Tag: Rich Hoffman

Trump on Meet the Press: Beating “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and the conspiracies of doom

I write sometimes about the occult, comparative religion, and the hidden history of the human race.  There are a lot of people out there who believe a lot of strange stuff, and if you peel back the layers of just about any organization—fraternity, secret society, or even political party you will find some reference to a group of people called “The Brotherhood of the Snake.” Because of that “Brotherhood” I have no faith that any presidential candidate no matter how well-intentioned would be able to break the cycle of that “Brotherhood” which believes in various forms of human sacrifice for divine sanctity.  Any president who expects to have success in a culture essentially run by “The Brotherhood of the Snake” would need to be completely independent of it. Donald Trump appears to be and the evidence of just how independent he is can be seen in the wonderful interview done on Meet the Press conducted on Sunday August 16, 2015.  Trump is a free man built by capitalism and he loves himself in a way that the American way of life intended to construct.  He is an Ayn Rand man—a unique creation built exclusively by the philosophy of America shaped by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith.  That makes him a uniquely independent human being and wonderfully free person economically and spiritually.  Put Trump in the White House and things will happen on Capitol Hill.  Without Trump, the cult of sacrifice will continue while K-Street lobbyists, prostitutes, and scum bags of all shapes and sizes will continue to ruin the management of the United States.  That is why I am so excited about Donald Trump.  We are on a philosophic precipice and I want Trump and his guys in charge so that they can rip America away from “The Brotherhood of the Snake.”  Here is the Meet the Press interview”

As to “The Brotherhood of the Snake,” believe me dear reader—you have heard of it.  If you are a Catholic, you are in the “Brotherhood” through evolution and you participate in its rituals each time you take communion simulating the blood of Christ.  If you are a “greenie weenie” tree hugging hippie, you are part of the “Brotherhood” because you are willing to sacrifice aspects of the human race for the preservation of “earth.”  If you believe as labor unions do that something must be sacrificed so that all people can be equal with a “living wage,” you are part of a belief system created by the “Brotherhood” many years ago that formed such thoughts from its infancy.  Here is how “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and its history evolved over time from a site linked below.  If you have doubts about any of this CLICK HERE to allow me to substantiate these claims further and provide a correct education into a world largely hidden from us all in our busy daily lives.

The Secret Societies have been present in the history of man for a very long time. It all started thousands of years ago with the “Brotherhood of the Snake”, a secret society set up by an alien named Ea or Enki. This story is very carefully told in the Sumerian scriptures, which go back at least 6000 years. There it says man was created by draconian aliens, who came to this planet to exploit its resources – especially gold. But the work was heavy, so the alien race wanted someone else to do the hard work. Thus Ea, who was a brilliant scientist, created Homo sapiens as a hybrid between a primitive earth life-form and the alien race. 

First Homo sapiens was only meant for slave labor and couldn’t breed. Later on this was changed. Ea didn’t like, though, how his created race was treated and wanted to enlighten them by telling them who they were and where they came from. He also wanted to tell them the well hidden truth that each individual is a spirit inhabiting a body and that after body death the spirit lives on and reincarnates on Earth. 

Ea’s superiors didn’t agree to this, as they were afraid of chaos and turmoil, but Ea told them anyway. The early Homo sapiens revolted against their Masters, but were forced to retire. Ea then started this secret society, the Brotherhood of the Snake, to enlighten people in secret. But he was discovered and judged by the alien laws, which meant that Ea was deported to Earth for eternity – to die here and be reborn here in endless cycles, using fragile, short living human bodies. If this is right, he might still be here … 

In the meantime, as time passed by, the “Brotherhood of the Snake” was infiltrated by the Draconian Master aliens and the knowledge was distorted to trap man instead of enlighten him. The Egyptian Era was in fact real “space opera”, with aliens walking around among us, even taking the throne as pharaohs on mostly. By that time the Brotherhood was very infiltrated and its purpose to manipulate the masses, making them believe in false gods and masters. 

In the background through all history there are the secret societies. The original Brotherhood soon split up in cults, when certain people on top were in disagreement with each other and different powers of control developed, with them even fighting each other (which still is the case today) totally above an ignorant population.

