Watching Mosques in America for Terrorists: Catching the potential Tony Montanas from Syria before its too late

There was some backlash when Donald Trump said that the proper response to the Paris attacks meant that we should watch mosques in the United States. For some strange reason that caused consternation within the progressive community—as if saying such a thing was taboo. There was also further ridicule by the left and some on the right (politically) when Trump reminded everyone that Barack Obama still refused to identify the threat of Islamic terrorism by name. The point, a valid one, here was a president after all who told NASA that their priority was to instruct Muslims of ancient contributions to science instead of managing a space program—so obviously there was some emotional investment from Obama into Islamic faith that is—“abnormal.” When terrorist attacks come from that particular religion, it is natural to look twice at radicals within those institutional organizations and contemplate their intentions—just for public safety. But denying that there is a problem is actually dangerous, and reckless—which of course was Donald Trump’s point.

I was taking some people out for a bite to eat recently, the type of people who know very little about politics. All they know about Donald Trump is that he was on The Apprentice and that he had a lot of money. They have no idea who the current Secretary of State is, and probably don’t know who the governor of Ohio is, but they could tell you all about the latest Cincinnati Bengals football game—down to the last detail including the color of the jock strap of many of the players. Obviously the conversation while eating wasn’t very deep and was very non-political—which wasn’t very interesting to me. However, we were returning to our pre-dinner destinations and while driving down I-75 they saw that the parking lot to the West Chester Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati was bulging with participants. There wasn’t an open parking spot anywhere and this led to some grumbling among my passengers that the next terrorist threat might come from such a place and that somebody should watch them. Of course that particular center has condemned violence publicly as seen in the Journal News article below.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/islamic-center-in-west-chester-speaks-outs-against/npN3F/

What Donald Trump was saying is what logical people everywhere are assuming—and it’s a dangerous path. Trump has stated that social networks connecting terrorists need to be shut down, their oil taken from them, and they should be chased down to the ends of the earth with vigilance. That sounds wonderful when we all agree who the enemy is, but if that same mentality was used against people like us—constitutionalists—then the same intrusiveness can be justified by the progressive left—just as it has been in regard to Lois Lerner and the IRS attack against conservative groups. Trump is talking about dangerous things in regard to border security and the Islamic faith in general. However, the aggression of ISIS terrorism forces everyone to come to terms with these quandaries. You either attack them by violating an American assumption of live and let live—or they attack first striking at the things we all value, our freedoms, our values, and our capitalist economy. Trump’s warnings remind me of the film Scarface with Al Pacino which has become a cult classic. Trump is right, correct thinking Americans know it. We are at war; the targets have to be identified. And decisive action must be enacted. Philosophy from that wreckage must follow with proper conduct in the aftermath. At some point you have to stop looking at the past for a guide-book of directions and instead learn what you can and apply those concepts to the future in ways not yet implemented. You have to take action, be decisive, but must also remain flexible so that you do not become a tyrannical state adhering to a constitutional republic.

At the beginning of the film Scarface were political refugees escaping the communism of Cuba. Tony Montana was a freedom fighter who fell out of line within the Casto regime in Cuba. Boat loads of immigrants fled to the United States flooding the immigration offices seeking freedom, for which Tony was one of them. Under Jimmy Carter, very similar to Barack Obama and the Syrian refugees, American arms were held open to those misplaced people. Tony tried to work a standard job in the states, but found he wanted more out of life so he became a drug lord. I always loved Scarface as a movie. As much as I despise drugs and its culture, I always did love Tony Montana for his sincere honesty and his explosive temper—and ultimately his desire to do the right thing even though he became a raging thug. One scene in Scarface was particularly powerful for me. Tony was solicited to assassinate an anti-drug speaker at the United Nations with a car bomb. But the man had his children in the car with him, so Tony killed his accomplice who was to detonate the bomb killing the target and all inside. Without getting into too many details, I understand that scene very well, and I loved it when Tony Montana shot the guy in the head saving the kids and doing the right thing in a brutally honest way. It was a wonderful scene that really captured the paradox of our current problems with Syrian refuges to America.

Likely within the groups of young men coming to America from war torn Syria, a country mismanaged from the start, empowered by a failed Obama administration that fed the fire of that insurrection either by accidental incompetence, or deliberate passive-aggressive desire to arm the rebels—who became ISIS—there are terrorists using the fleeing masses to bring ISIS ideology on a suicide mission to the states. There are probably several real-life Tony Montana types who are fleeing Syria for all the right reasons, but find there is nothing for them in the states but unholy infidels. All it would take is for them to make friends with some of the members of the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati at a backyard barbecue, or even a local bar and discover that some of those people have radical thoughts and would be susceptible to a charismatic leader from Syria who had been there and already seen the decadence of the West first-hand due to the Sykes-Picot agreement from a century before. Even though the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati’s leaders preach against terrorist violence, likely there are members who are sympathetic to the ISIS point of view if they spent time watching Al Jazeera America on cable television. All they need is a match to start a blaze and an ISIS sympathetic Syrian brought into the states with a feel-good intention to free those poor people from the mismanagement of the Obama administration might do something vile. All this is completely hypothetical of course. But it doesn’t take much to consider the possibilities.

Those guys who went out for a bite to eat with me had no skin in the game. They don’t attend Tea Party events, they aren’t overly religious, unless you consider football games a religion—and they are not even sure if they’ll vote for a president. But they knew enough to look at that center in West Chester and feel uneasy about its presence. In its current state, it is probably docile—its leaders seem to have a grip on their public actions, and their dealings center primarily on religion. However, a dangerous combination is a collective based religion combined with the type of communist anarchy that is well-known with the Occupy Wall Street crowd. That volatile mix could easily make an ISIS terrorist. And such young people fresh from Syria mingling with other young people who are having a hard time paying for their college debts, or finding a good job might be an attractive option to people not sure if they could even have a good life-like those of their parents who are obviously preaching peaceful Muslim faith. Take away the comfortable job, the nice home, the family structure, and a young radical no matter what their faith might easily become a social terror. And in this fashion, ISIS seems poised to infect the United States with just such a poison.

And for even suggesting it, Donald Trump was laughed at and mocked. Glenn Beck was treated in a similar way in 2011 when he proposed that the radicals in the Middle East were working to create a caliphate under Islamic rule. History has proven Beck right, and Donald Trump is sadly probably more correct than not, just like those football fans were weary of anything resembling Islamic faith—especially a large gathering of them in one place. There is a reason to be weary. Common sense dictates that awareness. What we do with that determines our humanity. But indecision is just another form of terrorism because it promises that aggressors will have victory. Peace loving people therefore must accept that to have peace, action must take place, and for that to happen, judgments against assaults must occur. Only then can the war against ISIS be fought. And not a moment until the words are spoken in public—ISIS is the enemy and they use Islam as their camouflage in society. To root them out, we must look everywhere—especially where they like to hide.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Robert Tracinski, Rich Hoffman and Matt Clark on WAAM: Why ‘Star Wars’ is better than ‘Star Trek’

Matt Clark had me on his show to actually co-host with him as we spoke to Robert Tracinski who writes for The Federalist. He had written an interesting article about how it was unlikely that J.J. Abrams could screw up the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens, so long as he stuck with the formula. There were some condescending aspects to Tracisnski’s article which I was willing to overlook, because he was right about a lot of things. But more than anything Tracisnski had been dismissive of the original trilogy as not being very good—which I thought was odd. So I was eager to talk to him. It only took a few moments into the interview however to learn the root of his issues—he was a Star Trek fan and had only come to Star Wars through his children. His position was that Star Trek was philosophically superior to Star Wars and that these new movies were kid stuff that he was enjoying with his children. Listen to that interview here:

I don’t care much for Star Trek, to me it is the United Nations in space. While Robert Tracinski is not a liberal and is a pretty committed Objectivist, which is Ayn Rand’s philosophy—it was clear to me quickly why Robert didn’t like Star Wars much in his article. I disagree with him on a number of topics regarding the formula of Star Wars, or its appeal. I think the Star Wars films are deeply philosophical; especially The Empire Strikes Back—much more so than Star Trek. I mean, people are not lining up across the world to see the latest Star Trek movie, and Star Wars isn’t as popular as it is because it’s just adults living out their childhoods once again through a movie. It’s more complicated than that. As we were talking to Tracinski, because of his background with Ayn Rand I kept wondering if I had met him someplace before, so I wanted to cut him some slack. Everyone comes to things in their own time and if he came to Star Wars late in life through his kids—so be it. One aspect that Tracinski got right in his article was the perception that Han Solo is the key to the franchise—so I stuck to that topic in our conversation.

