Tag: Senate Bill 5

The Most Effective Argument in favor of Guns in Soceity: What everyone misses about the need for the Second Amendment–Institituions cannot be trusted

The support for an armed society is a philosophical one, not one of just emotional attachments to tradition. There is a reason the Second Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights and was so important to the Anti-Federalists in the 1790-time period of American history that is just as relevant today as it was then. The human race has not “progressed to a certain level where a one world government like the utopian Star Fleet Command is running everything on earth—and it never will. The reason is that there are traits to human beings that so long as they exist prevent the complete trust of individuals into all institutions created by society. To properly have a check and balance against absolute power, individuals must have the ability to overthrow their institutions before they get too big, and too power hungry to handle the affairs of civilization properly. Guns are that fine line of control which keeps our institutions in check with the fear always in the back of their minds that at any moment the population could remove them from office under armed rebellion and replace them. The issue has never been about “assault weapons” or “bump stocks.” It’s about the nature of people and what they do when they have power over other people. Those who want more power over more people obviously are those who support removing guns from society—to whatever degree. But the essence of the argument is that we would be fools to completely trust any institution created by the minds of man. The gun allows us to manage that power we give those institutions—and without that management assistance, institutions by their nature spiral out of control and become oppressive. Because at the heart of most humans who crave power is a laziness that always retreats to default mode and would rather run society as a bunch of compliant automatons rather than free thinking variables.

To put the issue in the most simplistic forms I will provide an example that I have used actually quite often. To provide a little background about myself I am a person who loves personal freedom likely more than most people, and I have always built my life around the ability to be free of institutional control. In my youth I was a martial artist and had developed the personal ability to defend myself no matter what was presented. Growing up I never had the feeling that anybody could “kick my ass” and I still feel that way. I don’t care how big the person is or how skilled, I made a point physically to be the top of the pecking order in regard to fighting in hand to hand combat and that allowed me a certain freedom to think properly about these matters of institutional control. But melee weapons are one thing, if a person approaches you with a gun physical confrontation is not the best way to deal with a threat like that. You really need a gun no matter how skilled you may be in disarming people. The best way to prevent a threat is to show them you have a gun and give them a choice as to whether or not to continue.

For a short while I was a repo man in my early years and I was shot at on occasion. That was back in the old days before there were the kind of rules that there are today. Back then the bank would let you do quite a few things to recover an asset, so I know what it feels like to be a bit of a thief sneaking up on a car to take it away from a hostile person likely armed. I even know what it feels like to break into a home knowing a person was armed to get the car keys. This wasn’t an accepted practice but it’s always better to ask for forgiveness than permission when dealing with bureaucracies and if I could get my hands on the keys, it meant doing less damage to the asset to retrieve it so breaking into a home to get the keys was forgivable—if you were successful. But people did get mad and they did shoot to kill. So in speaking about this kind of stuff I understand it from both sides very well.

I’ve also been to Europe and can report that the people there are pretty much a defeated people. Their gun laws and progressive societies have destroyed individual initiative and expectation. They live in small homes that are too expensive and do not have an expectation of personal sanctity the way that Americans do—and this really does trace back to gun ownership. In Europe the chances of being robbed in your home are much, much greater than in the United States because thieves know that nobody is armed in the home. They think nothing of breaking and entering to steal a person’s possessions even if they are there—because being shot is not on their minds. If they have managed to get a gun off the black market then they suddenly have become the strongest person around and they use that force to their advantage—because that’s what most human beings do when they acquire power—they tend to abuse it unless they are governed by a personal constitution of morality and valor. Without those elements they become tyrants quickly—whether they control a vast institution, or are just petty street criminals. It’s all the same human dysfunction on the micro or macro levels.

The person who trained me in martial arts during my teenage years was a thug. He was a lot like the karate school owner in the movie Karate Kid. His sole purpose for the school was to teach young strong males to be killers so that they’d go to tournaments and win trophies for his wall, so that he could then charge high fees to provide instruction. I thought of him as an evil person and he eventually was busted for many crimes and did jail time, but I learned a lot from the guy. I learned that it wasn’t hard to kill a person with your hands, in fact it was pretty easy and once you learned the basics you had leverage over every other human being that didn’t know that information. Most of his students went on to become terrors—and they got into nearly as much trouble as he did. Once they had the power to literally kill with their bare hands they had no fear of anybody and they began to be bullies that nobody could stop. It was the same concept as the robber with a gun who had something everyone else was missing. Outlawing a gun doesn’t change the nature of dominating others as a human predilection. Until that problem is solved, where humans wish to dominate others, whether it’s the liberal using institutionalism to control individual behavior, or a common street thug beating people over the head with a pipe to steal $25 dollars—the desire to rule over other individuals is the problem that must be solved. No institutional laws will have any effect—because the problem at its core is an institutional issue.

More times than even I can recollect I’ve used the threat of violence to keep peace. If someone is robbing you the way to handle it best is to say, “Hay man,” show them the gun under your jacket “you don’t have to die today. I won’t even call the cops. If you keep walking you can go to sleep tonight.” It’s that simple. Just say that, have the gun to show them—even if they are pointing one at you, letting them know you have a gun and are willing to use it, will most of the time cause them to leave you alone. These things don’t happen like they do in the movies. Criminals want a nice easy hit on someone. They don’t want to die or risk injury. If they have to risk that with you, they’ll move on most of the time. That also goes with hired killers. I’ve also known several of them as well, and deep down inside they are just people like anybody else. They don’t want to die. They know that just because you shoot someone they don’t die instantly. They know if you have a gun on you that you could still shoot them even if wounded. Because of guns in our country, we see much less crime than we otherwise would because nobody really knows who has guns in the house and who doesn’t. That secures our private property in the correct way and allows for Americans to think differently than other people around the world do because private property and ownership is the essence of personal responsibility—and protecting those elements makes for a much more civil discourse at the macro level.

