Donald Trump is ‘The Fountainhead’: Individualism is a higher concept over collectivism

I thought it was the biggest story of the week, and I wouldn’t be completely forthcoming if I didn’t know why he said what he did—specifically. (CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY) But what a bold proclamation it was for Donald Trump to be interviewed by the very liberal Kristen Powers of USA Today and for him to mention that he liked Ayn Rand and specifically, The Fountainhead and the hero of the story Howard Roark. We know that Paul Ryan likes Atlas Shrugged, and that Ted Cruz is a fan of Rand’s work—not just that he likes it, but that he is inspired by it. Yet only Donald Trump could say the things he did about Ayn Rand and have it not be the story of the week by the political left. Here are just a few of the articles talking about Trump’s Rand comments. It might be remembered that I’ve been on the radio with the guy who wrote The Federalist article and it was rather hilarious to see how bent out of shape he was over the Powers story.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/12/donald-trump-is-an-ayn-rand-villain/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/donald-trump-interview-elections-2016-ayn-rand-vp-pick-politics-column/82899566/

When I wrote my article about Donald Trump being quite a lot like the famous Ayn Rand hero of The Fountainhead way back in August there was a considerable amount of scorn about it from friends I have in the “Objectivist” community. They couldn’t believe I said such a thing—because to them, Trump was a progressive—a statist—a tyrant in the making. They couldn’t think of him as a Howard Roark or even attribute to him the kind of intelligence that would be most at home with Ayn Rand’s heroes. But with Trump, that was all I could see and that he was the best opportunity to take the United States to a level of philosophic understanding that could only so far be found in an Ayn Rand novel.

Everybody thinks they are an expert—yet they get caught all too often in the superficial elements of Donald Trump’s personality. I see in Trump a man who has paintings on his Trump Tower ceiling and has an apartment, and private airplane covered in real gold. I see a guy who has a stunningly beautiful wife and a wonderful family and can notice a fingerprint on something he cares about from twenty feet away and it drives him crazy. I hear in him a guy that says he is his only foreign policy advisor, and that he consults……himself—and I see a guy so much like Howard Roark that no other character in all of literary history comes close to describing the real Donald Trump—the guy who sleeps in Trump Tower and likes to put pictures of himself on the wall of his office. Trump loves himself and is all about the “Pronoun I,” and to me that is extremely appealing. CLICK HERE TO REFER TO A PAST ARTICLE ABOUT THIS VERY SITUATION AND THE NEED FOR IT IN POLITICS.

I have spent millions and millions of words on these pages talking about how stupid collective assimilation is in anything—that the biggest mystery and key to success in most things is individually led leadership. My favorite part of the novel, The Fountainhead was when Howard Roark declined to be on the architectural board for the World’s Fair. He insisted that he contribute his designs as a solitary figure, not as a part of a collective board. Ayn Rand was onto something very important there pertinent to the American economy and it was unique to her. Liberals and the public in general think wrong on this matter—and it starts in public school and our churches. The assumption is that two heads are better than one, and that fifty heads are even better yet is one of the biggest mistakes the human race has made so far in our written history. I have yet to see a company that functions well under this philosophy. Many movie production companies and many Silicone Valley operations believe in collective enterprise—but what they are presenting is an illusion—because most of their successful projects are still led by very strong individuals who are clever about the way they extract the individual effort out of their teams. But it isn’t the collective mass of a board of directors or the worker bees of a project that lead to its success—like the striking fools at Verizon believe in their union behavior—it’s the solitary efforts of individuals.

I know exactly what Trump is doing with other people because I by default utilize many of his same strategies—so it’s easy for me to see the man behind the façade. I do see in Trump a man who loves art, who enjoys the fine things in life as an individual and certainly marches to the beat of his own drum—but he has learned to pull other people into his vision with the opportunity to share with him greatness. Most of what he does is utilize raw leadership tactics—which is why he’s popular to begin with and has a level of celebrity that is bullet proof—because his skills are so highly specialized and beyond the mechanisms our society has established to suppress challenges to its static system.

The world is burning with socialism—once you leave the shores of the United States, socialism is literally everywhere. Collectivism is the mode of conduct that the world uses to establish its morality—and it’s wrong. Nobody is more important than you dear reader. However, you best serve others by serving yourself—and if you truly love others you seek to preserve them because it would hurt you to see them in demise. I read just last night a comment about Republicans and Democrats that went something like this—“if the elephant and the donkey have let you down, turn to the lamb.” It was a religious argument about politics essentially saying that Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, and that a person should turn toward the church—the sacrificial lamb. Well, that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time—nobody should surrender their life to the whims of the galaxy or even the universe. Jobs are made by individuals for other individuals to build their lives around, decisions are made by individuals for the impact that they might have on the world around them—humans are thinking creatures who make magnificent structures by thought alone and Donald Trump is one of the least apologetic yet most successful among us to utilize this essential function. We have to stop this whole sacrificial notion—its barbaric.

When I hear Trump say that he’d like to marry his daughter and see that he uses the beauty of his wife Melania to club rivals over the head, I don’t see or hear a self-centered maniac who is selfishly dangerous in his sexual promiscuity—I see a guy who as an individual appreciates the beauty of a fine women as a work of art and loves how it inspires the individual in him to do better and work harder each day so that he can be near them—and I don’t think it’s a sexual thing. When I hear him say that as a 70 year old man that he will be the healthiest specimen to ever hold the White House and that his big hands are evidence of a large penis that can bag and tag fine women and leave them happy about it—and that those same hands can drive a golf ball over 300 yards—I hear a man who won’t back down from any world leader for the sake of collective assimilation. I hear a guy who will walk into the United Nations and say as Howard Roark did in The Fountainhead—you either do it my way, or I’m out. To the consensus builders who think this approach is appalling, they’d be right from their point of view. But their way has cost the United States everything and everyone else in the world very little—because they brought nothing to the table to begin with. The battle of our day is literally over the benefits of collectivism and Individualism—and how the two are not compatible. Trump stands by individualism vehemently and that is something that we’ve never seen attempt to enter the White House and I think we either find those traits in ourselves once again—if not for the very first time—or we perish into oblivion. There is no middle ground and this philosophic argument is all about absolutes.

While progressives contemplate a world managed by a few elite academics who distribute fairness across civilization like butter on a piece of bread—Trump is nothing like any of them. Yet he can sit down with the very liberal Kristen Powers and give USA Today an interview on Ayn Rand and the world didn’t melt into a whirlwind because honestly they haven’t caught up to the events of his previous day—or the things he does and says tomorrow. Yet there it is, and I’m proud of him for saying it. And it is my sincere dream that Donald Trump could step into the White House and treat it like Howard Roark—bringing to not only America, but the world, the values of The Fountainhead. If there was ever a time for it—it is now. If not now, then perhaps never again. I don’t think we’ll get another shot before socialism destroys our civilization—globally. As a I watch modern artists like James Cameron talk about his new hippie driven movies like Avatar and Disney make Star Wars into a much more progressive mythology—it is obvious that they are missing the secret ingredient that Ayn Rand so eloquently brought to life in her American novels—individuals trump collectivism. The first Star Wars films were about this idea and even Cameron’s Titanic was about this issue—and ultimately the love between Jack and Rose was very Randian.

Why did Jack let Rose lay on the door at the end of the movie essentially sacrificing himself—he did it because he loved her and to preserve that love he had to save her. He didn’t do it to benefit society—he did it to save his love for her. Ayn Rand called this the Virtue of Selfishness—which many people misinterpret—but it is the ultimate driver for how we work as a human species. And nobody running for office understands that love better than Donald Trump. Most modern artists get this delicate interpretation wrong—because they value the sacrificial lamb concept established by religions to falsely place value in the collective whole of society. But they miss the point of living entirely. For there is only one reason that childbirth is such a traumatic experience, and an epic journey that launches us into existence—it’s because our individual lives mean something and we each can contribute something to the work of art that is “life.” There are very few people who really understand such a delicate balance—and clearly Donald Trump is one of them. We are in new territory philosophically with this election—and hopefully it’s not too late.

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.

Why I’d Give Billions of Dollars to Archaeologists: The undocumented ancient civilizations under San Francisco and the Cloud People

One of the reasons I feel the way I do about civilizations and the politics of them is that I have a long time interest in history. When I was in the 7^th grade and had to take an aptitude test designed to point students in a career direction, my three results were archaeologist, test pilot, and stunt man. It was an unusual result and my teacher back then was quite animated about the findings—after all this was a year before there was ever an Indiana Jones movie and nobody in their right mind would want to be an archaeologist. My teacher thought I should have more sustainable career options and that my interests were………not aligned to reality. For one, there wasn’t much money in the archaeology occupation, and it’s not very good for families. It requires one to travel all over the world often in hostile territories rife with political limitations. Even when you do get a dig permit the limits on them don’t allow you to find much beyond a few pots and pans leaving speculation into the greater civilization behind the artifacts to be highly speculative. From the time I could first read my mother bought me great books about the world’s great mysteries—likely the same ones that inspired George Lucas to make the Indiana Jones films, and that is how I learned to read. I fell in love with history early and it was always something that I found as my foundation passion. If I had it my way, we would spend billions of dollars per year in America learning about our past so that we could prevent the same mistakes in the future. We know next to nothing about where we came from and what the people were like who founded our lineage. My study of the ancient cultures we know about has shaped much of my view about politics and philosophy—and it is my belief that the primary reason that more isn’t studied, is because that knowledge is intended to remain suppressed—for the preservation of the static society we have inherited. Knowledge otherwise might provoke too radical of a change and many just aren’t prepared for those changes—yet.