Matt and I spent the first segment of his Saturday WAAM show talking about Disney and their progressive activism with a gentle warning about messing with the formula of Star Wars and the impact that might have on their massive investment. Matt and I love Disney—the Uncle Walt version. I love that Disney is a family friendly entertainment group—so I am willing to overlook a little of their liberal activism. Something that Robert Tracinski did bring up on his show that was true. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were the best conservative filmmakers coming out of the 80s. I personally think they were both seduced by Bill Clinton in the 90s and have lost their minds since. The reason their early films were so successful was because they all had conservative leanings to them. Once both directors had achieved their monstrous success and essentially stepped away from the Objectivist roots of their film careers, their movies started making a lot less money. Without question George Lucas was at least attracted to Ayn Rand in his early days—when she was at the height of her influence—and Han Solo was a character that represented that struggle within George. As he become more liberal with age and success—perhaps feeling a little guilty that all his liberal employees were constantly berating him for his capitalist tendencies, he softened up on his stance for individualism and began to accept collectivism to a much higher degree, which was clearly represented in the prequel films—which were noticeably absent of the Han Solo type of character.

Where I disagree with Tracinski about the prequel films is that I don’t think George Lucas ever intended those films to be successes. They were dark movies about the failure of a Republic—and have great political merit to them. They are very philosophical from the position of how poorly constructed philosophies can destroy a body of government. Even though Lucas had been moving to the left—politically, his message about the failure of groups to detect evil, and how institutional failure is indicative of all government cycles is powerful stuff that set the stage for some pretty deep storytelling. As much as people dismiss the prequel films as silly, they are important in the larger scope of the intended message. The movies did lack heroics on the scale of a Han Solo, but that was on purpose. A lot of characters including Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi made mistakes that they spent the rest of their lives correcting. So the films were never supposed to be heroic repeats of the original trilogy. For that story Han Solo was the savior, he kept Luke alive, married his sister Leia and that set up the events of these new films. Solo is an Ayn Rand character and Disney even with all their activism against conservative causes—can’t ignore that the magic of Star Wars isn’t Luke Skywalker, or anything about the Force—it’s about Han Solo’s position against hooky religions and ancient weapons not being as competent as a good blaster at your side.

Just a few days before Matt and I had our radio show together Harrison Ford was on with Jimmy Kimmel dressed up for Halloween as a hot dog. It was a funny segment and of course Ford was asked about the new Star Wars film. I thought his comments were interesting to say the least. He stated that nobody would be disappointed—at all. That was a remarkable statement considering what’s at stake. He knows the potential cost of over-anticipated hype—so his comments had me very curious in relation to Disney’s strategy going forward. Han Solo is going to be playing a larger role in Star Wars than he has in the past largely because the character tests well demographically. His children will without question be the subject of the new stories but Disney will find every opportunity to insert a younger Han Solo into the movies at every juncture. To be successful at that, Disney will have no choice but to adopt the obvious aspects of Han Solo’s Objectivism view points—his natural conservatism and love of capitalist endeavors if they want Star Wars to continue being successful.

After Matt’s show I spent time at my children’s house going trick or treating with my grandkids—and kids. Late into the night my oldest daughter and I spent time talking about Han Solo and how it seems obvious now that Disney will find a way to put him in the stand alone films as much as possible just to use him as a springboard to success. Like Robert Tracinski and I spoke about on Matt’s show, without Han Solo, I think the Star Wars saga crashes and burns. If they try to turn him into a sacrificial collectivist Disney will lose a lot of money because people will reject the premise. The ticket buying public will only accept the Objectivist Han Solo—and nothing less—the hero who acts in his own self-interest. Even though the moment at the end of A New Hope was intended to show that Solo was able to act for others, the need to save Luke at the last moment was out of Solo’s self-interest because he was starting to like the kid. Like I said, Star Wars is a lot more philosophical than people give it credit for, and I’d think that as much as Tracinski likes Ayn Rand, that he’d prefer Star Wars over the United Nations in space—Star Trek and all that “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” crap. Screw Spock and his pointy ears—he’s a damn collectivist. Solo is a rugged, gun slinging individualist who acts out of his own self-interest. That’s why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.

We’ll see what happens, time will tell. It was a good conversation that was worth listening to, especially given what Star Wars will mean when it opens in a few weeks. There will be no escape; the opening of The Force Awakens will impact just about everyone no matter where they live. It will be impossible to not notice something about it as the merchandising around Christmas will be everywhere. Just watch the Duracell commercial shown above. Star Wars will literally be everywhere in just a few weeks of this writing. There will be nothing like it ever—history is being made both commercially and philosophically. The question will be whether or not The Force Awakens will be as anticipated on the 19^th of December as it was on the 18^th after people start seeing the movie. To be as successful as Disney needs it to be people will need to see the film several times. And to have that kind of power over the mind of fans—Han Solo will have to be a part of it with an Objectivist approach—otherwise the whole thing falls apart. It’s not the lightsaber battles and space antics that make Star Wars so great—it’s the Objectivist leanings of its basic premise:

Han Solo—“marching into the detention area is not what I had in mind.”

Luke Skywalker—“but she’s rich.”

Han Solo—“How rich?”

Luke Skywalker—“More wealth than you can imagine.”

Han Solo—“I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.”

Luke Skywalker—“you’ll get it.”

Han Solo—“I better!”

Luke Skywalker—“You will!”

Han Solo—“Alright kid, what’s your plan?”

That’s Star Wars—it’s an Objectivist love fest designed before George Lucas was overly liberalized. It’s also why twice during the broadcast with Matt that I uttered to his millions and millions of listeners—“Han shot first!” When Lucas changed Star Wars in 1997 to have the bounty hunter Greedo shoot at Han first in the Mos Eisley cantina fans were angry. It was a liberalized mistake for Lucas to cave under the pressure from the liberal film community to make Han Solo not appear as such a blood thirsty killer. But Solo acting out of self-interest shot first because that is the nature of his character—he’s an Ayn Rand survivalist and the heart of what makes Star Wars great.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

CNBC is Actually a Cable Television Station: The marathon race of people who already lost

I honestly didn’t know CNBC was still a cable channel until I watched the Republican debates on October 28th, 2015. What a pathetic mess those moderators were. They had a record 14 million viewers which is probably more than watch their network over an entire year and those idiots spent their time in the sun showing the world why they are such a ratings bust. I can’t believe those people are actually employed who work at CNBC. I know there is a liberal bias in the media—we know where it comes from as I’ve covered The Naked Communist for a number of years now, and that was one of the strategic objectives by the communists going into the 1960s was to take over both political parties and to control the media. They do—and have on both accounts—but come on. These idiots were just way too obvious about it. Who do they think their potential audience is—the Bolshevik Revolutionaries of 1917? Or maybe it’s the Cuban nut jobs under Castro. Perhaps even the Mao fanatics from China? I didn’t know that there was such a television network that actually had so many radical leftist on a payroll, because I can’t say I’ve ever watched the network—because they never appeared to have anything on that I’d be interested in. Now I know why—geez!

I’m not a fan of all the Republican presidential candidates, but after listening to some of the questions by the CNBC moderators, each of them—even Governor Kasich sounded like rock solid Republicans. Trump’s lambasting of CNBC at the end of the debate was spot on—and so was Marco Rubio’s comments—as were Ted Cruz’s—even Jeb Bush looked like a conservative next to the crazy lunatics on the CNBC moderations panel. Where do these people come from—Hugo Chavez’s personal bathroom? The presidential nominees had a right to be upset, during the recent Democratic debate the questions were so much easier for them—but for the Republicans everything was a gotcha question. They were deliberately designed to make Republicans look bad.

Although I generally liked all the Republicans on the stage that night for different reasons I am still a firm Trump guy at this point. The whole system needs a Teddy Roosevelt type who may very well yank the nation back away from progressivism—whereas Teddy pulled the bar so far to the left as a Republican. By the end of his 7 years in office, Roosevelt was more like Grover Cleveland than he was Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party now needs the opposite to happen and it will take a bombastic personality like Trump to do it. No soft talking Ben Carson will work, or soft faced Marco Rubio. Cruz is too hated by insiders while Rand Paul is not worldly enough. Fiorina is too weak—she is a good debater, but her track record as a CEO is not robust enough. Jeb Bush is too establishment and way too nice. John Kasich is too far behind the times, he’s like those marathon runners who cross the finish line three hours behind all the top-tier runners and then puts a picture of himself on his office desk showing that he’s a marathon runner. He confuses participating in a marathon to being a contender. Huckabee is a nice guy—a pastor type but is way too passive to slug it out with the greasy slime of K-Street—which is where the real fights for the next president are really at. Nobody but Trump has the right stuff to be president on behalf of the Republican Party. Nobody likes to fight as much as Trump does, and the next president will have to LOVE fighting.

