also give rise to villains like Jessie James, Black Bart and many other railroad tycoons who would attempt to manipulate this new-found capitalism into something like the cronyism of old Europe.  But at the center of all this new-found individual independence was the gun which equaled out the big and strong from the weak and soft spirited.   Bill O’Reilly’s recent series Legends and Lie deals specifically with this period of western heroes and villains very well.

Progressives despise the Old West and seek at every turn to erase it from history’s memory—and with that the American gunfighter mythology.  The reason is that the gun embodies the utilization of westward expansion when mankind for the first time in history had gained individual mobility that gave rise to an economy the world envied terribly.  Yet to Americans the gun culture is every bit as important as the samurai sword is to the Japanese or a fortune cookie is to the Chinese.  The gun is the symbol in America of individual will and the ability to pursue it to advance the enlightened self-interest of enterprising human beings.  This gave rise to new money like the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan and gave opportunity to inventors like Nicola Tesla and Thomas Edison.  The gun and violence of the Old West paved the way for the great inventions of the 20th Century—and without those inventions; mankind would still be in horse and buggies enslaved to kings, queens and stuffy nobility.  In America a new kind of economic freedom had emerged and it was driven forth by the gun—which is our history and source of pride.

Nobody ever said that the American West was perfect—or that innocent people were not killed.  The times of the samurai were not free of sadness and the Chinese certainly had their fair share of tragedy after being ruled by the Mongols then the subsequent Dynasties of emperors starting with the Yuan.  Yet, history remembers those times fondly in their cultures as pictures of ancient heroes litter their artwork.  In those cultures the people embrace their past even with all the sorrow left in the wake.  In America we are told to run away from history and invent something new—which is really a trick.  We are told by modern progressives to run away from Adam Smith and into the arms of Karl Marx and the philosophers of Europe.  We are told to give up our guns and independence so that we can be ruled once again by kings and nobility.  Those who know history of course avoid that fate.  Those who don’t are falling for the trap and future aggression is brewing because of it.  But there should never be an ounce of shame regarding the American West or its expansion.  For every memory of detriment was a blooming flower of opportunity for somebody who otherwise wouldn’t have had it—and the means for achieving such a feat was the American gun.  America became what it did in such a short time not because of any particular president, or any corporation—but because of the enlightened self-interest of Adam Smith’s economic theory and the American guns which preserved that right in the wild days of westward expansion.  While it’s true that many people suffered, many more lived for the first time a fate of their own design.  And for that we should always remember with great fondness the heritage of our Wild West and the cowboys who experimented for the first time with capitalism as free from government and pinheaded nobility as any human beings under the flag of a new country had ever conceived.  And for America it worked and should be copied across the entire world—starting with a reverence for the gun in all its glory.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Labor Unions are a form of Terrorism: Scott Walker was right

The scum bag old hippies from the labor movement sent me one of their propaganda pieces over the weekend still upset at Scott Walker for successfully making Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Their argument was an implied insult made by Walker during a speech poising himself for a presidential run saying, “If I can take on 100,000 protestors, I can do the same with Islamic terrorists.”  The labor unions of Wisconsin and within the Democratic Party felt that the comparison of labor union workers protesting the reforms that Walker was implementing were inaccurately being compared to terrorists as if such a thing was a radical departure from reality. But the truth is, any labor union that uses force, coercion, or fear of any kind to make their point is an act of terror. They may not go to the extra level of killing people to make their point, but they certainly did try to damage Walker politically and personally on several occasions and their motives were to invoke terror upon the governor with the same tactical aims in mind as the terrorists of Islam are seeking to achieve through their actions.

Just because the terrorists in this case aren’t wearing towels on their heads and cutting the throat of so-called infidels on a beach in the Mediterranean, if the intention is to make a point against a rival position by using fear instead of logic—the action is one of terrorism. The labor unions have been conducting themselves in such a manner for years, and they don’t get a free pass just because they are American citizens, or members of the Democratic Party backed by laws created by the Department of Labor. Terrorism is anything that invokes fear to accelerate acceptance of the perpetrator’s point of view.

