Tag: President Obama

Seattle Education Association: Caving to communism in a progressive utopia

When politicians use the word progressive, be clear that what they are talking about is essentially Bernie Sanders socialism. They intend to “progress” society toward collective salvation to nearly a religious fervor. That’s why they don’t have any hard opinions about North Korea, China, Iran, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, France or even Russia for that matter, because socialism and communism are the modes those countries are functioning under, and they want the same for the United States. That is what politicians mean by “progressive” when they indicated that society needs to “lean forward” toward it.

Clearly one of the most progressive areas of the United States is Seattle, Washington. The massive union culture of the Boeing employees contribute largely to that, and the music culture that has evolved through their garage bands were undeniably socialist in orientation. They have an actual city council person who is a socialist. It is a highly liberalized part of the country and was one of the first places to attempt a $15 per hour minimum wage for fast food workers. So they have serious issues against capitalism and are certainly as a city leaning well toward pot smoking liberalism of the most severe version of progressive. With that said, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the teacher’s union in Seattle went on strike at the start of the school year holding the tax payers to the fire until city management—which is already on the same side as the progressive labor union—buckled just to get the teachers to go back to work again. Here’s what the school employees received in the deal followed by a short report from the Seattle Times.

 Highlights of tentative 3-year contract:

Raises: 3 percent in first year; 2 percent in second; 4.5 percent in third (state cost-of-living raise is additional). More in 2017-18 for some teachers for collaboration, and eight hours of “tech pay” for all school employees.

Discipline: Half day of training on reducing disproportionate discipline for all school employees. Equity committees launched in 30 schools.

Testing: New joint union-district committee to review and recommend testing and testing schedule.

Teacher evaluations: Test scores will no longer play any role.

School day: Will be longer, but not much for students, and teachers will be paid for the additional time.

Specialist caseloads: Sets limits, which union says is a first, for physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and audiologists.

Source: Seattle Education Association

After four months of negotiations, a five-day strike and one final all-night talk, the Seattle teachers union and Seattle Public Schools reached a tentative contract agreement early Tuesday, and school is scheduled to start Thursday for the city’s 53,000 students.

The Seattle Education Association’s board of directors and its elected building representatives both voted Tuesday afternoon to suspend the strike, recommending the union’s membership approve the deal. The agreement will go to a full vote of the union’s 5,000 members at a Sunday meeting.

The building-representative vote came after hours of deliberation, where cheers and fervent discussion could be heard outside a packed room at the Machinists Hall in South Seattle.

Union bargaining chair Phyllis Campano, exhausted after one hour of sleep after the marathon negotiation session, declared victory.

“Let’s be clear,” she said. “We won the fight on this contract agreement.”

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/seattle-teachers-and-district-reach-tentative-agreement/

What a bunch of communist idiots. That is exactly why education costs so much in America, and why our children are being liberalized during that institutional training. There are no rational conservatives in the process, and even if they did manage to get elected to a board seat, progressive politicians have skewed the table to always favor the labor unions. To properly negotiate a deal against labor unions you really have to be an ass, and enjoy it, because it’s tough. But with a 5 to 7 member school board, one will always be out-voted by the rest, as those who typically run for such offices are liberalized types themselves. I would argue that the best education the kids of Seattle could have had was a few more days at home as these progressive teachers went on strike for more money and power.

This strike was not about any kids. Kids were clearly used as extortion pieces to secure higher wages, lower testing expectations, and more secure livelihoods. To hell with the kids, which is what the Seattle Education Association declared when they went on strike—there’s no other way to frame the debate. It was about money at the expense of the kids for the progressive aims of further substantiation of a communist agenda spreading across the world.

However, this story is an old one. We’ve covered it many times before. We’ve covered it on radio broadcasts, many articles, public debates and anywhere that the issue has been raised. Yet in Seattle, the situation is clear, the politics are grossly progressive and the aims of the insurrection directly applicable to the region. The apparatus for political theater has a well-known cast and everyone benefited except for the kids, because a liberal education is not necessarily better than not having one at all. I would argue that children could learn far more from the popular Leap Frog devices so popular now at the local Target store than a K-12 education in a public school. Such educations are as dirty and disrespected as public libraries where everything is shared and stagnate. The value of such education is clearly deficient. As pollsters like to announce often during the presidential race of 2016, college graduates support Hillary Clinton whereas blue-collar non-college graduates generally support Donald Trump. The accusation is that highly educated types are more able to understand “higher concepts” of progressivism. But such a term is purely marketing and has no basis in reality. It could be just as argued that 16 years of liberalized education is detrimental to a conservative mind and they will leave college prepared to support progressive platform points such as gay rights, open borders, and socialist wealth redistribution. Whereas those who make their own way in life work hard from the ground up and go to bed tired each night, they don’t like to have their money stolen from them by progressives—so they vote with their wallets. The Seattle Education Association is clearly attacking the hard-working as opposed to the unionized slugs and the wealth redistribution that they most support in Seattle, so it’s no surprise that the government school union got what they wanted so quickly. There really wasn’t any opposition, just political theater that showed clearly that the children were not the priority to the teachers.

It’s a hard reality for many to realize, but the educations we all go through within the public education system is nearly worthless. It exists for these unionized teachers to mooch off of, as they provide very little of any worth for a young, inquiring mind, except a radicalized progressive education. Kids don’t learn about the value of cowboys and Indians in public school, but they sure learn how to stand in line, organize in a collective unit, and get voluminous exposure to the progressive religion of global warming. It’s hard work to unlearn all the crap we learn and for those who reject the experience, it’s easier for them. But for all, the reality couldn’t be clearer. If you support the teachers in Seattle you essentially support Bernie Sanders socialism. The people who won in that case were the socialists represented here by the Seattle Education Association. And they pulled it off because there is no free market competition for their services and it’s nearly illegal to avoid the reach of public schools. So they have a government backed monopoly on building future progressives with tax payer money and every year the price tag goes up. And nobody does anything to stop it because they are afraid of being called names for identifying the behavior what it really is—which is a diabolical socialist scheme that would make the communists of the world bulge with pride. And today in Seattle, they are.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Need for American Exceptionalism: How the political left has killed thousands and made life miserable for millions

Now you know dear reader why American Exceptionalism is so important. For all you peace lovers, only now do you understand that the wars in the Middle East that took place in recent years were not about oil. They were about stabilized government and the opportunity to live life for the indigenous people of those lands. The so-called American Imperialism that the political left is always talking about is very good for the world. American capitalism is also very good for the world. Wherever America has a military base or business influence, the cultures in those regions prosper. Where America does not have influence, there is war, death, and corruption. What should that tell the United Nations? And what would the United Nations be without the United States?   Nothing. So where does that leave us?

Worldwide presently there are 59.5 million people on the move as refugees within their home countries, victims of tyrannical regimes, poverty-stricken economies, abusive thugs, and environmental disaster. There have never been more people looking to leave where they were hoping to get refuge somewhere else. That is the cause of the problem on the American border with Mexico. Mexico is an impoverished nation collapsing economically under its 100 year commitment toward socialist oriented policies and now they are impoverished. The only real money they have is from American businesses fleeing the high taxation and union demands within the United States, and tourism. The political left is at fault for all those issues, the high taxes, the open border push, the drives toward socialism—yet they take no responsibility for any of it leaving the world a mismanaged mess that is killing many hundreds of thousands of people and leaving millions without hope and opportunity.

The latest crises in Syria has 4.1 million refugees registered fleeing the war-torn area of the Middle East destroyed by ISIS for destinations in Europe hoping for sanctuary somewhere that radicals won’t cut off their heads, rape their women, and corrupt their children. They leave for countries that will allow them to live on welfare—which is why so many are primarily fleeing to Germany. Greece doesn’t have any money to deal with even more people seeking social benefits from a socialist economic system. Obama blew the deal in Syria with Bashar al-Assad when he failed to enforce his “line in the sand” then refused to help that same dictator when indirectly America gave arms to his enemies which rose up to become ISIS—an even greater threat. The cause of that increase of aggression was the power vacuum left behind when America left Iraq, as telegraphed by Barack Obama—who ran for president on the platform of leaving the unpopular war.

As politicians like Rand Paul and his father Ron were technically and Constitutionally correct that America needs to take care of our own borders and not be the police of the entire world, the world actually needs the cowboy heroism of America to save them from mismanagement, religious zealots, and the ugly claws of communism that still seek to spread across the world with a vengeful effort at mass collectivism. So long as the world is rife with communism, socialism and religious fanatics, America is the only country responsible enough to provide peace and shelter to a world literally on fire. The global migrations happening right now are because America has pulled up its global influence and went home to drown in its 19 trillion-dollar deficit.

To any sane mind all these problems, again caused by the political left and their armies of progressives in virtually every field of endeavor. You could further trace much of this trouble back to billionaires like George Soros. His money goes into programs like open border societies, marijuana legalization, and extreme political left progressive candidates. What do all those things have in common? Well, drugs soften the minds of indigenous people while open borders destroy nationalism, creating new voting blocks with socialist foundations to elect progressives to manage the countries while people like hedge fund investors make money on the chaos. There’s no conspiracy there, it’s happening right in front of our faces and nobody is really denying it. Meanwhile, Republicans are more concerned with “playing nice” as millions of young people are killed in China and elsewhere under socialist, communist, and religious administrations. Planned Parenthood is a perfect example of this crises—abortion isn’t just about political and theological debate anymore. Practitioners under tax payer funding are deliberately killing children to sell their body parts. That is a crisis of epic proportions—and again the avocation of the evil is a strategy of the political left. So isn’t it explicitly clear what’s happening and why people are being made to suffer?

One of the terms used to disgrace American occupation of foreign lands is to refer to the act as “cowboy diplomacy” and the concept of the Wild, Wild, West where the naive concept of good guys shooting bad guys is considered reprehensible. America feeling guilt about that accusation stopped making westerns, stopped shipping its values abroad, and avoided the finger-pointing of American Imperialism that has so long loomed like a cloud over the freest capitalist nation on earth. Well, now we see the results of that avoidance. The world was so much better when it made westerns, and kids played cowboys and Indians as opposed to Miley Cyrus grinding on some teddy bears and passing around joints at a press conference. Miley was shaped by progressive politics whereas conservativism was shaped by American westerns and their values.   Turn a cowboy loose in the Middle East and there will be lot fewer refugees fleeing to Germany. I promise. Punish the bad guys so good people can live free. To a liberal that’s an overly simplified statement, because to their minds, evil has a seat at the table of debate. Liberals created all the problems, and the world is suffering under their mismanagement.

The question we have to solve now is what to do about all this. Just blindly taking in refugees and putting them on government assistance won’t solve the problem. They need real help in places like Syria, and Mexico. Those regions do need a return to cowboy diplomacy and a sense of honor typically associated with American westerns. They need capitalism and the opportunities that come with that economic system. The Greek isles depend nearly exclusively on tourism to sustain livelihoods for their inhabitants. They don’t make cars, or even brew beer there, not in any quantities to provide economical means toward social sustainability. They need tourists to visit to provide income to the families who live there. But tourists won’t come if dead bodies continue to wash up on the beach from failed attempts to cross the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East by families fleeing the terrorism of ISIS and the caliphate of Islamic extremism. Nobody wants to go on vacation only to see dead bodies on the beach. Yet the United Nations is in complete paralysis as to what to do about it all. They are totally clueless trying to deal with the problem, not the cause of the problem.

The cause of most of the world’s problems is a lack of capitalism and the American bravado to promote it. The reluctance to spread “cowboy diplomacy” throughout the world has been catastrophic. The world needs our help, and we have instead run like chickens—which progressives have told two generations now is a noble cause. Progressives would rather support abortion deaths; rainbow-colored transvestites, and legalized marijuana, than to allow America to feel good about its traditions and responsibility. Saving the world is the responsibility of those most able to do it. If a victim is in distress and a strong personality is nearby to do something about it, the responsibility for action is on those capable of solving the problem. America is the only nation capable of such a thing. And because we are not performing that job now, the world is suffering. The blame for that suffering is not only on the liberals who have caused the mess, but in those of us who have failed to act correctly in the face of danger and opposition. The world needs a little “cowboy justice” and it’s about time we stop apologizing and start giving it to them. Once the world learns to be more like Americans, then maybe the United States can be the way Rand Paul wishes. But not until then.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

An Answer to Rand Paul: Why Trump is good for the GOP

Watching Donald Trump on the Jimmy Fallon Show Friday September 11th, 2015 just ahead of the second Republican debate of the campaign season on CNN, it was clear that the New York billionaire was in his element and most poised to become the next president. He had such a good show with Fallon that it may be remembered in history as Teddy Roosevelt’s “I carry a big stick” speech. Trump is independently successful, in the old-fashioned way, and after more than a decade on television with his own reality show teaching others how to be successful, he has become a very polished performer in front of the camera. He has a stage presence better than Ronald Reagan and far surer of himself. And I think that’s a great thing, considering we’ve just come off nearly 16 years of a divided country almost as fractured as America was during the Civil War. We have the Clintons to thank for bringing us that fracturing during 90s, but that’s a story that’s been told before. Now we have to clean up the mess and figure out who is most poised to perform the job of president now.

 

The real test for Trump will be this upcoming CNN debate. I’m sure he knows that the Republican establishment will throw everything but the kitchen sink at him over the next few weeks, but essentially he can lock down the nomination for president with this next debate. If he dominates, most of his rivals will be forced to step out, as Rick Perry just has. Likely that is what is at the heart of Rand Paul’s frustrated comments just before Trump went on the Fallon show and gave a brilliant performance. If Trump dominates the CNN debate, the money will dry up for most of the Republican candidates and the road to the White House will have ended for them. Here is what Paul said:

“What does it say about GOP when a 3 & half term Gov w/ a successful record of creating jobs bows out as a reality star leads in the polls?” Paul tweeted.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/11/rand-paul-has-a-question-for-republican-voters-following-rick-perrys-suspension-of-campaign/

Well, let me answer that question for Paul and the rest of the GOP field—as well as all the other people like Glenn Beck who think Trump is a simpleton, a buffoon, a reckless madman, and a wildly progressive candidate who will bring destruction to the country if elected president. Trump is a polished television performer. He understands how television works and how much information common people can retain in a speech. While he may not be a Constitutional attorney, or a talk show host who has built their life as an expert on American history, he is aware that all that knowledge is useless if you can’t sell the Constitution to the house and senate on Capital Hill. So even if Rand Paul were elected, or Ted Cruz—who know the Constitution likely better than the Supreme Court, the normal zombies out there who live in pop culture land don’t care even a little bit, so there will be no adherence on Capital Hill to the Constitution, so why dwell on it. Trump has a different strategy, which I agree with.

Since I’ve been writing these daily articles starting in 2010 I have watched Glenn Beck fill the Mall in Washington with hope filled speeches, I have watched Governor Kasich run as a Tea Party darling, promising big changes and Constitutional adherence, and I watched my hometown congressman John Boehner take over as Speaker of the House and watched Mitch McConnell across the river become Senate Majority Leader. I watched Boehner force members to read the Constitution after his swearing-in and talk like he was going to reform Washington. Guess what happened in all those cases? Big waves came and swept away Beck throwing him into near irrelevance in Dallas, Texas away from the media culture of New York, where the fight for our nation’s survival really is happening. Beck picked a fight with George Soros and the billionaire unleashed his wrath on the pest forcing him to leave town and find solace in Jesus. Boehner, McConnell and Kasich all had their asses handed to them with just a little bit of progressive resistance. Obama clearly outplayed Boehner. Kasich lost to the unions. And McConnell was never anything but a muddy middle ground player in Washington. He’s far from conservative as the party platform professes small, limited, government with responsible spending. They are effectively wimps and they are the most powerful in Washington.

Along comes Trump, independently successful, charismatic, and he has a wrathful temper. He’s used to winning everything he does and he actually loves to fight. While people like Beck used to be alcoholics and drug addicts open to vices that corrupt man’s mind, Trump has always been against weak personality flaws. He has been shaped by the typical New York progressive view of the world in the past, but he currently has the ability to go on the Jimmy Fallon Show and declare without hesitation that America needs to decrease its spending, close its borders, and become a rich nation again without apologizing to the world—and people clap. Movie stars line up to have selfies taken with him, and he is generally admired by even people on the left. When he states that he supports taxing the rich, it is a calculated effort—a way to take the wind out of the sails of open socialists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. What can they say to “trump” Trump when the Republican candidate is advocating the same things they are in their platform? (It’s called political strategy) On the Fallon Show Trump advocated during a comedy segment that corporate taxation needed to be lowered—and again people cheered him on. That is important—I believe taxes in general will be lowered by Trump, especially for corporations. Hedge fund investors are easy targets who are like Vegas gamblers. The wealth they create is all in paper—so taxing them is an easy target. Corporations on the other hand actually make things—and their taxes need to be lowered—considerably. In the climate we live in now, Trump knows he won’t get both and still get political support from the population in general. Not when socialism is what the political left is selling.

I know that people are worried that Trump is poised to become an American version of Russia’s Putin—but I think he’s smarter than that. I think a lot of the egomaniac persona is an act designed to throw people off while conducting The Art of the Deal in real life. For people who don’t understand those kinds of skills I can see why they are timid. People think when they meet me that I’m a hard right-winged guy who is intolerant of the world and that I live in a fringy cave of conservatism. They are surprised when I can sit down with people who think very differently from me and conduct myself in a reasonable way. I’ve been in sales of some kind or another all my life, and the first thing you do when feeling out an opponent’s position is to find out where they are. So you club them over the head with aggression to find out what they are willing to defend most, then you work toward an agreement with that knowledge. It’s a strategy, and Trump is certainly good at it. What he shows is not always where he’s willing to sign a deal. That’s likely what scares Beck and Paul, because they are Constitutional purists. However to me, I think the Constitution was framed by the Federalists way too much—I live near Hamilton, Ohio which is named after Alexander Hamilton—who was an idiot in my opinion. I did not like Hamilton’s fiscal fights with Thomas Jefferson—and I didn’t respect the way George Washington let Hamilton have his way with the country’s financial approach of too much centralized government intrusion. I think with all the rhetoric that I’ve heard from Trump that he’s a closet Anti-Federalist. I think he’d be more of a president like Jefferson than Washington. I think he may be as bombastic as Teddy Roosevelt was, but away from progressivism instead of toward it. I actually think Trump as a president would be a combination of George Patton, Thomas Jefferson, and the Democrat Andrew Jackson. Personally I like Jackson, he balanced the books in America for the only time in its history, and I think Trump is the only person right now in the world who could tackle the 19 trillion-dollar deficiency facing us right now.   I see no downside to a Trump president, only strategic opportunities that benefit our country.

Trump is far more than a television reality star. It must be remembered that his television stardom only came after he had a successful career as one of the best in his field of endeavor. And he’s offering something to politics that we haven’t seen before. People like Trump don’t run for president. They purchase them, and then stay in the shadows. There isn’t another person on the Republican stage for president right now who can resist that purchasing power—including Ted Cruz. But Cruz knows what he’s doing. Trump is breaking through a lot of ice and Cruz is succeeding in his wake. And that is how someone like Cruz can get a foothold in Washington that he otherwise wouldn’t get. It takes someone like Trump to bust up the old way so that something new can come about. And in 2016 we are in a bust up year. We have to destroy the garbage that politicians like Barack Obama and George W. Bush have given us. And we need to do it fast, and spectacularly. Out of all the possible candidates in the world on any continent at this moment in time, only Trump has an opportunity to perform the task. And instinctively, people know it.

The American Constitution is excessively important, but to my eyes, it was corrupted from the gate. The Anti-Federalists folded too soon and gave way to Alexander Hamilton entirely too much. So I’m all for making the Constitution more conservative with Supreme Court appointments who survived The Apprentice instead of some liberal trash from a left-leaning university. I want to see Secretaries of State who know Project Management, and negotiators who know how to cut off the head of their opposition and stick it on a pike for all to see. And I want a President who will do all this with a smile on his face and who has the ability to walk onto Saturday Night Live and joke about it selling back to America all the things that are good for it—starting with their national pride. So to answer Senator Paul, the reason the GOP finds itself losing to a reality television star is because they have lied, cheated, and allowed themevles to be beaten by complete idiots for over two decades now. And people like me are sick of it. Trump offers something different and I’m willing to try it—because doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. Voting for anybody but Trump would be considered insane because nobody else, Paul included has the ability to market their good ideas to the public—and therefore would drown in the corruption that pours off K-Street like water over Niagara Falls.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church: Faith and religion are not conducive to the moral value of a capitalist culture

One of the problems I have with religion is the basic premise of it, which is rooted in “faith.” The quandary of populism is to say that a person of “faith” is the same as assuming that the person is a “good” human being such as, “he’s a man of faith,” which automatically congers up thoughts of a value system rooted in religious belief so he would therefore be assumed to be a good person. Yet, statements like that are idiotic and are clearly false. Faith is a stupid word because it implies that there isn’t thought given to an action. Faith is lazy; it says that a person has surrendered thought to fate without doing the work of inputting intelligence to the conditions of our times. It is not enough to have “faith” in an afterlife when many decisions made every day must be considered with thoughtful input to maintain the values associated with goodness.