With all that said, I don’t think we are even close to understanding our “native” past in North America—or even South America. There were apparently very complex societies in the high Andes region before there was ever an Incan Empire, and the Bay Area of San Francisco has ancient walled boundary lines which predate any known society and is a lot more sophisticated than the nomad Indian tribes that were found there during westward expansion. In fact, it looks like most of Northern California was host to this ancient civilization for which we know nothing about. The relics of their vast enterprise are covered by modern development—which is usually the case—those are the two enemies of archaeological understanding—war and development. Whether it is the covered up ruins around San Francisco featured below or the “Cloud People” of Northern Peru—there is a lot we need to learn. The history books have not been closed on our ancient past—rather, we haven’t even made it through chapter one yet—much to the dismay of the many museums depending on federal grants to stay open and who want to end the story now to preserve the integrity of their exhibits. There are two reports that I found uniquely connected even though they are very far apart geographically presented as follows:

All over northern California specifically in the region of San Francisco are mysterious 6’ walls. The walls of the East Bay traverse some 50 miles in a straight line from the Carquinez Strait to San Jose, and in some places another 20 miles inland to Mt. Diablo. They are generally six feet high and so far have defied explanation, hence the title “mysterious.” For nigh on 100 years they have been explored, thought about but today have been largely abandoned. Theories on their origins range from Zheng Hue’s exploration fleet, giants, Native Americans, even farmers but so far little or no archaeological research has been done on them outside of the trying to document their history which apparently pre-dates western/Spanish activity in the area.

Rough estimates by a geologist put their age older than 400 years or circa late 1500’s which puts this anomaly in new territory and forces the dismissal of many common theories about European / Spanish farms. Especially since in greater San Francisco region the Spaniards did not settle until 1769 when an expedition lead by Don Gaspar de Portola and Fr. Juan Crespi began to settle what is now San Francisco. There was the odd seafarer such as Sir Francis Drake, who was believed to have sailed through the area in 1579, but seeing as he was a privateer the notion that he and his men attempted to settle the region is highly suspect.

http://www.anomalies.net/east-bay-walls-enigmatic-feature-or-part-of-the-remnants-of-a-lost-civilization-in-northern-california/

Then many thousands of miles to the south high in the Andes region is a fortress apparently belonging to the “Cloud People” who had predated the Inca civilization and had joined the Spanish in conflict against their South American rivals. When you hear reports from environmental activists that nothing good comes from deforestation tell them this story. If not for deforestation, the ruins of these long forgotten “Cloud People” would have never been found. Trees grow back and the species of animals that live in rain forests can migrate and return, but the treasures lost under the overgrowth from past civilizations are lost until they are uncovered and this most recent discovery is evidence that points to the possibility of a lot more.

Remains have been found before but scientists have high hopes of the latest find, made by an expedition to the Jamalca district in Peru’s Utcubamba province, about 500 miles north-east of the capital, Lima.

Until recently, much of what was known about the lost civilization was from Inca legends.

Even the name they called themselves is unknown. The term Chachapoyas, or ‘Cloud People’, was given to them by the Incas.

Their culture is best known for the Kuellap fortress on the top of a mountain in Utcubamba, which can only be compared in scale to the Incas’ Machu Picchu retreat, built hundreds of years later

Radiocarbon dating samples show that construction of the structures started in the 6th century AD and the complex was occupied until the Early Colonial period (1532-1570). Through the pre-Columbian, conquest and colonial periods, there are only four brief written references to Kuelap. It was rediscovered in 1843.

That year Juan Crisóstomo Nieto, a judge in Chachapoyas, made a survey of the area and took note of Kuelap’s great size; he was guided by villagers who had known of the site for generations. Subsequently, Kuelap gained the attention of explorers, historians and archaeologists. Notable observers who helped publicize the site included Frenchman Louis Langlois (who wrote a description of Kuelap in the 1930s), Adolph Francis Alphonse Bandelier, Ernst Middendorf, Charles Wiener and Antonio Raimondi.

The fortress of Kuelap or Cuélap (Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Perú), associated with the Chachapoyas culture, consists of a walled city, with massive exterior stone walls surrounding more than four hundred buildings. The complex, situated on a ridge overlooking the Utcubamba Valley in northern Peru, is roughly 600 meters in length and 110 meters in width. It could have been built to defend against the Huari or other hostile peoples. However, evidence of these hostile groups at the site is minimal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091550/Ancient-city-discovered-deep-Amazonian-rainforest-linked-legendary-white-skinned-Cloud-People-Peru.html

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

I would propose that these two stories of recent discoveries and contemplations of an ancient past are only the tip of the iceberg. As I said, if it were up to me, archaeologists would be well-funded in America—by private donations of course–to expose this lost past so we could better understand the circumstances of our present. If I had the extra money of several billion dollars—I’d give them a check today. I am inclined to think that these two aforementioned cultures, whoever they are, were not the first of their kind—that before them was likely another lost race of people. Related to the Cloud People of South America it should be of great concern that they were known to be as “white” and fair-haired as typical Scandinavians or even Germans. How did they get there so long ago? That is a question that demands an answer. But before we can have that answer we have to see the value in seeking it. We have a long way to go before understanding our own history—and it should be a much greater priority. Because within that answer is the key to understanding much of our modern world and the psychosis which seems attached to it. Before you can fix the future you have to understand the past and we are a long way from that. Obviously we need to strive to do better. The evidence is all around us. All we need to do is be willing to look at 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.

The #NEVERTRUMP Geeks: A Party of Republicans who forgot why they exist

You can tell when I’m really angry about something because I usually prefer to talk about entertainment events– that topic is usually good non-emotional neutral territory discussion. As probably was noted, I have spent the last three days talking about various entertainment observations as opposed to the hottest topic of the day, the betrayal of the GOP and their voters. I do the same thing in one on one discussions, when people who know me observe that I start talking about entertainment—it is because I either find the politics of the person I’m talking to revolting and I’m looking for common ground to keep from wanting to snap their neck like a twig, or I have blown them off as irrelevant losers not worthy of any intellectual input other than entertainment appeasement. And appalling is the word of the day for what has been happening. (For the record, notice how I predicted this too, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.) Now several weeks later, many others are coming to exactly the same place that I have been—willing to quite the Republican Party after a lifetime commitment because of the evident corruption that has been exposed as a direct result of the Trump candidacy. I have been feeling precisely like this old Colorado voter who burned up his registration for the Republican Party after a betraying visit to Colorado Springs.

Trump was wrong when he declared that the process which robbed him of all the Colorado’s delegates without a single vote cast was not very democratic. He’s right about the democratic process, but America has never been a democracy—which is just a stepping stone toward open socialism. America is a constitutional republic which should be better but in this case isn’t. The voting process which was intended to select those representatives were sold to the public as being acquired through a democratic process—but in this case it was cut short and was sabotaged by the Republican Party. That revelation has only served to substantiate the intense level of anger that has intensified during the primary campaign season. Yes, the system is rigged, it always has been, and we all knew it. But we didn’t know what the cost was to us because we had never seen another viable alternative that had gotten so far in the process other than Ross Perot many years ago. Trump by his popular successes has forced the party leaders to outwardly show their protections for the first time to people who are learning about this whole process as it develops in front of them. We should have learned all this in our public schools, but instead kids learned to riot and vote for socialism—so people are shocked by what they are seeing.

Among the #NEVERTRUMP clan, there is a feel of superiority over Trump and his supporters because those constitutional geeks work really hard to understand the Constitution and are legitimate nerds in a lot of ways. They are like Star Wars fans who argue over little specifics of the movies because they know everything while the common viewer only see a fraction of what they do in casual viewings. The #NEVERTRUMPs like the rules of the system because they worked really hard to learn that system—it gives them a feeling of superiority over everyone else—they are specialists on that topic and they secretly want to protect that specialty. I know several of them personally. So it gives them quite a charge to see that Trump is furious at losing delegates to Cruz. They would argue that if Trump wanted to play the game, then he should have learned the rules. But, what those #NEVERTRUMP geeks have forgotten is that Trump’s candidacy represents a large faction of the American population that have no desire to learn the rules of the game—because they hate the game—and the Republican Party has just solidified that sentiment epically. They want a change in the rules, they want to play a different game, and they sure don’t have any desire to learn the old rules.