And while we’re at clarifying definitions, let’s also look at the type of language used by labor unions to describe themselves. In the propaganda piece the labor union described their position as such, “Scott Walker compared Wisconsin workers to terrorists. He wants to be president, STOP HIM.” From there they have a little link you can click that takes you to a petition page so you can sign your name to their plight as if some collective mass of ignorance could stop the reality of their foolishness. Workers in the way that labor unions and members of the Democratic Party machine use it, is a term utilized by the philosophy of Karl Marx in his various articulations on the merits of communism, such as in the Communist Manifesto where he ends the book “workers of the world unite.” In the manner that Marx indicated he was calling for an act of terrorism against the management of labor in capitalist enterprises. When “workers” strike and don’t perform tasks of labor, they are no longer “working” they are denying labor to an employer—so they require a different technical classification. A worker in a capitalist country is someone who conducts productive enterprise. A worker in communist and socialist endeavors is a protestor who uses terrorism to extort money they did not earn through collective bargaining agreements by threatening to destroy productivity or the profit margins of their employer through a strike.

Recently the labor unions of the west coast port workers managed to wrestle a contract negotiation settlement for themselves by slowing down work for a number of months costing many millions of dollars in profit. That was economic terrorism where the employers were forced to take the lesser of two evils, they could not operate their business due to the back log in work the labor union “workers” were imposing on them, or they could agree to the labor demands of their protestors and at least collect enough money to stay in business. With average wages of $147,000 per year the ILWU union deliberately brought the management of the west coast ports to their knees with drag-assing techniques designed to hurt their employer so to wrestle away more money from them. That was and is an act of terrorism.

In my home school district of Lakota in 2013 when they wanted to pass a tax increase which they had been unsuccessful three prior times due to arguments that I posed to the public which they could not overcome, they resorted to terrorism through labor union radicalism. The district wanted to give overpaid government employees more money so they needed a tax increase on property values to do it. They used the recent school shooting at Sandy Hook to swing voters about 5% into their direction as they promised to spend the money on “safety and security.” Lakota as a district was doing what public schools do all across the nation when they want more money for their teacher unions—they make parents afraid that something might happen to their children if something isn’t done in their favor. To help drive the point home just a few days before the election a death threat was found in the girls bathroom promising a shooting spree which of course made all the papers and news outlets. Enough parents were scared to vote in favor of the tax increase and Lakota received their money. They didn’t get the money in a straight up and down vote on logic. Lakota had to utilize some form of terror to provoke people into voting for their cause making it an act of terrorism. Of course they didn’t cross the line to become actual killers like the ISIS terrorists have, but they did use fear to achieve their objectives.

And in Wisconsin, against Scott Walker, there were death threats, political maneuvers designed to invoke fear in the population, threats that the economy of the state would be wrecked if Walker got his way—none of which actually happened. The labor unions were using fear to preserve their grip on the state’s economy and under Walker’s leadership, they failed. So out of all the presidential candidates seeking a run for the office in 2016, Walker is the most experienced in dealing with terrorism. He did successfully battle it among the various labor unions in his state. Those labor unions did sometimes threaten to kill him, but unlike ISIS, they didn’t actually try to carry it out. But the threats were made—and those threats are considered to be terrorism with the same intentions as the ISIS terrorist—to achieve a tactical objective through the means of inflicting some form of terror to move an opponent off their position.

The word “worker” is not sacred in American politics. To people who create work the term indicates the potential for some radicalized protest that will cost money and a huge amount of damage to the public relations of any endeavor. Labor unions don’t get to live under different rules by the shadows of reality just because they are Americans. If they desire to inflict fear because they can’t win an argument through logic, they are in fact a form of terrorist. Any time coercion is utilized to achieve a political objective; it is an act of terrorism.   Obama conducted himself as a terrorist when he sent a picture to congress with his pen promising executive orders if they did not do as he demanded. When they refused, such as in the amnesty issue, Obama signed an executive order that ended up as a rider to the Department of Homeland Security bill which is presently being voted upon in the House. Those against the DHS funding bill are upset at Obama’s executive order for amnesty which is really just another way for Democrats to buy votes for future elections. They make up lots of fancy terms for things, but at the heart of the reality, they are behaving as terrorists, because they use fear to drive policy implementation. And of the potential candidates in 2016, Scott Walker has the right kind of mind to deal with the type of domestic terrorism that has so crippled the American economy for years in the labor unions. It’s quite clear that he has the ability to deal with terrorists who don’t even try to hide their actions behind suits and ties—and Washington lobbyists. Walker’s track record and statement was correct. And the labor unions know it—that’s why they’re afraid of him.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Controversy Over ‘American Sniper’: Why evil hates the new Clint Eastwood film