Religion therefore becomes tricky to the capitalist government reformer because government often grows most when it appeals to people’s faith. Once a government official or even a branch of government can appeal to the “faith” of the people in their ranks, trouble begins. This is particularly troublesome in the United States where the people are free to think and do as they please until they get to church and are supposed to live by rules established not by a deity whom speaks to them on Sunday mornings, but the interpretations of that deity translated over thousands of years to mold behavior in the present. You can’t really be a free-thinker and self driven person Monday through Saturday, except to pray to a deity whom we’ve never met, then give Sunday to that same deity—and expect to be considered a rational human being. Notions of “faith” and “sacrifice” to that faith are just stupid. Any rational mind would think so.

Yet religion has benefits. It does introduce social values rooted in kindness. And that’s where things get really tricky, because there is value in religion which opens the door to the stupidity of blind faith. When Manning R Johnson testified before the House of Un-American Activities on the subversive activities of the Kremlin within the Catholic Church in 1953 he did so as a former member of the Communist Party. He wasn’t some pundit speculating, he was actually from the Communist Party in the United States and provided oral testimony to the facts of strategy being introduced at the time. Here is a bit of that testimony.

“Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin … the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions (Europe also had its cells) and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes. This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our Communist expectations.”

http://patriotupdate.com/global-warming-and-communist-infiltration-of-the-church/

Anytime you have an organization that is collectivist in nature full of people who subject themselves to thoughtless “faith” you have an opportunity to mold those people into any shape a charismatic leader might desire. For the communists advancing their thoughts into the Christian church was easy as many thoughts of Jesus could easily be considered socialist in their nature. A religion reflecting the morality of capitalism has not yet been introduced effectively, and the communists knew that if they could infiltrate the Catholic Church, they could easily steer away people from capitalism to socialism as a military endeavor designed to change a nation without firing a single shot.

Fast forward to the present, an actual Pope from the Catholic Church is planning to address the American congress on September 24th to press them into saving planet earth with green policies. As anybody with intelligence knows, communism has changed its name from the harsh policies of the past to a New Age type of religion called the “green movement.” To accept global warming and other far left policies requires “faith” in “leaders” to do our thinking for us. This was always the plan for communists who changed their names to environmental conservationists. To spread communism they effectively sought to appeal to the weaknesses of the religious right and to push anti-capitalist thinking under the door of resistance by disguising itself as a religion based on faith. Once faith is used to make decisions; it becomes easy to apply it to everything. That Pope whom we’re supposed to accept that the Catholic Church put into power because of some divine smoke came from a chimney, is an actual socialist from Argentina who does not like or understand the capitalism of America. But millions of Americans will listen to the guy because they have faith in the Catholic Church and that the guy dressed in white is a “man of God.” See how the communist infiltration of the Catholic Church as described by Manning R. Johnson works.

Global warming is simply another name for communism. Environmentalists are thus indicated because they have faith in the deity Mother Earth and will make decisions against capitalism in favor of that New Age religion centered on the planet—just like some raw primitive out of a hunter and gatherer tribe. Yet the logic of a free thinking republic such as what America is supposed to be, would dictate that capitalism take mankind away from earth to the reaches of space to advance our culture away from Mother Earth, not deeper into its bosom. The old communists know that if they lose the appeal of sacrifice to invisible deities and thoughtless sentiment based on “faith” that their movement of collectivist infiltration will finally die—as it should have many years ago. So the Catholic Church put in place an activist Pope to hide socialist policies behind a white robe and expects to sell little “C” communism to a typically conservative country through their religion. For me, upon realizing this, I simply stepped away and said, “no thanks.” I stopped going to church because “faith” is not a governing principle in my life, and it shouldn’t be for anyone. It is good to believe in goodness, and to have trust in other people. But blind, lazy, faith is dangerous as it opens the mind to thoughtless action. And religion is filled with such thoughtless enterprise which is not conducive in any way to logic and observable decision-making. For freedom to work and capitalism to flourish, thought is needed—and that is not what the Catholic Church is selling to its congregations. And now dear reader, you know why.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Cracker Barrel: Memories of an America yet to be

I was visiting a whip maker friend of mine in Middletown, Ohio who is working on a special project for me. It was Sunday around lunch time and we were early. So my wife and I elected to stop by the local Cracker Barrel for a late breakfast. Many people find it humorous that I often refer to Cracker Barrel as fine dinning, because for me it is. Now I have dined in many great restaurants, but I prefer Cracker Barrel, especially on a long trip because of the country setting and general store. The food and service to my experience has always been great and I love the “old west” feel of them when I step inside.image

My very first exposure to a Cracker Barrel was in Northern Kentucky. My grandfather who was the son of an active moonshiner from the sticks of coal country invited me as a very young boy to go shooting with the men in the family at his childhood home. His father at the time had long been dead, but as a boy he ran the hills from the law smuggling moonshine during prohibition. Their home was about the size of a modern bedroom and it was back in a valley about 30 miles northwest of Buckhorn Lake—a pretty remote location, especially when I was a kid. Back then there wasn’t much development between Lexington and Cincinnati, so if you didn’t gas up in Northern Kentucky, you might run out of fuel before Lexington. It was winter and I rode in the back of a pickup truck with some older cousins, some of whom were already men. I was by far the youngest. It was the day after Christmas and all the men were going shooting. It was my first time firing powerful weapons like a .38 special and a 30-30 rifle.

Cracker Barrel had one of their very first national stores in Northern Kentucky and it looked a lot like they do now. It was 6 AM, the sun wouldn’t be up for at least another hour and it was cold. We were all dressed in gun holsters, long hunting knives and day packs when we stepped inside to have some breakfast next to a roaring fireplace. It set in my mind for life a love for the place. It was the nearest thing I’d ever get to an authentic cowboy experience, wandering in off the open range, armed to the teeth to stop into a saloon/general store for some grub. It was a testosterone driven occurrence that shaped me for life. The waitress and manager could have turned us away at the door because we looked like we were there to rob a bank. I have worn a cowboy hat since I was in the fourth grade, so I had mine on feeling like a western drifter—and I loved the feeling as snow rushed in behind us as we stepped inside. They could have told us to leave the guns and packs in our car, but instead they asked if we wanted coffee next to a roaring fire. Years later when I saw the Clint Eastwood western The Unforgiven, the first saloon scene reminded me explicitly of that moment in my time—and it stayed with me forever. That was America. Cracker Barrel for me would always represent the best that America had to offer.

Most of the people on that shooting trip with me are dead now. Some died of old age, some from not meeting high expectations in life, some by personal destructive behavior. I could see much of it back then on that shooting trip. In the back of that truck where it was so cold ice formed on our noses, the older men passed around a whiskey flask. They offered it to me even though I was way too young to drink it. I turned it down. And if you traced their lives with mine and noticed how far apart they are now, you could trace it back to those types of decisions on a shooting trip on a cold December morning. They looked down at me a bit for not wanting to share the whisky, but my grandfather thought it took guts, which is all I really cared about. Once we started shooting, nobody thought anything about who drank what, or who said a curse word. Guns made all men equal and respect was derived by that realization. When I showed I could fire the 30-30 without being knocked down due to my small stature there was respect, and I would carry that lesson with me for life. The whole experience started with a Cracker Barrel.

My wife had never been to such a place as a Cracker Barrel before meeting me. But we went to one just north of Knoxville on our honeymoon as we traveled back from Gatlinburg. For her it summed up everything we had experienced on our first days together as a married couple and she fell in love with it for life. For years we would take our children there while vacationing and make a big deal about each visit, no matter where we were. One time we were on our way to a Star Wars convention in Indianapolis and my kids were dressed up as Jedi. We stopped at one about 45 minutes outside of Indianapolis. My kids had the experience I had as a young man, stepping in dressed as warriors. They had some unique looks, but everyone was friendly and it was a fun experience. They never forgot it. Then there was a time while traveling by motorcycle to a film festival in northern Ohio. My oldest daughter had never ridden a motorcycle before and this was her first experience—on a long road trip up north. Cracker Barrel just north of Columbus on an early summer morning in the middle of the week was an oasis of pleasure—a cozy place that always said “home” as you step into its doors.

One thing about Cracker Barrels is that they are almost always busy, especially in the noon time hours. People are often willing to wait for 30 minutes to get something they could get at McDonald’s in a fraction of the time. The reason is that most people have a special relationship to Cracker Barrel similar to mine. The restaurant chain has built their brand around American tradition for decades and people respect it enough to wait.   That was the situation my wife and I found ourselves in on a Sunday afternoon in late August, 2015, before we met on business with our whip making friend David Crain for a “special project.”

I have been thinking about guns a lot these days. The Obama administration has caused great unrest and unsettled the most rational by unleashing the insane, corrupt, and perpetually dependent to collect what the president promised during his campaigns, redistributed wealth in trade for a vote. And the results have been menacing. Police are being executed all around the country. Border violence is disturbingly common. And religious fanatics are going on holy wars against infidels with the apparent support of the American media. Long gone are the days of the Saturday morning westerns, and heroes of tradition. Those wonderful attributes are missing during our nightly news, but they are quite alive and flourishing at Cracker Barrel’s across the country, and that is what my wife and I were seeking.

As I waited for my breakfast I looked around the room at all the unique paraphernalia that they customarily have lining the walls. Most of it looked like the kind of items you might find at garage sales, but typically they speak of traditional American items, old Coke signs, early gas station markers, looms, spindles, scrubbing boards. However on this particular visit, I noted how many guns were displayed on the wall. Above my head was a Winchester lever-action and around the dining room where several musket style weapons from what looked like the pre-Civil War period. Then my attention was pulled toward an advertisement from perhaps the 50s from a drink called NEHI. It said, “What’s getting into kids these days.” Around the picture of a girl drinking what looked to be a healthy beverage alternative were kids playing. Of note was one kid dressed as a frontiersman another as a cowboy complete with a six-gun. Then another picture was of an Indian. It reminded me of the days when kids actually played cowboys and Indians and it wasn’t considered an act of insanity requiring counseling at school for wanting to play with weapons. I realized looking at that picture that the magic of Cracker Barrel was essentially represented in that picture. The family restaurant was a timeless portrayal of the type of America that many in the core of the country still love, and desire desperately to behold. That’s why many of the customers on a Sunday afternoon after church were willing to wait up to an hour to have some eggs and bacon—something they could easily get at home. But what they couldn’t get was the essence of Americana that Cracker Barrel truly is—and will always remain.

The meeting with the whip maker David Crain went well. He is very crafty and during our business dealing he showed me a little side project he was working on. He had been using his wood lathe to make some really marvelous wooden ink pens, the kind of items you might find at Kenwood Mall for $55. He sells them for $20 dollars, which I think is too cheap, but it’s his business. So I picked one up, since that kind of thing is sometimes important to me. If anybody else wants some, let me know and I’ll put you in touch with him. It’s a really good deal. Meeting with David reminds me of the kind of Americans we used to be. Behind his house David has a wood shop, and in it he makes lots of really neat crafts—the kind of things that will probably someday be on the wall of a Cracker Barrel. But with David, we are living tradition in the present, and that made that particular Sunday one that I will not long forget. It was a reminder of what we fight for and why. Much of it can be summed up in the advertisement by NEHL from a time long forgotten–except on the wall of a Cracker Barrel in Middletown, Ohio looming over eggs, bacon, and good memories.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why the Trump Bankruptcies Would Make him a Better President: The billionaires behind the federal government

One of the most common rebukes to the Trump potential presidency is that his companies have filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy several times, the Atlantic City Taj Mahal 1991, the Trump Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels and casino Resorts in 2004, and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009.  The cause of those bankruptcies was due to over-leveraged assets which can happen when financing speculative endeavors, and on those he came up short.  Casinos are dangerous endeavors, because they are essentially parasitic business practices that rely on strong economies to consume expendable income.  If a society does not have expendable income, it won’t spend money on casinos—which has led to trouble in places like Atlantic City.   However, what I find very interesting about Trump is that he has still managed to build up a personal wealth of billions of dollars in a very traditional way which makes him for me even more of an Ayn Rand hero presidential candidate than virtually any other possible billionaire who could run for president.  To see to what extent he is qualified watch this interview with Judge Jeanine from Fox News.

For me the fact that Trump is a billionaire who is willing to identify with Tea Party politics makes him gold in my book.  He’s willing to put himself out there to break down a bad political system.  Because the real fight is not on Capitol Hill, or even American politics, it’s in the billionaires who work behind the scenes to advocate progressive endeavors that politicians are expected to dance to.  Nothing will change so long as George Soros is pouring his money into left leaning causes, or Bill Gates is trying to advance common core.  Gates has a net worth of $67 billion dollars.  Michael Bloomberg who is a bleeding heart leftist has $27 billion.  Mark Zuckerberg is worth $13.5 billion and is the golden boy for the millennials, and these are all people who are politically active.  Rupert Murdoch is worth $11.2 billion.  Charles Koch is worth $34 billion and his brother David is worth an equal amount—personally.  These are the people who are shaping American politics from the political right and left.  Trump during his recent speeches has stated that Carl Icahn wants to work in his presidential administration—Carl is worth $20 billion dollars.  In comparison, Donald Trump doesn’t even make the top 100.  But he is willing to stick it to the entire system, fund his own campaign free of all their input and turn the entire system completely on its head.  That is something I can get behind in a big way. It’s a unique once and a lifetime opportunity that may not come again.  Billionaires like to stay in the shadows.  They don’t do what Trump is doing, and this is a key strategic opportunity to advance our political system beyond the control of the two-party system in a way that Trump is leveraged to do.

Most of the billionaires listed have managed to get their wealth through stock investments—such as Gates, Soros and Zuckerberg.  If Trump had done what they had, he might be far wealthier than they have become, because the wealth is created by anticipated value of their products as opposed to a tangible asset.  Trump is an old-fashioned guy—he has largely stayed out of stocks and has built his wealth nearly entirely on actual assets, such as golf course, real-estate developments, beauty pageants, entertainment media, etc.  Trump actually owns things, and he has done it in a sole proprietor way as opposed to diversified investments managed from afar.  Trump has remained throughout his career remarkably hands on and to this day has respectable access to liquid cash and very little personal debt.  The Trump brand is actually worth more than his personal assets ranging around $3 billion dollars.  In a brilliant move by Trump and his organization he looks to be aiming to accomplish two things, increasing his personal brand as President of the United States—which will likely triple, perhaps quadruple that brand value, and he will be able to as an insider increase market forces which will increase his holdings with a healthy economy.  As president, Trump could exceed his personal wealth well beyond that of Bill Gates, which is likely the real motivation for his presidential run.  How better to leave his kids with a great company?  But that’s not a bad or selfish thing.  For Trump, he has remained extremely traditional as an investor which has left him vulnerable to market fluctuations, such as what he saw in the early 1990s, and again in 2008.  With the national debt at nearly $19 trillion Trump has the most to lose in a collapsed economy which is inevitable under the current market trajectory.  So for a healthy “A-type” personality, there is no better way to kill two birds with one stone than to do the job yourself.  And I believe that is what Trump is doing.

Then there are the other motivations.  A good negotiator will align their needs with those they are dealing with.  Trump may be the only person available who can fight against these billionaire investments while increasing his own wealth and still helping America find its way again.  I believe those intentions are 100% real and there is nothing wrong with trying to do all those things at the same time. If Trump wasn’t in the game than what would be the option?  A government ran by billionaire leftists, or a government-run by billionaire conservatives.  Both have shown that they aren’t completely authentic in their adherence to the American Constitution and are philosophically weak to the founding ideals of the United States.  Trump made a choice to maintain his personal integrity in spite of the risks associated so that he could own his assets personally—without the usual protections of being able to sell off anticipated value quickly on the stock exchange.  Physical property is much less liquid but Trump made a choice to deal with that in exchange for personal ownership because of ideological commitments that could easily translate to the core problem within the United States—the national debt.

The next president of the United States will have to tackle that $19 trillion-dollar debt, the bankruptcies of the Medicare system, Social Security and the tragic implication of Obamacare starting in 2016.  Much of that debt is in perceived value—anticipated liabilities based against devalued currencies and projected forecasts.  Strategically, Donald Trump is tackling the brand of America and trying to increase its perception globally, by declaring that we need to limit immigration, so to make American citizenship perpetually of an increased value  Once that is accepted, he will gain bargaining leverage with other countries as a president that will make them pay for tariffs that they wouldn’t accept under an open border policy, which is right now most advocated by George Soros—the billionaire most aggressive in advocating for the progressive destruction of America so that he can capitalize off the hedge funds generated off that destruction.  There isn’t another American presidential candidate except for Trump who can actually increase the value of the United States brand to off-set the penalties that will incur if the national debt climbs up over $20 trillion.  At that point bankruptcy is the only way out, and that would cause America to lose its sovereignty to other nations.

From what I see, Donald Trump is all in, his investments are real and his risk is high.  Unlike his fellow billionaires he can’t just have a massive sell-off.  He is taking a gamble as we speak; his companies are buying low hoping for a market turn-around.  Trump, being a patriot at heart—if you don’t believe it, read his books, has jumped all in with no turning back. There won’t be any bankruptcy to save his companies from complete collapse this time.  He’s doing the only thing he could do, he’s stepping down from the billionaire Mount Olympus to fix the situation himself.  His ego wants to be the richest man in America so he doesn’t have any issues with attacking his rival billionaires by out-maneuvering them.  But he wants to save his companies from an economic collapse so that his children will have something left when he’s no longer around.  And to do that he has to save America from that collapse—and the only way he can do that is by becoming president.  There isn’t anybody else who is in his position who can do it—because it is fellow billionaires who are actually running the government anyway.  Donald Trump is a traditional guy who believes in personal ownership almost to a fault, he is chained to the destruction of America with the rest of us.  But unlike the rest of us, Trump is a billionaire who can actually make a difference, and he’s all in to do it.  He’s come too far to turn back and he’s going to need our help.  I think he shares with us the knowledge that 2016 is a do or die moment.  He can either take the party system out of the hands of the billionaires from both the right and left for the good of the country.  Or we lose our country, he loses his wealthy status, and we all go down the drain together.  Donald Trump has a lot more in common with most of us than anybody has yet given him credit for.  And it really comes down to his personal belief in ownership—which he likely inherited from his father and older brother.  Thus he is now taking the biggest gamble of his life.  For the benefit of us all, I hope and trust that he knows what he’s doing.  Because I see his maneuver as the only strategic way out of a minefield of destruction set by the billionaires who really run the federal government.

Also consider this, Barack Obama will be far more destructive as an ex-president advocating socialism and returning to the political scene as a community activists.  He will become very wealthy as a public speaker and will be given a platform to really advance the global intentions of Socialist International within the United Nations.  There isn’t a Republican in the party presently except for celebrities like Clint Eastwood and Donald Trump who can steal away the potential air of a dangerous ex-president Obama in the news cycle.  Trump would have something new happening ever day as president forcing Clinton and Obama to struggle for attention—which would bring an end to their efforts.  If Donald Trump has learned anything over the years with all the hard knocks he’s endured, it’s how to survive this current time.  And for my money I will bet on a tangible asset—Donald Trump—a proven commodity in every way who is highly motivated—and leveraged—to be successful.  Trump is my guy—and like him—I’m all in.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

High crimes and misdemeanors: Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, and the implication of two American presidents

Again, I’ve said it before—but because the news is just now catching up to things I’ve said years ago, I have to address them, particularly in regard to the destroyed Lois Lerner emails at the IRS, and the same involving Hillary Clinton on her private server destroying classified information hoping to prevent a modern version of Watergate for her presidency which is occurring before she has even been elected. Both women should be in prison for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are notoriously criminal, both of them and it is disgraceful that they are both free to roam about unmolested currently without prosecution. They clearly committed crimes and are showing the world that criminals are in charge within the federal government. And you know what they have in common dear reader? Barack Obama was at the center of both their lives directly and if the evidence had not been destroyed it would likely point directly to the President’s office.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

“High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: “‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art‘, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”[2]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

As can be found in[3] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “…impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[4]

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, “Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges.”[5]

The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor”, “maladministration”, or “other crime”. Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave”. Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved “…for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.

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

Proof if it can ever be retrieved will show that Lois Lerner received marching orders from the IRS union rep who met directly with President Obama, to use the IRS to derail the Tea Party movement through audits and other legal harassment. Lerner has showed horrendous behavior toward conservatives in the emails that had been scanned through and released to authorities. Imagine what they destroyed! What’s most troubling is the communication between Lerner and her husband who advocated that he wanted to vote for a “socialist-labor candidate.” Out of all the bad things I have said about these people in the past, I hate being so right about them.

But Hillary, she used a former President in her husband to gain access to secret service and a plausible reason to have a private server to begin with, then used that security to hide acts she committed as Secretary of State under another sitting president in Obama. If that’s not high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing is. Obama is guilty and so are both Clintons, the one who used to be President and the one who wants to be. They are all inconceivably bad, so bad that people can’t even fathom the treachery on display, because we are not accustomed to comprehending it. That is why there are terms for such things so that those trusted with such delicate information can be prosecuted if they violate that trust. And until that happens, our legal system is a joke not worthy of a single tax dollar for further substantiation.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Butler County’s Judy Shelton and her Contributions Toward Donald Trump: Meet ‘The Viewers’–keys to expanding the Republican Party base

Many times I have pointed out the burgeoning issue of how weak establishment Republicans are. They are holding the party down creating an insurrection within the GOP that has directly led to the present circumstances. Here in Butler County, Ohio, considered by many to be one of the strongest bastions of Republicanism in the country, I have been extremely displeased with the GOP. Judy Shelton and her kind on the Central Committee have purposely attempted to push Tea Party elements out while dragging donors to the political middle of the debate—away from capitalism more toward socialism. So long as area Republicans receive their invite to the socialite Patti Alderson’s latest charity event, most have been willing to play along—except for 25-30% of the party. For them, they get left behind, and people like Judy will declare publicly, that it was her goal all along. Those dissidents can either go along to get along—or they won’t have a seat at the table. What those short-sighted thinkers have always missed is not that they needed to move to the political left to cater to voters—the Bernie Sanders socialists—but to pick up voters in that 25-30% range who often just refuse to vote for Republican losers. Case in point is the two women below who emphatically are showing their support for Donald Trump. These are voter demographics that are untapped by current Republican strategies.

After the GOP Debate on Fox News and the fallout thereafter toward Donald Trump by establishment types, mystification engulfed the party in a similar way that has been evident in Butler County by Shelton and Alderson. Pundits loyal to Republicans just don’t understand what all the hype toward Trump is. Even Glenn Beck—who just recently attacked Grover Norquist and declared that he was done with the Republican Party has been extremely critical of Trump. Apparently Beck wants a Jesus Christ type figure who will soft talk the nation from the brink—which is about as realistic as hoping that Peter Pan will teach us all to fly. There is no basis in reality for such a hope. It makes a fine fantasy, but is not very practical in the realm of strategy.

I am certainly part of that 25-30% who will vote against Republicans if they are not conservative enough. As Beck has pointed out before, during the American Revolution, less than 30% of the population advocated in favor of the elements of the War of Independence. Yet America earned its way on the backs of that minority, and the same holds true today. The masses do not know the best answers. It usually comes from the minority—the clear thinking, and passionate. Republicans do not need so much a big tent pandered to every special interest group—blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc., it needs to reach within those groups those 30% who just want to win. Clearly by the evidence of the two Trump advocates in the above video, there are two demographics present that are very passionate about Donald Trump. Republicans could have those voters if only they’d embrace the possibility of being a winner.

This should be easy. What happens to the local NFL team when they have several seasons of losing efforts? That team usually has a hard time selling-out tickets—because people in America have a hard time supporting losing efforts. They will be loyal to a certain point, but clearly want to see a winner on the football field. The moment that an NFL team turns it all around and becomes a winner again, fans go crazy. Fans will do just about anything to be near a winner—and they will spend their money emphatically on winning efforts. When an NFL team is winning, ticket sales are up, beer and hotdogs concessions are through the roof, and memorabilia jumps off the racks in retail outlets. Winning is very good for an NFL team’s achievement of financial success.

Republicans have not been winners. They make promises but are weak to follow through. They have a reputation of being like Yosemite Sam in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons continually outmaneuvered by a Democratic rascally rabbit. They have been made fools of since the days of Ronald Reagan, and they wonder why they don’t have more supporters. You have to win something to maintain enthusiasm in the Party. Elections aren’t enough. Currently Republicans have the House and Senate and what have they done with it? Nothing. Republican leaders on Capital Hill are still being outmaneuvered by Barack Obama—and that doesn’t sit well with the elements of the Republican Party who want to support a winner.

Judy Shelton in my home town has manipulated the Central Committee with manipulation by busing in voters for hard votes and worked against that hard-line 30% with open harassment and extortion to protect John Boehner from internal challenges within the GOP. That is as stupid as telling a football player on an NFL team that their job is secure, all they have to do is show up on Sunday and collect a pay check, win, lose or draw. That is not how things work in reality. Performance is expected, and the Republicans for two decades have done little else but talk.

Donald Trump may be a lot of things. He may be all over the map politically. He may have liberal views and some Alex Jones level conspiracy beliefs. As I’ve said, he’s not a conservative in the way that I am, that is for sure. But—who is? I like Carly Fiorina, I like Ted Cruz, I like Scott Walker. I’d vote for Ben Carson in less than a second, as he best represents my own political philosophy. I love that guy. But in this aggressive global environment with all the political theater going on, who of that bunch has a chance of withstanding the onslaught of harassment so evident throughout the world encapsulated by Socialist International. Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums and pushing for open socialism. Who among the Republicans can take that on but an unapologetic capitalist who is driven by a self-centered desire for narcissism? Narcissism and vanity are considered faults by the Republican Party, particularly local apologists like Judy Shelton. But winners tend to embody some elements of narcissism—because it is that which often propels them toward perfection—or at least an attempt to be better day after day.

Republicans like Judy Shelton work so hard behind the scenes with the assumption that the Party is bigger than the individual, which actually goes against the premise of conservative values. No wonder there are splinter groups erupting behind the establishment—she should have known better. Instead of acknowledging that trend, she has fought against it doubling down within the party ranks and insisting on unyielding support of John Boehner who has done nothing in his time as Speaker of the House but lose to Obama. It’s an insane premise that could only be constructed by establishment politicians who are way too comfortable with their social role within that system. Because of people like Shelton, and there are many like her all across America, particularly within the Beltway, voters often just stay at home unwilling to cast a vote for a loser—whether they are Republicans or Democrats (socialists). CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW and clarification. Judy Shelton’s support for Boehner with a track record of failure, and also of John Kasich who has turned toward big government and declared that St. Peter will welcome good Republicans in heaven because they have pandered to the poor as a party will not win anything but elections in the future. Republicans are do nothing losers who have been beaten in policy by Democrats over and over again, and are defeated people—politically.