This notion that the Republican Party can do whatever it wants—that they can nominate anybody they care to is preposterous. Sure they have their little club and they seem obsessed with controlling who is in it with them and where they stand in the peaking order in relation to others. No question many of the party leaders want to be king makers deciding who county commissioners are, governors, and presidents—but that’s not the way it was supposed to be. What they want to control is ultimately representatives of “the people” who elect them into a representative republic. The Republican Party for instance isn’t bigger to me than myself, or my family, or my community. It’s just a group of people who I either agree with or don’t. I am not beholden to a sacrificial relationship with them in any way. So if they show themselves as philosophically deficient—as they are clearly in the run for presidency in 2016—I have a right, and obligation to reject them. The “Party” does not have authority over “me” and is not empowered to provide “me” with a representative vetted by them for their own purposes. Clearly the Republican Party interprets their role as such—but I along with many others completely reject that premise. I will not vote for Paul Ryan for anything. He screwed up in 2012 and he won’t get another chance by me. I will not vote for John Kasich. He is the governor of my state, and he has let me down—he’s turned out to be an idiot. I will not vote for Mitt Romney—he has been a failure. I will not vote for Ted Cruz—he’s just another attorney running for office. I don’t want any more legal geeks messing with laws any more. I’m tired of the same old mess offered by the Republican Party and they either want to represent my philosophic conservatism, or they don’t. If they don’t, I am not beholden to them to take whatever piece of crap they offer.

The Republican Party arrogantly believes that it is the end all of American politics—as if the matter has been settled long ago after the Civil War turned out in their favor. They’d be incorrect, each age has its own challenges and the party leaders are either aligned with those challenges, or they will fail to lead their party to a position where it can be beneficial to the constitutional republic for which we are all a part. That republic was always founded on the merits of individualism, not collective assimilation—and that is precisely where the Republican Party is going wrong—in assuming that the “party” is too big for any one individual.

Trump represents a public need to establish a return to individual association. He is the ultimate pronoun “I” and that is what the people who vote for him want to see emerge in this year’s election cycle and obviously the Republican Party has a problem with that declaration. That leaves Trump and his supporters without a party—which of course will give rise to a competing party to rival the Republicans and Democrats. If 30% of the voting public doesn’t have a political party which represents them—or seeks to—then what are they to do? Surrendering their beliefs to one of the two other options isn’t viable as individuals. Yet the Republican Party seems inclined to insist on such a thing. As Ted Cruz gloated about his legalese victories around the west, particularly Colorado—and the use of the party machine in Wisconsin to goad Donald Trump into throwing a fit because people weren’t voting for him—he is assuming that the masses are on his side. Show me one time that Ted Cruz can fill a stadium with supporters like Trump does. All Cruz has on his side are the political geeks, not the average people who make up our Republic. They aren’t–wait until Cruz gets to New York, and Pennsylvania. The masses are speaking, and they haven’t been picking Ted Cruz. Cruz has been playing the legal game, but not winning the hearts of the masses. When Kasich says that it’s the delegates that matter, he’s right from his perspective within the game of politics—but the party for which he belongs is supposed to serve the conservative interests of the republic and instead they serve a collective notion of consensus building which I would argue is un-American. Want to see a national consensus established by the will of the people where they generally agree—go to a Trump rally. Trump voters, me included, reject that collectivist philosophic position and the party should be listening, instead of working to hold society to a set of rules designed to protect a system they have learned to profit off of as public servants.

When the smoke clears, Trump will have won many more votes in the primary effort—yet the political party seeking to maintain their control of that system will attempt to ignore that fact and offer up the same old garbage as they have before. And now that many of us have had a taste of what could be, we aren’t going to swallow that pill again—because it leads nowhere and we’ve learned. It is not the voting public that has to learn a lesson here—it’s the Republicans. They either get with the program, or they will be replaced. It is they who are in the weakened position—the public holds all the cards because ultimately the “party” either serves the interests of the public—the conservative public—or they don’t. And given their behavior against the popular front-runner Trump—it is obvious where all this is going. When it gets there I’ll be joining that old man from Colorado. I’m not going to hold my nose and vote for another Republican loser. They either start winning—or I’m done too with them. And victories are measured by the popular vote in this primary race, not the legal gymnastics of lawyers and political geeks.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/colorado-gop-leader-disgruntled/

I’m at a point where I don’t think I could support Republicans even if they did get behind Trump all of a sudden. I think the process is so broken and the philosophies so displaced that there is no mending it. As the link above describes the Colorado situation from the point of the of the GOP, the issue remains that the party leaders have made a system that ultimately they control, because it is rule heavy and requires a full-time staff to learn all those rules. It puts the power of candidacy in pin-heads and political addicts instead of the best and most viable candidates and is the root cause for why the Republican Party has been so grossly ineffective for such a long time.

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.

‘Star Wars: Rogue One’: Hope and perhaps a second chance

I was not a fan of The Force Awakens. I still think it was a rip-off fan film and it wasn’t very good. It’s obvious to me that Star Wars saw its best days under the control of George Lucas and that it will forever be in a declined state. I was a tremendous fan of Star Wars because under Lucas they had established a nice storyline that embodied several video games, novels, comics and of course the movies themselves into on giant mythology—and that mythology had a conservative lean to it—rooted in Ayn Rand oriented individualism. Now it is clear that when Lucasfilm under Kathy Kennedy released The Star Wars comic series about two years before the release of The Force Awakens that they were telegraphing what they were going to do with the many novels that had been written after The Return of the Jedi in 1983—they were going to rip them off and retell many of the stories because they thought they needed to be more Huffington Post oriented progressive stories instead of Ayn Ran. In that comic series Lucasfilm took George Lucas’ original screenplay and turned into a comic to show how rough the story had been compared to what ended up on screen—as a ploy to justify what they were about to do to the Extended Universe. Well, that’s all water under the bridge and Star Wars is forever ruined for me—because I had stayed with them through many years—and they let me down. Now that I know that, I can at least appreciate what telling some of those old stories from the books to cinematic vision can do for a new generation desperate for some positive mythology and after seeing the trailer for the new Rogue One film by Garth Edwards, I am encouraged. Lucasfilm might earn back a little respect with it because it looks nicely done.

The sad thing about that movie and premise is that it is essentially a retelling of the story of the video game Dark Forces and the name of the female lead is essentially a take on Kyle Katarn’s trusted ship captain. Dark Forces was the first video game I ever played with my oldest daughter and it was a special story for us, and now Lucasfilm is going to screw that up too—but I think Edwards will do the story justice. I suppose the sad thing for me is that there won’t be any new ideas coming out of Star Wars. But the value of what has been told is important and to a new generation that is seeing some of this stuff for the first time—these movies are good for them. This is consistent with the Disney Company that has taken stories told over time and put a modern take to them for their movies. There is value in retelling a story, so to that extent I’m glad to see Star Wars doing what it’s doing.

It gives me hope that the future stand alone films featuring Han Solo and Boba Fett will be very good and dramatic—even though the topics have been covered in the novels of the past. It is still fun to see these things put into a movie even if the story is better in the original novelizations. Let’s face it, not many people read any more, so at least these stories will get told. Rogue One, I would say will arguably in that case will be better than the original story of Dark Forces. So if that’s what Disney is going to do, I suppose it’s better than nothing. I see Star Wars as just another remake the way that Godzilla was recently retold with an updated spin on a classic story. I am looking forward to Rogue One because it tips the hat toward the spirit of the original trilogy and I trust that director to do a good job. It will be fun to visit that universe again by someone who obviously loved the original film as much as I did—if not more.

Still, I can’t help but think how special Star Wars could have been if they had stuck to the carefully planned books. But Hollywood in general has lost its creative impulse—very few filmmakers these days have any imagination and those that do can’t get funded for their projects because backers are caught in a static pattern that is dangerous to their own industry. All of Hollywood is stuck in this creative vacuum of copying off old books and comics to update stories for a more visual format. I had the benefit of seeing Star Wars when everything was truly new and original and I wanted that freshness for this new generation. But it can still be good. Just not as good.

Since The Force Awakens I have been pretty staunchly anti-Star Wars. My brother and kids have been a little sad that I can’t share my enthusiasm for it as I once did. To me the death of Han Solo was essentially the death of Star Wars. It will never mean the same to me, especially with the progressive direction that they are going. I don’t care about the minority roles or the strong female characters—but the collectivism push is something I just can’t get into—stories where the individuals take a backseat for the collective benefit of everyone. With Han Solo, everything was better, his selfishness epitomized Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy wonderfully. It may have been unintentional by George Lucas, but it was very pro capitalist leaving A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back the best two movies likely to ever be made for the Star Wars saga. It was exciting to see images of costumes, ships, sounds, and other elements of those two movies in the Rogue One preview—so I’m sure it will be enjoyable. I may not enjoy it as much as I otherwise would, but Lucasfilm has a chance to win me back just a little.

To put things in perspective, since I was like 10 years old I bought every single video game that was ever released for Star Wars the first week it came out. I loved every one of them, particularly the Dark Forces games, Force Unleashed, and Rebel Assault. That lasted until essentially The Force Awakens. I dropped Star Wars like a rock and pushed it out of my mind completely. It was so bad that when we finally bought a Playstation 4, I had the option of buying one with the Star Wars: Battlefront option, or with the Call of Duty bundle—I picked Call of Duty. I don’t want to play that game because I don’t want to play as a bad guy—because they force you to if you want to play online. And I refuse to play any game that makes me shoot at the Millennium Falcon or Han Solo flying it. So Battlefront is the first Star Wars video game that I haven’t bought. I’ve even bought game systems to play specific Star Wars games. I would love to play Battlefront as the rebellion. But I have absolutely no interest in playing as the Empire. To my mind, George Lucas was treading on shaking ground when he attempted to humanize the bad guys in his prequels. But I thought there were good points to make, and I personally liked Obi-Wan enough to hang with Lucas through those stories. But without a good guy to hang morality onto, Star Wars falls apart and becomes just another average story.