The best part of the American Sniper film is that it has flushed out the counter insurgents within United States cultures—those who actively work against the ideas established in the Constitution to create an economy based on capitalism, personal freedom, and moral integrity.  The popularity of the film has forced opinions to be mirrored against the radicals of American society and display the contrast.  One of the typical and less profanity ridden examples of hate against the film is the article shown below from Salon.com–a left leaning publication.  It seamlessly combines an attack on the integrity of Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood, and the GOP in general into one dribbling hate fest.  Have a look:

Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a[youtuhero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than anguish with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.

But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia– from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mindset.

In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on U.S. gun culture, “Bowling for Columbine.  Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directed comments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.

Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/

For many years these types of leftists have attacked the fundamental conservatism of American culture with accusations that silence opinion so not to be labeled in such a hateful manner.  Socialist radicals just as they are taking over Europe, the Middle East, and every poverty-stricken nation throughout Africa, India, and China have successfully eroded away opinion against their schemes using the same methods and everywhere but America has it worked.  In the United States the leftist strategy is certainly at work, but it has met with considerable resistance particularly from the type of Americans who love their guns, their country and their God.  Chris Kyle is a danger to them because it gives those core Americans the knowledge that they are not alone and isolated in their thoughts and provides clarity to the true insurrection by socialist minority forces.  These insurgents have been at work for many years as change agents against the American republic trying to force a conversion into a mass driven democracy guided by socialists.  American Sniper is the movie of normal Americans, and they have showed up in mass to see it scaring the crap out of those insurgents hoping to remain undetected.

Clint Eastwood has had a battle with these insurgents for many years starting with his Dirty Harry films.  Those cop drama movies were all about the changes happening in America through those change agents as Clint Eastwood’s character represented the last vestiges of John Wayne’s patriotism.  Critics pushed on Eastwood throughout that series and in each film Dirty Harry addressed those issues.  For instance in Magnum Force, the second Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood dealt with the thin line between his character and the vigilantes who were cops who created a secret squad of assassins killing bad guys without any court process.  It was essentially an argument between raw conservatism and fascism.  In the Enforcer the story dealt with underground communist terrorists similar to the real life Weather Underground.  Dirty Harry had a female partner which created conflict in the face to the severe danger being created by radical groups pressured by a political system to hire women to the force just for social satisfaction.  In Sudden Impact everyone was against Dirty Harry as the character was forced to step away from the politics surrounding him.  At the end of that movie when the killer was found, Eastwood’s character let her go—because there was no justice possible to rectify the situation.  By the time the Dead Pool came out—which launched the career of Jim Carry—Dirty Harry was a celebrity just trying to live his life—but circumstances would not allow him to do so.  Even with all the feel good publicity expected by Dirty Harry—in the end he had to turn toward raw vigilantism to solve the crime.  Eastwood has always answered the leftist critics with his arguments in his most controversial films.  He as done plenty of soft, non political films, but Eastwood has always expressed a lot about himself and his views in his movies.  His best films are the ones where he is most controversial because the passion of his convictions comes out clearly which is why after all these years—he is still a beloved actor/director.  Like a time capsule Eastwood has been there from the beginning and has chronicled the present insurgency in the topics of his films as they happened to our social tapestry.

So it is again with American Sniper which essentially returns to the topic of the very first Dirty Harry film.  The fight between Chris Kyle and Mustafa in the film is the same as the one between Dirty Harry and Scorpio.  American Sniper is an exploration of evil and what to do with it when you find it.  What is the responsibility of America when evil is at their doorstep?  That is the question that Eastwood answers in the film.  And American audiences like his opinion and have voted with their wallets.