Any person advancing gun control measures of any kind, even the “bump stock” debate after the Las Vegas massacre are avoiding the real issue in human failure in dealing with one another. Human desire to control other humans and their thoughts is the problem and until respect at a fundamental level is established for individual sanctity, violence will always be a threat. Those threats often come from institutions because responsibility for individual behavior is disguised. However, gun ownership is more than just symbolic, they are a proper check against the human tendency to inflict through force beliefs of one group against another. The gun creates a level playing field and forces people to respect each other—which is the first foundation of proper human interaction. There is a fine line between fear and respect, and the gun helps society get there better than any law that human beings could invent. And that is the key to a properly managed society. There is nothing barbaric about gun ownership. In fact, the concept is quite a sophisticated one because it takes the human race to a level of thought that has never been achieved before in the history of the world, and the United States is the evidence that it works. Not in the presence of an active gun culture, but in the type of society and options that Americans enjoy that nobody else around the world has. Guns are key to advancing our civilization in very positive ways because they take the bullies out of contention and allow average people to rule their own lives however they see fit. And if their institutions get out of control, then people have guns to retake control, and that is the most important thing of all. Just having the gun does wonders. Hopefully nobody ever needs to use them. But I can say from personal experience that guns work very well at keeping things……..peaceful. Better than anything else ever could hope to. Institutions want to believe they can, but they can’t. They can’t control individual behavior at its core. They can influence it, but they can’t manage it without the occasional madman emerging to destroy innocent people over any little thing.

When I hold a gun, or buy a new gun, I am making an investment into the kind of human freedom that only a gun can provide. And that is not a symbol of violence. It’s a declaration of independence that is philosophical and unique to our species.

Rich Hoffman

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

Steve Bannon said what I have for Years: How Republicans need to win elections to control more seats

The 60 Minute interview with Steve Bannon was a remarkable thing to watch.  For anybody who wonders if the Tea Party movement was effective just wonder if there would have ever been such a thing shown on national television 5 years ago.  Of course the answer would be no.  Such things just weren’t talked about in the mass media markets.  So it’s a pretty big deal to even see this interview with Bannon newly released by the White House back into the private sector.  As Bannon explained it, his reason for leaving the White House wasn’t because Trump asked him to go; he left so that he would be free as a private citizen to fight the federal government—which he couldn’t do as an employee of the system.  I concur with Bannon, that’s the precise reason I have never sought a public office—and why I tend to protect politicians that I think are on the right track.  Bannon is more effective from the outside, and it’s important to have people like him doing the street fighting—because that has to be part of the strategy going forward.  Five years from now even more unbelievable things will occur in politics that establishment types won’t like, so there will be many, many more battles that will be fought and we need all the street fighters we can get.

I think Bannon hit something very important during this interview that I have said before.  Some people listened to me and they have done well, politically.  But now that Bannon has said it coming right out of the White House who helped Trump beat two political dynasties, the Bush family and the Clinton family—not to mention the Obama family—I would say that in this next phase potential politicians looking for good advice should listen more carefully.  Its one thing to hesitate when there is an unproven track record, but now there is a lot that is known that wasn’t.  I’m talking about the advice Bannon said he gave Trump on Billy Bush Weekend during the October portion of the 2016 presidential election.   Established politicians told Trump that he should resign or face the most embarrassing defeat in election history.  Bannon told Trump to ignore the whole thing because the American people didn’t care.  Guess who ended up being correct?

I’m mainly thinking of some local election races this year where people I am rooting for can either hold their seats or advance themselves.  I can’t reiterate it enough; listen to what Steve Bannon is saying.  Don’t run or hide from anything, always be confrontational in the debates even in local elections.  Be a street fighter—don’t allow yourselves to be pulled into a mundane effort by playing nice.  Politics is not nice, its war, so treat it that way.  Let people like me defend you and help flash a light where it needs to be to sort the noise from the true path of necessity, but don’t hold back when it comes to vanquishing your enemies.   Playing nice won’t get you anything—but beaten.

I would go so far to say that voters in America would rather see a fight than a handshake, especially in politics.  You might remember dear reader an article I did last year stating that Trump’s membership into the WWE was the single most qualifying element of his campaign—because he knew how to put on a show that featured aggressive fighting which is a primal understanding that all people can relate to.  It’s an effective communication tool to be combative—people respect it naturally.  Playing nice the way the Bush family did, or John McCain did during his presidential run simply plays into the strengths of Democrats.  Mit Romney is a good example of how not to win an election—be nice, don’t attack your opponent and pretend like you’re always in church.  That’s how you lose.

Don’t let Democratic opponents find something you are ashamed of, like a perjury trail, a sexual harassment accusation, or the size of your personal wealth.  Always be proud of what you do and don’t give them a hook into your guilt, because they will attempt to freeze you with it.  However what you should do is to take the advice of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.  They just pulled off the most amazing election victory in the history of the world.  Not to mention I was saying things just as Bannon said them more than five years ago—so believe in this strategy.  Crush your opponents and don’t hesitate.  Take the high ground if you want, but don’t be afraid to spit down on the faces of your enemies.  If they challenge you in politics, don’t hesitate to destroy them from the face of the earth.  That is the way Republicans should approach all elections, even those against the RINOs who are in the party who want to hold it to the limits of the institutional past.