Fortunately, it looks like Garth Edwards understands what makes Star Wars good, so I am encouraged, and will likely see the new Star Wars film when it comes out in December. I’ll give it a second chance to win my respect. I think it was pathetic that The Force Awakens only made a bit over 2 billion dollars—it could have made more. I’m sure Disney executives are happy, but they are obviously unaware of their short-sightedness. So we’ll see. We were so serious about Star Wars that my family had been planning to go to London this upcoming summer to attend the Star Wars Celebration there in 2016. Those plans changed after Force Awakens quickly. We’re not going. It remains to be seen how good Rogue One turns out to be. If it is respectful to Dark Forces, then I might be able to like it. If it craps all over it, then that will likely be it for me. My opinion is pending successful implementation.

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 rediculous ‘House of Cards’ Gay Agenda: Being a lion among sheep

Do you remember several weeks ago when I stated that my wife and I were done with watching the Netflix series, House of Cards because of the gratuitous sex—particularly the three-way at the end of season two which featured some gay sex by Frank Underwood and his secret service agent shared by his wife? Well, we decided to give it a second chance because I was interested in the politics part of it and was relieved to find that season three seemed to put less emphasis on the sex. After all, Frank Underwood had become the President of the United States and there wasn’t much time for power climbing and the sex that is often used to serve as rungs on that ladder. However, there had been, and continued throughout all of season three a gay subplot to the new President—a soft side that craved the love of men. This utterly made me sick because it was so misplaced as a human emotion that it left me feeling like the whole point of the House of Cards series wasn’t to convey politics, but to serve as a Trojan Horse of gay advocacy by presenting those types of plot points to a confused society hoping to advance the rainbow sentiments of guys who like to stick parts of themselves into a dirty ass. By the end of season three, Frank Underwood was having a touching moment with his biographer and the two were holding hands like a couple of girls and my wife and I burst out laughing because of house stupid the scene was. The gay agenda was clear and House of Cards was attempting to normalize it—and it wasn’t working with us.

I’ve been saying it for a long time, when a motion picture company thinks that it will make one of its heroes gay, or Disney thinks that it will put out some musical featuring a gay couple that will make the kind of box office money that Frozen did—those executives should be fired for putting their companies at risk—because those movies will bomb in a theater. Regarding House of Cards, it’s free—so it’s not much skin off my back to turn the show off. It’s part of my subscription fee and I’m free to watch anything on Netflix—so I can literally vote in favor of the many other decisions. But to drop good money on a movie or song that features gay sex as the driver—it’s just not going to happen no matter how much artists like Bruce Springsteen attempt to normalize it. Gay sex isn’t normal—particularly with men. I can see women having non sexual touchy relationships with other women, but desiring intercourse just doesn’t make biological sense and has to be evolved along the lines of some abnormality rooted in psychosis. I can even understand when good friends have close relationships where sex isn’t even a factor of their relationship and they prefer each other’s company. But the premise that closeness to another human being leads directly to sex is just a preposterous thing—and it’s simply not true.

Now we know emphatically why public schools and other social networks have been attempting to emasculate men for several decades now. Now we know why men have been told that it’s OK to cry, and to share their emotions—because society established by an aristocratic political class of global micromanagers had fantasies of population control using gay rights as a means to manipulate the masses to stay focused on very primal instincts so that populations would be easier to control. By changing the role of the sexes, progressives could then take the women out of the home and away from their children allowing the “state” to raise the following generations gradually. It has always been the long plan of communism brewing for over a century in America to make everyone equal and in the House of Cards sexually, everyone is. Frank Underwood was introduced as an open marriage womanizer which was fine with his wife so long as there was some tactical objective to the sex. But then there was some affair that Frank had while attending the Citadel in South Carolina—where he had a gay lover—LOL. This gay lover is in the background and the series kind of danced around the issue until it came back up again with full hand holding and finger caressing by the end of season three with Frank’s biographer. There was no kissing in that scene but it was still radically foreign to me and was uncomfortable—it totally ruined the premise of the entire series. My wife felt the same way. It wasn’t “homophobia” that was driving that discomfort, it was fact that neither one of us has ever had any gay urges and the whole thing seemed comical to us. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen some other male and thought, hmmmm, I’d like to “touch” that person to be closer to them. It’s just not part of our human experience and it was strange.

Sex exists for one reason—biologically, and that is to procreate and continue the human race. The point of all the emotions and the elements that the different sexes like in each other point toward that ultimate goal. Sex is not necessarily a byproduct of a decent and healthy relationship. You can have a close friend if you are mentally healthy and not want to have intercourse with them—which is something that House of Cards completely ignores—which is why the gay agenda is so ridiculous. Gay sex is a primal behavior that requires a lack of sophistication to endure. Intellectuals tend not to waste much time on sex because the very act itself—the whole mating game just takes too much time—and smart people tend not to waste time. This whole notion of equality among the sexes is just a part of their communist agenda to put in people’s minds an eventuality of “state” control where sexual fulfillment is not rooted in procreation—because population control of such a “state-run” society is highly desired for resource management. But it’s not natural, gay sex requires some mental deficiency to be successful. That mental deficiency might be deep insecurities placed upon a mind at a young age, or abuse from a trusted family member—or it could be that a child was intellectually born broken—by no fault of its own. But it’s not “normal.” That doesn’t mean we treat them badly—but that doesn’t mean that we normalize our entire society for them either.

There is an old Joseph Campbell story that he used to tell in his lectures about “the lion and the sheep” that covered this difficult topic very nicely. A young lion was abandoned by his family at birth and left alone in the wildness to survive on its own. It comes along to a pack of sheep that it sees grazing and conjugating near a watering hole so it joins them. The sheep of course are scared at first because lions eat sheep as carnivorous biological entities. But when they realize that the lion is only a baby, they quickly warm up to the threat—because they are stupid sheep—collective masses of grazers. Well, the little lion grows up among the sheep and thinks of itself as one of them. It grazes like they do and drinks from the same watering hole and behaves like them. Well, one day a magnificent lion—a strong male with a full mane of hair attacks the herd to hunt and in so doing spots the fellow lion. He goes up to the creature and asks him what he’s doing. Of course the young lion now grown up and living among the sheep can only reply, BaaaAAAaaaaaaAAAaa. It doesn’t know any other term because it’s been raised by sheep and the little thing had been having a hard time because obviously it has a body that craves carnivorous substance to survive, so it’s become a sickly creature. The old lion says to the young one, “Hey, you aren’t one of them; you should be hunting with me. Look in the watering hole at your reflection and you’ll see it for yourself. So the young lion does so and realizes that it was true, he wasn’t like the sheep, and that he was in fact a lion. Of course the old lion slaughtered a few sheep and brought some meat to the confused young lion and said, “eat this, you’ll feel better.” The young lion did and as soon as his system had meat in its body it began to make a difference, he immediately felt better, stronger, and less inclined to follow the others around in a herd. Before long the young lion was able to let out a nice roar and to begin hunting like other lions and to take his rightful place as king of the pecking order within the food chain.

Young males in our society currently are like that little lion, they have been told by their school teachers, their media culture, and even their governments that gay sex is perfectly alright. They were lied to. Like the lion growing up among the sheep the reason society told them that was to make it easier to lead them to the slaughter-house eventually and control those free spirits by behaving in a herd. Once males embarrass themselves with something, they are much easier to control socially by those who desire such things. But gayness isn’t natural, it’s a learned behavior designed to manipulate mankind into a kind of herd animal that is far easier to manage than a bunch of roaming testosterone driven ego maniacs. But I’m here to tell you people, look in the water, realize what you are, and turn your life back toward your biological impulses. Don’t act like a sheep if you are a human being, be a lion. If you are a man, be a man—don’t sit around crying or hugging other guys. If you are a woman—be a woman—play the role and enjoy it. Be what you are and don’t let political philosophies manipulate you into being a herd animal for their benefit.

House of Cards is ridiculous. The kind of sex they portray in the show is not normal. It’s an invented creation designed to advance a collectivist oriented social agenda. But men, real men, do not behave like Frank Underwood. They don’t seek to hold the hand of other men and they don’t do all that gay singing either. Only broken people who were taught from an early age to be sheep—we can have sympathy for such people, but we can’t destroy our species to relieve them of guilt either—seem inclined to gayness. We are not all in this together—all for one, and one for all. We are in this game to win, and to be the top of the food chain—and to be human. In the game of life we even can eat the lions because we are smart enough to invent tools to kill them if we so desire. So we should be smart enough to think above sexual impulses and to behave as our sexes dictate—and those established biological rules dictate that men just don’t show emotion to other men in a way that weakens other aspects of their relationships with one another. If you are a man and you want to show another man that you like them, punch them in the arm. But don’t stroke their finger like Frank Underwood did in House of Cards at the end of season three. That was just stupid—forced—and biologically improbable.

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.