Evil is among us.  It is at work and it forces us to look within ourselves to decide what to do with it.  It’s not complicated—it’s rather simple.  For Chris Kyle, because his upbringing and state heritage gave him the ability to detect evil as viewed by Christian orthodox—he had an advantage over those less fortunate throughout the world.   After all, we are lucky to be born in America.  It would stink to be born and raised someplace else—but we need not feel guilt about that to the point where we give the value of that benefit away just to make the rest of the world feel better about themselves.  The insurgents among us feed off that tendency and make it into a reckless enterprise.  Chris Kyle, like many of us are products of our environment—and those of us born on the winning team are lucky to be there.  But we have a right to protect that value by projecting it elsewhere so that other little children not born under capitalism and freedom can taste what we love and cherish.  If left alone—those other countries become cesspools of evil by default.

So the question remains, is it a higher morality to leave a country like Iraq alone as the terrorist evil there hell-bent on revenge for their arguments with Europe and a conflict that extends back to the Crusades—or should America sweep in to free people from the evil at work behind the broken ideologies of collectivism that is ever-present among the communist driven ISIS currently reeking havoc once again in Iraq upon our departure?   Would Iraq be better off or worse off without all the CIA involvement, or the alliances formed due to oil companies in Saudi Arabia?   If left alone, the entire Middle East, Israel included, would be a pit of communism and that is the real issue that leftists hate about American Sniper.  If the traditional definition of communism is defined as evil because it robes individuals of their ownership and value and surrenders to the collectivism of the mob then it is easy to designate all terrorist activity as evil.  They aren’t freedom fighters fighting against institutionalism.  They are fighting in favor of institutional religion, politics and economic viability. And that makes them evil.

Evil likes to hide in the masses.  Within collectivist systems where the value of the good is robbed to hide the degradation of the bad, evil can flourish—so it prefers collectivism over individualism because it can operate in a concealed fashion.  Clint Eastwood made a movie in American Sniper that stares that evil in the face—and the leftists advocating that vile evil don’t like it.  So they criticize the film, Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood and anybody who expresses appreciation for the film hoping to push everyone back into the hole that they have been living in for years allowing evil to flourish.  But this time it’s not working.  And they are scared—as they should be.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

A Christopher Cornell False Flag: The possiblities of entrapment for political objectives

There is something very fishy about the Christopher Cornell case in Harrison, Ohio where a twenty year old kid supposedly was planning to attack government officials in Washington D.C. Cornell wearing a very ISIS terrorist looking beard was arrested at a popular gun store in the suburb of Cincinnati by “government employees” and sent to a facility run by more government employees to be tried by more government employees. So it will be very interesting to see how much evidence comes out of the trial and of the relationship the kid had with the FBI between the weapon purchases recently made and the date where Cornell showed up at a 9/11 rally as a “truther” revealing his beliefs that the New York terrorist attack was an inside job. The mode of operation of this terrorist attack seems awfully close to motivations of the IRS in attacking conservative groups. After all, here is an angry white male—an anti government type who is converting to radical Islam and wants to kill government workers buying weapons at a gun store in the heart of America. And the kid’s father is another small government type who immediately stated that the government set up his kid. So it is obvious where young Cornell got his distrust of government. The whole story is wrapped up a little too neatly for the government case against the certain demographic types that are currently putting pressure on them to reform themselves. So the FBI—and the government for that matter—suddenly had a story that made them look proactive against homegrown terrorists, and at the same time shuts up the sector of society known as the “hard right” from fear of themselves being targeted as terrorists.

It is very easy to manipulate young people, especially between the age of 15 to 21. Kids are still kids at that age—especially these days, and not very wise to the ways of the world. If a kid in that age group starts hanging around with “wigger” kids, he’s likely to start walking about with his pants down and listening to Eminem. If a kid hangs with a gang of “narco” types, they’ll likely spend a lot of time listening to gangsta rap and planning petty crimes. If a kid hangs around nice kids who spend their weekends learning to milk cows, they will likely attend church on Sunday and praise the Lord at the dinner table. Behavior for most young people is largely governed by environmental conditions. And environmental conditions are established by peer review and pressure.

