Tag: Republicans

Jesus Christ was Wrong: Turning the other cheek is a dumb idea

Jesus Christ was a socialist—they were of course called something else back in the day as religion and politics were less distinctive from each other. But a quick study through history will show that while Jesus was traveling in the wilderness he obviously came across Buddhism and adapted it for his own homeland in a way that conflicted with the powerful orthodox of the Jews who worked closely with the Roman Empire to be regional governors. Jesus used passivity to inspire the poor to rebel against their overlords and the Jews killed him for the threat to their society. Several centuries later the Roman Empire had a desire to turn to the political left so they imposed Christianity onto the regions they controlled and shortly thereafter the their entire society collapsed. The Dark Ages followed which had a Medieval Church that used the blunt hammer of Jesus Christ’s “sacrifice” as a mechanism to keep the living from trying to overtake their church leaders who ruled the lands with a Bible only they could read, as ignorance was the most powerful weapon in those days. People were too stupid and superstitious to think of individual rights until the Age of Reason rescued Europe from its long dark past. It was during the Renaissance that the ideas for America were born culminating in a mad dash for a country overrun with oriental savages from China with the same kind of leftist occult driven superstition as Jesus ran into during his days in the wilderness. The American frontiersman confronted those left leaning heathens on the western frontier and won. But along the way the Christian values they brought with them from Europe became the basic tenants of conservatism which worked well among their own kind. But the many oriental ideas in the teachings of Jesus paralyzed conservatives as they tried to deal with enemies to their value system—after all their leader had been crucified due to his threat to the Roman/Jewish relationship in Jerusalem.

That brief history flashed through my mind as I watched an exasperated Brit Hume on Fox News attempt to put his conservative finger on the problems of our day, as leftists were openly calling for violence against any Trump supporter in the streets of America. Brit’s comments showed us why we had turned away from Jeb Bush, John Kasich, John McCain and Mitch McConnell and started flying our flags behind Trump. It was a mystery to Brit how we could regain a civilized society under the value systems he embodied as a conservative. The Christian conservative is perfectly fine as a value system in the open spaces between the big cities of America. Just visit a Bob Evens at around 8:30 AM anywhere, and you’ll see America at its best. People are good to each other as old men sit at the counter and read the newspaper. Families eat in peace and treat each other respectfully, it’s an idea that has a lot of appeal—until a political leftist tries to steal that value through some kind of protest. At that point the same elements that ended the Roman Empire, destroyed the Churches of Europe and essentially led to every war that mankind had fought with each other throughout history is exposed and the conservatives have no recourse to deal with the intrusion because of their paralysis in the teachings of Jesus Christ. They turn the other cheek to their enemies only to find that cheek slapped too, and not just once, but twice, three times, and more, until the skin is literally falling off their face. The typical leftist is a heathen not that much unlike the Indians that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s mother described in the famous novels written by that author constituting the Little House on the Prairie series.

The big story of the day when Brit Hume was musing about the lack of civility in our modern political world was that Laura Ingalls Wilder was having her name removed from a prestigious literary award due to her comments on Indians, which in her day were always a threat to kill families on the frontier. Modern leftists have attempted to reinvent the past by defining the Indians as the original inhabitants of North America and that the white European settlers that brought with them new philosophies of self-management from the Age of Reason were confronting Chinese settlers who had radically different ideas on the nature of existence, and the two sides fought it out. The new Americans won over the oriental colonists from China. Many of these Chinese colonists came to North America during the Ming Dynasty when their giant ships were trading with countries all over the world, well before the Europeans were even thinking of a journey to North America. The New World at that time was already well-known in the East because they had been traveling there for centuries. And before the Chinese it was the Vikings and Phoenicians. Ancient descendents from all those nationalities were already in North America and had many empires rise and fall well before Laura Ingalls Wilder’s mother said that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” Many of the Indian nations were warring factions that used violence as a test of manhood—they were not docile nature lovers. They were the original leftists in the New World and the modern left has tied themselves to their ancient ancestors and have been trying for quite a long time to use that guilt as leverage over the newly founded country of America.

That is where conservatives find themselves paralyzed because the leader of most right-thinking people is ultimately Jesus Christ who was very ideologically aligned with the typical socialist and Indian warrior on the frontier of America. Maxine Watters isn’t the first radical to call for action through collective assimilation. So when the political left plays Jesus against conservatives by taking advantage of a turned cheek or a desire for peace, the political leftists attack and has been pushing conservatives further and further back for as long as humans have interacted with each other and we’re at a point where the running has to stop.

I would say to Brit Hume and to the estate of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and to Trump supporters in general that peace is not possible with the leftists. Just as treaties were not possible with the Indians because they were of a different mindset that was not conducive to the American idea. Or the Renaissance artist who was drawing naked bodies on buildings after hundreds of years of stagnant thinking coming out of the Dark Ages—the two sides of thinking are not compatible. Values cannot stand up to constant attack if the person with values always surrenders to the aggressions of the heathens. The Chinese were heathens during the Ming Dynasty because they were a collective based society seeking to impose themselves on the entire world. The Indians were heathens because they were another mixed batch of collective based cultures seeking to put superstition over the minds of reason, no different from the cults of churches in the Dark Ages were inclined to follow some priest who could magically read words on a page and decipher meaning from them. Or the Romans and Jews who were collectively based cultures who wanted to execute an individual preaching a collective eastern based religion that didn’t even need a church to guide them—a hippie from the wilderness known as Jesus who taught us all to turn the other cheek even as he was crucified on a cross with his blood dripping out upon the ground. The Roman Empire in its last days turned left and told us all that we should follow the teachings of the oriental Christ and sacrifice ourselves to the living so that we could live eternally in the afterlife. But in so doing they implied that we sanction evil in the here and now putting peace on earth above the morality of the good—and that is something that we as conservatives need to stop doing. We cannot surrender the world to evil with an eye to the everlasting. Because as many wise people have said over many centuries, what we do in life, does reflect us in death, and yielding to evil in life or death is not permissible. Jesus was wrong.

It’s one thing to be good to your fellow neighbors and to preach peace to people who have shared values at church, in our neighborhoods, and even at Bob Evens on a morning breakfast at 8:30 AM. But when the leftist as they are known to do, whether it’s the barbarian hordes that sacked Rome to officially end the Empire, or the Indians who were Chinese conquerors from the Ming Dynasty, and probably earlier, the Vikings or the latest clan of Maxine Waters supporters, they intend always to attack those of us who have individual values so war is always their first option. And when faced with such an option it is not enough to sacrifice ourselves to the crosses they wish to nail us to, which has been the path of most mainstream conservatives for many years—the world of Brit Hume. When faced with such a menace we must fight, and that goes beyond what our religions instruct us to do—unless you seek the deeper meaning of the plight of the Christian Soldiers, marching as to war. Not all of Christianity is a turn the other cheek religion. But for the parts that are, do not listen to those instructions, because they were created from the very beginning by liberals of countless names throughout history, and their intention was always to leave conservatives with no other option but to be conquered. And its time to change that history for a change toward the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Elephant in the Room: Democrats kill people with guns, not Republicans or NRA members

According to Ayn Rand’s definition in her books, which is as good as anyplace to sink roots into a definition, politics is the study of the principles governing the proper organization of society, it is based on ethics, the study of the proper values to guide man’s choices and actions. Politics and ethics have been fundamental branches of philosophy from the beginning. Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. With that being said liberals and conservatives really can’t get along, because their fundamental approaches to even the most basic attributes of life are different. In such a case, one philosophy will have to dominate the other—they cannot coexist.

This is a new thought for me, I have tried for many years to be open-minded to other people’s thoughts, but when it comes down to the rubber hitting the road, liberals have no desire to coexist with conservatives. They only want to convert them into aspects of the liberal. They are very militant even for supposedly representing the more pacifist nature of the human species. They only desire peace so long as you think the way they do, which is to essentially not think at all. They require you to not think in order to get along with them, to not have opinions, to not judge, to assume that history is one month old and that interpretations of anything are subject to being redefined based on the sentiment of the day.

Considering things that way it should come as no surprise that liberals in the form of Democrats are the gun grabbers of society—while they have always been the perpetrators of violence. If we consider history, such as in the case of mass shooters and murderers it will become very obvious that they are largely always Democrats—more specifically liberals. Below is a list of major shootings over a long period of time that was sent to me by a reader of these pages. It doesn’t take much to see the pattern that has emerged and persists to this day. After reading it consider how absurd it is to even allow such people to lecture our society on the nature of how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted. And even more so, how these idiots expect us to live in a gun-less society and share resources with them.

In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881, a left-wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

In 1963, a radical left-wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975, a left-wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonald’s restaurant.

In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in a Oklahoma post office.

In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, TX.

In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001, a left-wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats with guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or conservative Republican was involved in any of these shootings and murders. Guns don’t kill people; Democrats do. The same basic logic could be applied to the mass shootings since 2013, especially the Vegas shooter who was a millionaire gambler—and a Democrat. Many of the ISIS inspired killers are also politically speaking, associated with left leaning philosophy. Radical Islam for instance has very little in common with conservative philosophy. It is not enough to suggest that people of all kinds can get into a room and get along, because their essential political philosophies are not conducive to one another. And it is not even appropriate to assume that such people should not talk about their foundational beliefs out of respect for those who don’t feel the way they do about things. People who have radically different political beliefs cannot function in the world together.

Democrats are not shy about their desire to use force to impose their will on others. They are, historically speaking, very intolerant of other people’s beliefs. You don’t see people from the NRA running around killing people. It just isn’t in their political makeup to behave in such a way. They certainly aren’t on the list shown above. Yet Democrats are the ones who have resorted to violence when things have not gone the way they’ve desired. In extreme cases they’ve grabbed guns and tried to kill people, such as the Democrat that attacked Republican baseball players in 2017 by trying to kill them while in the field of play. But you don’t see Republicans doing such a thing because their fundamental philosophy about life keeps them from even thinking about it. Most people I know, myself included, who happen to be very conservative don’t even talk about shooting people, because that goes against the nature of life. The gun is to protect life in the mind of a Republican. To a Democrat the gun is there to take life. The Republican tends to be for the life of a fetus, to the Democrat they are for abortion—the killing of a human if it inconveniences the life of a woman. The differences are epistemological in nature. Politics isn’t a dirty word, it’s an essential element to understanding what kind of person we are dealing with, and to that effect how they view the basics of life.

Literally the elephant in the room is that conservatives stand for life and act in accordance with life in most everything they do. It is not in their nature to become mass shooters, or to even impose themselves on another life because they respect life—all life. Liberals in the form of Democrats however are all about imposing themselves in a group think way on anybody and everyone. If Republicans do not have guns and a way to protect their lives, it will be Democrats who will raid homes in the middle of the night trying to steal what is valued there. It will be Democrats who will say to everyone who they can, “join us or die.” To those who assume that Nazi types and racists like the KKK members of the American south are some brand of conservative, that would be wrong as well. It was always Democrats who formed the KKK and all racist organizations because like all liberals—Nazis included, they don’t value individual life. Only the collective efforts of the mob that rules by force against the defenseless. And it is those people who are screaming for a gun free society. That is pretty funny when you consider the absurdity of it. Because it will be Democrats who will steal a gun breaking the law many times over and use it as a sacrifice of themselves for some liberal cause. And that kind of thing will continue to happen as long as liberals are allowed to coexist with the life loving conservatives of American sentiment. There will never be peace between the two political philosophies because the two just aren’t conducive to one another. Only one side will survive, because that is the nature of philosophy. A truth and a lie cannot live in harmony. Death and life are not after the same goals. And that is the cold hard truth of this matter that is before us presently.

Rich Hoffman

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

Hillary For Prison: Communists outside of the RNC and the media who support them

For the recorded the communists in the following video calling Alex Jones and his entourage “nazi scum” need a history lesson.  Hitler and his Nazis were socialist offshoots of a secret society called Vril based on the book The Coming Race.  Nothing about the Nazi has any relevance to American life other than the fact that many of those Vril inspired Nazis were recruited into NASA’s space program because of what they were working on under the SS during World War II.  Yet, Jones was correct in what he was asserting and a clash erupted between his group and the communist supporters protesting outside of the Republican National Convention.  What you are about to see is what’s happening outside the mainstream news outlet coverage and defines quite well the massive void that currently takes place along political lines.  The obvious determination that is so evident in this exchange is that communist insurgents really can’t assimilate into American culture.  We can’t all live together in one country under the umbrella of two parties.  It’s just not possible.