They invented the different religions and sects and cults so man would be busy doing something else instead of looking into what the Brotherhood was doing. It was also a way to control people by not telling the truth about God and Jesus, so that people would miss the point and never be able to be set free. Religion has always been connected with guilt and punishment, which is NOT the way it is supposed to be. They put themselves in charge of the churches to entrap people and to spread conflicts between different belief systems. Most wars throughout history have been religious wars.

Out of the original Brotherhood came Freemasonry, the Rosicrucians, The Knight Templars, Ordo Templi Orientis, Knights of Malta and more. They all knew, on the highest grades, the truth about the origin of man and that we all are spiritual beings and thus immortal. They know God is the REAL and only source, but they distorted that power as we let them deceive us and used the power of God that we have inside of us for their evil purposes. This knowledge is a very well kept secret and they have done everything in their power to hide the truth from people, and one must say they succeeded quite well. People who for some reason or another have stumbled upon the road to truth has either been ridiculed, slandered or even killed. 

Now you might say that the Freemasons, for example, is a charity organization and even Christian to its belief. Yes, that’s what we’re told and that is what most members of the secret society believe. Most people involved are good people, who are ignorant of what’s going on upon the highest grades. Because up there is Satanism and worship of the dark forces. They don’t serve God, they serve Satanor Lucifer and that is the key to what is happening in the world of today. 

Adam Weishaupt (1748-1811) basically a Jew, converted to become a Catholic Priest and ended up starting a “new” secret society called the Illuminati. Actually it was not new at the time; it’s been there long before then, but during Weishaupt’s lifetime this organization was revealed publicly. It’s unclear if he was the master-mind behind it, but most researchers, including me, are more or less certain that Weishaupt was just a puppet for the Elite of the Freemasons. 

The Freemasons had recently started a new branch of Freemasonry – Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite with its 33 degrees of initiation. It’s still today one of the most powerful secret societies, including members within high politics, religious leaders, businessmen and other “useful” persons. Things point in the direction that Weishaupt was sponsored by the Rothschilds, who then were (and are) the heads of Freemasonry. 

The Illuminati had its own grades ABOVE (or rather beside) the 33 degrees of Freemasonry. Even persons who were initiated to the higher degrees of Freemasonry had no knowledge of the Illuminati grades – it was that secret. Up there Weishaupt planned the take-over of the planet, and he made up distinct targets for a One World Government and a New World Order. All this was written down in something called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“, with an evil purpose to put the blame on the Jews(!) if something would leak. 

And it did leak! A courier for the Illuminati was struck by lightning when he rode over a field and the Protocols were found, where the takeover was carefully written down. This was in The 1770’s.Weishaupt and his Illuminati “Brothers” had to flee and work underground, as their organization was banned. It was decided that the name Illuminati should never be used officially again, but front groupsshould be used to fulfill the purpose of world domination, with the rest of the population made into slaves. One of the front groups were the Freemasons, who had a better reputation … 

It is believed that Weishaupt was killed by his Freemason Brothers, as he was unable to keep his mouth and still continued to use the name Illuminati. There could also have been other reasons. 

The secret goal, however, survived Weishaupt and the Rothschilds were now heads of the Illuminati (and still are today, together with David Rockefeller). A good help to reach the goal came from the Freemason Cecil Rhodes, who in the 19th Century tried to build a One World Government with the British Empire on the top. This was of course sponsored by the Rothschilds and it was also Rhodes who created the Round Table, a secret society in itself, named after King Arthur’s Round Table, where the Brotherhood Elite are gathering up to this day. 

World War I and II were both attempts to take over. After the Second World War people were so tired of all this killing that they welcomed the United Nations, when it was founded. The official policy of theUN was to safeguard the peace, so nothing like WW II would ever happen again. But indeed the UN was another important front organization for the Illuminati, to unite the countries of the world into one. This led to the EU project, which anyone, with his eyes open, can see goes right into the direction of the biggest fascist state known to man, where each country gets less and less power and sovereignty. 

By galloping inflation the International Bankers (read the Illuminati) have succeeded in making us believe that the only solution is a One Currency – the EMU. When that project is safeguarded, the Central European Bank (Illuminati) has all the power over the economy in Europe and can lead us in whatever direction they want. Some politicians are just stupid and ignorant, others are aware of facts and work for and with the Illuminati. The innocent people, being deceived, are the ones who will suffer the most. This is a betrayal beyond comprehension. 