Dueling Needs to Make a Comeback: The American tiger in a cage being poked by “social justice warriors”

Anyone can see what the root cause of the problem witnessed in the following Alex Jones video was. In it there was a group of people that we might call, “social justice warriors” who have grown up in a society deliberately softened to allow for their rise by a political class hell-bent on staying in power—no matter what. These kids, and the adults that they will grow into, have been empowered by essentially removing the ramifications of their lunacy—the consequences of their personal assault against individual liberty. The blame clearly falls on our global education system and the forces which gathered to perpetuate their stated curriculum. It has made me realize that a practice long forgotten for its perceived barbarity needs to be dusted off and inserted back into our American culture—the gentlemanly practice of dueling. As radical as that may sound, we must find some version of it to emerge in this modern century otherwise we won’t make it into more advanced stages. To see why, watch this video then all of the following for substantiation.

A version of dueling still existed in the Old West as towns erupted across the vast frontier of North America guided by flimsy laws enforced by even flimsier sheriffs. I practice that type of dueling nearly every day with a group I’m involved in called the Cowboy Fast Draw Association. A friend of mine made a comment that I was thinking of while shooting that day and it was, “if dueling made a comeback, people these days would be a whole lot less offended.” That’s when I thought of those snot-nosed, liberalized socialist losers in that Alex Jones video. What was missing from their lives was the respect that comes from asserting an insult at individual integrity. What those kids have been taught in that video—and anywhere these days that “socialist justice warriors” gather under storm clouds of collective effort—is ramifications for their individual mistakes.

The duel as it was inherited from Europe was widely practiced within the United States for quite a number of years by our early presidents and was a declaration of individual honor. In that society from which our Constitution was written, an individual’s honor was required to have a civil society. If some rogue threatened that sanctity then ramifications just outside the grip of the law were required to keep the peace and maintain an orderly society. We all know about the famous Alexander Hamilton duel with Aaron Burr—which I think about quite a lot. I was born in the Ohio city directly named after Hamilton who lost his duel with Burr and died. I also think of President Jackson a lot when I think about duels and the kind of attitude which formed the country of America. Dueling and honor went hand-in-hand which provided a foundation for our laws.

When I was growing up the Department of Education had just been enacted, so they didn’t have time to drive this trend out of our culture. Even one hundred years after the Wild West, dueling was still a common practice among kids in my school of Lakota in Liberty Township, Ohio which was essentially settled by war heroes of the Revolutionary War. When something which insulted individual honor fell outside the established law of the school or the society outside which controlled it, boys would settle the issue with a fight after school—which I found myself in a lot. Failure to show up to one of these fights would lead to extreme scorn and a loss of respect up the pecking order of male influence among both sexes. If you were challenged to one of these fights, you didn’t fail to show up. I always did, and most of the time, just as it was when the dueling action was pistols—handshakes and respect were given out and sometimes friendships were forged. People respect courage and when two people faced down each other over a dispute that couldn’t be legally worked out by putting a hand on the Bible and letting God sort through the details—individualized respect was the only real option which bound our society together.

Think about it, when you are in the grocery check-out, what keeps you from belting the person in front of you in the head and taking their place in line—is it fear of the law—of being arrested for assault? Perhaps for most, that is their first reaction—but these days people have a lot less respect for the law as police officers and their methods of control have come into question. So what is the next layer of defense which prevents you from acting—you look the person over and decide that you could physically overpower them and take their place in line. What keeps you from doing it? Essentially, fear…………….fear of what that person might do if you challenged them in some way. If you push them they might turn around and clobber you, or they might have a gun and shoot you. That threat forces you to respect their individual boundaries at a primal level which then paves the way for respect at the legal level. Without a foundation of respect for individual integrity, no laws in any land can have real influence.

And that is the primary issue, public schools are in the business now of teaching collective rights, not individual ones. As seen in that video, the Donald Trump supporters represented individual values whereas the social justice warriors represented collective values—and our society has put its priorities on the collective effort over the individual ones and that’s how we find ourselves in this current mess. Those social justice warriors have no fear of individual retribution so they are free to attack anything, anywhere over anything. They have grown up lacking respect for individual property or sanctity and are acting on behalf of collective efforts for achievements which extend beyond their personal gains. The way to fix that whole problem is by empowering the individuals to defend their positions with actual respect–and unfortunately that means with all human beings—an imminent fear of being removed from the face of the earth so that a proper dialogue between two parties can emerge.

Years ago I was with a group that was buying a mechanical bull for a nightclub I was involved with and we were at one of those honkytonks to see it in action. I had on my customary cowboy hat as I have since I was a little kid and I was standing in front of a couple of guys at the bar who were obviously drunk and looking for a quick ego boost to their reputations. As I watched people ride the bull in question I felt something rub against the brim of my hat from behind, so I turned quickly and saw the hand of some sappy looking bastard removing his hand quickly hoping that he wouldn’t be caught. Of course I confronted him angrily and I told him that if he did it again I’d beat the rat piss out of him. He and his friend were two tobacco chewing rednecks who thought they were more authentic than me, and they didn’t need to wear hats to country bars—which essentially was what they told me. My response was to take them outside and show them that they weren’t “shit,” both of them. Of course they headed for the door to protect their honor as they were with women who were both at the bar urging them not to fight. When we got outside they saw the anger on my face and realized that the fight was not going to go well for either of them. A bouncer stood on the porch and watched, letting things play out respectfully. Suddenly the two guys apologized for touching my hat and they were quick to want to make friends. I accepted and we returned inside where they bought me a beer and were nice to me for the rest of the evening. Their dates were grateful and everyone had a pretty good time the rest of the night. When I left they even went out of their way to say goodbye and shake my hand.

Protests are getting out of control in our country as socialists, communists, and various anarchists raised in our public education system to not respect private property, personal integrity, or any level of valor have no fear of the law or the individual integrity for which laws were written to protect—and honestly, they need their asses kicked. They are the result of what happens when you don’t retaliate for someone touching your hat, or insulting your personal name in a newspaper. Without that basic respect for other human beings, there is no society to build from and everything plunges into chaos, which is exactly the goal of liberalized social justice warriors. They aren’t warriors at all, only instigators who don’t expect to be punched back in the mouth once they’ve leveled their insults. We live in a society now where they can touch my hat yet don’t expect to be punched in the mouth for it. Once you do, they want to retreat to the law to settle their honor—which is essentially what has been happening at Trump rallies. The society which created these losers doesn’t want to acknowledge that individual liberty is the key to holding all of society together. They want to believe that it is the acceptance that the tapestry of a global society brings that will garner respect for each other—and they are miserably failing in their psychological assessment. Just because they have de-clawed a tiger and removed its teeth, and even castrated it of its aggression, a tiger is still a tiger. You can’t put a bunch of snot-nosed communists into a cage with it and let them poke it with a stick and not expect the tiger to attack those idiots. At some point the individual temper of the tiger will break through the social constraints placed upon it. And in many ways, there are a lot of people in this country who have been treated as such, castrated intellectually, and tied up individually to make the collective masses feel equal. This has given rise to a period in our history where just about everyone is offended at something that somebody else says and that is leading us to a disaster—legally. But, if the practice of dueling were to make an official comeback, and even become legalized again as it once was—then people these days would be a whole lot less offended, so easily. And then, we might just find a way to work together toward achievements that require teamwork. First however, a respect for other individuals must be established, and that only occurs when acknowledgement of those other people is based on a foundation of integrity. That is what the old duels established and that necessity is every bit as strong today as it was 300 years ago. Only now we see what happens when we outlaw the mechanisms for achieving that respect—we have a mad, runaway society full of losers, imbeciles, and malcontents.

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.

Thank You Merle Haggard: Saving lives with the wisdom of lyrics learned from hard living

I have a lot to thank Merle Haggard for and I’ve been thinking about them all since his death on April 6^th 2016. He had a lot of great songs, but for me the most important and my personal favorite was ‘Misery and Gin.’ I was 12 years old when I saw the movie Bronco Billy by Clint Eastwood for the first time. It was and still is one of my favorite movies. It hit me at just the right time in my life. Like the Clint Eastwood character in that movie, I was socially awkward up to that point, so I could easily relate to his quirkiness. But the tenacity for which the Bronco Billy’s character stuck to his beliefs even in spite of a changing world held a lot of appeal to me—so I watched it often. One particular time was as a late teenager, I had just been in a serious car accident running around with friends. The driver crashed in a manner that should have killed everyone. I had blood running down every part of my body, and every bone hurt. It was probably the most fun I had ever had watching a movie was that particular time. I had taped Bronco Billy on a new VHS tape off television and enjoyed watching it when I needed a lift—and as I breathed a sigh of relief at still being alive, the Bronco Billy message resonated intensely with me at that particular time. And of all the good songs in that movie it was ‘Misery and Gin’ which had taught me the most about life. Clint Eastwood wisely allowed Merle Haggard to have an extended section of the movie to sing his new song and rolled it nicely into the events of the movie—and I never forgot it.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-merle-haggard-appreciation-20160407-story.html

‘Misery and Gin’ was everything that I didn’t want to be in life. It was a parody of itself, a country song that espoused all the misery that drinking, picking up loose women, and bars filled with cigarette smoke entailed. It was an extremely honest song and was one that I decided very early on that I wanted nothing to do with relating to lifestyle choices. It reminded me of several uncles I had who lived that life, and I thought they were losers. It gave me more conviction to turn away from that kind of life well before I was deep into puberty—and I am thankful for it. Regarding the night of the car accident, I was with a friend in a hot rod car after a Christmas party for the place we worked. That friend and I had a rival relationship; we would continually outdo each other on daring deeds. We took outlandish risks to satisfy the inner daredevil in us—such as playing high-speed chicken with cop cars, fighting the biggest bullies in whatever number they presented themselves and performing any risk of physical manner that opportunity allowed like jumping across high-rise roof tops. We did some really crazy things that should have killed us several hundred times over—and neither of us ever backed down from anything. But you can only push things so far. We both had a knack for coming out on top no matter how deep in trouble we got ourselves. I think I was around 17 at the time.