It would be my hope that either Ben Carson or Ted Cruz would be the Trump running mate so that a president Trump could set the stage for a 2024 election of a real conservative for perhaps the first time since Calvin Coolidge. Ronald Reagan was an actor playing the part of a conservative that he acquired late in life. I want a conservative that is that way in their marrow of their bones, and within Cruz, I think there is one. But he’s not ready yet and the environment is all wrong for him presently. The day after the debate Paul Ryan was elected Speaker of the House which many people think is the same as electing an establishment candidate, and he is. But the bar is at least headed to the right again as opposed to the left. Ryan is at least an Ayn Rand fan and deep down inside will lean in that direction if allowed. Under a president Trump I think he would move more conservative than he is under an Obama president, much more so than John Boehner. Like his friend Kasich, Boehner is another hour behind him in the marathon puffing away on cigarettes. The sun has set on Boehner a long time ago only nobody told him that the flashlights at his feet were from his supporters who didn’t have the heart to tell him that the sun had already set—and the race was over and the finish line was already disassembled. They didn’t want to hurt his feelings. Paul Ryan is not the best choice, but he was a Tea Party darling at one point, and is proof that the needle is moving back to the political right.

So that’s the trend yet CNBC seemed so far behind the times that they hadn’t even started that marathon race that Boehner and Kasich were already proudly running well behind the front-runners. I mean, it was disgusting—that people actually think as liberally as those idiots at CNBC. I can’t imagine how they even pay for the cameras to keep the network on cable—unless those people work for nothing. It’s a good thing they had the debate because I didn’t even realize they were a channel—I had mistaken them for MSNBC which I used to give some credit to just because I liked Microsoft. But that loyalty went away after Bill Gates became the face of Common Core—and Jeb Bush with it. Microsoft’s influence on MSNBC is gone now, whereas in the early days it was on the tech side of news coverage with was good. But now they are all about progressive politics and are just ridiculous. I had no idea there was even a channel to the left of them!

I supposed I’m grateful that now I know, because of the debates, but I am seriously embarrassed for them as a network. There were so many stupid things that they said that even in hindsight it seems unfathomable. Yet they are real, and the questions they asked were to—all of them with a liberal spin. If there was ever any doubt that The Naked Communist had predicted such a thing successfully, that the media would be controlled by communists in the future—then CNBC is the proof as to that reality. But even that terrible reality isn’t anywhere as sinister as it was a year ago. Now liberals are more of a joke than ever—their policies have been proven ineffective and rejected by sane voters everywhere. They just haven’t paid attention to the memo yet. And that was never more evident than at CNBC. Wow, they are out there and are a dying breed. Watch them before the go extinct, because in this climate, they are well on their way.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Being a Big Fish in a Small Pond: Sheriff Richard K. Jones running for congress

It was spring of 2015 and I was at the Brazenhead in Mason, Ohio having a beer with some heavily connected conspirators fresh off the ear rings of Judy Shelton, the local Republican protector of John Boehner within the ranks of the Central Committee where I first learned that the Speaker of the House in Washington D.C. was planning to step down. It was also there that I learned that Sheriff Richard K. Jones was eyeing Boehner’s congressional seat which evoked some interesting thoughts which had been percolating for quite some time. At times I have liked Sheriff Jones. He once gave me a well done portrait sketch drawn in a way that made him look like a Wild West superstar—which I liked. But he lost me when he supported the union position against Governor Kasich’s Issue 2 in 2012, and the Lakota levy in 2013. As larger than life and John Wayne-like that Sheriff Jones wanted to be, he was a strictly local hometown celebrity who would be like a tropical goldfish cast into the frozen waters of the Artic Ocean if he were to go to Washington where much bigger fish than he experienced in Butler County, Ohio were there to eat him quickly—so I thought it odd that he’d even consider risking his reputation at his age to such a politically dangerous enterprise. After all, in Hamilton, he was a big fish in a small pond—but in Washington, where the GOP is changing rapidly under Tea Party influence—the game had changed in front of his face not in his favor.

I get the opportunity to work with lots of people from other parts of the country. In my work with bullwhips locally I was always well-known to be the best that anybody had ever seen. I grew up with that designation where literally everyone I met had never witnessed a person who could crack a cigarette out of the mouth of a willing participant with a bullwhip. For me it was not enough to be a big fish in a small pond, I had to know that I could be a big fish in a big ocean too—so I pushed myself to get better and compete against people from all over the world. Competition after all makes everyone better, even if you don’t like the results. I knew as a bullwhip artist that I could never truly consider myself one of the best in the world if I didn’t challenge myself against people who also considered themselves the best at the craft.

My journey took me to many competitive events; winning several trophies competing with the best that are out there. I even have had some stints in Hollywood dazzling celebrities with my whip work. I know what it feels like to stand in the middle of the road on Brand Blvd in Glendale California where television producers and movie stars were gathered around stopped traffic to watch me perform because they had never seen what I was doing before—and were fascinated. For me personally, it was then that I deserved to call myself a big fish in a big ocean. I had challenged myself and I had to. My life goal was to write stories about the pulp hero Cliffhanger and as the author; I had to know that I could have the swagger in real life of the character I had created. As a writer I had to know that I could do what I demanded my character to do. I never wanted to be one of those sickly writers who live through their art. Rather, my art had to reflect my reality—so I demanded of myself to be really good at the things I wrote about. Yet prior to the year 2000 few people knew about me outside of my hometown. I was a big fish then too, but the pond was small and easy to win in. Outside of my town the water was much larger and there is always the theory that there is somebody better than you. Until you test yourself against them, you don’t have a right to consider yourself the best—and if that’s your goal, you have to step out of the small pond and into the big one and compete.

Between 2005 and 2008 I had satisfied my goal. I had met and worked with some of the best bullwhip artists in the world. There were a few I didn’t get to meet, but at a high level, everyone is pretty even, so you get a good idea of where you stand among them. And it was very satisfying to realize that with all the hard work, that I could swim with the biggest fish in the biggest water possible and hold my own. I didn’t do such a thing to fulfill my personal ego, but to satisfy my literary needs for my own personal work of philosophy. After I achieved that goal I was ready to move on to the next thing and was quite secure in my place in the universe. Those who watched me and competed against me who worked hard to get better and better, I am happy for. I never felt a need to keep up with them or to outdo their efforts—because I know what they are trying to do—which was the same thing that I was—they need to know that they can swim with the biggest of fish. And I respect people who strive to do that. There is lots of room for big fish to swim in a big ocean. There are plenty of little fish to eat, so there is no reason not to cheer on other big fish to grow even larger—and impressive.

When Sheriff Jones first gave me the poster of himself I thought of him as a big fish. The day he gave it to me Fox News was going to have him on that night to talk about immigration issues on the border of Arizona. And during the Issue 2 union debates he and I were frequent guests on 700 WLW radio—so I thought of him initially as a big fish in a big ocean. But over time it was obvious that he was happy to be the big fish in the small pond, because the ocean out there was a bit too threatening. He’s a local boy who will always be the hometown hero, the public servant who marches in parades and made good by the area he grew up in. But going to Washington D.C.—that’s a big ocean that requires more than just tough talk—you have to actually be tough.

Jones showed what kind of person he was during the Issue 2 debates where he thought he was a conservative Republican who attended Tea Party events and was fighting to preserve American tradition. But his view of that tradition was much like John Boehner’s, a progressive touchy, feely, sentiment about conservatism that belonged more in a Sunday school class than in the halls of Congress. As the government in Washington started changing slowly under the Tea Party influences, Jones stood against that tide attempting to preserve the Republican standard nurtured by crony capitalists and pink middle-grounders just a few steps away from socialism on the scales of political philosophy. Issue 2 exposed him as a labor union supporter who refused to see the damage collective bargaining was doing to local budgets. He certainly lost my support, and many others like me who are looking for a purer version of a constitutional republic than we presently have.

When I heard that he wanted Boehner’s seat the first thought I had was that he’d be reluctant to test himself against the big fish of Washington. I remembered my first bullwhip competition against some really talented people—particularly Chris Camp who had won about everything there was to win in the bullwhip arts. He was a star in Vegas, had several world records and was the bench mark of a really good professional bullwhip artist. I worried for days before the competition about having a respectable showing against him. That was nearly 15 years ago, but I remember well how nervous I was about it. It was a bone chilling paralysis that sucked the life right out of you. The reason I was so nervous was that I thought I was pretty good with the bullwhip, but if I couldn’t hold a candle to Chris, I would know that I didn’t have what it took to be the best. Since the bullwhip was one of my signature attributes it was very important to me to be one of the best, so I pressed on. In 2005 after working very hard, I won every event there was against the best competition that the nation provided. I earned their respect and I earned the right to consider myself one of the big fish—and it was one of the proudest days of my life. In the scheme of things, it was a pretty minor deal—a competition at a regional festival. But, in the world of bullwhip work, it was a big deal to me because I had a lot to lose in the attempt.