Americans love winners and they will support a winner even if the circumstances around the victor are shady. Of course a clean winner is always best, but look at the apologists for Tom Brady. Nobody wants to believe he or the Patriots cheated their way to so many Superbowl victories because people love a winner—however they win. Nobody wants to wait until they die to have victory—which is the public policy essentially of John Kasich. People want a winner now or sooner, especially Americans. So it should not be a mystery to the political pundits that Trump is doing so well even with all the usual tricks used to knock him off his pedestal. He’s a winner and people are willing to overlook his faults because of it. What Republicans would discover if they stopped listening to loyalists like Judy Shelton from Butler County, Ohio is that new voters, perhaps even some from the other side would vote for Trump as a Republican just because he has a reputation as a winner. New demographics would be created in the wake of such a move, many of them very passionate about their representative, such as the two women above. Nobody is doing videos like that for John Boehner, or John Kasich. Judy Shelton is only able to keep support for those two by twisting people’s arms behind their backs and busing in degenerates with the promise of a free meal during Central Committee meetings. For those who accuse Trump of smoke and mirrors tapped off with dishonest diatribes against the establishment, it is the suspicion that worse is occurring behind the scenes, and they’d be correct. Those 25-30% of Republican voters have not been passionate about the Republican Party for years. They are passionate now, because they sense a winner in Trump, and they want to see victory for a change—not just in elections won, but in action taken day-to-day. Trump represents victory and for a large percentage of the Republican voter base, a sleeping giant is erupting that people like Judy Shelton didn’t even know about. Because those Republicans want victory more than a free meal to buy their vote in Butler County.

Rich Hoffman  CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Competent Carly Fiorina: Meet the woman who shut up Chris Mathews

I liked Carly Fiorina before the Fox News debates, but often thought she was too soft and repetitive on her position against Hillary Clinton. She did predictably well in the debates, which I was impressed with. She’s definitely a woman I could get behind for president. I like her a lot. But I wasn’t sure she was aggressive enough to be president until I saw her handle Chris Mathews after the debate, in an interview where he tried to peg her down with specifics. She not only provided specifics, she actually did it so well that Mathews conceded to her as time ran out. It was a very impressive exchange respectfully done, but most importantly, effectively implemented.

Cara Carleton “Carly” Fiorina (née Sneed; September 6, 1954) is a former business executive, and current Chair of the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360.[2] Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks to become an executive at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent. As chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005, she was the first woman to lead one of the top twenty U.S. companies.[3]

In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer.[4][5] Following HP’s gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off thousands of US employees. However, [6][7] by the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than both companies together had before the merger.[8] As of February 9, 2005 HP stock had lost more than half its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector.[9][10][11] On that date, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman.[12][13]

After HP, Fiorina served on the boards of several organizations and as an adviser to Republican John McCain‘s 2008 presidential campaign. She won a three-person race for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate from California in 2010, but lost the general election to incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.[14]

In 1980, Fiorina joined AT&T as a management trainee and rose to become a senior vice president overseeing the company’s hardware and systems division.[25]

In 1995, Fiorina led corporate operations for the spinoff from AT&T of Lucent, reporting to Lucent chief executive Henry B. Schacht.[26] She played a key role in planning and implementing the 1996 initial public offering of stock and company launch strategy.[27][28] Later in 1996, Fiorina was appointed president of Lucent’s consumer products business, reporting to Rich McGinn, president and chief operating officer.[28] In 1997, she was appointed chair of Lucent’s consumer communications joint venture with Philips, Philips Consumer Communications.[29] It was dissolved a year later after garnering only a 2% market share in mobile phones and losing $500 million on a revenue of $2.5 billion.[30] Also in 1997, she was named group president for the global service provider business at Lucent, overseeing marketing and sales for the company’s largest customer segment.[31]

During her time at AT&T, Lucent, and afterward, Fiorina was regarded by many as being the first woman to head up a Fortune 20 company, and to have overcome the metaphorical “glass ceiling“.[32][33][34]

Hewlett-Packard (HP)

In July 1999, Hewlett-Packard Company named Fiorina chief executive officer, succeeding Lewis Platt and prevailing over the internal candidate Ann Livermore.[35] Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in stock, a $3 million signing bonus, a $1 million annual salary (plus a $1.25–3.75 million annual bonus), $36,000 in mortgage assistance, a relocation allowance, and permission (and encouragement) to use company planes for personal affairs.[36] She became the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company.[3] Fiorina immediately became a highly visible chief executive and remained so throughout her tenure at the company.[37]

Fiorina proceeded to reorganize HP and merge the part she kept with PC maker Compaq.[37] Although the decision to spin off the company’s technical equipment division predated her arrival, one of her first major responsibilities as chief executive was overseeing the separation of the unit into the standalone Agilent Technologies.[38] Fiorina proposed the acquisition of the technology services arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for almost $14 billion, but withdrew the bid after a lackluster reception from Wall Street.[39] Following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the PwC consulting arm was acquired by IBM for less than $4 billion.[40] Fiorina instituted three major changes to HP’s culture shortly after her arrival: a shift from nurturing employees to demanding financial performance, replacing profit sharing with bonuses awarded if the company met financial expectations, and a reduction in operating units from 83 to 4.[36]

In early September 2001, in the wake of the bursting of the Tech Bubble, Fiorina announced the merger with Compaq, a leading competitor in the industry. Fiorina fought for the merger, and it was implemented despite strong opposition from board member Walter Hewlett (the son of company co-founder William Hewlett) and 49% opposition among HP’s shareholders.[41][42] Hewlett launched a proxy fight against Fiorina’s efforts, which failed.[43] The Compaq merger[44] created the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped.[45][46]

Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program.[47][48][49][50] Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while “America is the most innovative country,” it would not remain so if the country were to “run away from the reality of the global economy.”[51] Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation.”[48] While Fiorina argued that the only way to “protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States],” her comments prompted “strong reactions” from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs.[52] In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina’s tenure.[6][53] In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call.[36]

Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors,[36][42] and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian “The HP Way” work culture and guiding philosophy,[36][42][54] which she felt hindered innovation.[36][55] Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed “widespread unhappiness” and distrust,[36][56] and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.[36]

During Fiorina’s time as CEO, HP’s revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies,[57][58] and the rate of patent filings increased.[58] According to reports, however, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP’s net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period;[57] the company’s debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD;[57] and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.[57][59] In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period.[59]

Resignation from Hewlett-Packard

In early January 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board of directors discussed with Fiorina a list of issues that the board had regarding the company’s performance.[60] The board proposed a plan to shift her authority to HP division heads, which Fiorina resisted.[61] A week after the meeting, the confidential plan was leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[62] Less than a month later, the board brought back Tom Perkins and forced Fiorina to resign as chair and chief executive officer of the company.[63] The company’s stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day.[64][65] Many employees celebrated her resignation.[36] Under the company’s agreement with Fiorina, which was characterized as a golden parachute by TIME magazine,[66] and Yahoo!,[67] it was reported she had been paid slightly more than $20 million in severance.[68]

https://www.carlyforpresident.com/

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

I noticed that Donald Trump did not go after her in the way he might otherwise—before the whole Megan Kelly thing erupted. I’d guess that is because he is looking at her as a running mate, which would be the best of both worlds. Trump understands the showbiz side of politics, which shouldn’t be the case, but is a brutal reality of any campaign. The left doesn’t play by the rules, and Republicans continue to lose because they don’t understand the theatrics well enough about how the left beats them. Trump is destroying that political model as we speak—which I am very happy about. Carly is a more traditional manager, and ultimately is more of what we’d all like to expect out of a President in the White House. But I really think she, and all the other candidates as well, need Donald Trump to reset the political field on both sides with his bombastic behavior. The political process needs Donald Trump, but I am very happy to see candidates in the field like Carly Fiorina emerging so strongly. She is a wonderful breath of fresh air.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.