It is unlikely that the main press outlets will show all the chants inside and outside the convention for Hillary Clinton to go to prison.  This is certainly a first for any presidential candidate to evoke so much passion before they have ever taken an oath of official office.  It is truly astonishing how determined the mainstream press is at avoiding the coverage of such legal demands for someone who is obviously a known criminal running for the highest office in the world.  Currently there are just enough communist sympathizers to give someone like Hillary Clinton a platform that is fundamentally anti-American—but it is truly bothersome to see that many of those sympathizers are in our national media.  Those media personalities are just as ignorant, and activist minded toward communist sympathies as the losers in the video attacking Alex Jones.

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 Black Flag of Assassin’s Creed: Why modern politics can be seen in naval ship battles

As I mentioned yesterday, Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed video game franchise is releasing a pirate version of their popular series to be launched prior to Halloween 2013 and it looks fantastic.  So I’m going to take a break from the usual serious matters dealt with at this site and expand a bit more about what I started to discuss regarding Assassin’s Creed as an instructive platform from which all people can learn history, by allowing players get to walk in the shoes of characters as history was made.  Shortly after I wrote the article previously mentioned, I managed to obtain my own ship while playing Assassin’s Creed III which takes place during the American Revolution and engage in the fantastic naval battles which is the new feature developed by Ubisoft.  The ship battle feature in the game is hands down one of the coolest uses of video game technology I have ever seen and it appears to be expanded upon dramatically in their upcoming pirate release, so it deserves mention and a metaphorical analysis in relation to real life.  The ship to ship battles in Assassin’s Creed III are simply breathtaking and deserve comment for the bench mark in history that they represent.  Justifiably so, I am very much looking forward to the release of Assassin’s Creed 4, The Black Flag coming this fall.  I will be one of the first to get it!  There are few places that you can live history from your living rooms and engage in the exhilaration that model ship builders have for years tried to capture when imagining grand galleons perched in combat with cannons firing on the choppy waters of a stormy sea.  But that is exactly what these recent Assassin Creed releases are offering for the first time anywhere and the results are simply stunning.   I’ve never seen anything like what I was able to play in Assassin’s Creed III with the ship to ship combat that alone makes the worth of the game more than justified for gamers who enjoy history.

Hanging in my home I have a painting of two ships firing canons at each other on Lake Erie during the War of 1812.  I have found that the old sea battles from the romantic era of naval combat reflects modern politics in many ways.  Like politics, wind speed is important as well as the direction from which it comes.  Politicians often allow themselves to blow where the winds of public opinion take them, so the metaphor is a proper one.  The old mast driven battleships were very much victims of circumstance, so maneuvering in position at a speed of 8 to 12 knots in order to fire upon an enemy was difficult.  Even then gaining a tactical advantage over an opponent meant that one ship would have to outlast another in broadside combat at close range, because that is often what it came to.  One ship would have to absorb the damage of another and hope that their ship wouldn’t sink to the oceans depths before their enemy.  I see in modern politics that Republicans have constantly been outmaneuvered by the pirate tactics of the Democrats who attack not just with one spectacular galleon, but many small ones.  Republicans often utilize such magnificent ships by displaying lots of guns and massive sails in a fashion that was typical of the British during their imperial rule.  The Democrats use smaller, faster vessels that can overtake larger ships with mass and dirty tricks to take down their superior foes—and such a metaphor describes modern politics clearly.

Many of the tactics seen in modern politics were long ago used on the high sea battles of early naval combat, before engines and modern firepower allowed technology to trump bravery.  In the picture I referred to of the 1812 conflict, I often think of the do or die nature of the ship crews who knew if they lost the fight, there would be no quarter given, no rescue from the enemy–there would be only death as their ship sank becoming their collective tombs.  So it is in this spirit that I love naval conflict from the period of world history where such things occurred, which is so wonderfully rendered in the Assassin games.

Personally I love the violent combat that is required in Assassin’s Creed III to even get to the naval battles.  Many game players over 35 years old might find themselves turned off at having to assassinate so many Redcoats to play through the story mode.  Some of my Tea Party friends who are history buffs and are inclined to spend their spare time building model trains and ships in bottles would love the naval combat graphics engine in the game, but they would find the brutality required to play the main character difficult to get their minds around.  That is the only weakness of the Assassin games.  The cost of the game is worth buying just for the ship battles, but that option should be available right out of the box to the advantage of the history buff—not the seasoned video gamer who loves the violent game play—like I do.

But that aside, it was bewildering to engage in combat with several schooner style ships in the choppy seas off the coast of North Carolina where the waves were 10 to 15 feet high and pitching my ship to and fro in a very violent manner.  I found that I had to time the cannon fire to these rough waters so that the cannons would reach their targets and not nose dive into the water short of their mark.  I have never seen such realism in a combat simulation of any kind, and it is just incredible to look at, let alone play.

The Assassin games are bringing history to life in a way I never thought was possible.  Needless to say, I am incredibly impressed.  As I write this the Horseshoe Casino has just opened in downtown Cincinnati and many adults my age converged upon its opening to spend $10 dollars per game on bets they are likely to never see a positive result.  The gaming that goes on in places like Vegas and casinos like The Horseshoe are consuming exercises that do little to give the players any kind of rewarding experience except for the occasional jackpot.  For my money, I would rather spend my gaming time on a $60 investment into a game like Assassin’s Creed III so at least the time spent playing can put the player into the seat of history and see and feel what it was like to stand on the docks of Boston in 1773 climbing aboard a ship to sail into the open sea blasting canons into the hull of an enemy in a rip-roaring wind attempting to turn ships over as sea water washes over the decks in a bubbling froth.  The ship battles are a heck of a lot more exciting than a casino slot machine that simply is designed to eat money from hopeful treasure hunters dressed to kill, but often losing the shirt right off their backs.  Games like Assassin’s Creed give back where a casino gaming experience can’t.

In such war simulations I tend to be a rammer when it comes to naval combat.  With all things being equal, the way to gain an advantage over an enemy is to be bolder in combat efforts so ramming into an opposing ship to cause them to hesitate before firing yields great results.  I do the same type of thing in actual politics.  Rather than dance around in never-ending stalemates, I tend to think like a pirate in being overly aggressive in achieving a victory.  (SEE THE LAKOTA LEVY FOR A SAMPLE)  I don’t have a lot of patience when it comes to politicians who insist on dancing with the enemy as less aggressive ship captains discover happens often in confrontations if they over-think their scenarios.  Playing games like Assassin’s Creed III can reveal these tendencies in a simulation before millions of wasted dollars go into political campaigns that only end up dancing around the enemy on the seas of life, (LIKE THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN).  The people reading this who will insist that their strategy was formed from years of experience and that such a simplified answer to age-long questions cannot be found in a video game—they are the same people who have lost many campaigns and are not qualified to provide an opinion.  Players of such a game not only learn a lot about history, but they also learn a lot about themselves.

Regardless of the level of enjoyment, the Assassin Creed video games are unsurpassed in their naval war simulations.  I could play them endlessly, and I scratch my head at those who are my age and older who scamper off to a casino to throw their money away when there are games like Assassin’s Creed III that are much more beneficial to the human mind, and an understanding of the history of our species.  But just for the sheer enjoyment of blowing up a gigantic galleon after a long fought battle, Ubisoft has achieved a level of detail that has never before been achieved in a game or war simulation of any kind any where.  I simply shudder to consider how cool the new game Black Flag will be.  I think I will be taking another vacation come fall of 2013, similar to the one I took to play The Old Republic.  Because if Assassin’s Creed 4 has better ship combat than Assassin’s Creed III, then I may never leave my house again………….because they are a lot of fun, and filled with rich history that will make a modern novel envious.

How much does my family like pirates?  Well, here is my oldest daughter’s birthday where her husband turned their townhome into a pirate haven.  You be the judge.  Needless to say, when Black Flag comes out, there will be a party at my house!

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com