You can see how Charlie Rose tried to pin Bannon down but what was unique was that it didn’t work.  Instead Bannon knew his facts and stuck to them whenever the CBS News staff tried to shape the conversation toward classic progressive assumptions which have nothing to do with the masses of the American people who vote in elections.  Truth be told, when people are alone in the voting booth they will always vote for courage.  Most people lack personal courage so they greatly admire people with conviction even if they disagree with them.  This method doesn’t work for Democrats because they are all essentially con artists looking for implementing socialism and wealth re-distribution—so they can’t be honest about anything.  They need Republicans to be pacifists—like John McCain and Mit Romney to beat.  In a street fight, Democrats can’t win because they can’t defend themselves.

If they call you a sexist, call them worse.  If they come after you for some court case where you were innocent, then dig up every bit of dirt you can find on them and get it out to the public.  The newspapers won’t publish it because they are in bed often with the Democrats—but I will.  And other people like Steve Bannon will as well.  Success in every venture favors the bold—so don’t feel like you need to play nice just because that’s what Republicans used to do.  Trump has proven what people like me have theorized about, so take that information and expand on it.  There are too many races out there that we need win, so win them, and don’t look back—or feel like you need to shake the hand of an enemy.  Forget about all that “good will” stuff.  Democrats want to destroy our country—so fight them with that in mind.

This war is fought with the little battles, the little local races, the state races, and of course the federal seats.  To win those battles you can’t play patty cake with the enemy.  It’s one thing to be morally and intellectually correct—but you have to also take the next step.  You have to defend those things with a sometimes vicious personality.  Being nice won’t be enough.  You can be nice until they go negative and once they do, unleash hell on them until they are so miserable they don’t want to get up in the morning.  That is the way to win, and now that we have a playbook that shows it’s the way to success—I suggest everyone use it to full effect.

Rich Hoffman

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

Right-to-Work Protests in West Chester, Ohio: The bad economics of dealing with people like Ed Conway

I watched with a quite a lot of disdain the West Chester Trustee meeting on January 10th 2017 seen below where union dissidents poured into the chamber to flood the citizen comments portions with outside opinion in an effort to prevent West Chester from becoming the first right-to-work township in Ohio.  As the meeting went on, especially at the 1 hour 19 minute mark, Lee Wong had coordinated the events in the room to invoke union radicalization through a poor understanding of both economics and the trends of democratic thinking–and chaos flourished.  Labor radicals with the worldly understanding of a cockroach paraded themselves to the podium and yelled from the back of the room as Lee defied Mark Welch’s intentions to close the meeting because it was out-of-control.  Each speaker in favor of the union position had already by that time showed exactly why West Chester needs to lead the charge for right-to-work in Ohio—because all of them failed to understand the nature of business creation and were reserved to look around their surroundings and proclaim that West Chester was good—so why change it.  The height of their ignorance was fervently displayed ironically during a zoning change portion of the meeting when Chris Wunnenberg was speaking and the union slugs didn’t even understand that the proposal was a managed zoning change to inspire industrial construction—that such a proposal was not yet on the table.  That of course contributes to the vast ignorance of the many speakers in favor of the unionized status quo—they don’t understand the mind of business and why providing economic freedom not only in the form of taxation, but in reduced complications against the managements of those proposed companies is important to the continued growth of West Chester in a positive direction.

Unions do not create jobs and unions certainly didn’t build West Chester as some idiot screamed from the back of the room.   Business and financial opportunity built West Chester and its neighbor to the north Liberty Township.  Unions are like tar pits, they just sit there and depending on their location, sometimes something good comes across them and gets stuck in their presence only to suffer a gradual and slow death for which they never escape.  Companies do not want to share their management of operations with people like that Ed Conway from the video who claims he’s been in West Chester since 1988.  Unions give people like Ed a seat at the table with the typically smart people who run companies—who go out on a limb with their risks to pour money into a business plan and to execute that plan for the potential of profit which workers then enjoy in the form of wages.  Without that first step, and risk of the business owner and its managers, Ed wouldn’t have a job.

But no president or manager of any business operation wants some person like Ed joining the management of employee business because it greatly limits the amount of productive output that a company or business entity can generate per person.  So for all the talk of how wages are driven up in unions and how that money is poured back into a region and that such a relationship is mutually beneficial for everyone—they don’t understand the mind of a typical businessman.  They see a business owner driving a BMW or a Mercedes and they think they are rich and are entitled to some of their wealth through some communist upbringing they learned in their public schools—and they would be wrong.  Business owners hoping not to get snared in these unionized tar pits locate in places so that they can avoid dealing with people like Ed.

I’m sure Ed Conway is a nice guy, he’s probably great to have a beer with at Buffalo Wings and Rings during a Monday Night Football game.  There is nothing wrong with not being intellectually curious so long as people make it up with being a hard worker.  I certainly don’t expect everyone in the world to read and always push themselves to be smarter from one week to the next for their entire lives—and if they want to use their union wages to feed their faces and become a gradual health risk—that’s their business—but don’t assume that they are capable of being a co-manager of a business operation. Businesses put up with unionized labor only if they can justify the effort in their profit margins.  If the margins can’t justify the pain in the ass in dealing with people like Ed—and there are millions of Ed Conways out there—then they close shop and either retire or they move to someplace friendlier to business actions.  For the proof, just drive through downtown Middletown sometime and you’ll see what people like Ed have done to their economic growth of a once proud town.  Hamilton went through the same destructive process—unionized radicals drove Fisher Body out of the Hamilton/Fairfield area as well as International Paper—and many other places of business because unions and management just don’t go together as coequal parts unless the profit margins are so explosively good that ownership can justify the pain in the ass in dealing with the unions.