For a kid like Cornell, who it appears didn’t have many close friends, it would be very easy for a FBI agent to indirectly contact the boy after the 9/11 truther protest and provoke him into a direction of choosing since it was clear that there was an origin of discontent. It might begin with a simple positive comment on a Twitter post of something that Cornell had said, then over the course of a few months, the agent could plant ideas in the mind of the target and begin to steer his thoughts in the direction of choosing. To put it another way, think of the relationship to a first date where a man wants to have sex with a woman. The woman may be interested in sex otherwise she likely wouldn’t be on the date, but she doesn’t want to come across as cheap, so she plays hard to get. Maybe she plans to wait a date or two before she allows for the possibility of sex. But, the man needs to tell his friends about the date so that he can look like a big man with great sexual prowess.   Men need to report to their peers about how they bag and tag the women with their powers of persuasion. So the man leads the girl along with a nice dinner, perhaps a gift at a store to make her feel obligated later, then when it comes time to close out the evening, he pulls out the guilt to get the sex. The woman gives him what he wants because internally she’s insecure that she might lose such a sugar daddy, so she accelerates the process along hoping to get a date number two, and three—and perhaps even marry the guy. So she gives up her sex hoping to hook the guy to her loins.

Fast forward to Christopher Cornell playing video games in his room all day long doing very little productive in the world who is still very close to his mother. The boy never really broke away from his mother’s breast to become a man of his own—so he’s still very prone to the peer pressure of society as a direct result. This is always a typical trait of such males who are too close to their mothers. They are very socially conscious as their foundation thinking still comes from the women’s circles within family structure. Yet to assimilate with the father and behold atonement which is another major concern among most young males, Cornell adopted the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. (Of course this is all hypothetical at this time, and could be confirmed by court documents during the trial if allowed to be seen by the public) So Christopher goes to a rally with his famous sign and catches the attention of the FBI who decide to make an example of him. An agent contacts the lonely kid looking for his way in the world and tells him he agrees with him on 9/11 and earns the trust of Cornell. Then the agent starts planting seeds, just as the man who wants to have sex with a woman does—to provoke reaction and stimulate an outcome. A person craving acceptance—any acceptance will do extraordinary things to get it—and perhaps Cornell wanted to impress his FBI friend so much that he was willing to kill and maim targets of the friend’s definition so to earn that respect. In the end there was only one man who walked into the Harrison gun store to buy weapons for a planned terrorist attack. So Cornell is guilty of that. But would the kid have grown the beard, and changed his name to the ISIS wanna’ be—Raheel Mahnus Ubaydah just a few years out of high school where he was a wrestler and planned a terrorist attack against government workers and the U.S. capital? Likely not. If the FBI had not befriended the kid, it is likely Cornell would still be in his room playing Assassin’s Creed and texting his mother about his needs.

The target likely wasn’t Christopher Cornell himself, but the father because of his political beliefs. The FBI needed to make some kind of arrest somewhere to show that they were getting out ahead of these potential home grown terrorists before something happened—especially after the Paris attacks. America needs to know that its safe and the Cornells as a family were easy targets. By pushing their buttons to send them over the edge the government gets the sniffing dogs off their backs with the IRS corruption, the Benghazi murders, Fast and Furious, the communist insurgency coming out of Cuba, Russia—and China. The push toward socialism in Europe, carbon credits, oil prices to destroy American fracking, and the desire to see Islam and other religions besides Christianity spread through public education to young people with a new civil rights movement–a modern crusade. The message behind the Cornell arrest is two-fold, that the FBI was doing their job of protecting America and that even angry white tea party types are prone to the teachings of Islam—so there is no place to hide.

This could of course all be fiction on behalf of my prose. The court documents would of course provide the context of the story in greater detail. But if I had to bet money—I’d say what I stated is closer to the truth than what is being told to us on the news. There are very good reasons not to trust the government. Just yesterday John Kasich, the governor of Ohio stated people against Common Core were suffering from an inaccurate “hysteria” when the reality is that local school boards still have the final say. What he didn’t say was that his support of Common Core, and why local school boards will go along to get along is because there is federal money attached to it, and like a common prostitute he wants the money for his budget balancing, just as a crack whore wants to fund her habit. So they will justify the means to satisfy the evil. Then of course there is the local politician John Boehner who stated that someone needed to go to jail over the IRS scandal. Yet now the targeting of conservative groups is known, and even people close to Boehner suffered yet he isn’t motivated to do anything about it now that he knows it’s connected to the White House because of the 2014 congressional hearings. At every turn federal workers at most levels are showing that they are more prone to corruption and vile acts because they are protected by labor unions—such as the IRS workers were, police are, and just about every public service. So what we get is bad work from employees who take their jobs for granted. And they are only motivated to act when public pressure is applied.

When it comes to the Christopher Cornell case it solves two problems for the federal worker—it shows that there is extremism within the small government types of demographic population, and it shows that Islam is spreading to the lonely recesses of Harrison Avenue in Ohio. The hope is that people like the Cornell family will just shut up and do what they’re told to do. At least that’s’ how it looks. The trial, if it’s open and well covered by the media will either confirm or deny these accusations. But what will likely happen is the trial will be put off until the case cools, then it will happen lightening fast and without much fanfare. Christopher will be tucked away for a while to be further broken down and his parents will have to shut their mouths if they ever want to see their kid again. And once it is realized that the FBI actually entrapped the kid into saying everything he did, the public opinion will already be set and they’ll be on to the next crises.

Meanwhile the government will pardon themselves from any guilt in the debacle and will be looking for a tax increase to pay for their pension plans and summer vacations. Angry white guys and small government types especially in Ohio will watch their tongues so that they are not accused of guilt by association. And the Cornells will grieve each night knowing that their son is beyond their help. Fear makes monsters out of even sane minds, and it does much more neurotic destruction to societies in general. And the FBI was well aware of that when they contacted Christopher Cornell needing an arrest of a certain demographic type to satisfy their bosses in the Capital. After all, the budgets are being made by a new congress, and there is nothing like a high-profile arrest at a key time to ensure that budget cuts don’t strike the FBI as it has the now unpopular IRS. In the end, it always comes down to money by the looters who don’t make it—but spend it like drunken sailers in a whore house. And in my opinion that’s the way government employees treat the money we send them.

Let’s see how much info comes out in the trial. But to confirm my thoughts does anybody remember the James Holmes case? He was supposed to go to trial on December 6th. It will likely be with the Cornell case as well. Oh, they’ll cover it locally, but it won’t go very far. The Holmes case is still in jury selection just as a reference. These cases deliberately go on forever because the public losses interest even when deaths occur as it was with Holmes. With Cornell where it was just potential threats showing intent, the public will be even less motivated—and therefore no matter how guilty the FBI is, they know the public will never catch them on their imposition. So it will continue to the next victim.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker: Paris terrorism and the guilt that gives them strength

Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker was running for public office in Dublin, Ireland and was a prominent pub owner who carried a reputation as a great man. A husband and father of three–two boys and a girl he was a man on the rise.   That is until he was walking through Phoenix Park and noticed two young girls urinating with their pants down to their ankles and their sexual mechanisms exposed. Three soldiers spied Earwicker and would later provide testimony as to what they saw as a cod with a pipe approached the distracted celebrity with an inquiry as to the time. Earwicker feeling guilt for noticing the young girls quickly stumbled through an answer indicating guilt that was not justified.

Later the cod’s wife hearing her husband retell of the incident with a bit of flurry to his remembrance carried the story to the local priest. After all, her ear for the spittoon was a seduction that she had great notoriety for, and thus began the downfall of Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Soon after the priest uttered a slightly varied version of the story to Philly Thurnston who thus did the same to the next person, who did again to the next person, and so forth until all of Dublin soon knew of the encounter. A pub ballad was soon constructed at Earwicker’s expense called “as The Ballad of the Persse O’Reilly.” Earwicker was so shamed that he soon was locked up in jail—for his own protection, lost his public office, his reputation as a good man, and was put on trial. Eventually the men of the court having sympathy for Earwicker’s shortcomings—because they themselves were thus prone—found him not guilty and the family man and pub owner was somewhat restored once again to his life and daily maintenance.

Thus is the basic story of the main protagonist from the great novel Finnegan’s Wake written by James Joyce for reasons that have provoked the most astute minds of literature.   The purpose of the tale was not to just tell another sultry story of a middle-aged mind caught into the perversions of sexual indulgence by women at the prime of their seductive powers. It was to show a cycle that all societies go through as represented by Earwicker who is often just termed in the novel as HCE—or otherwise—Here Comes Everyone. Finnegan’s Wake is a heavily inspired metaphor of Giambattisto Vico’s cyclical theory of history which states that civilization always passes through four basic phases, a theocratic phase. An aristocratic phase. Right on cue it enters a democratic phase. Then once that cycle has run its course society drops back into chaos and anarchy. We presently throughout the world as seen most dramatically in the opening weeks of 2015 are witnessing the attempt of a theocratic order attempting to use chaos and anarchy to gain control of the world population through radical Islam to start the cycle again for mankind.