One thing I had on this friend is that he had difficulty with talking to girls and women. I was never afraid to talk to any girl anywhere about anything. It was very easy for me, but for him it was extremely difficult. He could never find the right words for the right girl. So I’d hang that over his head whenever I could. He’d respond by showing off more to compensate for his inequity. I had arranged for three very attractive girls to race us back to his house after this Christmas party so he was showing off in his hot rod car to do his part in impressing them. He let them get on the highway in front of us by nearly a mile and his plan was to blow by them at over 150 MPH—to show them how fearless and how powerful his car was—because we all know that girls like that kind of thing—the naughty side of them anyway. That’s when his angle was wrong and there was too much traffic on the road and his Chevy, Nova had too short of a wheel base to maneuver quickly in any kind of evasive action so he fishtailed wildly into a retaining wall after blowing by the girls and the car spun endlessly through the heavy traffic before going airborne then flipping end over end down the highway. Of course we didn’t wear seat belts in those days.

Miraculously we landed with the car pinned up against a retaining wall, nose down and pieces of the car strewn all over the highway. We were both alive and hadn’t hit any other cars somehow. But we were all sliced up from broken glass and the violence of the impacts. The police came and arrested my friend for reckless operation, endangerment and a whole host of other violations. I was free to go to the hospital. Instead, the three girls took me home and helped me get all patched up. I put duck tape on the deep cuts to hold the skin together and applied maple syrup to clot up the blood that was still dripping everywhere. After all that was over, I watched Bronco Billy after popping some popcorn and having a nice cold Coke. That is when I realized that life didn’t get any better than that. A good movie, a nice drink, and the thrill of being alive—all I needed was a nice woman to share that kind of thing with. I met my wife about 9 months later—and obviously now I live a lot like Bronco Billy did in that movie—by choice largely because I decided to after that night. It was a little more complicated than that, but looking back, it’s pretty easy to see.

Of that movie it was actually Merle Haggard’s song ‘Misery and Gin’ which communicated strongest to me. I decided I wanted no part of living anything like that life. While most everyone I have known before and since find appeal to that lifestyle—it doesn’t have to be a country honky-tonk, it could be a BW3s or a nightclub—drinking and hanging out with women who have made bad decisions in their lives and living a life of perpetual misery just wasn’t something I was going to do—and I never have. Even that night in the car, it was my love of life which was the secret ingredient that the girls liked so much and why it was so easy to get them to come along and do whatever I wanted—including patching me up. Of course nobody understood that—but I knew it was the promise of getting away from the misery and gin lifestyle that the girls had been trained which was their ultimate fate by a society stuck to that fate by their own bad decisions. I offered a release from that, something of a lottery ticket. It was very appealing to both the opposite sex, and the guy friends I had who clearly wanted to be a part of it whenever possible.

I used Bronco Billy to bond with my wife. We watched it several times a month during our early marriage and she came to understand the words of Merle Haggard very well. Without Bronco Billy, it might have been too difficult to convey to her what kind of life I intended to live. She wouldn’t have understood. But the mood of the entire movie was captured so nicely in that old Merle Haggard song and I have to thank him for it. It put my life in a positive direction very early. Without it, I probably would have still found a way, but it might have taken me a decade or two more to figure it all out. Because of his song, I was able to accelerate the process and apply it much more quickly than if it hadn’t of ever been made. So I’ll miss Merle Haggard. He made my life better in a lot of ways. He was certainly one of the greats and I’ll always be thankful. Listen to the words and maybe it will help you too.

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.

Ending the Republican Party: The “stuffed” elephant in the room

The answer to the elephant in the room is that it is dead—and has been so for some time. It is time to acknowledge it and move on to something else. The Republican Party, which was created to end slavery, for which Abraham Lincoln was its best spokesman—died a long time ago—and is no longer effective. If you put Karl Rove, John Kasich, Mitt Romney and me in a room together all three of them added up would not even come close to me as far as conservatism—so they do not represent me as a political party. They have lost their war with the left and become too much like the enemy—the political left in America. They are useless to me in a representative republic. I have voted for them over and over again for several decades, but they have always been ineffective and the reason was that we were voting for a taxidermy version of an elephant, instead of a real creature full of vigor.

That nagging prospect has been on my mind for quite a long time, but it was never clearer than on the night Ted Cruz won the Wisconsin primary. Cruz has no shot of winning the nomination, yet the party, the media, and all the #NEVERTRUMP fans worshiping the dead and deceased Republican Party behaved as though a New Year had dawned on them and life had been returned to their caricature. Only Donald Trump has a mathematical path of achieving the Republican nomination at the Convention in July. Nobody else does—yet the party is willing to use anybody and anything to delay Trump so that they could hold onto their grip of party control and what they believe are conservative values. Yet studying the voting patterns of Wisconsin, it was only in the heavily populated areas—particularly those most affected by the major talk radio stations which espoused the #NEVERTRUMP mantra loudest that Cruz won. All of the surrounding, rural counties went for Trump. It was almost a carbon copy of the type of voting pattern seen when Democrats compete against Republicans. Country people were having their voices drowned out by the more heavily populated urban areas—and they were not happy about it. The Republican Party wanting any good news that it could get was willing to accept any information that stopped Trump from becoming head of the party—even to the point of self-destruction. The short-sightedness was grossly obvious.

But the glee that emerged from their mouths was rather pathetic. It signified a political party at the Alamo not acting heroically in one last stand, but of a bunch of soldiers out of bullets knowing that the end was coming then seeing that the encroaching army was short on ammunition themselves and was awaiting supplies—they were able to live for five more minutes and were happy about it—even boastful. They were so happy that they denied Trump of roughly 40 little delegates that they missed the point of what the supporters of the GOP frontrunner were espousing. They were just happy that they had a better chance of getting the nomination process to a convention so that they could insert somebody they were more comfortable with—as if the public would put up with it. It was a pretty disgusting display.

My first thoughts and those which stayed with me after considerable contemplation were that the Republican Party just needed to be put to rest. A new party needed to be created, one that better represented conservatives and rural voters much more accurately. I think Trump should make a point and win his remaining primary victories, but that he should then just start his own party—likely a continuation of the Reform Party for which he, Pat Buchannan and Ross Perot were a part of in the past. Even Rob Portman was a part of the Reform Party when he ran for the congressional seat he took over in 1993—I know that because he was going to the same meetings I was—I knew him back then. It’s time for a fresh start and a completely new political philosophy not rooted in the failures of the past. A return to the Party of Reagan is not enough for me. I want something better than what Abraham Lincoln was the head of.

Regardless of how many delegates Trump has, the #NEVERTRUMP people have shown that they will not behave themselves and unite behind him—which they should do. So they need to be destroyed as a movement. We need to have a head to head election with Hillary, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump. Trump as everyone knows by now has a solid 30% support base no matter what. In a three-way race, that almost gets him an assured victory. I don’t believe Hillary will be able to get 50% of a vote in any election—especially with the troubles she has, and there is no way Ryan beats Trump. I think it’s obvious that given a choice in a three-way race it’s not Republicans that will be split. Kasich as it stands now is similar to Hillary in politics, Cruz with Ryan, and then there is Trump who is about 7 to 8% ahead of everyone else routinely. That is the number nobody is talking about, and it would give Trump a victory in a three-way race without question. So why not? If we don’t have this showdown now—voters will continue to be tricked into voting for the stuffed caricature of an elephant—and that’s just not fair to them.

The only advantage for Trump to win the nomination from the Republican Party is to tap into the funds to run a national campaign. However, Bernie Sanders has shown what people are willing to do to fund a campaign, and Trump has more access to funds from his fans than any political candidate has in the history of politics. I wouldn’t fault Trump for taking $10 million dollar donations from his friends—like Carl Icahn and others to win a general election. I think he has a better chance of winning as a third-party candidate than as head of the Republican Party with all the inner back stabbing that will take place even if he wins the nomination outright. So he should just leave and let them flail on the vine rudderless. The Republican Party doesn’t deserve Trump and they certainly don’t deserve me and the many voters who are sick and tired of the establishment passivity toward Democrats.