In the world of politics becoming a congressman at the federal level is like winning that bullwhip contest against a really skilled group of guys. And Sheriff Jones I knew when I heard the story from the political insiders at Brazenhead that the local sheriff wouldn’t risk the disgrace. It’s not that he’d lose the race. I believe he would be elected if he ran for the seat. Butler County is the most populated area of Boehner’s district, which runs all the way up to Greenville, Ohio. Jones could run and win I think pretty easily. I share with him a passion for two big platform issues, his stance against drugs and illegal immigration. But on most other issues, he is as soft as Boehner was, and the now former Speaker of the House was just chewed up and spit out of Washington by a Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that is fast emerging to dominate the party. Those like the local apologist Judy Shelton who have fought so hard to keep Boehner in power all this time are well behind the political current of the times. Conservatives are demanding to move back to the right, they don’t like the left, or even centralist’s positions. And that is where the big fish swim these days. And in that pond, Sheriff Jones is a little fish who will have to scramble for his very life. That’s not a risk I think he is willing to make at this stage of his life. The time for him to test himself with such a feat would have been twenty years ago. The insurrection that is currently happening on Capital Hill for which Donald Trump and several other outsiders are a part are going to change politics from now on. Boehner saw that he was not equipped to handle the hard decisions that are ahead for a Speaker of the House, or even a congressman. So he jumped off the train singing songs. Sheriff Jones is of the same mind. If Sheriff Jones wants to be remembered as a big fish—he better stay in the small pond, because if he goes to Washington, he’ll be eaten rather quickly.

The talk went on that evening and I listened casually while looking at all the magnificent cannons decorating the Irish Pub. It was an appropriate setting for political intrigue and maniacal subterfuge among the socially manipulative. And that made the beer taste better. But I only half believed those sources when they said that Boehner was going to step down. So I have to also believe that Sheriff Jones is going to climb out on that limb and try to take Boehner’s seat. My advice to him would be to keep his image of a big fish alive for the sake of his grandchildren. An embarrassing experience in Washington would be hard to recover from unless he thinks he’s savvy enough to take on the candidates coming out of FreedomWorks. Because they are the future—the past is John Boehner and progressive radio hosts like Bill Cunningham. Sheriff Jones has more in common with them than the candidates nurtured along through FreedomWorks. Getting elected is only half the battle. Getting trampled as a RINO on the house floor is far more embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Becoming a Gunfighter: How Howard Darby is saving America

For many years I have worked nearly exclusively with bullwhips to be one of those few handfuls in the world who can be considered an expert. It has always been my thing and I will always enjoy it. However, much of that has been out of necessity. Even further back I was part of a martial art school that was a rather vicious enterprise. The owner was corrupt and he instructed his students to be bad people. He was essentially like the bad school owner in the film Karate Kid. He stole money, ran around with young women, and taught his students to be killers so he could win more trophies in tournaments—and thus, sell more classes for his enterprise. I never liked the guy, and he never liked me. One thing I learned from that experience was how to use nunchucks and other melee weapons. To this very day, there may be people out there as fast as me with nunchucks, but I haven’t met them. If I really get loosened up, I can swing them around the way Bruce Lee did in Fists of Fury.

Martial arts to me was always an oriental practice, and I was always distinctly American. I never wanted to be a samurai, a ninja, or a black belt martial artist. But I did want to be a gunfighter. But the problem was ammunition was expensive and I had no way to really practice it. But I was able to practice with a bullwhip and carry a lot of my melee martial arts training directly over into that western art to a point where I felt I could use it in any combat situation with great precision to the point of invincibility. For the last three decades that’s what I’ve done and it worked out well. I have lived in neighborhoods where practicing with firearms was just out of the question, but practicing with bullwhips was doable. So my love of western arts evolved along those lines.

But times change and always in the back of my mind was the desire to be a real gunslinger. I have done pretty much everything I ever wanted to do with bullwhips. There are several of us around the world who are very good with bullwhips and on a good day we can all beat each other at the various competitions, but you get to a certain point where you either level off, or you take another step. For me, that evolution will be toward a gunfighter.

I share obviously with Howard Darby a specific love of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. They are American martial art films that are significant, and they hold up to time quite effectively. It has not been lost to me that modern society has been distinctly anti-gun which is an insult to American culture, because guns are very much an important part of the United States. Criticizing guns is like insulting an oriental of the merits of martial arts. Don’t tell a Japanese person that their Samurai culture is stupid, because they will be insulted. So why is it that in the United States when someone of authority wants to criticize an action, they make derogatory references to the “Wild West.” The reason is that they want to change the United States into something else—so they attack the art forms that define it.

I’m at a point in my life where guns aren’t so expensive, and I can certainly afford the timing equipment, the holsters, and I have time to practice. Up until a few years ago I worked 16 to 18 hour days so I didn’t have time to pick up on a new skill. But now I do, and I can’t think of a better one for me than that of a gunfighter. I have spent considerable time defending traditional America. I have friends in high places and if I wanted to, I could immediately be a part of any political insider movement and work at a high-profile position. But I don’t want to. I’d rather be a gunfighter.

Each year as I’ve said I use the Annie Oakley event in Darke County, Ohio as a kind of reference point for re-centering my moral compass. At our annual dinner it has been increasingly apparent that the world is hungry for western arts, but people feel guilty for wanting it. In our group we haven’t done much with guns, really due to the stigma behind them—but since our Western Arts Showcase has moved from the fairgrounds to the York Woods area, the regulations have loosened up quite a lot leading me to consider livening things up a bit with actual gun fire. But it takes a lot of practice, and money to get even remotely close to where Howard Darby is. But like a lot of good people in the western arts professions, Darby is promoting his sport so that people like me will enter the field and push things forward. Just like in the whip world, there really aren’t that many people who still perform as gunfighters. It’s been a dying art form. Most who do are older people and that needs to change.

Meanwhile everyone wants to be a black belt in martial arts because there are fewer stigmas in the effort. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are common loves for young people whereas all the old cowboy heroes of days long gone are considered fringe worthy, and that is just appalling. I see Fast Draw as a sport that most adequately promotes the Second Amendment and that makes people like Howard Darby important ambassadors to Constitutional preservation—and I’d like to expand that considerably in the years to come. I think it’s about time that America stop apologizing for being so good, and that all things categorized as Western Arts lose the stigma given by progressive society as outdated, Indian hating, unintelligent, traditionalists. American westerns built our nation into something unique and are much more influential and powerful than martial arts—and I think it would be best if Fast Draw was as common in the future as fishing is today.

With the tools available today, there should be more people like Howard Darby. With Cabela’s superstores two or three hundred miles apart all over the nation, there are plenty of resources for modern shooters to enjoy. It’s not like it used to be, there are plenty of ways to get access to equipment and supplies. That’s another aspect to this desire to become a gunfighter that is so appealing to me now as opposed to several years ago. Back when I was doing some gunsmithing work and had a FFL, Brownells was about the only place you could get really good supplies for such a sport. But these days, Bass Pro and Cabela’s has most of what you need right off the shelf. And it’s a great excuse to shop at those places more often—which represents the best that America has to offer.

It is time to stop apologizing for the gun culture that we have in America. I have no desire to be more like Europe and I certainly don’t want to be more like the mystics of the orient. The American Gunfighter is an art that is rooted in capitalism and honor. It is unique to a free society. And its time that we defend it properly instead of relegating it to western events like the Annie Oakley Days in Greenville, Ohio once a year. I think its time to open things up a bit and let people know that practicing with guns isn’t a shameful experience. Its part of our heritage and that is something we should all cherish. Because it’s ours and nobody else’s.

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.

Gery Deer on the Clarkcast: America’s real Bronco Billy

For the second weekend in a row I will be hosting Matt Clark’s radio show on Saturday, June 20th, 2015 at 1 PM. The topic this week will be a discussion of traditional Western Arts and a sneak peek at this year’s Annie Oakley event put on by Gery Deer. At the bottom of the hour I will have Gery on to talk about the classic event in Greenville, Ohio and tell stories from years past. It is a topic that is dear to me. It will also be a different kind of show from the typical AM radio discussion that often circulates around politics. Western Arts to me transcend politics and are part of our American heritage which should be preserved at all cost. Click the video below to see a summation of the 2014 Annie Oakley event.