In the world we are living in today, price breaks are part of every discussion and companies can no longer jack up their pricing to absorb the loss in market value per employee that unions cost in reduced revenue generating potential.  Let me be more specific.  I was on a conference call just two days ago prior to this writing and I was speaking to a unionized facility in Minnesota.  They are late on the delivery of something I need and an idiot on the other side of the line casually told me to expect delivery sometime in February.  Well, that was the wrong thing to say.  I reminded the person that February wasn’t a date—it’s a month—so I had to ask again what day in that month I would expect their already late delivery.  They just didn’t get what I was saying until it was too late.  They had already lost a future customer because I’ll never deal with such incompetence again once they have established a track record of failure.  And the fault is in their poor understanding of the nature of productive work.  They assumed that the work was some gift from the gods of production for which we are all benefactors and that they’d milk the job out until they saw fit to ship.  But without my efforts, they’d have nothing to do.  That work didn’t come from some god—it came from my efforts and without me, nothing happens.  They are just a tar pit sitting there waiting for someone to get stuck in their mess—and that is how a typical union functions.  They have no connection to productive output in a competitive marketplace.  So they are too expensive to deal with and unreliable in delivery of their contractual obligations—most of the time—because they often have management at a disadvantage and unwilling to engage them.  Similar to Mark Welch being stuck at the end of the meeting not able to get out until Lee Wong—who obviously was coordinating the chaos as a closet Democrat of the same mind as Lakota’s Sharon Mays and former school board president Joan Powell—unions play those mob rule democracy games all the time and managements of companies usually just endure the pain hoping the profit continues.  You can see that on Mark’s face as he had to sit and listen to a bunch of idiots yak because Lee Wong was fanning the flames of discontent to appease his liberal sensibilities.  No business owner wants to be in the situation Mark was in, so they avoid investing in areas where people like Ed’s unions try to co-manage a company—because they surely don’t want some guy like me calling them asking why they are late on delivery.  What is that business owner going to say—“Ed Conway refuses to work on Sunday because the union contract says he has veto power over my management team?”  But when a pricing squeeze is placed on them from outside forces—usually market driven–rather than deal with the union-they just move to some oversea option.

So when it’s wondered why right-to-work is important to West Chester, Ohio, and every state in America just watch this video.  The zoning change that Chris is proposing depends on a friendly business environment to attract actual investment—otherwise he’s working for a developer with nothing to develop.  People who might work at that facility are in limbo until some business decides to move to that location at the corner of 747 and Union Central Blvd—and they won’t do that if they are worried about dealing with intellectual handicapped people like Ed Conway.  They’ll just take their operation to northern Kentucky where they are a right-to-work state.  So if West Chester wants to compete for those businesses, and they do to keep feeding all the great service industry businesses that have invested in West Chester, they have to compete with Michigan, Indiana, and now Kentucky all with right-to-work incentives.  Ohio is late to the party because John Kasich became a liberal like Ed Conway, Joan Powell and Sharon Mays and they want the union dues to keep feeding the bank accounts of the Democratic Party.  But that’s no reason to stick with a tar pit in West Chester when it has a direct impact on whether or not a new business locates in the region.

Let me tell you dear reader what drives up wages—it’s not unions.  If a company has over 20 applicants per job needed—which is where things are now—then wages will be low because a business owner would be insane to cut into their margins just out of the good of their hearts.  Having good margins means they can compete better in the world marketplace when price breaks drive opportunity.  So get that through your heads right now.  If you really want increased wages then American business or even West Chester average wages need three or four jobs competing for the same applicant.  That’s how wages increase and the only way you get there is by making it easy for a company to locate to your region and taking away the fear that some tar pit like Ed Conway will be in the board room negotiating employee pay, holiday schedules and work day limitations.  And that is why West Chester benefits greatly by being the first township in Ohio to become right-to-work.  The unions and their supporters are just tar pits waiting for some fool to get stuck in the Democratic ideology so they can slowly feed off their carcass.  And unfortunately for them, most people running companies these days are aware of that toil, and they aren’t willing to even play the game.  The bottom line is they don’t want to deal with people like Ed Conway because in the world of business, there are many more concerns and they don’t need the extra headache.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Donald Trump’s Presidential Strategy: Hillary will soon be begging for it all to end

Apparently there are some out there who are worried that Hillary Clinton is up on Donald Trump in the polls and that there is a risk of her winning the presidency completing the long-held plan by progressives to destroy America from within.   I know it’s scary, after all most of the media is in the bag for Hillary, along with Hollywood, the music industry, every public education institution, and every public sector union—and by the time you add up all those numbers, conservatives like you and I are in the extreme minority.  But—Trump has a plan and he is fulfilling it.  With only Hillary and the failed Obama legacy left between him and the presidency, he won’t allow himself to lose easily.  In fact, I am sure he will do anything and everything to win and he will start with her prime weakness—which as of June 15th, 2016—he is already exploiting.  Hillary is entitled and used to having things given to her—and she has assumed that the media would give her the presidency just because she’s a woman.  Trump is about to exploit her expectations to his advantage—just watch.

I’ve had the fortune to be in a lot of fights with people over the years—and many of the times the people were bigger and stronger than I was.  But unlucky for them which has always been the case—100% of the time—I was always smarter.   When a big hulking creature wanted to fight 7 times out of 10 they smoked cigarettes—because they were young and wanted to look tough so it usually fit their overall persona—so I’d know from the start of the fight that within 30 seconds, they’d start huffing and puffing, gasping for air.  That’s when you unleash on them a fury they can’t defend and by minute 1 minute 30 seconds, they were bloody heaps begging for an end to the conflict.  That’s when you hit them hard and make it so that they never think of picking on anybody—or fighting anybody, ever again.

Trump has Hillary right where he wants her, on the defensive, responding to his every attack.  He’s in Barack Obama’s head—clearly, forcing the last days of the current POTUS begging the collective Republican Party to come to his aid.  But there is nobody who can help them—either Obama or Hillary.  Trump is a machine who will run day and night for the next four months and in the last quarter as Hillary is gasping for air, the fatal blow will drop knocking her not only out of the race, but out of politics forever—in disgrace.  That is how Trump does things.  I understand that type of thinking—it is how winners, win—even when they are outmatched by sheer size and numbers.

Trump has campaign stops all over the nation scheduled during a time when the candidates are typically resting a bit before the summer surge toward their respective conventions.   Trump is on TV every day and speaking to thousands of people all over the country literally every day and he could do that pace likely for the rest of his life.  True, Trump just turned 70 years old, but he works like young man in his twenties and he can beat that old hag Hillary with sheer force.  She thought it was difficult to keep up with Bernie Sanders who at times had Hillary sounding like a haggard old worn out woman.  She won’t be able to keep up with the pace of Trump and it won’t take long for the fatigue to set in.

If you’ve ever watched a marathon, Hillary is like those runners who jump out to an early lead sprinting along wearing herself out.  In her case she can afford to because she has been told that all she has to do to become POTUS is show up at the finish line—because everything else is all worked out.  But a quarter way through the race, fatigue starts setting in and they begin feeling that tightness in their muscles and the overwhelming desire to stop to take a break.  That’s usually when the smarter runners overtake the early sprinters. By the Fourth of July, Trump will be fresh on Hillary’s heels watching her wear down and she’ll begin struggling to keep running.  Her old saggy ass will start showing the signs, her shoulders will slump, the bags under her eyes will fill with a few more doughnuts eaten on the road to give her instant energy—fake energy to continue looking good for the cameras.  That’s when she’ll realize she doesn’t have enough gas in the tank to beat Trump and the media will begin to grudgingly admit the problem amongst themselves.  Then she’ll get hit with one of the most boisterous Republican conventions in history.   Then following that will be a major motion picture called Hillary’s America and the low information voters will then discover things about her that they didn’t know.  That’s when Trump will really get started.  Daily he will beat on Crooked Hillary and the media won’t have an answer.  Obama will get even more defensive as his days in the White House come to a close and a silent desperation will begin to set in.

By September and October, the ragged, hag Crooked Hillary will limp into the presidential debates and Trump will slaughter her with wit and his knack for speaking off the cuff of his sleeve leaving her completely off message, and script which is her vulnerability.  That is when she’ll sink like a rock.  She’ll be exhausted and begging for an end to it.  Then Trump will hit her so hard that it will end her forever.

So get ready, this is going to be a lot of fun for those of us on the conservative side who have simply had enough and we’re not going to take it anymore.  Our time is coming for a change and I’m not planning to be graceful about it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Fading of a Purple Haze: Prince leaves the world through death, but the music will last forever

Even for me, I was a little shocked that Prince had died.  It wasn’t the loss of a person that I considered to be something scratching the surface of a oveman, but the last great loss of a great talent from the 80s. I feel worse for the modern kids who don’t know what it’s like to have James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince all alive and making music for their society all on stage together.  With the modern record industry comparatively crushed relative to that unique period in 1983, shown below, the amount of raw talent that was enjoyed by the 80s may not be seen again for a long time.  For modern race baiters who declare that America is a racist nation, they obviously don’t know much about our history.  I am proud to say I live in a culture that produced minds like Prince, Michael Jackson and James Brown.  Prince for all his small stature of 5’ 2” made the best of it and walked around like he was 9’2”.  I always thought of him as a remarkable person and he had an impact on me that lasted.

I also thought he was a little weird—and for whatever reason, we accept culturally people who are extremely different if they are musicians.  It’s a very strange thing to watch people who pick on others for being different turn right around and wear the shirt of a famous musician that behaves in very eccentric ways.  Prince was certainly one of those people. Prince was about nine years older than I was, so as he was making his most famous music, the album “Purple Rain,” I was traveling all over the country as an Explorer in the High Adventure Boy Scout Post, 962 ran by one of my arch rival school teachers from the 7th grade.  Me and that woman hated each other, but she was access to adventure so I put up with her and spent a lot of my time from 14 to 16 years of age doing just about everything human beings could do regarding adventure, rappelling, backpacking, spelunking, and competing against others in yearly competitions at Camp Frielander in Loveland, Ohio.  It was the only thing that could have held my interest at that particular time and I thrived in that environment.  In a lot of ways Prince and I came to age at the same time in very different ways.  Both of us learned to think bigger than just being human which a lot of Prince’s songs reflected.

I was never particularly compelled by the religious leanings of Prince, but I did enjoy his otherworldly approach to life—the eternal aspect, and he seemed to accompany me everywhere during those Explorer days.  Explorer Posts are divisions of the Boy Scouts of America, but they are co-ed activities so there were always girls around—especially on the competition campouts where explorers from all over the southern Ohio region showed up to fight it out at Camp Frielander each August.  Most of the competition was fire department Explorer Posts and those from various police divisions—where young people were basically in apprenticeships for those careers.  My Explorer Post was designed to make global adventurers, and the skills I learned there I never forgot.  I always had extreme confidence and all that came to excessive fruition during this period of my life—and my antics seemed to always occur next to a Prince soundtrack.  No matter where I was, or what I was doing, Prince was on the radio or on somebody’s private boom box.  And when it came to confidence and multitasking, I looked at Prince and took some young direction.  My introduction to the Explorer Post world came at Camp Frielander where on my very first night I blew up our campfire on purpose with a homemade bomb and picked a fight with a rival Explorer Post over a girl who me and the other males all wanted.  From winning several of the events and gaining everyone’s instant attention, like Prince I had splashed onto the stage of adventure boldly.  Within a year I was giving speeches in front of massive crowds at GE Aviation in Evendale and running around the University of Cincinnati like I owned the place and I was still six to seven years younger than all the kids attending.  From Prince I learned to step in front of an audience and take charge.  With him being so short and strange, I used to watch how he handled things and I incorporated many of his social tactics to my own escapades. So I can say that Prince greatly improved my life during a key time.

Within a few years I was elected president of the Dan Beard Council for the entire Tri-State region and I eventually secured the girl that we all wanted whom I had met that first night at Camp Frielander.  But by then I had outgrown her and I had rapidly evolved beyond many of the people who were with me that first night of that summer competition.  Literally the day that I was elected, which occurred at General Electric in front of a packed house I had met another girl that I liked a lot more so I was looking for a way to get rid of the other one and her father was one of the guiding administrators for the entire Dan Beard Council in the eastern part of the country.  Later that night when I was supposed to be in fight against a bunch of kids at my school, one of them ended up dead and of course I was the key suspect—everyone in the Explorer Post community abandoned me, including all my girl friends—and Prince’s constant music was the only thing that made sense to me during that period.  It was a surreal feeling to listen to the song, “When Doves Cry” as police cars all over Cincinnati went looking for me to question me for murder.  In 24 hours I went from the top of the world to just a few steps from jail and it was very strange.  But at no time was I afraid, or did I weep for my losses.  I simply recaptured myself quickly and got back to what I did best and within a few weeks, had recovered completely and was back to my usual persuasions.

Prince was so boldly creative that he gave to my mind, which desired unlimited energy, a glance into the eternal—and that carried me to places that would soon become self-sustainable.  I outgrew Prince by the end of the 90s largely due to the fact that I did more before I was ever 19 than some people did in their entire lives. By the time that Prince did a song for Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman film, I had outgrown him—but I continued to always admire the eccentric musician.  Prince was wildly imaginative and magnificently talented and I learned a lot from him at a key time in my life—and it was clear when he died that future generations wouldn’t have the same opportunity—and for me that was the saddest aspect of the mysterious death at Prince’s Paisley Park home and studio in Minnesota.  Prince at 57 didn’t eat meat, and was pretty religious for a rock star—and he had such a tiny little body.  So diseases took a toll and if he took some drugs to alleviate the pain, he likely put himself under too much strain—and he left his body to join the focus of his otherworldly pursuits which had been a big part of his music for so long.  It was that otherworldly appeal which I always enjoyed and drew from for myself. So it didn’t surprise me that his soul just decided to leave his body one day as the body struggled under pressures only the living understand.  Prince seemed indifferent to life and death, so he obviously didn’t have much fight in him to struggle through such tribulation.  But it’s always a shock to see that someone as full of life as Prince had left the world of the living—because it seems counter to his core personality.

Death is a journey of its own, and Prince took it closing a chapter on earth that future generations will only hear about.  I learned a lot from Prince, and I am happy to say that his overman appeal to me is something I quickly mastered myself—and actually exceeded by the time I was 30 years old and had suffered through many more tragedies on the same scale as that day I was elected onto the Dan Beard Council and lost it all just a few hours later. Prince seemed at that time to be the sage from the top of a mountain who had all the answers, but it wasn’t long before I was looking down on his mountain and thinking how small he really was.  That’s not Prince’s fault, as an artist, all he did was present something to contemplate through his music—it was up to us to bring meaning to it—and I did—living the life of a boundless adventurer who didn’t know any limits.  I probably achieved more earlier because of Prince than I would have without him.  Then suddenly he was gone as quickly as he came, like a purple haze and a distant memory that will soon be forgotten like a purple rain once the sun comes back out and distracts us from the day.  Such is life—but for me, I will never forget.  He was certainly one of the best and our society won’t produce another like him likely for hundreds of years—if ever.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Disney is so Gay: Literally–they are pushing a homosexual agenda in the ‘Once Upon a Time’ television show on ABC

It is so immature, the concept that most people have about love and instantly associating love and sex interchangeably.  In most cases the people who write these modern movie and television story lines are kids themselves—barely in their 30s—and they lack deep understandings about life and how humans evolve.  They certainly don’t understand love—for that you need a married couple who have been together for at least 25 years—and been through a lot yet still choose to stay together.  It is impossible for anybody less to write about love in a manner that is based in any kind of reality and that is certainly true of most Disney productions where they are driven by progressive values instead of tangible human motivations.  Their television show Once Upon a Time finally made good on its promise to include a gay story line in season five, and that was something I had been predicting that they’d try and the result was embarrassing.  I actually felt sorry for the writers and actors who had to portray the story line, which went something like this; although Mulan (Jamie Chung) revealed her unrequited love for Princess Aurora (Sarah Bolger) in season three, she wasn’t the one in a new relationship in Sunday’s episode, “Ruby Slippers.” However, she did help make it happen, and now we have Disney justifying “loves first kiss” as “love” doesn’t know any boundaries, sex or ethnicity.  Love just is.  Well, they are wrong.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/once-a-time-gay-storyline-884653

I love a lot of things and that love does not translate into sex.  I love movies, I love cars, motorcycles, and guns—I love my grandchildren, my kids—I love my life.  But love and sex are not equal elements to a social paradox.  Progressives to spread this gay love socialism that they have been preaching for so many years had to strip away the value of love before they could attempt to sell it the way these idiots on the show Once Upon a Time have provoked.  In order to sell gay sex to the public—which has been going on for quite a long time—they had to destroy the notion of deeply committed love and attribute it to raw physical sex—the desire to integrate biologically with another human being for first the pleasure of it—then to procreate humankind with the result.   Under the progressive definition of love, if a human feels compassion for another person, then they must have some sort of physical justification for that emotion.  For instance—they must kiss them, or touch them in some way.

Sex does not represent love.  When I see a young couple (a man and a woman) kissing at a restaurant or at a park it is a beautiful thing.  When I see a couple of girls kissing in the same settings—or God forbid a couple of dudes—it is disgusting.  The reason is that the man and the woman have the potential through their affection to create a family, and that is a beautiful thing to see.  Without the potential for the creation of a family the physical display is simply for pleasure and it can then be disgusting—because the act becomes intrusive to our senses.  Sex by itself isn’t beautiful—two fat chicks covered in tattoos and body piercings making out in an amusement park line waiting for a ride is annoying.  Anybody with experience knows that what they are seeing is a short-lived emotion.  But if a young girl is making out with her boyfriend and they are holding hands and hugging each other, then that can be kind of sweet.  The reason is that their affections for one another can lead to the creation of a family.  All of us with experience know that the public sentiments of physical expression fade away as the love grows stronger but that what they are engaging in may be the start of a new family name—and that is beautiful.

Ultimately this is why progressives are attacking traditional sex and trying to paint gay sex in a way that makes it appear to be love—because they hope to remove the value of relationships and throw that value back to the states to manage allowing people to engage in open sex with all human beings without the stigma of judgment. This was the kind of world in the dystopian novel Brave New World—where nobody really felt anything for anybody—people just engaged in sex for the pleasure of it but they did not feel the meaning of love behind it.  Sex in that book was open and meaningless.

You can love a member of the same sex—two guys can love each other—but it is not appropriate for them to take that love to the barbaric level of sexual intercourse because what would be the biological point?  The appropriate thing for two guys to do to show love for one another is to punch the other guy in the arm and call him a name—like “hey dick-head,” or “hello you diabolical scum bag,” followed by a smile.  The reason is that the two friends are showing they have command of their biological functions and are working from a foundation of mental domination—love is in the mind, not the heart.  Such relationships are able to last over many years and are a form of love.  Take away the sex and love can thrive in a relationship.  Sex is only a distraction to real love—it doesn’t define it.  Sex is only a biological function.  Love is a mental decision not related to biology.  One is a function of instinct; the other is an affirmation of shared values.

As I’ve said before—even though the House of Cards is a compelling show, the gay sex is just ridiculous.  They have attempted to normalize gay sex and it is just gross.  Disney will face the same problem as they continue to advance the gay agenda through their feature films.  When it was announced that the Green Lantern superhero was a gay character—the popularity did not increase for him.  The mass population will reject such a premise because ultimately it’s gross.  Nobody wants to look at gay sex—not really.  For the same reason that it was always the teenage girl who survived until the end of 1980s horror films—because it is always a tragic loss to lose a girl because of the potential for life that she holds within her—gay expression is something audiences will reject because they cannot relate to the characters.  Those of us with experience know that love is deeper than just physical attraction so a story cannot advance in our minds if sex is used as a substitute for love.  It just doesn’t work and having two girls show their love for each other through physical attraction in Once Upon a Time comes out awkward, and it makes you want to change the channel.  It leaves the viewer with a desire to turn away and move toward something else instead of sticking with a story they know will go nowhere biologically.

Hollywood has been trying to normalize the acts of gay sex for a long time and now they are really testing the fences.  But all they are doing is cheapening the foundations of love that every human being craves by confusing young people with expressions of sex and calling it love.  I understand that the writers of these shows haven’t lived enough to understand—and it shows in their products—but it’s not cute to see such failures exhibited as successes.  People will endure the gay sex to watch a show, but it will hurt the appeal and weaken the ultimate market viability—and that is the risk that companies like Disney run by signing up for such progressive experiments.  The moment that Woody and Buzz Light year announce that they have a gay love relationship the value of Toy Story drops immensely because the love that the two characters have for one another transcends sex—which is why the Toy Story films have been so successful.  But playing with biological and psychological relationships in stories intended for young people, like Once Upon a Time is suicidal from a creative standpoint.   I would hope that Disney would employ smarter people and not get so wrapped up in progressive politics—because it will hurt them.  And I personally want Disney to succeed—so it pains me to see them make such epic mistakes.  That prime time attempt to normalize gay sex on a popular television show was really stupid.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/04/18/once-upon-a-time-gets-first-gay-couple/

If you click on the link above, you’ll see something really……………gay.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

I Hated ‘The Hateful 8’: A terrible movie by a failing Hollywood industry

There was a lot not to like about Quentin Tarantino’s latest film The Hateful Eight. I personally didn’t see it when it came out in theaters around Christmas of 2015 because of Tarantino’s political activism against police, but I put it on the checklist.  It was sold as a western shot in 70mm traditional wide—just as Ben Hur was many years ago—so I figured it would be worth watching.  My chance came once it was released to the home theater market and I was a little excited about it. But after two hours of movie realizing that the whole thing was going nowhere, I was very concerned that if Tarantino was the best that Hollywood had to offer—that they consider him a “modern” Shakespeare–that there is no wonder their movie industry was in trouble.  At that point there was still about 45 minutes of movie left to show and I was ready to turn it off—but didn’t because I already had too much time invested.

This is what happens when someone becomes so full of themselves—and have been told by hundreds of aspiring actors and progressive movie producers that they are the greatest thing to arrive since fire.  They forget that people actually will see their movies and that those people think very differently about the world than those tucked up against the mountains of California and the Pacific Ocean. The only good characters in The Hateful Eight was the Kurt Russell character.  Samuel Jackson wasn’t the greatest and once he revealed an oral sex scene with another guy—I decided I didn’t like him and didn’t want to invest any more time into learning about him.  Most of the movie took place inside a cabin getting to know all these characters who were telegraphed very early to being all completely killed off.  There was no point to their stories or the interaction between them because it all led to one place—death.

The Hateful Eight is like a person being walked to an execution getting to know all the people spitting on him along the way.  It just doesn’t make any sense because that person was going to be dead soon—so why waste the time?  It was just horrendously stupid.  Beautifully photographed, good soundtrack—most of the time—but just a stupid story—I can’t believe anybody read that script and thought it the work of a genius—and I can’t believe anybody gave Tarantino money to make that movie.

Coming from a guy who shares with me a love for the great movie, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Tarantino obviously isn’t at the same level of Sergio Leone, and I went into The Hateful Eight hoping sincerely that he was.  Not even close—not even close to the sincerity of a spaghetti western, which I thought was the point of The Hateful Eight. It ended up being just another sign of a broken and declining culture that doesn’t make anything original anymore—even though all the tools were provided.  To suggest that The Hateful Eight is anything close to the masterpiece Hamlet, just because everyone ended up dead in the end is ridiculous.  There weren’t any sympathetic characters for which to hang a morality on in Tarantino’s movie.  All the characters were villains and none of them were people I’d want to get to know if they sat down next to me at a bar.

Even using the barroom metaphor with The Hateful Eight seems underwhelming.  Typically when a man wants to pick up a girl in a bar he engages in small talk to get her to reveal bits about herself.  Once she decides to talk about herself the conversation evolves into more personal matters.  Then as a climax and some trust won, the girl decides whether or not she wants to sleep with the guy.  It’s a little mating game that our species plays to make the experience not seem so cheap.  The Hateful Eight is like walking up to that girl and just flatly saying, “Let’s have sex.”  Then spending three hours talking about all the things you should have talked about before blurting out the obvious.  It was just despicable as a story—pathetic at every level.

I have liked other Tarantino movies—I thought Pulp Fiction was clever, and I enjoyed his work in other things—but I wouldn’t say he’s a master of anything.  He’s only smart compared to the very stupid people who now make up the Hollywood industry which these days are just a few rungs above raw porn in its creative impulse. I am really glad that I did not go to see this Tarantino western at the theater because I would have been angry at wasting the money. The Hateful Eight wasn’t a western; it was a monstrosity of undeveloped ideas from a director who obviously has personal problems holding back his artistic ability.

As an example of how all westerns should be presented these days, The Revenant is still the featured example.  If you are going to make a western, at least put in the work.  So what if someone stole the script to The Hateful Eight and that’s why Tarantino made it into a feature film.  The material wasn’t so good that an eight year old child couldn’t have written it—so whatever provoked big money donors to give Tarantino money for that piece of crap sadly overrated the ability of the troubled, progressive filmmaker.  The movie wasn’t just bad enough to write a poor review about, it was bad enough that I personally feel like I was robbed just by watching it, because I can’t get back my time.  It would have been a much better movie if Samuel Jackson hadn’t forced a naked man to perform oral sex on him, because in the last dying moments he was the only one left and I couldn’t help but think that he was the last person I wanted to see on the screen in the end.  Given that, he was the best character in the movie after Kurt Russell’s character died of poisoning.  The Hateful Eight was horrendous filmmaking and storytelling at its absolute lowest.  Sadly, it represents a new generation that thinks it’s the work of genius—because people are now so stupid and have such a low opinion of themselves that they don’t know any better.  People now can actually relate to these despicable characters.  And that’s the real problem with The Hateful Eight and the filmmakers who put that trash on the screen.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Donald Trump Wins the Presidential Nomination Easily: Ted Cruz womanizing story gets no traction because there’s no money in it

It is surprising that this video hasn’t had more airtime.  Obviously the #NEVERTRUMP people are salivating at an opportunity to pounce on Donald Trump after he effectively took off for a week to rest and welcome the birth of his latest grandchild.  Cruz moved up on him in Wisconsin and the media thinks they have him cornered finally and can knock him out of the race with a gauntlet of criticism that has been unheard of in American politics.  Meanwhile, this Cruz story is pretty important.  There is obviously something very diabolical going on.  If the guy cheats on his wife and is claiming to be a “Christian” this is a big deal.  Carly jumped in entirely too fast, and Cruz is giving off the entirely wrong body language to be innocent.  He never answered the question which is pretty bad. 

Look dear reader, Donald Trump even if he doesn’t win states like Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, Oregon and several other places still wins easily with 1237 delegates by June.  He may not even need to win California to get those delegates.  I’ve done the math.  Donald Trump would have to have a major meltdown to lose.  Granted, the questions at this stage get harder and he has a lot against him—literally at every turn.  But even if he only does “OK”, he still wins the nomination without a brokered convention pretty easily.  If Trump keeps his swagger, the nomination is his.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-republican-primary-poll-20160327-story.html

The media wants people to believe that the whole presidential race is closer and more dramatic than it really is.  They want Trump to keep working hard to win the nomination because it makes them all a lot of money having him on the news every night.  So if they can delay it, they’ll do what they can to keep him in the news until the general election against Hillary begins.  They would like a solid eight months of Trump ratings to generate several years worth of cable news projections.  The Cruz story is going nowhere because there is no money in it.  But for voters, they should be asking hard questions about Ted Cruz.  He doesn’t have a chance to win as president, but he is a sitting senator and a Tea Party favorite.  If he’s a cheater we need to know.  Watching that video of Cruz and Carly indicates that something is very, very wrong.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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