To all the #NEVERTRUMPS, I don’t want to be in a political party with you people. I want nothing to do with your stupidity. I’m happy to have it out in a general election in a three-way race and see what happens after the smoke clears. What has to happen is a major philosophic shift in political philosophy—the standard mode of operation just won’t be acceptable. I have always supported the Reform Party, I did when Ross Perot ran in 1992 and in 1996, and I supported Trump and Buchannan when they toyed with the idea in 1999. The reason that the election between Bush and Gore was so close in 2000 was literally that people had to pick between one piece of shit and another. Which one was better—nobody knew and the country was split right down the middle. Bush was not a good president, and then the GOP thought to offer us John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

They are just stupid—rooting for the GOP is like cheering on the Cincinnati Bengals to win a Super Bowl. They just don’t have the ability to get to the big game—let alone win. So let’s just drop them once and for all. Even if Trump secures the nomination with a win in California—he should still go third-party so that the Republicans can be put in a museum with all the other stuffed animals. They are guaranteed losers who will continue down that path until they are taken out of the game. And the time to do that is now-before they do any more damage. Basically, either the GOP brings in fresh blood, or we dump the party, change the name, and have something else to represent conservative values. Not “progressive” conservative values like many of these #NEVERTRUMPs believe (Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, ETC.) But something all together different and more representative of the rural inhabitants of this country—I’m at the point in 2016 of its either Trump for president or nothing for me. Hillary is not even a factor. She can’t even beat an old communist lover. She is not as formidable as the media wants you to believe.

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.

Chicago Teacher Union Protest–AGAIN: How George Lucas has failed by adopting socialism as an ideal society mechanism

It was just a few years ago that the Chicago Teacher’s Union had a strike that lasted for quite a while and now those radical, socialist, ungrateful, overly paid baby sitters are at it again walking off the job completely for one day to protest state funding—which does not exist—and giving 400,000 students no place to go but libraries, churches and other “contingency sites,” while their parents slaved away at a job to pay for college which is often the intellectual final nail in their youthful coffins. Sadly, as much as teachers—especially those protesting in the streets of Chicago stopping traffic and being an extreme nuisance and burden on society—the kids were let down by every adult in their lives. Their teachers were socialist activists, their parents too busy to stay home and care for them, and the media missed the entire point of the whole matter. People wonder why kids grow up so stupid, why they become activists themselves for Bernie Sanders socialism—well, they learned it in their public schools—socialist brothels of intellectual destruction and left-winged propaganda. The March 2016 one day strike by the teacher’s union in Chicago was one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen this year—and it should be a lesson to all what we’ve allowed to happen.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CHICAGO_SCHOOLS_WALKOUT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-01-08-35-26

I say it quite a lot and have for quite a number of years—children would be far better off if parents just left them alone at home playing Playstation or Xbox all day instead of going to the socialist oriented public schools that our nation has given us. It’s a hard reality most people can’t get their minds around—because it’s such an inconvenient truth—but we should have always known what was coming, as the whole operation was ran by a giant public sector labor union. The only real goal of the teacher’s union has been to make students into left-winged radicals. Luckily, not everyone grows up to become a socialist, and not all teachers individually are bad people. There are many in that Chicago protest crowd who likely have no idea what socialism is, or understand what their role in this whole debacle has been—but history defines it for us and shows the direction we are all headed.

As this protest raged there were some startling statistics about the demographic nature of a future America by 2050 which came out. Leftists are absolutely addicted to diversity implementation—mixing different cultures together to change the nature of constitutional law within the United States which is how labor unions and other progressive groups always intended to overthrow America without firing a single shot in a second, un-named revolution. So their emphasis has been on skin color, sex, sexual preference and lots of other superficial aspects not even encompassing the essence of what makes a human being human. They see public schools as melting pots of diversity raising children to have no barriers to sexual attitudes, acceptance of those who “look” different than they are, and completely ignoring actual behavioral characteristics because they have misidentified the key ingredients of a successful society.

Even though I have said many good things about the filmmaker George Lucas he obviously has lost his way over the years—probably because he attended too many democratic fundraisers and the politics of San Francisco liberalized him over time—but the “bearded one” has called Chicago his adopted second home. He loves the progressive nature of the city which he considers doing important work toward achieving a more “fair” society. This is one of the main reasons I no longer like Star Wars. When Lucas made the first films—back in the 80s, they were quite good and had characters that would have been most at home in an Ayn Rand novel. This is partly because Lucas believed much about the world at the time that I do now—best exemplified by his truly great film, THX-1138. But after a divorce that he never really got over, hanging around democratic socialists within the Hollywood community that finally embraced him after many years of trying, then biologically changing in his later years becoming increasingly liberal as his testosterone levels dropped off—he is unrecognizable now and his films reflect his mental status. Now Star Wars is about “diversity” more than it is about throwing off a tyrannical regime hell-bent on destroying individualism. As great as Lucas was as a businessman and filmmaker, he now fails to identify attributes that have contributed to the complete failure of Chicago to operate as a responsible city. As a city it is unofficially bankrupt, living off tremendous debt. When the current mayor finally leaves—who has been extremely progressive all along—the next person will have a huge mess to clean up and that will likely lead to a similar fate as has been witnessed in Detroit. The lines between a capitalist society and a socialist one have been blurred to the point that nobody any longer understands—even our most “educated” and most artistic—like Lucas.

What’s the point of teaching children anything if what they are learning in public school is socialism? The argument is from the left that compassion for others is the most important thing in a human society. They believe as many of those Chicago protesting teachers do, that social equality is more important than individual gains—which is why the teachers are protesting the state to bestow upon them more tax money extracted from private property and thrown in their direction. They have become happy little socialists in the same way that Bernie Sanders has gained in popularity. Kids supporting the socialist presidential candidate will tell you that their reasons are to gain access or debt relief from their college tuitions—which they have been told will be free. Yet the teachers and professors within those professions often push up and over the six figure salary territory after obtaining tenure. The left-leaning advocates for public schools, including college, have signed up their lives to the cause of socialism because the pay was so extraordinarily good. Average people like these teachers couldn’t hope to make so much money anywhere else than they do in the teaching profession. Yet the debate against my position has always been that teachers are valuable people giving wisdom to the next generation and that without them society crumbles. Well, I’d say with them society is guaranteed to fail—without teachers—strictly on their own—kids have a better chance of succeeding in life. That is how destructive socialism is to individual minds.

The belief in public schools is that individual achievement is vile and that group associations are vastly more important because equality between all parties is utilized—and taught. The position of the “left” is that individual conquest is only for the physically, and intellectually strong and that it is a “caveman” mentality which society should overcome. What they forget is that advancements in society are not induced by “fairness” but by hunger. For instance, with as much money as our American civilization has poured into public schools and colleges, kids have not statistically become more intelligent. If you talk to anybody under 30 years old today—you’ll see quickly what I’m talking about. Most young people have been deliberately intellectually handicapped by the public school system to make the best and brightest no better than the sluggish and stupid. When you build your society around the weakest links, you obviously will get a weak society—which is why socialism is so detrimental to any civilization. Teachers have been unable to increase their effectiveness around the world no matter how much money has been spent on them essentially because their emphasis is on “equality and group assimilation” as opposed to individual achievement. In a capitalist society, not everyone can be rich, smart, and powerful—but everyone has a chance to if they work at it. The net result of that effort and success then benefits all of society. There is no way to blend the two together. George Lucas tried with his Jedi concept in the Star Wars films—but had to rely on mythical superpowers to blur the lines of what any human could possibly achieve. Essentially Lucas like most on the political left turned toward Plato’s Republic as justification for their philosophic society—in the case of Star Wars, the Jedi are the council of wisdom that governs society without any individual desire. If a Jedi does let personal desires drive their needs, then their superpower attributes become dangerous to society at large and the organized mass of collective consciousness will desire to have a rebellious overthrow of the renegade individual—that is essentially the message of the movies without the Han Solo element added to the plot. I always liked Han Solo because he was an Ayn Rand conservative that functioned so well to keep saving everyone and advancing the Star Wars story. But without Han Solo, Star Wars is just another examination into Plato’s Republic—which is the opposite side of the coin of Aristotelian logic for which Ayn Rand associated and evolved her thoughts on the matter.

All this contemplation about how we arrived at National Socialism without realizing it is good for understanding how a bunch of overpaid and ungrateful teachers from Chicago ended up in the streets demanding even more money than they are already being paid to essentially destroy the lives of the students they were supposed to be teaching. Politicians looked at that protest and shuddered at all the voters who had nowhere to take their children because nobody does the job of parenting anymore—leaving the task of raising children to the state. So when the teachers wanted to protest to show the world how much power they had through “collective bargaining” they had a monopoly on the children and used them as extortion pieces. That is the “compassionate” side of George Lucas’ ideal society, and the ultimate failure of the entire political left—especially those who have bankrupted the once great city of Chicago. I’d encourage you dear reader to watch all the videos shown above for more information and proof. It’s not an easy admission, but it’s one that we all need to grapple with. Public schools are not good for our children. They might someday become that way if the right market forces were applied, but in the state they are now, they are detrimental to our children. Kids would be safer and their minds kept more intact if we left them alone at home with just a T.V. and a video game system. They’d learn more about capitalism there than in school, and in American society—that is what they should have always been striving towards. These problems will continue until our society recognizes the source of the problem—that it is socialism that drives these large teacher unions and they do not have our national sovereignty or our American economy in high regard. By contrast they wish to continue to extract wealth from the haves, and redistribute them to the have-nots as if the mechanisms of productivity were a finite resource not driven by capitalist invention.