July often resets my American patriotism each year starting with the Fourth of July and ending with the Annie Oakley event which takes place in Darke County, Ohio on the last weekend of every July—celebrating the old western performer’s birthday in Greenville. I get more out of the event than I put into it—whereas people like Gery make it all happen. I show up and participate in the bullwhip contests, but most of the time I watch the performances of the other participants with genuine glee, because most of them make their livings as actual western art performers.

One of my favorite films from the past is Clint Eastwood’s Bronco Billy where he plays a nearly always broke western performer. I used to watch that movie and admire that character as a pure American creation. A part of me always wanted to live that life—and if I didn’t have children and a wife that I was responsible to, I might have done just such a thing—roaming from town to town performing western arts for a sleepy America in hopes of igniting in just a few youth here and there the wonders of freedom and western expansion from a historical perspective.

Gery Deer is the closest person I’ve ever met to a real life Bronco Billy. He has a background that is white-collar; he’s a writer, a television producer, a computer technician, a college graduate well versed and quite comfortable in professional settings. He’s been on America’s Got Talent and done films as a material supplier for projects like The Rundown. He also runs the only bullwhip studio in America from his home where he teaches the art form to students. He’s also a bit of a geek, and attends sci-fi conventions with boyish enthusiasm. But at his core he’s a western performer and vaudeville musician. His band the Brothers and Company performs most weekends of the year and is a throwback to yesteryear with their compositions. He’s a very unique person who fits best in a motion picture screen rather than real life.

Gery could be a grotesquely rich man if he wanted to be, but he’s too authentic to be. He will steer his material a bit to fit the regulations of the industry as he does for television. He stays away from controversy so that he always has options, but to his core, he’s a very solid family man and an advocate of old-fashioned entertainment. He’s as old school as there is in entertainment. He will bend, but he never breaks and has been that way for the entire decade that I’ve known him.

It is a pleasure to bring people like this to the surface who work in the cracks of life to a broadcast audience like those at WAAM. Even though Gery is clearly a successful person, he is slightly out-of-step with mainstream entertainment, which is decidedly how Clint Eastwood was in Bronco Billy. Both characters possess the tools to be as successful as they want to be, but are stubborn in their adherence to classic American art. This makes Gery always a bit of a “where’s Waldo” type in a busy society. When he is hired for a show, it’s for his skill, his depreciating humor, but more than anything, the classic vaudeville style he still brings to Americana. His best friends are bullwhip artists, sadomasochists who live in the back of their vans 12 months out of the year and eat based on their latest job in every back hole-venue they can come up with. He is close friends with Hollywood stuntmen, sword swallowers, magicians, and knife throwers—and at the same time every television media personality in the Dayton region.

So it will be an interesting hour of radio to an audience who hasn’t had an opportunity to meet people like this in their day-to-day lives. Radio is a perfect venue to place such a unique personality into the public. I have the fortune to know a great number of very unique personalities. It comes from my lifestyle, and I truly wish I had time to nurture them all along. As it stands, I don’t have a lot of time for people in general. I make time when I can, but most people I enjoy most only get time with me a few times a year. And they understand because they are all equally diversified. Matt Clark of course is one of those people and I am glad he is fulfilling the parameters of his secret mission/honeymoon—and that I have the opportunity to cover for his show and bring some color to the AM landscape. For the radio listener there needs to be something unique they are getting from the experience—something they couldn’t get otherwise, and Gery is certainly one of those people.

Be sure to tune this weekend to the live show. Of course I’ll have the actual pod cast up at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, but there is nothing like live radio—not knowing what is coming next. I’m going to preface Gery by talking about my history with bullwhips and what the value of that relationship is regarding classic American value. That by itself will be interesting enough. The show will then migrate into my relationship with Gery Deer and the upcoming Annie Oakley event which is unique in America. For the casual listener it will be an entertaining hour. For the seasoned veteran, it will be confirmation and reassurance that you are not the only one out there. There are others.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

What Every Man Must Have: Brownells’ “Big Book”

This is just for the guys today. I’m sure there are ladies, especially those who read here who are just as interested in what I’m about to say, but demographically, this information is most potent to guys—exclusively! The information I am about to give the men in my audience here may rattle their very foundations to the bare DNA with delight. But let me first preface my statement by reporting that the little bit of construction occurring in West Chester just north of the railroad tracks on 747 is in fact a new target range built for indoor shooting and it will be able to handle my Smith & Wesson.500 Magnum. That by itself is something to get excited about.

As I stated previously I have decided to dust off my old gunsmithing roots and get back into things a bit—which for me the very first stop was where I left off—at Brownells and their famous “Big Book.” Well, two wonderful things happened over the weekend while I was on the air at WAAM radio. My family wanted to go see Jurassic World again—which we did as soon as I got off the air and my new Brownells “Big Book” arrived in the mail. I had been doing some work on a few old guns I have and have them all tore apart in my shop and needed a needle oiler to finish so I turned to Brownells for some Kellube synthetic gun lubricant for the magic stuff that makes guns work so well. They rewarded me not only with prompt service, but with a new “Big Book” catalog that features the most extensive gun parts supply in the world.

What surprises me is that Brownells is not on every single man in America’s nightstand. Too many people who consider themselves shooters do not know about Brownells, which is a crime, because they have more cool gadgets and gizmos in their “Big Book” catalog than any Mac Tool or Snap On catalog ever hoped to have. It is in my opinion the best catalog for a man that there is in the world—and every guy should have one. Every man—even Bruce Jenner. It is in a man’s DNA to want tools to make life better and there is nothing better than tools and guns to a man—NOTHING! Nothing, nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The pictures here show just some examples.

Oh, you need a cleaning kit for a military issue M203 (40mm) grenade launcher or perhaps a (37 mm) variant—guess what—Brownells sells one. Order it today and it will be on your doorstep in a few short days. Oh—you need a tool kit for your AR-15—Brownells has all the special tools you will need to break down that firearm to the last pin that holds it together and allow you to put it back together again. Brownells is the best resource for the modern shooter in the world. End of story. So when you find you need something—feel free to support the local gun dealers and outlets like Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops for the basics. But when you need specifics—schematics, special screw drivers, wrenches, punches, etc, Brownells is the place to shop. What about a hammer spring for your Marlin? Brownells has that spring in stock. You can buy it there as well as all the tools it takes to take the gun apart and put it in. That makes Brownells a treasure beyond value for any man who loves his guns and the tools it takes to maintain them.

I remembered Brownells from my old gunsmithing days when I maintained a FFI and had to report at the tender age of 19 and 20 my work back to the federal government which I never liked. I got busy in subsequent years raising a family and working with friends within the Western Arts community specifically with bullwhips for the next two decades so I got away from gunsmithing. After I purchased my .500 Magnum I was looking for cleaning supplies for it and dusted off my memory of my old supplier. So I contacted them to see if they were still in business, and guess what—they are better than ever. But you don’t hear about them too much outside of close shooting circles so mainstream guys don’t know much about Brownells. If you are a guy and you like tools and guns, then you need to have a Brownells “Big Book.” There is no “ifs” about it. You just have to do it.

Brownells carries over 30,000 custom accessories for firearms and is still a tight nit family company that conducts themselves with an old school emphasis on customer service and quality. They are among the best that America has to offer as far as a company. They are small enough to still be family owned, but big enough to carry so many unique items in their vast inventory. It is stunning what they have in their catalog. Much of it can be found online, but there are so many items that it still takes a classic catalog to browse through to see everything because often there are things you didn’t know you needed that you would only see by flipping through the hundreds and hundreds of pages of their “Big Book.”

I’m sharing this valuable information because Brownells is important to maintaining the Second Amendment. There is a real push from progressive billionaires like George Soros to put pressure on firearm manufacturers and legislators to regulate the firearm industry with a mad mother neurosis on safety. Safety is overrated, what matters more is the experience of being alive, and when dealing with firearms it’s important to handle them with caution so that we can all be alive long enough to enjoy them and the freedoms they provide. Because there are a lot of bad guys out there, and they want our guns so they can thrive in the power vacuum left behind, there is legislation to attempting to destroy the industry on the supply side. Guns are needed to counter the attempts of the Soros types. George Soros would likely not be one of the men who would like Brownells—rather he would prefer Karl Marx for reading material, and that makes him a dangerous man. For the raw hearted American man Brownells has what you are looking for—especially the Gunsmith Kinks series of books sold through Brownells only. The best way to take away the strategy of the progressive left against guns in America is to keep our guns working longer and better with the tricks of the gunsmithing trade so that all the attempts by Soros and his gun grabbing European progressives will be for nothing. Brownells actually allows you to build a gun from scratch, you don’t necessarily need a firearms manufacturer if you know what you are doing and you can learn through Brownells. That’s their mission in life.

We want to keep Brownells around. They are based in Iowa and are in good hands in gun country far away from the grabbers of New York and Los Angeles, but they need business to hedge against the legislative attacks that they have endured for decades. There will be more of those attacks, so to keep the “Big Books” flowing Brownells needs our respect and support.

As I get back into this field of endeavor I am so happy to see Brownells still out there doing the good work they have done for over 75 years. Every man should have a Brownells book next to their bed and should buy at least one tool from them. Because everything about Brownells points to quality and respect—they are the best in the business where threats to gun rights are coming from every direction and they are there to help expand firearm ability and add a new layer to their enjoyment. So if you believe in Second Amendment rights, of course the NRA is important—George Lang’s Second Call Defense is as well, but for my money Brownells is as important. They will enhance that trip to the new West Chester shooting range by having cool gadgets to work on the guns to get them ready at home and at the facility for a day of shooting. The “Big Book” is a work of literature that every man should have and enjoy for the sheer testosterone that emerges from the sight of quality tools and their utilization on fine and treasured firearms. There is nothing better than that! Click the link below to get your own “Big Book” today.

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ppc/default.aspx?mc_id=1400&srch=1&ch=ppc&cm_mmc=ppc-_-Itwine-_-Bing-_-Gunsmithing%20Tools

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Preparing for War in America: The way to turn the tide against enemies both foreign and domestic

I certainly wouldn’t consider myself an alarmist. I tend to underplay things in favor of analysis, so when I say or write something it comes after lots of careful consideration. By nature when dealing with observations well over the horizon of contemporary concerns, some of the reports from those unseen frontiers seem like conspiracy. But they aren’t. When Glenn Beck said during his Monday radio show referenced below, that Americans need to prepare for war, I was already thinking the same thing. In fact, it was the premier reason that I finally went out and bought my .500 magnum after many years of contemplation. When you combine the incredible mismanagement within the United States government of our finances, cultural priorities, failed education system and declining Christian conviction, it adds up to a country on the decline. Couple that with a world filled with radical extremists of all walks of life that openly want to attack the United States any way possible, and the blueprint for disaster is clearly at hand. Then to top all that off is the United Nations that wants nothing more than to see America topple as a superpower so that its aim of global socialism can then take root. It is they in the United Nations who are silently rooting for this upcoming war. We’ve talked about it here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom for years, and finally the time is upon us. As I said in a previous article the responsible thing to do for all peace-loving Americans is to go to the store and buy a gun, because when firearm sales spike up, it just might put the scare into these encroaching forces to retreat from their current plans. But a failure to act will encourage them. That failure will lead to much worse than the implication of buying a gun for personal property protection. Here’s how Glenn Beck’s The Blaze news outlet reported the issue:

Glenn Beck on Monday suggested that Americans “prepare for all-out war, war unlike we have ever seen in our lifetime.”

Beck was discussing the Iraq war on his radio program when he made the warning, saying it should have begun more aggressively, with “shock and awe” from the outset. He has long maintained that in war, one should fight to win and then come home.

“We talk about World War II, where they did shock and awe,” Beck’s co-host Stu Burguiere said. “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians died. It was not a pretty picture. And obviously war is hell, but is there any way that America — with the backbone we have today, with the 99 percenters and Occupy Wall Street as part of this country, with all that — they are going to accept a war effort like that?”

Beck said the next truly devastating terrorist attack will be perpetrated by “home-grown” terrorists, and “they will be in multiple cities, so you won’t know” what to expect next.

“Did you see what ISIS came out and said? That ISIS, their number one goal now is to hit America and kill the president. I cannot imagine. That would change perspectives entirely,” Beck remarked. “We got the Patriot Act the last time. Can you even imagine what the Department of Homeland Security would do if they, God forbid, hurt the president?”

Beck said he doesn’t know how exactly the attack would manifest itself, but he suggests that “you prepare for all-out war.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/glenn-beck-says-this-is-why-americans-should-prepare-for-all-out-war/

To get through this time of massive collapse not only of hopes and dreams that previous generations may have had for the future—but a literal collapse of resources available, it will take a swagger from the typical American that has not been seen since its inception. To get that swagger it helps to have a well stocked personal arsenal in each and every home. The police and military are useful for keeping the peace in this current environment, but they are collective based organizations who take orders from a failing government. So they really can’t be trusted to deal with the acts of terror that are coming both domestically and from foreign aggression. When the resources truly run out in poor sectors of a city for instance the looting of the outlining suburbs will become a lucrative target and as seen in Ferguson and Baltimore recently, the police will not be able to help and the military won’t be willing as they were in the 60s to step in. That leaves residences alone to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic—which is why there is a Second Amendment in the first place.

It really would only take a few days without power for instance to set off the massive violence seen in recent movies like The Purge to unleash across society. The only thing that really keeps mankind working together is easy access to food and water. The moment those two things are gone, human beings quickly become nothing more than animals—and for those who do not want to be victims to animals, you need to protect yourself with a firearm. For instance, consider the logistical problem of making deliveries to a local store during a crises situation, such as a roving mob of radicals looking to steal whatever they can get their hands on exacerbated by a long sustained power outage. The police would be overloaded with crime breakouts everywhere and could not protect every truck delivering supplies. Carriers would likely not risk delivering to places where their drivers might be attacked, but if the area is affluent and well-protected by thousands of homes all containing firearms, where crime is lower, they are more likely to continue supplying to those areas. That is just a small way that owning a firearm is the responsible thing to do. The easy targets for such mobs will be areas where there are few firearms, particularly urban areas where only the bad buys have guns. But suburbs where there are lots of firearms would be much harder to attack just because of the sheer volume of firearms located in those regions.

I remember when Hurricane Fran knocked out power to Liberty Township, Ohio for about 4 days. I had to buy a chain saw from Tractor Supply to get fallen trees off my house. They had to make the financial exchange the old fashion way, with cash and a hand written receipt. The banks couldn’t give out any money because of the lack of power, gas stations couldn’t pump fuel, and credit card companies couldn’t do phone transactions. If I hadn’t had $600 in cash on me I wouldn’t have been able to buy the chain saw. But if that Tractor Supply store had been in an area that was not surrounded by homes with an average gun ownership of four or more, they might not have been willing to take the risk of holding all that cash in a safe until the power was restored. And they would have stopped deliveries because they couldn’t protect their inventory. That’s the benefit of gun ownership, when the grid goes down—which will be the objective all the upcoming maniacal terrorists—the best way to keep some semblance of a civilized society is to offer up your guns as protection of capitalist endeavors. Delivery of products and services is what the Second Amendment guarantees. When traveling through areas of the country where gun ownership is high, you tend to see more financial investment by entrepreneurs. Where gun ownership is low there is less. And in those areas where gun ownership is high you are more likely to see people treating each other civilly whether it is like Tractor Supply allowing cash transactions during a power outage while carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in raw cash in their vaults, or a grocery keeping deliveries coming because their client base isn’t a threat to their operations. Gun ownership is the backbone of a capitalist economy.

When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 they intended to start a chain reaction that would harm the American economy. They didn’t care about killing 3000 people, but they did want to kill the American economy and it is a sure bet that future attacks will be focused on a similar outcome. They don’t care if it is a slow death. They only care that America dies. The poor management of our current government in America whether by design or sheer ineptness has set the stage for making our economy an easy target for those who hate the United States and its capitalist endeavors seeking to put an end to our country’s sovereignty. There is no reason to think that there isn’t more attacks coming aimed directly at our very lifestyle—and most of the world is behind the effort. We have to be honest about that.

One of the reasons that Japanese society flourished so well after World War II is that their whole society was destroyed—including their rules and regulations. They were able quickly to take their samurai warrior mythological background with their collective unity and adopt American capitalism to rise to the top of the economic standard in a few short years. Enemies of America have sought for a long time to further encumber our economy more and more one rule at a time until it is so difficult to do business in America that our economy would just collapse from the sheer debt collected over time and the inability to deliver enough GDP to sustain that debt. It’s a strategy being used against us all, silently, slowly and with great patience. When the time is right, they will strike. As Beck said, a major strike now would cripple us with more branches of government, more regulations, more taxes and fees as the panic driven types who were caught mismanaging the situation attempt to throw money and resources at the issues to mask their incompetence. And even that is part of the strategy against us even now—to get the panic driven in the United States to assist the enemy with more self-imposed regulation. If there are any fantasies of holding on to your country, you better prepare for all out war. And you don’t prepare for war without guns and ammunition—not for this war that’s coming.

Over the years I tend to deal with personal threats without guns. I have a collection of melee weapons that do just fine for assailants of three or less. Nine times out of ten melee weapons are just fine for staying out of trouble while protecting assets. However in the back of my mind if the situation calls for that tenth occurrence, then I have firearms that can handle the task. But preparing for war is not just about personal protection. Its more than that—it’s about keeping your society functioning when elements of safety and structure are threatened. For that you need to have guns—lots of guns. The more the better—because guns ensure that pockets of violence will be isolated to areas that don’t have guns—which gives those in charge of retaking areas dominated by violence and chaos a chance to strategically do so. Guns help a lot more than any study has so far proclaimed. They bring peace of mind to more than just the family residence—they make it hard for bad guys to run loose and prey on the innocent where opportunity through economical means is more prevalent. Guns mean defense not just of private property, but entire regions. So the most practical and best way to prepare for this upcoming war—and perhaps even prevent such a tragedy is to buy a gun today. And better yet—several guns. Guns mean stability.

Those who are against private gun ownership ironically are those who have mismanaged the situation to the level they currently are—and they are not in a position to offer their criticisms. The world has gone astray under their advice so its time to stop listening to them. They were given a seat at the table of thought and they failed—miserably. That leaves the rest to deal with the crises they created—and to do that—we need guns–lots and lots of guns. The war of tomorrow won’t be fought with tanks, airplanes or even ground troops. It will be fought by individuals against collectivists and for the individual the gun gives them leverage against the terrorism that comes often from mobs of activists seeking to advance their cause—whatever it may be. In the case of Islam it is the worship of a god. In the case of politics, it is a left-leaning Karl Marx philosophy. But in all cases individuals have to protect capitalism and to do that—we need guns. When a society has a lot of guns, it will have the swagger that’s needed to fight back against horrible enemies who think like animals and are willing to do anything to anybody just to advance their version of reality.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

What Comments can Teach Us: The changing tide of public education sentimate

Since the Enquirer has picked through my material to help boost its readership at times, I’m sure they won’t mind if I use their comment section from a recent article about Lakota teachers to explore some of the back and forth that has been going on, which is important to capture for analysis. Back in the day I’d sometimes participate in these comments like my friend Sharon Poe below does, but since the Enquirer has moved to requiring Facebook log ins, it excludes me. I don’t do Facebook. There are a couple of generic accounts that were created for my professional endeavors, which I don’t even log in to—so I have no Facebook account and I never will. I do not agree with the terms of service at Facebook, so the Enquirer system doesn’t work for me. But there is some use in watching what other people have to say which can be seen below. In essence, the following comment stream is regarding the recent teacher protests before and after school activities over the merit pay issue.

Really there are two types of people who participate in these forums. It used to be all union people until a few years ago when they began to be challenged out in the open by reformers. Then the standard answers about how hard the teaching profession is, or how much money they make, or how much they sacrifice for the “children” was unchecked, but not anymore. More than ever, everyday people participate in these forums to advance thought, and opinions have changed. It should be noticed that one commenter castigated my friend Sharon who is from a neighboring district of Mason for sticking her nose into Lakota business, but nothing is said to the teacher from Sandusky schools which is about as far away in the state of Ohio that anyone could get. That is just one example of the bi-polar relationship that public school teachers and their supporters have with the outside world. What’s good for them is acceptable 100% of the time. But if someone from the other side of opinion utilizes the same—they kick and scream like babies with a rash during a diaper change. The rampant union supporter is one type of participant—and they have largely been neutered from what they used to be. They are very careful about their comments compared to five years ago. This is because of the other type, the reformer—who is growing in number year by year and has been present to debate the very premise of pubic education. Have a look at the basis for their discussions.

Joe Shooner ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

I’m a Lakota parent, and I fully support the idea of paying our teachers well. My kids are relying on that education, I consider it money well spent to retain and attract good teachers. I know my kids teachers. I see the cars they drive, I learn where they live. On paper, some district employees are doing very well – especially since most cost estimates I’ve seen include ALL benefits. As a person in a small business, I can tell you that a 40K salary can EASILY have a total cost of $60K if you factor in taxes, healthcare, etc. The majority of teachers are not getting rich off of this job. If yo…See More

Like · Reply · 7 · Apr 24, 2015 9:44am

Joe Doerger

The whole merit pay issue is specious. Mainly because it’s unsustainable and will actually cost districts MORE in the long run which means MORE and HIGHER taxes MORE often.

Every merit pay scheme has been used to keep down some salaries by giving more to others. The pool of money has to grow larger to pay everymore teachers more merit pay. Without a reliable source of new money, merit pay will result in unfair discrepancies in teacher pay. You can’t give all the money to a math teacher when you also need English and Social Studies teachers.

Think about it, if EVERY teacher qualifies for “mer…See More

Like · Reply · 3 · Apr 24, 2015 10:14am

Emily Cottingham

This is very unfair for the teachers. How would you like to be judged on the performance of others? Some students do not have the capacity or the desire to learn, and why should a teacher be judged on that? Also, some of the worst teachers teach the smartest kids, who are self driven. Why should that teacher be rewarded because their students perform well? Basing a teacher’s pay off of a students work is unjust, and will just encourage teachers to only teach to the tests and nothing else. Learning in school is a made up of much more than learning how to pass stupid assessments designed by those not teaching the class.

Like · Reply · 3 · Apr 24, 2015 8:27am

Nicol Neate

sorry, too many are just glorified babysitters, and if they have a student who has no desire to learn, or is struggling it is THEIR JOB to get through some how.

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 8:49am

Joe Doerger

Nicol Neate sorry, but you are a very uninformed citizen. They’re TEACHERS.

Now if you suggest that some of their students (and their parents) are glorified babies, you might be on to something

Like · Reply · 6 · Apr 24, 2015 9:09am

Emily Cottingham

There’s only so much teachers can do. In the real world, if an employee does nothing, they get fired. In school, the most that can happen is the student can get a detention, and gets failed. But they are still supposed to learn the material, and the teacher gets evaluated based on that. The teacher can’t follow the student home and make them do the work. They can’t keep them after and force them to do it. And they can’t sacrifice class time to teach that student individually, and sacrifice the learning of the other students. Often, the parents aren’t making their kids accountable and don’t force their kids to do homework. But if the student isn’t learning, the teachers automatically get blamed.

Like · Reply · 3 · Apr 24, 2015 9:46am

Show 4 more replies in this thread

Jackie Conrad ·

Teacher at Sandusky City Schools

The Constitution. Read it. Those teachers are exercising their rights. Judge not.

Like · Reply · 2 · 17 hrs

Alex Daniel ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

Yes and using their positions to unduly influence their pupils into supporting their backwards political beliefs….I guess tax payers shouldn’t be allowed to preside in judgement over that right?

Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael Smith ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

What people do not seem to understand is that the evaluation system mandated by the Ohio State Legislature is horrifically flawed. The American Statistical Association has even stated that it has zero value in determining teacher merit.

The fundamental issue is that the state mandates the use of test scores but the calculation that translates these scores into merit is no more reliable than flipping a coin. They take each child’s score at the beginning of the year on their grade-level test, then project what the child would have to score at the “end” of the year (in reality a month or two b…See More

Like · Reply · 2 · Apr 24, 2015 11:41am

Sharon Constable Poe ·

Loveland High School

Until Ohio becomes a Right to Work state unions will control our schools! These people have no idea what it is like to have to sacrifice. Disgusting and shame on you Lakota teachers!

Like · Reply · 1 · Apr 24, 2015 8:18am

Joe Doerger

Yeah! Shame on you teachers for exercising your right to assemble peacefully according to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America!

How DARE you?

Quick! Let’s pass some laws so they can’t do that. After all, LIBERTY, is only for someone else! And not teachers.

Like · Reply · 5 · Apr 24, 2015 9:03am

Don DeLotell ·

Miami University

Shame on you Sharon Poe for sticking your nose into Lakota Schools just like you did for so many of those years with Mason schools–you are from the Party of No and to think teachers haven’t sacrificed indicates how clueless of what a teacher actually does speaks volumes. If being a teacher is so good I would suggest you go get a college degree with a major in Education and after 4 years apply for the “dream job”.

Like · Reply · 3 · 23 hrs

Michael Croy

@Sharon- Can you share some examples of how teachers have no idea about what it is like to sacrifice?

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Ryan Pride ·

Front Ensemble Technician at Phantom Regiment

If you think basing pay off of merit (I.e. Test scores) holds teachers accountable, then you are ignorant on the subject. All tests do is measure how well a kid takes a test, not if they actually understood the information. Good teachers are being punished by standardized testing and are leaving the profession in droves. Would you trust someone to make a car seat for your child, but then argue that they’re paid too much to make a quality and safe product to protect your child? No? Well guess what, your child’s EDUCATOR (as in the person who provides information for them to use the rest of thei…See More

Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hrs

Alex Daniel ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

Let’s see:
-Irrationally equating the purchasing choice of a commercial commodity to the pay scale of a public sector worker….check.