In a lot of ways Western Civilization has been undergoing this elusive menace for many years starting with the communist attempts for attention and world-wide expansion during the 1950s and 60s. Behind that mask was the Civil Rights movement who like the priest from Finnegan’s Wake took some of the collectivist uttering’s of the communist insurgents and added their own sprinkling of truth to the story under the guise of righteousness to further deteriorate into a quandary. Now society is so disarmed with guilt not completely justified, that it can do nothing but shut itself away from the world and hope that the courts will find them innocent—which of course they will. But, the damage to all reputations will have already have taken place and HCE—(all of us) will have to be born again and start from scratch under a theocratic order. In this case it is the Muslim who desires to set the new rules and have everyone bowing toward Mecca—or be decapitated as a surrender of individual sanctity in favor of collective identification.

The recent Paris attacks by young Islamic radicals are nothing more than the spreading of a new modern age “Ballad of the Persse O’Reilly.” Their military intention is to destroy the previous cycle of history and gain power for their order under the Vico cycle of an emerging theocracy. They are the girls in the park with their pants down urinating after a long night at the pub singing and dancing. The mechanism used to move society from one phase to another is guilt. Once a group of assailants can get portions of society to admit to “guilt” they can then control that person infinitely. This is what has happened in regard to racism and the progressive platforms. It was Republicans in the United States who put an end to slavery and started the Civil War to free men’s minds. But, using the same social tactics progressive radicals have demonized Republicans into inaction and thrown them in a metaphorical jail for being angry white guys old and outdated while the only people qualified to manage their “people” are boyz from the “hood” with crack sales on their resumes and baby-daddys from here to infinity as their family lineage. Like HCE, Republicans put themselves in jail to protect their reputations from the swarms of gossip and turned toward the law for help. But the insurgents have gained control of the law as well leaving no recourse but to stand on the sidelines and complain about the gross unfairness.

Finnegan’s Wake is a warning of this cyclical procession that has embedded itself in the human consciousness like a sickness destined to always destroy the grounds made among human kind. Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker couldn’t help but notice the young girls with their pants down showing their private parts to the world. Being a man of great reputation he was quick to catch his primal thoughts and get them under control.   But, the cod who asked the time assumed that Earwicker stuttered not out of self-regulation, but out of guilty yearnings, such as the cod likely struggled with. He needed to feel reconciled and momentarily superior so he passed on the story making himself the hero at Earwicker’s expense. The result of the book is to show that Earwicker was destroyed but rose again to return to the beginning of the story.

Yet my proposal and the purpose of this site is to step off that Vico cycle all together. It might be remembered that I had a bit of controversy once, which I considered to be equivalent to the court trial in the novel Finnegan’s Wake. When Scott Sloan asked me on 700 WLW in front of many hundreds of thousands of people to admit guilt and say I was sorry to all the fat-assed despots and levy supporters that I had properly identified, what he wanted was for me to play the role of HCE and put myself in jail awaiting judgment and forgiveness by my peers. Of course I refused because my opinions were my own and I felt no guilt for them. Just as HCE should have never felt guilt for walking through a park and noticing a couple of girls with their pants down. He didn’t pull down their garments and ask them to conduct themselves in such a way, so he should have never stuttered when the cod asked him the time. He had done nothing wrong. Yet, because HCE knew that there would be judgment cast upon him, he knew he had to be careful how he answered, so he made a mistake which then perpetuated itself into chaos—which is the aim of all these endeavors against logic. And so it is that no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist should feel guilt for the plight of the modern communists behind ISIS, or the Sykes-Picot agreement after World War I, or for slavery in America that was ended by the American Constitution, not sustained and justified.