To prove it, each one of those teachers should have been fired from their jobs and replaced. Children would not notice, and the parents would see no drop in scholastic performance, and that is the big secret that the teacher unions are terrified of. It’s only a matter of time before we have to call their bluff—because the money isn’t there for them. Chicago isn’t alone in their debts—most of America is going through the same crises. Only when we finally do—and break the back of the teacher’s union and get their left-leaning political influence out of our schools and the Department of Education can we hope to reverse the trends we are seeing today—a nation slipping into socialism at an alarming rate. Personally, I’m not willing to fund our own destruction. How about you?

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 World War Against Donald Trump: What we can learn from Ferris Bueller

It is quite stunning that more people don’t understand what Donald Trump is to the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Some of what I am about to say will require some additional information and review, so CLICK HERE for the start of that understanding, as well as all of the following hotlinks for further substantiation. The typical run for POTUS has established in the American electorate certain memorized hot points largely shaped by the media and the political class to always protect themselves from outside insurgents. Was I concerned that Donald Trump didn’t know the three primary functions of government with an answer “security, security, security” then further created a problem for himself by declaring that healthcare and education were the next priorities? No, I wasn’t. He gave a typical response of the everyday American who really hasn’t been a part of the political establishment—and has thrown money at politicians his whole life to purchase what he needs to get done to ensure his success. He gave a slightly better answer than the average businessman hanging out on a golf course. Does that make him out-of-touch? To people who spend their whole lives studying constitutional law, worshipping the integrity of past presidents like a king, and insisting on having a POTUS that rivals some European royalty—Donald Trump is a nightmare of bumbling irrational statements. But what I see is a down to earth guy who gets most of his information about the world the way the average cab driver does—and he’s clearly grounded—remarkably, untouched by pretension by being a “political insider.” To me, the weaknesses he is coming under fire for are his strengths. I want to see someone totally different in the POTUS role—and I want private sector influence instead of political experience. I want competent people managing the government, not a political class.

What Trump has that nobody else does is the ability to hire better people than him for a job, which is how he’s made most of his money. He has raw instincts about people who gives him tremendous leverage over someone like Ted Cruz. Cruz would be someone who Trump would hire for a staff position, but Cruz would never be in a position to identify and establish a similar criterion. Trump hires people, listens to them, and then formulates his objectives—so he doesn’t need to know all the details. He pays other people to do that. His job at the front of the train is to make important decisions at the proper time with the courage to actually do it. The current political order is stuck in a “static pattern” of what is considered normal behavior whereas Trump is mostly a “dynamic influence.” His very presence is changing the entire way that politics is run and those profiting off that “static pattern” are justifiably terrified of it—so they are throwing everything they have at Trump trying to drag him into their “static pattern” value system. Those static patterns consist of very rigid party guidelines on both sides—for Republicans, a calculated approach to abortion, a party established position on Israel, taxation, and healthcare. Essentially, the beliefs of the typical Republican candidate are formulated by the party instead of the actual beliefs of the candidate. Trump jumps into things, tests the water, listens to people then figures out what will work without thinking about any group affiliation. He is not prone to group assimilation which makes him far superior to any other offering.

The political establishment expects its presidential candidates to adopt a “static” position that they can then build a party around. Trump is so “dynamic” that things could change in a moment’s notice. Anybody who has witnessed any success in their life understands that one of the biggest attributes of success is a dynamic presence that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and formulate them toward the original objectives. Politicians often can recite all the party positions but are statically welded to Capitol Hill politics and can seldom ever do anything that they promised on a campaign trail. So Trump figures, why waste time on things that might change completely within a year from now. It’s a pointless exercise. He knows what we need to do, and he has a track record of success—and he will find the right combination of resources to implement it. Genius can’t yet be plotted on a chart and no college has figured out how to teach it—so Donald Trump is something completely outside of their static understanding. That certainly isn’t his fault—it is the failure of the static system that we have all become addicted to.

That static system now to protect itself is looking at the statistics and noticing that there are a lot of people lacking a college degree that support Donald Trump and those same stats are not prevalent with other candidates. College trained people have a tendency to support static patterns because after four critical years in college learning what those patterns are right after high school, from the ages of 18 to 22—the final nail in the coffin for a lot of people is placed toward all future dynamic influences. I have been to college, my wife has to—I even spent a few years living on a college campus—and let me tell you dear reader, I hated it—because I am by nature a very dynamic personality. I relate to Trump because of that dynamism. To put it in terms that average people can understand think of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which is a popular 80s film featuring Mathew Broderick, that most everyone understands. Ferris was an example of an extremely “dynamic” personality and he would likely grow up to become like a real life Donald Trump if he were allowed to be free enough to survive the static systems that imposed its will upon him. When I was a teenager, I was very much like the character of Ferris Bueller in that movie and I did impulsive things like he did all the time—and I always managed to come out on top no matter how dire the situation. People loved and hated Ferris Bueller for all the reasons that they love and hate Donald Trump. He doesn’t always know how or why something will work, Trump simply wakes up in the morning meaning to achieve success in whatever it is and he uses his dynamic personality to overtake whatever static imposition is in front of him.

So the reason that the people who lack college degrees—or those who live in rural areas support Trump is because they have not been conquered yet by the static pattern progressivism that has been imposed on college graduates and the urban settings which often force people to concede their natural desire for individual integrity. Nothing about Trump fits well into a debate format or the media driven talking points. He is best when he is clashing with static patterns with great dynamic authority and bravado. Trump has slipped a bit lately in the polling because he was trying to fit his personality to the static pattern of the Republican Party—as the head of it. He backed off the thrusters to show that he can be more “conciliatory.” But he shouldn’t, he needs to just do his thing and stay as dynamic and unpredictable as possible. If Cruz wants a debate, Trump should accept the challenge but to demand that it be done on ground he controls, such as Trump Tower’s lobby in New York. That way Cruz couldn’t say that Trump is chicken when in fact all Trump is concerned with is being pulled into the senseless static pattern of Cruz and the Republican Party which has actually given us all these problems. Cruz is a great debater, but his key weakness is that if he can be taken off his “Holy Roller” persona and beaten into submission with sheer force—especially in the surroundings of a person who has had actual success in life–Cruz could be embarrassed beyond recovery. The press conference with Carly and Cruz over the sex scandal showed a major weakness in the Cruz façade which will be exploited sooner or later.

But the trouble between Trump and everyone else is not that the billionaire is “stupid” or his supporters. It’s just that we know that Trump is a needed injection of dynamic persona that is desperately needed in our political system. Just as I’m hoping that Warren Davidson, my new congressman holds to his values when he gets to Capitol Hill, I have watched all this before and am always disappointed by the results. I stood shoulder to shoulder as a major supporter of Rob Portman when he ran for office. I knew him as a normal guy that would go out to eat with me after a debate. He blew it after years in Washington. And John Kasich went from a Tea Party darling to a softer version of Hillary Clinton. He is a major letdown. Actually, I could go on and on for quite some time naming politicians just like Ted Cruz that showed lots of promise when they were running—memorized all the things that the media wanted to hear, then turned around and was just a terrible representative. I don’t so much blame them as people—I blame the static nature of politics. It needs a major infusion of dynamism to change it forever.

Now that Trump has shown what’s possible, every celebrity who thinks they can will try running for president in the future. The party system is essentially over—and that is a good thing. Within the decade we will likely get stars like The Rock running for president and major rap artists who have the money and celebrity to gain media attraction on a daily basis. Four years ago Mitt Romney wouldn’t hardly go on any talk radio shows or cable shows—not even Bill O’Reilly—because he feared being knocked off message. He certainly wouldn’t do Chris Mathews—who is a flaming progressive. The whole abortion topic is something Romney and every other presidential candidate for the republicans would have avoided with diversionary tactics. Trump has forced all these candidates to do these shows to compete—because he is so confident himself—even when he steps in it—that he can find a way to come out smelling wonderful. That is why all these static pattern addicts hate Trump so much, but also why he has such strong support from an electorate that recognizes that the static system of politics that has nearly destroyed our country needs a major infusion of dynamic influence. Now that the dynamic influence has wrecked the previous static patterns—for both parties really—there is no going back. The Republicans either embrace Trump or they will get worse in 2020 and 2024. Celebrity will be the new criteria for better or worse.

The old methods of electing a POTUS have not been effective and America needs to develop something dynamically different. I’m not looking for a George Washington to lead me to some salvation. I don’t need an authority figure of any kind. All I need out of government is to manage the resources it takes to keep the country running and to stay the hell out of my way. I don’t need the government for much. I don’t even need their protection. Them standing between me and villains likely makes for a more civil society—which is good for most people, but I personally don’t need them—and I certainly don’t need a “leader.” I want a more dynamic government that isn’t afraid to sell capitalism to the world. Trump is the best candidate I have ever seen or heard of for that very dynamic job. Like Ferris Bueller, I know that Trump can wing his way through anything—and I want someone representing our Republic to the world who has that ability for a change. And I certainly don’t want a political party in charge behind the scenes. I’m ready for a major change, and for me Trump is it. Whether he makes it or not, politics is changed forever. So Republicans if they want to survive might as well embrace it. Failure to do so or to stick to the old static patterns will lead to their self-destruction.

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.

	Rich Hoffman on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Bruce Jones on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Anonymous on Sheriff Jones, the Big Tent: …
	Anonymous on Islam Means Submission: Jonath…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…
	Rich Hoffman on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Why Christianity Survived as a…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: