Tag: Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used Bronco Billy to bond with my wife.  We watched it several times a month during our early marriage and she came to understand the words of Merle Haggard very well.  Without Bronco Billy, it might have been too difficult to convey to her what kind of life I intended to live.  She wouldn’t have understood.   But the mood of the entire movie was captured so nicely in that old Merle Haggard song and I have to thank him for it.  It put my life in a positive direction very early.  Without it, I probably would have still found a way, but it might have taken me a decade or two more to figure it all out.  Because of his song, I was able to accelerate the process and apply it much more quickly than if it hadn’t of ever been made.  So I’ll miss Merle Haggard. He made my life better in a lot of ways. He was certainly one of the greats and I’ll always be thankful.  Listen to the words and maybe it will help you too.IMG_0193

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference

I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.”  To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative.  I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.)  Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative.  A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster.  It’s not the fault of women.  But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition.  Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.

I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids.  I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort.  Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.

In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work.  I know this because he’s a friend of mine.  Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition.  He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative.  In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.

I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice.  But I do judge them as lacking conservatism.  There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy.  I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes.  Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing.  It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity.  Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs.  When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built.  That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.

Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement.   They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated.  The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism.  Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.

When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial.  They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement.  But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures.  A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village.  That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty.  This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump.  When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important.  The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism.  Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur.  But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them.  And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.

I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be.  But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren.  The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen.  Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass.   But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.

So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism.  Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.”  I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves.  The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence.  They are mistaken.

Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue.  If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment.  If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes.  But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards.  I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News.  The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow.  These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism.  And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality.  Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives.  But they are not.  Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great.  Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper.  The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming.  Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else.   And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage.  Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism.  All it really is, is embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Why America Loves Melania Trump: When you see a beautiful woman–thank her for the tremendous contributions to a free society

 

In the political left’s insistent pursuit of “equality” there has been one group of people consistently cast out in the debate which needs to stop.  Personally I notice this discrimination all the time and I think it’s disgusting.  The same people who perpetuate this disgusting form of discrimination are the same people who tell us that everyone is equal and that we should make no judgments—that all sexes and their preferences should be given audience to the table of respect. It’s so bad now that we are actually having a debate in some places as to whether a person identifies themselves as a man or a woman in regard to which bathroom they use.  It doesn’t matter if those people are men, or women—all that does is whether or not they “feel” like a man or a woman.  As President Obama went on his South American tour of socialist countries trying to pave the way for an “American Union” which will demand that all countries within it function from the same economic engine—for instance Canada is being run by a socialist recently elected, Cuba is communist, Mexico is socialist, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and most of the smaller countries around them are all various degrees of socialist—the United States has had the burden of financially carrying all these countries from falling over the edge of civilized advancement.  It could be argued that socialist based countries if they did not have the United States helping them would plummet into an archaic based society regressing back to a nomadic culture.  We see it in the present day Middle East, all across Africa, and of course Asia.  Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that this most disrespected group of people within the United States could be responsible greatly for the reaches of capitalism around the world and are therefore tasked with saving many lives just by their very existence.   I am talking about beautiful women of course—it’s time we stop discriminating against them and to treat them with the respect they deserve.

http://www.gq.com/story/about-those-nude-photos-of-melania-trump-from-gq

http://www.infowars.com/obama-theres-little-difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/

I have been thinking about this topic a lot on the back of the obvious degradation toward Melania Trump now that her husband is the obvious front-runner who will battle Hilary Clinton for the White House.  The formula is quite simple really, men like Trump—“A type” personalities who work hard and like to hear the praise of their victories, love beautiful women.  I mean, who doesn’t.  Love aside—because without it a marriage is pretty miserable—but nobody wants to share a bed with someone who looks and feels like a potato.  Women don’t like sleeping with a man who is grossly over-weight and men really don’t enjoy it.  When you are successful and have accomplished more than those around you, it is a good feeling to get out of a car at a big event and have a beautiful woman draped on your arm.  It lets people know that you’ve done something to earn her.  Beautiful women in American culture are the goddesses of capitalism—they encourage the nerdy pimple-faced twenty something who can’t get a date on a college campus to invent something—so that they can share their bed with a beautiful woman.  The sum of such a transaction usually means economic expansion.  When men learn that the way to get “hot chicks” is to become rich—they work very hard to do so.  It is great for capitalism.  It could be said that beautiful women drive the American economic engine that saves the world from itself.  Men work hard to have beautiful women, and women work hard to look like beautiful women—the net result is that America makes money that carries everyone else through taxation.

In socialist countries or repressed cultures such as the one that Melania came from—upward mobility in society isn’t possible with just good looks.  You have to know somebody to become successful because of the nature of their “managed” economies—or you have to sleep with someone and hope that you can become something more than a mistress.  Unfortunately once a woman hits 30 years of age, they are usually thrown to the curb in those types of countries.  Most beautiful women in socialist and communist countries are sacrificed at a very young age and never make it to midlife because they are forced to capitalize on their beauty when they are young just to survive—which is very much the case in Vietnam, India, and China—attractive girls work in the sex trade—get abused and end up in terrible situations by the time they are old enough to be mothers themselves.  It’s really a terrible and vicious cycle.

Melania Trump is someone who I greatly respect.  She left Slovenia on a hope and a prayer to become a fashion model and could have easily have been like any other beautiful woman around the world and fallen into bad hands.  Lucky for her she met Donald Trump who greatly appreciated beauty and capitalism and the two started dated which gave her a bit of a refuge from the predatory fray of using her looks to make a living.  Trump was dating her at the time that he loaned one of his private jets to GQ to have Melania take nude pictures aboard it chained to a briefcase.  Trump honestly wanted to see the pictures as did most men.  When Melania got out of a car with him at social events it let everyone know that he had made it in life—especially when all the men who compete against him have seen his wife nude in GQ.  At the time he didn’t know if he wanted to marry her or not, they were just dating.

  After spending time together they eventually decided to tie the knot and marry because she had become more than a sex kitten for him—she became a partner—and that has been great for everyone.  There are few places in the world where Melania could have risen to the top of the world in such a short period of time but in the United States.  Now as a beautiful woman she is poised to be one of our best spokespeople for capitalism from the White House as a first lady.  Sure she used her looks to land a billionaire to her bed.  Some women trap men into marriage by getting pregnant, or some other form of bondage.  There is nothing wrong with a beautiful woman advancing under a capitalist system and becoming fabulously wealthy and successful using the natural gifts they were born with.

I know quite a lot of people with a great deal of money, and most of them have what is considered a trophy wife.  Most of these guys over the years have been developers to some degree and have to attend a lot of charity social events—just like Donald Trump does.  They spend a lot of their life trying to make buildings appealing to consumers and are often very concerned about appearances—so naturally as they try to build up their brand it helps them to have a beautiful woman on their arm.  Women judge the successful competence of men based on the type of mates they attract, and of course men figure out where they stand in the peaking order of the human race based on similar factors.  When a man sees another man married to a beautiful woman he usually thinks—that guy is more endowed than me–that guy is more successful than me–or that guy is tougher than me.  When you are a powerful person you need to gain that leverage over a rival so that when you have to negotiate with them they are already thinking they are inferior to you—so for the powerful developer—or otherwise successful person enriched under capitalism—having a beautiful woman who you are married to that is twice your age younger says a lot about where you are in life—and it gives you a better seat at the negotiating table.

Looks are just one element to a good marriage, and honestly as you get older and sex becomes much less important, you want a good friend to share a bed with of the opposite sex.  But a lot could be said about the value of beautiful women and their upward mobility within capitalist cultures which drive the economic engine of our entire civilization—and I don’t think we give them enough credit.  Melania is a classy young woman and I think she deserves a lot more respect than she has been getting.  The socialists among us know innately what it would mean to have Melania in the White House, so they are in a panic driven fury to demean her in every way fashionable.  But what has been exposed in the process is the gross hypocrisy of the political left and their discrimination against beautiful women in capitalist societies.  Their attraction to socialism after all is that they don’t want to compete with Melania and other beautiful women for attention. They want an “equal” society where beautiful people are just as abused as not such beautiful people—and that equates to substantial degradation in human achievement—but at least they don’t have to feel bad about themselves.  I think it’s time that we end such thinking and recognize beautiful women for the hidden gifts they bring to all of us.  When you see one, make sure to let them know how much they are appreciated.  They are people too, and we should treat them with the respect they deserve.

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.

Proof of a Global Communist Agenda Exposed: Alex Jones and his March 2016 show in full

They are lucky in a lot of ways that in America, we have the 1st Amendment.  Because the outrage is protecting them from those of us who are fully awake.  We are shooting words in an open marketplace instead of bullets.  It is obvious that many on the political left and establishment right don’t like the rebellion that is currently occurring, because not enough people are complying to sustain their formulaic plans.  But, too bad.  I will never submit to their way of thinking.  It’s just not going to happen.  If given opportunities  to compete in the marketplace of ideas, I’m happy to use that method to fight them with debate.  But if that goes away, I’m happy to do it in other ways—and I can assure everyone, that compliance with the current conditions is not an option.  To understand what I’m talking about, do yourself a favor, listen and watch this Alex Jones broadcast from Friday March, 25th.  While you are working in the garage on this nice spring day, or around the house, listen to this very good report—its three hours long.  I don’t agree with all of it, but it is quite good at detailing the fight we are all facing.  Don’t be asleep, it’s time to get up and go to work.  Join me on the battlefield.

And do a friend a favor and send this to them to help them wake up as well.  If you want the evidence of what Jones is saying, I have written millions and millions of words providing the proof.  Just look up any topic in the search bar on the left and you’ll find the evidence to substantiate what you are hearing.  If you doubt any of this remember that last night, the same day as this Alex Jones broadcast, Bernie Sanders–a socialist–filled up a 15,000 seat baseball stadium in Seattle.  The communists are rising, and the only defense there is against them–are us.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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