The enemies of our age are using guilt to destroy us dear reader. You would be advised to stop feeling guilt and allowing it to control your actions. You must first have convictions about things, and be willing to stand by them. If you do not, you will end up like poor Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker from Finnegan’s Wake. Society uses guilt to advance the Giambattista Vico cycles which ultimately always erase whatever progress we truly make as a society in the fields of philosophy, history, religion—even mathematics and science. America is a step off the Vico cycle, and its high time that those lucky to be born under its protections stop feeling guilty about their fortune and protect the philosophic advancements passed down to us for sanctuary. The human race is in our hands, and it cannot be surrendered to chaos and theocratic despots by simple unfounded accusations designed to invoke guilt—and thus surrender of the emotional high ground for which America sits. Be warned, and listen to the quandary of Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker for what it is—a warning to us all. Do not make the mistake he did and carry willingly the guilt of mankind just because a cod asked for the time. Give him the time if he asks for it, but don’t feel any guilt for what you see. All the girls of Phoenix Parks everywhere will do what they do. But those of us who are like HCE have a right and obligation to walk where    they do and not be steered away just because society has its own agenda and a desire to regress back into a theocratic rebirth—and loss of all human advancement thus gained.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Erasing History: Glenn Beck’s vision of sheer terror

I had a nice talk with Doc Thompson the other day about some really cool things that are on the horizon—which ironically corresponded to some of the really good work that Glenn Beck has been doing. Beck on December 18th 2014 did a very dystopian video playing himself as a man 40 years older thinking back on this time and the events of our day. His message corresponded perfectly with the contents of the discussion Doc and I had just hours earlier. In a lot of ways the reason I write this blog every day, and produce the other creative content that I do is that I know we are entering a new age where collectivism will be the new open mantra and it is my responsibility as an individual to speak out against it. The revisionists are already hard at work steering the world in the direction Beck alluded to in his video just as they did with the Christopher Columbus voyage—declaring that Europe had discovered America—even though that was very far from the truth.

I have watched and learned over the years how diabolical the church aligned with politics can be in destroying history. In order to maintain the theory that the North American Indian was “native” to the New World and that Columbus discovered them the government has virtually destroyed those nomadic people so to remove the evidence of their very lives, and destroyed numerous archaeological sites that proved human beings had advanced cultures in America thousands of years before Christopher Columbus ever thought of sailing across the Atlantic. In America there were of course Vikings who moved as deep into the country as Oklahoma and Minnesota. There were also Chinese who apparently mated with a giant species of man possibly from the lost tribes of Israel. There were Aztecs and Mayans who traveled up the Mississippi to exchange goods with Cahokia and other large population centers with advanced knowledge of astronomy and mythology. And likely there were advanced cultures in America before any of those groups came to be—well before Europe was even a land of kingdoms. But to maintain the illusion that Europe had discovered America—much evidence had been destroyed on purpose.

So Beck’s video drama is not far off the mark. Revisionist history is hard at work in the present trying to erase events only decades old—let alone centuries so that an order centered around collectivism can rise to power. And if that assault is not met with aggression, Beck’s apocalypse will come true. So I write my postings, my books, and do whatever I can to preserve the history that I have witnessed personally through a colorful life full of experience. I have first hand witnessed the world before the revisionists put their hands on fate—so I’m dedicated to that preservation.

 

The history erasing is mostly happening by the public school system followed closely by the media. The most current evidence of historic revision is the Cuban issue of Obama reopening ties with the southern communist country. In my lifetime I watched the Cold War struggles between America and Cuba and have watched how during the Obama presidency that slowly the anger toward communism has abated with full support of the media culture to watch the revision of a former enemy to a friendly southern neighbor occur virtually overnight. Within a few years the dark days of the Cold War will be wiped away.

 

Ironically the best way to study revisionist techniques comes from the attempted passage of local school levy issues where public relations professionals spin reality often and hide crimes to gain tax increases by public vote. They will cheat any way possible to acquire their funds. The same basic Alinsky methods have been used by the Obama White House to cover their many scandals. Once that game is understood it is easy to see how history is being erased right before our eyes as fast as it is created.

Beck’s apocalyptic vision is quite realistic if taken at the value of true observation. Those who might call it conspiratorial or paranoid are the type of people erasing history presently. And this cannot be allowed to occur. So in a lot of ways I have dedicated my life to the preservation, and resurrection of the proper history before it is gone forever—wiped clean by the revisionists trying to hide their tracks. And that was the content of the talk Doc and I had. 2015 should be a very interesting year.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development