The EU then will expand into the United Nations of Africa, Asia and South America and the end phenomenon will be that all those United States will be united into one big fascist state, which will last in a thousand years, regarding to their occult belief. It’s the Golden Age – the Age of AntiChrist. 

The secret societies and the Illuminati believe in the power of symbols. The world is full of their magical and black magic symbols. The problem is, we are so used to seeing them all over the place, that we don’t even think about it. The Illuminati believe that the more symbols around, the more magical power to them. The insignia of the Illuminati and the New World Order is the “Pyramid with the All-Seeing- Eye”, which you can study on the back of the US One Dollar Bill(!)

A few years ago this symbol was also on a series of stamps coming from the Vatican(!) The All-Seeing-Eye is the Eye of Horus, which is the Eye of Lucifer, and goes back to the Egyptian era. Other common symbols are the pentagram (five-pointed star), the hexagram (six-pointed star – The Star of David), the Swastika reversed (the way Hitler used it) and the pyramid in general. 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_brotherhoodsnake05.htm

Trump is the closest man to a successful self-made man that we have in America, and his presidency will set a new standard that counters centuries of this “Brotherhood of the Snake” mentality that currently has handcuffed our political system to bizarre religious belief from multiple denominations all centering on a premise of sacrifice. Trump is a self-made creator and that is a basic, primal reason for my emphatic support.   He handled the Meet the Press interview incredibly well as he shattered many of the questions which have been formed around a basic premise of political orthodox shaped by ritualistic belief passed down to people through quantum entanglement to adhere to “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and their nutty beliefs.  It’s time for America and its people to grow up and away from this ancient notion of sacrifice, and a Trump presidency is a first big step in that direction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Lynnette and Rochelle for Donald Trump: Why the 80s were so great

I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.

http://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-turns-black-women-into-republicans/

I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.

Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.

In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.

But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.

If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.

There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.

The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hewlett-Packard (HP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resignation from Hewlett-Packard

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

https://www.carlyforpresident.com/

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

No Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat: The Debbie Wasserman Schultz silent admission

Let’s see, how many times do I have to say, “I told you.”  I’m really not one of those guys—the I told you so types.  But I did.  I did, I did, I did say it many times in many hundreds of thousands of written words and radio broadcasts.  Years ago when I looked at the public education system in my home district of Lakota and identified correctly the cause of the continued tax increases and ineffectiveness of the education institution to teach young children to grow up to be good Republicans, I stated rather emphatically that it was socialism that was being taught in those education institutions.  Of course there was backlash, a lot of it.  But that didn’t make me wrong.  It was just inconvenient knowledge that nobody wanted to think about.  Time has proven me absolutely right, which has been revealed by the Bernie Sanders campaign for president in 2016.  Finally!  My friend Matt Clark talked about the issue on his Saturday radio show recently (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN) and it was a topic of countless deliberation on the news networks, which was quickly drowned out by the Fox News debate, but when pressed, Debbie Wasserman Scultz couldn’t tell Chris Mathews what the difference was between a Democrat and a socialist.  The reason she couldn’t was that there isn’t a difference.  It’s simply a name change.

To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property.  In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions.  They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases.  The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy.  They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.

But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that.  To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations.  Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.

Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept.  Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive.  Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative.  Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds.  They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control.  If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them.   That is because they are functionally socialists.

Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks.  All those developments are in competition with one another for validity.  For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road.  Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc.  The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area.  Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer.  But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city.  That is the beauty of free market capitalism.  The same mentality should be applied to education.  There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others.  Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars.   But that’s not the system we have.  Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars.  The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games.   There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe.  If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.

Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth.  They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit.  They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power.  That is socialism.  That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was.  She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.

The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense.  When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior.  It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party.  But the terminology is historically accurate.  Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school.  Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior.  That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference.  Because there isn’t one.  When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism.  The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes.  It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with.  Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it.  They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own.  I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble.  I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.”  Because they didn’t listen when they should have.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The “Vagenda” of Megan Kelly Against Donald Trump: Why progressive women are sometimes fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals

Rupert Murdoch may have been pandering to his Fox News journalists by saying that his friend Donald Trump needs to learn that running for president of the United States is “public life,” but he’d be wrong.  For some reason everyone believed that they were going to put a guy like Trump on center stage with 24 million people watching on television and that they were going to pin him down with some hit pieces pandering to the mythical “war on women,” and that they’d get away with it.  Sure Donald Trump had called some women in the past “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” but he does the same to men.  Women don’t have special rules of behavior if they truly want to be “equal.”  When Megan Kelly brought up something Donald Trump had said on his television show, The Apprentice about a woman looking good on her knees, she was the one who stepped in it on live television.  Trump did what he was supposed to, he didn’t back down—instead he went on the attack like he said he would leaving many including Red State editor Erick Erickson baffled.  Shortly thereafter Erickson disinvited Trump to a weekend event because of the feud that had widened between Trump and Kelly.  Trump of course responded to the Erickson actions by calling him a “weak and pathetic leader.”  I’ve been telling Republicans for a long time that if they want to beat the progressive left, and the right, you have to hit back when attacked.  And if they hit you with a blunt stick, you need to come back at them with something much harsher.  In a war of words, that is certainly the case.  Megan Kelly clearly had a “vagenda” against Trump from before the debate, and she got it thrown back in her face—which she obviously didn’t expect.  In an equal world, females don’t get to dish out attacks then hide behind their femininity for protection.  Progressives have advanced their position for too long using this tactic and it’s about time that someone calls them out on it.  And Trump did much to my satisfaction.

As everyone who reads here knows, I am well aware of this “vagenda” where progressive types attempt to disarm men from their opinions using the weapons of femininity to attack while expecting no return fire of aggression—because they are women.  I am proud to say that I have maintained a position over the years consistent to the one Donald Trump is exhibiting now on a national stage and I have been trying to get other Republicans to listen for quite some time.  But they are afraid of that “vagenda,” so they always have backed down.   I know how Trump feels when people who should have courage back out of events because of comments he made in response to Megan Kelly after the debate by saying “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes.  Blood coming out of her whatever,” which immediately provoked Erickson at Red State to cancel the Trump appearance.  Well, Trump created an event of his own in response—which was the correct behavior.  But the “vagenda” strategies are the last resort of progressives who use their sex to disarm men into maintaining a status quo.  I have said plenty of things on my own under similar circumstances.  Here are just a few examples which were well documented in the Cincinnati media market.  I said of school levy supporters:

“Their husbands roll them over at night and insert their manhood into these women of the bedroom and hundred-dollar bills find their way into their purses. The women don’t know what the man does to earn the money, nor do they care. They are busy saving the world one child at a time with howls of safety and more regulations as they rush to the polling places at election time.”  Remember that, and also this, “crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they plot against me with an anger only estrogen can produce.  The progressive mode of attack they use to protect their positions which cannot withstand scrutiny is to attack people like Rush Limbaugh whenever he says something they believe they can use against him in an emotional argument. Conservatives typically are terrible at playing this game with progressives because they tend to operate on a belief system rooted in the truth. So they can easily be attacked because if they cross the line, they feel bad about it, and that guilt is used against them to change their behavior in the future.”

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-3137-lakota_anti_tax_spokesman_booted_for_derogatory_re.html

I’ve been there and am proud of Trump for sticking to his guns.  It’s about time someone does what he’s doing.  Women are not a collective group.  Progressive women are seeking to “change” America into something I don’t want, and they aren’t going to get away with it without being called out.  For my comments the usual tactic was used of distance, isolation and a media attempt to paint me as a “fringe” guy.  The hardest part for me was when some of my associates pulled away from me while I was on the air of a large radio station defending their position for them.  I managed to do well on the radio show, and thereafter.  But I have a policy that if people behave like a vagina, then they invite upon themselves for what happens to those sexual utilities during mating practices—and that’s what happened to them in the wake.  For me, my numbers went up on the blog, I sold more books, and I even had people stopping me at gas stations volunteering to pay for tanks of fuel out of thanks.  I get asked at least once a week to run for some elected office—which I don’t do, because I’m too busy, too young in my opinion, and I have no desire to be a public servant—owned by the “public.”   In all honesty, I’m rooting for Trump more now than ever because I’m hoping he will change the definition for what is expected out of a public servant.  I’d love to see more people like him entering public office who wouldn’t be demeaned by the expectation of being a public utility to a bunch of careless people who just want a punching bag for their own slanted lives.   Trump as president could do a lot of good.  With his attitude who is going to beat him in a negotiation over arms, prisoners, economic policy or global pride?  And after years of America suffering under the “vagenda” of feminists, that’s exactly the kind of president we need to straighten out the mess of decades of policy that soft bellied politicians have given us.

It’s OK to say you hate “vagenda” driven feminists.  Some of them are disgusting people, some are fat pigs, and are disgusting animals.  We are not obligated as men to pander to those idiots just because they offer the gateways to sex.  When it came down to it, the men who pulled away from me during my escapade did it under pressure from their wives and community friends who played right along with the “vagenda” of the feminist movement.  I tried to tell those men that women—normal women—don’t like the “vagenda,” but that they have been taught that they have to support it with a collective unification. Men over time have been taught to fear those who possess vaginas because the “vagenda” behind their actions are not defensible.  Men fear that they won’t get sex unless they play along.  Wrong.  I have said it time and time and time again, women love 50 Shades of Grey because they don’t want to live the “vagenda” in their bedrooms.  Sure they might utter such nonsense socially, but with the door closed, there are reasons they throw their panties at rock stars and tuck themselves under their sheets reading the latest E. L. James novel.  That is the secret; most women hate the “vagenda” as much as men do, they are just afraid to say so publicly because society has shouted them down when they showed the inclination.  They don’t like the “vagenda” of Megan Kelly, not to the core of their essence.

The result of the war with Megan Kelly and Donald Trump is that the billionaire investor running for president will increase in popularity. The Fox News stunt to diminish Trump backfired in a dramatic way and Trump’s popularity will increase among women.  Just like the immigration issue in America will be solved once Republicans learn that by supporting capitalism you give immigrants what they came to America for in the first place, respect for themselves with a good job, and money to care for their families—women don’t like the “vagenda” of progressivism.  When it comes to supporting Trump, they may not announce it at the dinner table to their families—because they feel guilty, but they will throw their panties at Donald Trump at campaign events just because the man has so much confidence.  Women—normal women—not “vagenda” driven despots, love confidence and they will throw their support behind a candidate who exhibits that behavior with the same recklessness that they will throw themselves at Gene Simmons from the rock band KISS even knowing that he’s a disgusting old man who has slept with over 4,600 women.  I understand it, and have experienced it firsthand.  Trump understands it too.  And because he’s running for president on a big international stage that is watching his every move—soon the world will learn that hard lesson which they have avoided for such a long time—that people are sick of the “vagenda.”  Megan Kelly came out as a villain in the debate because of her commitment to the “vagenda.”  And Donald Trump was launched into the orbit of a rock star, and that was not the intention of Fox News.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Unconquered Donald Trump: Results from the first GOP presidential debate of 2016

I think Donald Trump had a bit of a “crap this is real” moment leading up to the first Republican debate for the presidential race of 2016 on Fox News, but he quickly recovered—as I expected him to. It started civil, but quickly escalated into what we expected from Trump, aggression, boldness, and a very short fuse in regards to incompetence. And that’s why he’s ahead in the polls, and why he continues to dominate. People are sick of the other types of politicians who were on the stage with Trump. We’ve seen them before and they don’t have what it takes to fix what’s broken in Washington. At its heart, what is broken in the Beltway are politicians and their propensity toward greed. Only a person of great wealth can resist the temptations of K-Street and as well-intentioned as some of the presidential candidates were during the debate, I think their time is in 2024, not 2016. If I were interviewing all of them for a job, I would give the presidency to Donald Trump overwhelmingly over the other candidates for two simple reasons, he’s used to getting things done on his own and he can resist the temptation of power—because he already has it.

It was stunning really to see how the progressive left covered the debate leading up to the event. The new strategy from the left now that Trump is a serious candidate is to call his supporters dumb. One reference I read from someone at NBC on Twitter was that Trump’s supporters tended to only have a high school education or less—which is supposed to be a considerable insult. Many of those same types said the same things about Reagan, so Trump is in good company. But I found the statement interesting.

Progressives love college because they have the institutions filled with professors who are foot soldiers of recruitment for their cause. Progressives can’t wait to get young people alone from their families and on campus so they can take the bright young minds of America and steer them further toward liberalism. So yes, they encourage kids to go to college so they can get their hooks into the minds of the young without the influence of their parents around to protect them. These days the years between the ages of 18 to 22 destroy most of the potential lives of a large portion of our population with instructed progressive viewpoints preventing most college graduates from ever getting up off the mat once they’ve been knocked down upon it. People who have not been so defeated in their lives may in fact lean toward Donald Trump for that very reason, because they are not yet defeated people, and see in the billionaire a similar person also undefeated. But it has nothing to do with a lack of intellect between those who support Trump, or don’t. It has to do with whether or not those voters function from a defeated personal position, or still have fight left in them.

Trump was clearly the smartest guy on stage at least from strategic intellectual nimbleness. I couldn’t tell Megan Kelly either how I would force Mexico to build a wall, just as I couldn’t describe to someone how I would sell them a new car. People who are good at things can just do it. People who have made great livings at making deals are just good at such things. They can’t explain those types of things to the unskilled, the conquered, or naive. Most young people are conquered by one of two ways, through their military service and the rituals of basic training, or through their college experience. I think both have tragic ramifications to the mind nurtured through most of their lives toward individualism. I have watched many bright young people have their lives destroyed during the college years. Girls who were saints in high school, who practiced abstinence while at home with their parents to monitor their activities are some of the first to be conquered in college with cocaine habits given to them by men looking to exploit their relative freshness—lifestyles conducive to the college experience. I have been to college dorms, particularly freshman housing and witnessed a lot of nudity, smelled a lot of drugs, and watched young people give their lives away to indulgence for which they are permanently damaged—for the rest of their lives. Colleges are progressive utopias of intellectual destruction.

But not all kids are destroyed in college. Some actually excel, and Donald Trump was one of them. If a person survives the experience, they can actually be toughened up to a point where progressive influence cannot reach them. They are a rare breed, but they are very resolute in their decision-making. This is the kind of fire which forged Donald Trump. And it was obvious with him on the stage at the debate. Candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz might be more lawyerly astute to be president, but that’s not what America needs right now. It needs someone who knows how to hire the right people, and Trump excels at that because as an unconquered person, he is able to spot others who are also of the same mind. And that is the key to solving America’s current problems. We don’t need anther lawyer or the smartest guy in the room. We need a guy who is unconquered and can staff the White House with similar types who are better at tasks than he is.

Anyone who understands management knows that they key to being good at it requires the constant recruitment and nurturing of those who are better at specific tasks than you are. A proper manager has to have a lot of general knowledge so they can speak to lots of people about their specific tasks, but they don’t get lost in the weeds, because that’s what they hire other people to do. They don’t have to be everything to everyone. They just need to know how to recruit and maintain enough knowledge to maintain those relationships. Specific knowledge on investing might be great for the field of making money, but it is useless in the understanding of arms negotiations. If a person is great at one and not the other and they happen to be president, then their administration will be lopsided in one field, and deficient in all the rest. It would be Trump’s job as president to find the best people to fill all those fields, and he’d have to have enough general knowledge to nurture those relationships with some sort of direction. But it’s not his job to perform all those jobs. So to answer the border question regarding Mexico with specifics, it’s not Trump’s job. He has no idea. But he does know how to hire the best people and recruit them to his cause, and that is how he’d perform the task. However, it’s impossible to explain such a thing to people not skilled in leadership.

But that’s the world we are living in. It is run by college graduates and military veterans who have mostly been conquered in some fashion or another. They confuse intelligence based on the scale of compliance that they have endured as opposed to the unconquered types who possess natural leadership ability. Sometimes that leadership lasts through the vetting process most young people endure through their post high school years. A lot of the time natural leadership carves their own path completely free of the gate keepers and orthodox thinking shaped by progressive social programmers. And they just excel, just as Trump did as a young man. And they do as presidential candidates because winning is just in their nature. You can take such people and bury them with impossibility, but they always find their way out of trouble and turn mud into gold—because they are part of the select few who are members of the unconquered class. Trump is certainly one of them, which is why he is my best pick for President of the United States. For him it’s a job demotion. For everyone else on stage with him at the debates, it was a dream come true. And after a while, Trump realized that once all the hoopla from the media calmed down he found himself quite comfortable in the center of the stage—where he’s used to being. It was then that he showed the progressive left that their biggest fears were coming true—and there isn’t anything they can do about it. Nothing is working, not even calling people stupid for supporting Trump, which is why they continue to do it—because they have no other recourse.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Disgusting Amy Schumer: Being lectured about guns by a farting, belching, slutty reject

I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.

Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.

I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.

It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.

My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.

It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.

Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.

Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.

Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that!   Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.