-blindly accusing parents of being absent from their child’s lives and pawning their education off on strangers…check.

-and presenting the boilerplate, ready-made response to the idea of actually having standards in performance evaluations for teachers….check.

Seems you’ve hit all the bases of being a stooge for teacher’s unions. Congratulations.

Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Ryan Pride ·

Front Ensemble Technician at Phantom Regiment

Not being able to negate any of my points? Check. Mindlessly joining the ranks of critics who probably have zero teaching experience? Check. Attempting to belittle someone though intellectual masterbation? Double check. Being a “stooge” doesn’t make me wrong.

Like · Reply · 2 · 14 hrs

Kevin Lee Austin ·

System Administrator at Wright State University

Here is some interesting reading from 2011.

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/…/pay-rate-for…/

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 10:48am

Joe Shooner ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

I would guess, and this is truly a guess, that those numbers do not reflect their actual salary, but their cost to the disctrict. While they are related, it’s important to realize that any legitimate employer who pays taxes, medicare, and especially any type of health insurance, will incur a much higher “cost” for an employee than what that employee receives on their paycheck, even their gross wages. It varies, but an employer can easily have a cost of 25-40% haigher than the salary alone.

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 11:08am

Joe Doerger

Sow what’s your point? Is it too much? Is it too little? Compared to what?

What do YOU make and why don’t YOU list it along with your name and other personal information? What are you afraid of?

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 11:11am

Kevin Lee Austin ·

System Administrator at Wright State University

Joe Shooner Those are salaries, not salary plus benefits.

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 11:12am

Show 2 more replies in this thread

Kevin Lee Austin ·

System Administrator at Wright State University

Must be a weekday. More grumbling from the Lakota teacher’s union.

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 7:51am

Joe Doerger

I think it’s call “freedom of assembly.”

Like · Reply · 3 · Apr 24, 2015 10:16am

Alex Daniel ·

Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe Doerger; It’s called stealing tax payer dollars.

Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Nicol Neate

Golly, don’t the teachers use this in their own classes? You have to earn things in life, including raises. ~rolls eyes~ Our teachers are becoming priviledged group who think they dont have to answer to anyone. Well, our failing schools show they need to earn their check, like anyone else. Quit whining like you’d tell your students.

Like · Reply · Apr 24, 2015 8:22am

Joe Doerger

Oh those “privileged” teachers. With their desks and their tests. And their rooms with chairs. I guess that’s why EVERYONE is chucking their careers on Wall St. to get into classrooms as soon as possible. After all, THAT’S where the money is, right?

Like · Reply · 5 · Apr 24, 2015 9:07am

Michelle Langlois Wagner ·

West Chester Township, Butler County, Ohio

Even using your extremely flawed logic, Nicol, the schools in Lakota have repeatedly been identified as excellent with distinction-the very opposite of failing. You are simply demanding that teachers work hard for less pay, based on a system (merit pay) that has never been shown to work. Ever.

Like · Reply · 2 · Apr 24, 2015 11:53am

Maureen Basedow ·

10th grade science teacher at Cincinnati Public Schools

Michelle Langlois Wagner, I was a college professor before teaching high school. The absolute best local students at Miami and Xavier came from Lakota. Lakota was doing it right. The best local suburban high school by far, Nicol Neate. Now who should be paid for that?

Like · Reply · 17 hrs

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/04/24/lakota-teachers-demonstrate-front-schools/26293313/

Probably the most common argument in favor of the public education system and the infinite pay the employees demand was from the Shooner person: “I’m a Lakota parent, and I fully support the idea of paying our teachers well. My kids are relying on that education, I consider it money well spent to retain and attract good teachers. I know my kids teachers. I see the cars they drive, I learn where they live. On paper, some district employees are doing very well – especially since most cost estimates I’ve seen include ALL benefits. As a person in a small business, I can tell you that a 40K salary can EASILY have a total cost of $60K if you factor in taxes, healthcare, etc. The majority of teachers are not getting rich off of this job.” That guy thinks he has all the bases covered, he identifies himself as a person who understands the economics of the situation—he asserts the value the public education service has to him, then attempts to justify the value without any real substantial equity being used to balance out that value. On the surface these people sound reasonable until you consider the implication of what they are putting forth. 40K per year is above the average wage rate in the United States—let alone 60K—so how much is a teacher worth? That depends on whether or not you have school aged kids. Youthful parents tend to be more neurotic on the issue whereas older people have learned the value of money and are more stringent.

The other argument that didn’t come up much in these comments, but ultimately are the last resort in such exchanges is that public schools should be appeased because our property values magically go up every year and that we should be willing to donate some of that value back into the schools so that these unionized employees can have the jackpot. There are two problems with that situation, realtors—who are always some of the most vocal school levy advocates—use public schools to attract those lily pad hoppers who move to a district for the schools, then move away when the next fad hits—or they move in their career wanting to cash in on the increased value of their homes. So using schools as a way to increase the value of a district’s real estate value is like taking a drug—the fix might be immediate and benefit the people who stay in a home for 5 to 7 years—but it penalizes investors who stick around for a decade or two—because the cycle of growth doesn’t sustain itself over time. The other problem is that home values do not really increase—it is only through inflation that they appear to grow. In the short run that money can be taxed, and loans can be taken out against that value, but it will not sustain itself for a decade or two. Homes only increase in value if there are more people who want to buy that house in the future then the market will allow. If everyone who wants a house can get one in the area of their choice, values won’t hold. For instance, values hold in Indian Hill because there are limited homes per re-sale opportunity. For every home that goes up for sale, there may be four buyers—hypothetically speaking. However, in Lakota there are plenty of homes. Builders have placed them under every tree, stream and school cross walk. Currently there are a reasonable number of people who want to live in the Lakota district and it helps that there is commercial growth—but within the decade that will change. There will be so many homes priced at the upper end of the market value that there might only be one or two buyers per home—putting the sales leverage on the buyer—not the seller. Even though a home may be valued and taxed by the Lakota school system at $280,000 a buyer may only be willing to pay $210,000 for it. If you don’t come down on that price the buyer will walk. How does that cover a perceived investment?

I had a couple of sets of friends who lived in Four Bridges. Their kids grew up; graduated from Lakota—then they moved away. Their $300,000 to $500,000 homes sat on the market for over a year each and when they did sell; it was about 15% less than they wanted. They had hoped to make money on those homes, but instead took a loss to move the units. There just aren’t that many buyers out there who can buy a quarter million dollar home in the first place—let alone one in an area with a lot of competition. If a potential buyer wants to move to an area to send their kids to Lakota schools—or Mason for that matter and a seller doesn’t come down on their price—there is a cookie cutter home down the road from a seller who will—so the leverage is gone from the homeowner leaving them to support every school levy that comes along hoping that more potential buyers in the future will maintain their increases in property value. But most of the time it won’t.

Most parents who blindly support public school levies and the teachers who baby sit their kids fall in this category—only they never admit to it. They hope and pray to make 20K to 30K on their home so they can downsize into a condo at some point in the future once their kids are grown, and live off the gains. But it doesn’t work that way for most people. If there are gains made, they are either absorbed by inflation, or taxes. Or they are lost due to other circumstances leaving these current school levy supporters angry with themselves for supporting a levy a decade ago.

And that’s the situation that is coming to Lakota and Mason schools—and is why there are fewer people commenting these days on behalf of the greedy out-of-touch teachers. Even with the growth of commercial enterprises—such as the new Liberty Center—there will be declining enrollment at Lakota as kids grow up and move away, but their parents stick around burnt by that same school plaguing them with buyer’s remorse. Since the gains in property value will not be what those former supporters had hoped for, they will stay at Lakota and hold their properties and won’t want to support the schools because they won’t have kids in the school any longer. That is the situation that the Lakota teachers are protesting as they expect to receive a higher than average wage in a community where the children are leaving, the parents are staying—and are bitter that their investment yield wasn’t what they had dreamed of. And they will vote with their wallets—like people always do. School supporters know they can get cheaper babysitting through the public school, so to them it’s a bargain. But for those who don’t have kids in school, they want nothing to do with Lakota, or the taxes that spawn from it.

Those are just some things to consider. I have watched this issue for a long time and its course is set and certain. Yet in the comment section of the Enquirer are the same old tired diatribes that sound silly and out-dated now that there is more information to consider. And that trend will only increase in subsequent years. These are not the times of old where the teacher unions controlled the boards of newspapers and captured public opinion through guilt. People are sick of these spoiled brats and the difference now from then is that they are willing to say it, just as Dan Varney did in the Enquirer article. Nobody used to talk like that—but they do now—and that does not add up to success for the labor union position. They are losing ground—quickly.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Hewlett-Packard (HP)

Resignation from Hewlett-Packard

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: