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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

HitchBOT Failure in America: Hitchhiking in a self-reliant society

Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.

(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.

HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.

Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.

“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/hitchbot-robot-beheaded-philadelphia-feat/

Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.

The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.

Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.

The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?

To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.

Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.

In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Trump and Scott Walker: Dealing with bullies, and then some

Yet again Donald Trump shows why he is gaining support. I certainly support the way he conducted himself in regard to the Scott Walker campaign and the Des Moines Register leaving Amalia Nash to issue a statement after being banned from a Trump event, “We are disappointed that Mr. Trump’s campaign has taken the unusual step of excluding Register reporters from covering his campaign event in Iowa on Saturday because he was displeased with our editorial. As we previously said, the editorial has no bearing on our news coverage. We work hard to provide Iowans with coverage of all the candidates when they spend time in Iowa, and this is obviously impeding our ability to do so. We hope Mr. Trump’s campaign will revisit its decision instead of making punitive decisions because we wrote something critical of him.” That something that they wrote was that he was “a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines, name recognition and polling numbers not by provoking thought, but by provoking outrage.” Ahhhh, did the Register get its little feelings hurt? And again from one of Scott Walker’s top supporters who called Trump a “dumb, dumb” in an email—what were they thinking?

What the press is trying to invoke is that silly little game that is taught in all public schools, the peer pressure application of majority rule. The press and these other campaigns can’t fight Trump toe to toe, so they are seeking to build consensus against him with name calling and other insults hoping to paint him a certain way to slow his momentum. This is because their methods of advancement are not built around aggressive offense, but manipulative defense. The Register wants to be able to editorialize with immunity Trump’s campaign, but they don’t want to get an editorial about their behavior back. And Walker’s supporters want their man to stay in front, so they think some peer pressure insult will preserve that. We live in a world that does not expect conflict these days allowing for passive aggressive types to rule in their usual manner—through non confrontation feeding their manipulation abilities. In this way 5’ 5” runts can take down a 6’ 3” billionaire who is obviously more gifted in verbal insults and financial backing—not to mention physical presence. That is the spirit behind their insults. They don’t want peace, or a good campaign ran cleanly by all candidates. They just want to shoot without being shot back.

But Trump engages everyone he can. I’m sure he can’t get to every insult, but he gets to as many as he can, which is refreshing to see from someone who is running for a political seat. We have had to endure many years now of President Obama’s skinny little ass manipulating his way into power unchecked, largely because nobody punched him in the nose directly for the insults he casts out like water over Niagara Falls. That silly behavior goes back to all our school days where if a bunch of kids make fun of you, the implied assumption is that it is your burden to change the behavior to avoid the insult. But that’s not the right thing to do. When someone challenges you, you have to meet that challenge with either equal force, or greater force. My policy of course is greater force. It works very effectively. When someone takes a shot at me I go well out of my way to make their life a living nightmare. If they do it with passive aggressive implementation, I’ll give it back to them 20 times over. If they do it with force, I’ll match it or surpass it. But I typically answer every insult eventually. Sometimes it’s good to play a waiting game with those challengers, to let them think you’ve forgotten and that they’re off the hook. But that’s part of the game in winning. Sometimes it takes me ten years or more to collect on a debt, but collect I always do—with interest. It’s a policy I’ve lived by all of my life. I don’t go out of my way to make trouble. I live and let live until someone takes a shot. Then the cannons turn toward that target and I’ll hunt them down until I get them and then some. 100% of the time. I’m 47 and have always been like that, and it’s not going to change now. Trump I’m happy to say is precisely the same way, and I LOVE IT!

I understand what he meant regarding Walker when Trump said “Finally I can attack,” now that the rival presidential candidate has openly made a move against him. It’s hard sometimes to know who is doing what. In the passive aggressive world that we live in it’s hard to know friend from foe, so I usually do a lot of checking before making a commitment to hunt someone down. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I know it will be hell for them, and I don’t want to do it unjustly. Walker is a good presidential candidate under regular circumstances and he did a good job in Wisconsin under hard conditions. But now that I know more about his wife, I’ll never vote for him. She’s not the kind of woman I want to see as first lady—that’s for sure. But Walker as Trump said is a fighter so that makes him worthy of consideration, and some respect. That respect can make one pause when a punch in the mouth is needed. So now that the Walker camp has been caught as not being such a nice presidential candidate, Trump can now look beyond that initial respect and unleash his fury on the Wisconsin governor. It’s a very liberating feeling to know who your enemies are, because it gives a clean target to go after.

But in this passive aggressive world that we’re living in, that’s not how people do things. So they are a little shocked when they get it back when they give it. I learned this method in public school and took those lessons into my adult life. As a kid I resisted joining with group affiliations, which seemed to be the entire point of public school. I think the facts easily support that assumption. Kids picked at me for a number of years as I studied their behavior. Instead of complying I learned how to deal with them through bullwhip training, martial arts and essentially learning to fear nothing. By the time I was a junior in high school I had a reputation of having no fear of anything under any circumstances. And when I fought someone, they didn’t get back up on their own. It started with me actually on the first day of school in kindergarten. I never complied with bullies. In the first grade I actually stabbed the biggest bully in school in the eye with a pair of scissors. He tried again to come after me in the 7^th grade, many years later and I fought him in the hall so hard that I actually threw him into the principal’s office. Yes I got into a lot of trouble, but it was well worth it. Once I hit high school starting with being a freshman I was already refining myself into what I would become as an adult. By the time I was a senior, I was untouchable, it didn’t matter who or how many. The only real vulnerability was from close friends who you’d think you’d never have to fight like that, but of course, sometimes you do. By the time I was 19 and married I turned my attention not to individual bullies, but companies and politicians, which is something I’ve been involved with now for almost thirty years. I hate bullies but I love to punish them and I can give it to them any way they dish it. And it feels good to bring justice to their antics.

Trump obviously understands everything I just said and he likely has a similar background. People who avoid being broken as children make much better adults. You can tell who is who based on their behavior. Passive aggressive types are largely those who have been broken through peer pressure in the past, so they resort to those strategies to gain control in the future. They will lie right to your face, and then do something entirely different behind your back. Because they were broken at some point in their past, they resort to manipulation to rise to the top hoping that they can sneak past the other bullies with passive aggressive domination. And it works with most of the world, except for people like Trump. Being an unbroken man he has no idea what failure is, or losing to someone else-not to a level where he didn’t recover his loses in some way or another. It’s true; you can’t win everything all the time. You can’t control the success or failure of other people. They may have luck in their sails and may come out on top in a rivalry with you. But you can control your reaction to it, and if you keep the pressure on and press, and press, and press—eventually they will open up and you can take your shot.

I want a president who will take the shot. I don’t want a wimpy soothsayer, I want someone who will pursue his enemies to the ends of the earth and destroy them utterly if needed. I have no problem with that. I live by the same code and clearly understand it. The world would be filled with a lot more respect if everyone behaved like that. For instance, I don’t bother people until they bother me. I put up with a lot to give other people their individual freedom, even if I don’t agree with their choices. I do not impose myself on others. But when they impose on me, that’s it. They make enemies of me for life. I never forget, or forgive. And the more Trump talks, the more I learn that he is the same type of personality. That is why if the press and other candidates want a civil debate with Trump, they better not fire any shots toward him. He’ll thrive on their attempt and will pursue them forever. It’s in his nature. If they start something the bets are safe that he’ll finish it. If he’s like me he’ll still be thinking about such things 20 to 30 years later and will have the silent checklist in his head that he’ll only erase once they’ve departed the earth in the form of a grave. For me, not even then. But not everyone wants to carry around grudges that long, so I wouldn’t expect that of every A type personality. But a lot of them do, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump isn’t one of them.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Being Free: Donald Trump’s Anderson Cooper interview

There are many kinds of wealth, and in many ways I think I’m far better off than Donald Trump. I wouldn’t trade my life for his. But I find myself having an awful lot in common with the 2016 presidential candidate, as many do which is one of the reasons for his popularity. With that said it is obvious that Trump is learning how to be a political candidate and is refining his approach that is most evident to me in this Anderson Cooper interview which is long, but illustrates several very important sociological behavior patterns for which he’s personally destroying. Trump is able to give this kind of interview because he’s literally a free man. That freedom comes from his wealth, which I understand. I share with him some of that freedom, so I understand what makes him tick, and that is why I’m so enthusiastic for his candidacy. Watch carefully.

Most powerful to me in that interview was Trump’s revelations about lobbyists, when he declared he’s been on the other side of the ball most of his life as a businessman and understands how the system works. When he says that he could get a politician to jump off a ledge he’s serious and I believe him emphatically. Cooper tried to pin him down with guilt about his participation in the system by using lobbyists to control politicians as Trump chided back that as a businessman he had to play the game–because that’s how the game is played. Trump then stated more or less that he wants to run so he can change the rules of that game. As a president, he couldn’t be bought. As a president there is nothing the White House can give him that he doesn’t already have. As a 69-year-old man who has made $10 billion dollars of worth, I believe he wants to sincerely contribute his independence to the philosophic debate of preserving the United States.

When Trump says that there is no politician that can turn this country around, he is absolutely right. When a lobbyist can control politicians the way they do, the system is hopelessly beyond repair. Trump additionally stated to Cooper during the interview that if he were in the White House, he would never leave, and would work hard while there—so much so that he wouldn’t have time to comb his famous hair. And I believe him. Trump may be arrogant, he may love to see himself on television, he may be narcissistic, but without question he is the hardest working candidate running for president. I recognize within that arrogance some of myself. When you work harder than other people, and people don’t respect your hard work, you have to learn to do things for yourself—because you see what needs to be done while others do not. The world doesn’t thank you for things that are done for which they don’t understand the value—but only in hindsight. When a person is on the cutting edge, often only they understand the treasure of that position, so they act on behalf of themselves knowing that people will thank them later. In this respect I share a lot in common with Trump. I believe him when he says he’d be the hardest working president that the White House has ever seen. He’d work hard not so that people would reward him, but because he personally desires to do a good job judged off his measuring stick. That is a tremendous difference between him, and everyone else, not just in who is running, but in who has ever run.

Another place that Anderson Cooper effectively brought up an important part of the Trump candidacy was over the question regarding faith. Virtually all of human society believes that faith in a deity makes politicians malleable enough to serve as public representative in a democracy. This is the most idiotic notion of any social analysis. On matters of faith I answer questions in a similar way as Trump does. I do not owe my life to a god of any kind. I do not give credit to my good deeds to some un-named creature only interpreted for me by some insufficient minds who might have written the Bible or Koran hundreds of years ago and translated for me by churches. I trust what I can see and touch—and if something exists in the quantum realm of the very infinitely small, I use my own experience to guide my thoughts. I do not trust the interpretations of history. But I certainly wouldn’t call myself an atheist. I don’t pray to some god to help something to occur, I utilize myself to unleash my potential to help solve problems. In a lot of ways the power of positive thinking is like praying. At some point in the distant past human beings recognized that the act of praying could shape the events of history—perhaps in small ways, but enough so that the act was worth doing. But strong, independent people have learned more, which just praying doesn’t do it, but the power of positive thinking goes several steps further. Trump is that kind of religious person. He is such a free man that he doesn’t feel he needs to kneel before a god whom he has never met other than through interpretations of others—to surrender his logic to the supernatural.

To assume that god will listen to billions of desperate voices and shape world events to their liking is absurd. It is even worse to expect a leader of the human race to pray to a deity for guidance. Who knows really what might answer such a prayer—the gods of the Holy Bible, the god of the Maya, of the Muslim, or the Asian—nobody really knows. In my experience there are many tricksters who live in the spiritual realm, many soothsaying mind-watchmen who will gladly steer an undefended mind to their doom just as there are car salesmen who will take your money knowing full and well that you can’t afford what they are selling. There is no way to know unless you meet these deities with your own eyes and touch them with your hands what they are up to, so trusting them would be absolutely foolish. Now, honoring what’s good about spiritual revealers is a tremendous positive, and Trump stated as much with Cooper. He lives his life in a way that he feels he shouldn’t have to ask for any forgiveness from a god. That statement is a powerful one. Who wants a leader who will surrender the sanctity of the United States to the prayer of some unproven manic who lives in the 5^th or even 11^th dimension hoping to get a boost to their ego by destroying the minds of those limited four-dimensional beings on planet earth with misdirection. Cooper represents a status quo opinion of politicians that has created some really major problems over the years. If politicians can make voters believe they are connected in some way to the afterworld, then they are free to repeat history as just another corrupt emperor, ruthless dictator, pharaoh or Pope. For instance, the current Pope Francis from Argentina is a maniacal socialist. We are supposed to believe that he went from a nightclub bouncer to a religious leader because some smoke came out of church chimney. And this guy is going to lead the world spiritually into progressive concerns? Give me a break. He might be a nice man, but a leader of human society—absolutely not. Is he connected to god, even less likely? Giving such people a seat at the table of leadership is like asking a dog to not eat a plate of food placed before them when their owners leave the room. Politicians and religious leaders are all made of the same secondary stuff. They live through others, not of their own individuality, and are therefore ill-equipped to lead a nation of individuals driven by a pure capitalist economy. Trump’s answers to Cooper on religion were very interesting, and I understand Trump completely, maybe more than Trump actually does. He has nothing to feel guilty about—even though Cooper obviously didn’t understand the answer. More than anything, I think that religious presumption is what gets all republics into trouble. Keep god in the church on Sunday or in your hearts during study. Keep it out of the realm of leadership. Leadership is a task for mankind on planet earth in a four-dimensional lifestyle. Those are the rules of the game, and we have to live with them unless those rules can be changed from the other side.

The theme of the interview essentially came down to the fact that Trump knows how to play the game of both religion and lobbyists and that he is best equipped to change the rules if he’s on the other side of things. John Boehner might be the third most powerful person in the world, but if the Pope comes to America to give a speech, Boehner is likely to listen to the church leader’s comments about the poor and destitute hoping to get into heaven than Trump would—and that makes Trump a better potential leader. Boehner might say because the Pope whispered in his ear that it is good to help the poor with sacrifice and altruism. That would be because Boehner is a second-hander who lives through other people himself. He needs money too from people like Trump to stay in power, so he will regulate his thoughts to a deity to guide him through life’s mysteries. Whereas Trump will also help the poor, he’ll tell them to get a job—and if there isn’t a job, he’ll make one through capitalism. That is the main difference between Donald Trump and everyone else. He’s a truly free man who works harder than everyone else, and has earned the right to say what he wants. And America needs such a person right now—otherwise it may fail to exist for four more years. We really are at a pinnacle of existence, and it will take more than prayer or lobbyists to pull us from the brink.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Case of the Clinton Confederate Flags: Attempting to put the sins of their evil on political enemies

Given what we know about the Clinton’s it is likely they had a non-official arm of their 1992 and 2008 campaigns making Confederate Flag buttons to appeal to southern voters without having the official union bug indicating “official” campaign backing so that they could always have deniability later if things went bad. That is precisely the position they find themselves in presently in 2015 as campaign buttons from the past show the Confederate Flag prominently featured on political material featuring them. It’s very easy, all you have to do as a candidate is slide some money under the table to some southern supporters and let them take a design to Cafepress to make and distribute without an official capacity being endorsed by the candidates themselves. But the intent is to perform some gorilla campaigning. I know from experience how the game works as I did similar work for the Perot campaign. I dressed up a scantily clad Penthouse model covering her private parts up with Ross Perot buttons and put her on Fountain Square in Cincinnati to pass out campaign literature. Guess what, it worked, we passed out 10,000 items of campaign literature during lunch hour from very eager voters who just wanted to have their picture taken next to the Penthouse Pet, men and women. The campaign office knew what I was doing, but they needed to have plausible deniability. A friend of mine along with me operated like this for three months up to the election and guess what, we received an invite to spend time with the family in Dallas on election night. We acted on our own, but the hard work was recognized in an “unofficial” capacity.

Up until recently Democrats used the Confederate Flag in promotional ways to win the hearts of southerners. The flag is very important to the south. VERY IMPORTANT. It has taken on an entirely new contemporary meaning against federalism as opposed to its original meaning of slavery support. To understand to what effect this takes place just consider the recent NASCAR mandate against the flag and the massive public outpouring that took place over the 4^th of July weekend in Daytona at their yearly summer race. The infield was a sea of Confederate Flags provoked by NASCAR’s weak position in the face of progressivism. And this is where southern Democrats and Progressives suddenly find themselves at odds with each other.

The Confederate Flag was never a Republican flag. As I have said in a previous article which should be read by everyone, and if you haven’t yet you need to, the Confederate Flag was the flag of southern Democrats, not abolitionist Republicans. When you read the article you need to send it to all your friends, and make sure you and they watch both videos contained therein defending the Confederate Flag. If you want to know the real story, that guy nails it. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. The Clintons obviously being from the south understood what the Confederate Flag meant to southerners who they were trying to get votes from, so they “unofficially” endorsed the material to appeal to that base. But they did it in a “black ops” fashion to give them deniability later. That’s why they were so quick to answer the questions about this Confederate Flag paraphernalia with their names all over it, when Hillary can’t tell anybody when or where she illegally deleted all those emails from her private server. They already had a planted answer with the union bug endorsement, or lack thereof.

But the case remains that the Confederate Flag is not a part of any Republican racism. That is an incorrect statement. It is in fact that Republicans have done more to free slaves and integrate them into American society than Democrats ever thought of attempting and those Democrats flew the Confederate Flag at nearly every political rally in the south for over a century now. Of course Barack Obama wouldn’t know all that, because he’s not from America. He may have been born in Hawaii, but his mother carried him off to Indonesia where he was raised as a kid. Then he went to school in the coastal East, and they have no idea what the Confederate Flag is. But the Clintons knew, and they exploited that patriotism in exchange for votes.

It was an unintended consequence that present Democrats demonized the Confederate Flag the way they did hoping to paint white supremacy with Republicans. This is the problem with a failed education system that doesn’t know history—teaching people all the wrong things. Democrats were the white supremacists just like Hitler wasn’t a conservative—he was a dictator minded socialist. Any lunatic like the idiot who went into that South Carolina church worshipping swastikas and the Confederate Flag was not an abolitionist Republican. They are more representative of former slave holding Democrats. That’s why it’s important to be smart, and to know history dear reader. Stupid people get facts wrong like these idiots who have attempted to crucify the Confederate Flag without knowing that it’s the flag of their party. Bill Clinton knew that in 1992 and Hillary knew that in 2008. They gave themselves a back door in case they were ever pressed, but they understood they needed to tap into southern Democrats in a traditional way if they had hopes of winning the White House. And to do that, the Confederate Flag was a sure-fire way to stir up southern votes.

It is insanely stupid how many people actually have believed the tripe about Republicans and the Confederate Flag. The two are diametrically opposed. They don’t even belong in the same sentence with one another. Confederate Flags and Democrats have the long history together and it has been well-known for years. Yet because they have nothing left in their bag of deceptive tricks, Democrats are hoping that Republicans will just take the racist allegations without defending themselves—like they usually do—and give Democrats a get out of jail free card on the issue. This is the fault of brain-dead marijuana smoking losers who call themselves progressives and pretend to have an understanding of the past that was shaped by vile, evil people. They say really dumb things that end up biting them in the ass—as this Confederate Flag issue has. And they really can’t refute it because history is not on their side. Those of us, who know history, know better.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Gay Sex is Gross: Why traditional Americans are on a tactically selected vacation

I actually feel bad for many out there who have been reading here, and have listened to talk radio for some time and understood the warnings, yet didn’t fully understand what was coming. Progressives have a desire to “progress” from what we have traditionally been—which is the most economically powerful nation in the world that provides the most opportunity to the most diverse population anywhere—and to take the country to some centrally managed disaster they consider a utopia. Watching what’s happening to America presently is painful especially for those who love it. But progressives were always about performing this kind of military attack against traditionalists. They took advantage of our kindness, and the naiveté typical of American traditionalists. They have sought openly to not only progress the country beyond them—but to destroy traditional America in the process. It is now quite clear what Barack Obama meant when he said he planned to fundamentally transform America. After the Supreme Court rulings during the last week of June 2015 it is obvious what that means to progressives—and traditional Americans don’t like it.

Matt Clark was back from his honeymoon and spoke very clearly about the tragic Supreme Court decisions involving the sustaining of Obamacare and of gay marriage. From WAAM radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan Matt had one of the better summations to date during his radio show and had a parade of very intelligent callers on to articulate their frustrations.

Speaking of vacations, if you are the type who is an innovator and a strong presence in whatever company you work for, you likely notice that whenever you take a vacation there is this vast parade of people who hide in your wake and try to assert their dominance while you’re gone. The stronger you are, the more of these second-handers there are to fight over the power vacuum you leave behind. It charges their ego like children to believe that they can steer the world as well as you have—even though they really can’t. They can hold the steering wheel and guide things along opposed to doing everything from the leading edge—but it’s their fantasy and it lasts until you get back from wherever you’ve been. It gets further infuriating when they declare themselves equal to the world, because what you do takes courage, insight, imagination, and a 24-hour, 7 days a week mental maintenance that they don’t commit themselves to, yet they want to be considered equal in the scheme of things—even though they don’t put nearly as much into success as you do. I have often deliberately baited these types over the years into revealing their intentions at times I determine to minimize the damage they can do—knowing full what their behavior patterns will entail to use their destructive behavior in a way that is positive toward a strategic assessment. In a lot of ways that is what’s happening on the national stage. I know I’ve warned about it for years, Matt certainly has along with a handful of others—but at some point you have to make the decision to let the progressives choke on their own skanky bi-product. They want to drive, they want the credit, but they don’t have the ability to sustain things so they progress themselves right over the side of a cliff threatening to take the rest of the nation with them. But, guess what—I’m not following and neither will most of normal America. To show the world what progressives are really about, we have to sometimes let them show their cards to a skeptical audience—which is what they are doing. Meanwhile we clean our guns in our garages and wait to return from a brief recess. Much of the damage currently witnessed can be repaired with good management. But these progressive scumbags need to be exposed, which is what we are seeing. Left alone they are painting the White House in colors of rainbows and unicorns while the rest of the world laughs, and it’s painful to watch, but it’s the only way to expose them of their true intentions.

My wife and I have been doing a lot of traveling lately and have been on the road extensively visiting family in remote locations. At rest stops along the way I would joke to my wife in the wake of all this progressive treachery that soon there won’t even be men and women’s restrooms—that someday soon we will be able to go to the same restroom at the same time. After all, with so many men who think they are women and women who think they’re men—complete with transvestites, gays, lesbians, pedophiles, child abusers, and other sexual deviants running around—what’s the point of even spending the extra money keeping the sexes separated with two bathrooms? Everyone might as well assimilate into some slime of humanity since progressives want to remove all barriers of judgment. But we all know that won’t work, it’s just a facetious statement. Normal Americans aren’t wired like that, and they won’t accept it. You know how I know that dear reader—because of the box office from the progressive machine itself in Hollywood, which I watch very closely to take the temperature of the country. When Disney puts out a romantic animation film like Frozen featuring two gay guys kissing and it makes a billion dollars at the box office, that’s when you can start worrying. But I think we’re all safe from that kind of thing. Not because Disney or some other studio wouldn’t want to try, but because movie goers would reject the premise—because they can’t identify.

The public schools are trying to wire our children into accepting gay behavior, as is every venue that government touches, particularly the entertainment industry. But what they can’t do is make it appealing to want to stick a part of your body into someone’s butt. That just doesn’t work and doesn’t have very positive biological implication in the realm of sex. It doesn’t make for a very good romantic comedy when people are forced to watch it on their movie screens—because human beings aren’t wired that way by nature. Progressives desire to progressive beyond such limits—but they are really just making fools of themselves. They are moving the needle a few percentage points today in the direction of their desire, but it won’t last. Gay sex is gross to most people and that won’t change through the aggressive progressive marketing that we are seeing. The harder they push their agenda, the more that Americans will cry out for traditionalists to come back from their vacations and resume control, which is why it’s important to let all this nonsense play out. If we always fix things for the progressives then they can pretend they are equal to the rest of us. Sometimes it’s good to take a vacation and just let things play out so their behavior can be exposed for what it really is. I know I’ve been warning people what would happen if progressives were not properly identified as the communists they truly are. But nobody wanted to listen because they were fat, dumb and happy. The money was rolling in, the jobs were plentiful, and our sports teams were keeping us entertained. It was at that point that people like me just dropped everything and went on vacation. You have to let the progressives show what they want to give the world so the world can finally dismiss them as irrelevant.

But that doesn’t take away the pain of seeing something you care about being dismantled and abused which is what is happening in America right now. It does hurt to watch, but people need to see this now so they can vote properly for the next president in 2016. They need to want the traditionalists to come back from their vacations of gun cleaning and Bible thumping and return America to normal. But before that can happen the progressives need to have complete ownership of the failure—which is what we are seeing at this very moment. Progressives might consider it a victory lap, but that won’t last very long because failure is a lonely road and so long as the traditionalist refuse to share that failure with them, there’s nowhere else to go but to say—“I told you so.” We all did. Traditionalists aren’t conquered or on the run, they are just on a tactically selected vacation—and they will return.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Clipping the Wings of Children: Public re-education centers open for business in your neighborhood

Even to this very day there has been great fear among conspiracy circles about the re-education camps that would spring up around the United States under United Nations control. Even Glenn Beck fell under the spell of that fear with his novels, Agenda 21. Essentially the strategy would be that local bureaucrats trained directly through local seminars into United Nations priorities passed down through Chamber of Commerce networks would gradually shut down private property taxing it beyond the reach of average homeowners. People would then be relocated onto government property using Sweden style public house to implement communities managed by the state. Those who resist would be put into a train and shipped off to re-education centers, similar to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany to either get with the “program” or to be killed. That is in essence what the conspiracy theorists have been concerned about. Yet reality is something else, the menace is not so literal. The bad guys don’t fit so neatly on a silver screen plot line—in a lot of ways, they are friendly faces from neighbors and community leaders who appear to do all the right things. But they are just as sinister nonetheless—perhaps worse because they behave in ways that we are taught not to identify as bad so we don’t see the behavior ahead of time.

For anyone who has ever had a pet bird, such as a parakeet they know that one of the things that must happen is that the wings of the birds need to be clipped so that if they get out of the cage, they won’t be able to fly too far. This always seemed bad to me. When I have had parakeets in my family I’d often get the birds out of their cages and let them fly around the house freely keeping a close eye on the door so they wouldn’t fly out and get away. But I didn’t like clipping their wings—it seems immoral to do such a thing to a bird. Yet its common practice at a pet store to deliver the birds with their wings clipped so that the buyer doesn’t have to worry about the little birds flying away. For human beings our wings are of course our minds. We fly not with wings, but with our thoughts and imaginations. That is the strength of the human being—the products of their minds.

In truth the re-education centers are already in place. We fund them with our tax dollars and we spend a lifetime of savings sending our children to their classrooms. Our public schools and colleges are those re-education centers that the conspiracy theorists have been warning about. Their primary function in these schools is to reprogram our youth into compliant citizens focused on progressive causes. In essence, to clip the wings of thought to keep their minds captive towards a cage of social justice as defined by progressives so that once grown, those students will be unable to fly away, but will stay in their cages for safety and reliability of food. The programming starts young and once the mind accepts the limitations imposed by the public schools and colleges, they will be adults forever after unable to fly away too far from the cages placed around them by progressive institutions.

The warnings have come from people like David Horowitz for many years. Many others followed—but the majority of the public wished to deny that this re-programming was occurring. I determined when I was going though the public school system that it was occurring and I resisted vigorously. If a teacher told me something was blue, I questioned it every single time—or I blew them off as know-nothings and obtained the information on my own. I was a naturally rebellious kid so that kind of defiance was easy for me. The angrier the authority figures were toward me, the more encouraged I was to indulge in the activity. Some people thrive in environments of conflict. Some people avoid conflict at all costs. Those unfortunately are the ones most impacted by this re-programming. In college I was sure that the primary focus of the institution was not in preparing students for a successful life in the style of American capitalism—it was to be in service toward a push for socialism on a mass scale. The entire focus of the institution seemed to be in teaching Keynesian economics and Marx philosophy. In essence, if birds were meant to fly and the most moral thing to do with a bird is to let it grow wings to fly as high and far as it could achieve in life, the intention of the education institutions were to clip the wings of those birds so that they would stay in the cages of life built by the politics of the day to make reliable taxpayers and well-managed creatures located in close proximity to the management tasked with feeding them. By clipping wings, the education institutions could ensure that every bird would be equally handicapped to live under progressive management. Even as an adult going into the Lakota levy fights of 2010 I still gave some benefit to the doubt cast by Horowitz over the years and had an open mind. Once I dug into the actual intentions of my local school system and contemplated the illogical diatribes they used to counter my assertions against them, it was clear what their primary focus was.

For me the straw that broke the back was when the school sought ways to cover up the story of a child molester in a third grade class—for the benefit of the institution at the expense of the individual lives of the students. About a year later after a third levy defeat the school dug in its heels to begin cutting programs to the students in spite of what the voters had declared. It was obvious that the intention of the school hell or high water was to impose a tax increase on the community and they would withhold service until they obtained what they wanted. They were playing an extortion game and using the children of my community to pull it off—which made me very, very angry, and changed my thoughts about public education forever. As I discovered in my research, all public schools were performing in essentially the same fashion, so it’s a nationalized effort coming directly from the Department of Education aligned with the progressive intentions of the national labor unions. The goal was to clip the wings of students so that they could be held hostage from parents who had placed all their trust into the schools leaving them with no other recourse but to go along to get along. It’s an abusive relationship designed to pave the way to extortion, which is not what education is supposed to be about. Parents want to believe that the education their children are getting are giving their children wings to fly with, but what they are really getting are wings clipped so that nobody can ever fly away—imprisoning them to the management desires of progressives within the United Nations. That is not a conspiracy theory—it’s a cold, hard, fact.

Most people don’t want to believe this hard truth, and I can understand it. It feels better to look at a parakeet in a cage and believe that we are saving it from the harsh world outside of their cage—that we as the owners are clipping the wings of the little creature for its own good. But in reality, we are denying it of its God-given right to live freely, and have destroyed its essence in the process. I am personally a person who supports zoos, aquariums, and theme parks like Sea World. But the same people who are advocating against Sea World’s use of killer whales are the same who most support progressive public education and the deliberate clipping of the intellectual wings of the youth—because at the heart of the United Nations efforts at all these issues—public education, conservation, civil rights, etc., is an almost god-like worship of nature. They care more for the earth than in human beings and would like to take humans back into a primitive state living in accordance with early nomadic people—to preserve the earth. Capitalism is a celebration of mankind’s mind. Socialism is a focus on the collective not only of human beings, but of all things on earth—and that is the intent of our education systems—to hold the minds of mankind within the cages of progressivism, not to protect them from the world, but to protect the world from humans.

If there is any doubt as to what I am saying—which I have said extensively over the years—watch the videos on this article, then do your own research. At that time you’ll discover that you and your children are just clipped winged avian nuisances that progressive intuitions want to stuff into a cage so they can worship their deities at the sacrifice of capitalism. That is what your children are learning in school and the path in life they are being imprisoned to follow.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Tragedy behind ‘Jurassic World’s’ Success: Hollywood in crises driven by a brain-dead culture

I know I’ve said it before, but I’ll do it again. I may not have said it in quite this strong of a fashion, but given the recent performance of Jurassic World at the box office, it is making several points that need some understanding. The greatest crises facing our American civilization is not global warming, inner city gun shootings, or even a tanking economy, it’s our inability to make new and original art.

I am extremely pleased with the box office performance of Jurassic World. I am a huge fan and I have written about the positive implications that such a film brings to the world of science. It’s almost immeasurable. So in that respect, there is wonderful news for the film industry this year, and for the next six or so—until this well of old material runs dry. Specifically, the contents of that well are all the retreads from the 1980s and 90s, the Star Wars films, Terminator franchise, the Avenger comic films along with other Marvel properties, Mad Max—etc—the strong box office showings declare quite strongly what American movie goers really want. For instance, Jurassic World is breaking records as of this writing making $400 million domestically in just 10 days. That record will last until of course the new Star Wars film hits in December. People are desperately hungry for these types of stories—and that is generally a very good—healthy thing for our culture. Films like the new drama Dope made under $6 million for its opening weekend which is well under the $7 million distributors paid for the film at Sundance. Once again, progressive films fail at the box office, traditional films succeed. The formula should be an easy one for studios—yet like idiots they continue to use the film industry as a way to evoke social change which most Americans are weary of. And it is that which has brought us to our present dilemma.

In Jurassic World the director is clearly similar to me. I’d probably get along wonderfully with Colin Trevorrow over a beer and nachos just because it’s obvious he loves the original film at least as much as I do. There were a lot of scenes in Jurassic World paying homage to Jurassic Park the way a person who truly loves something would do. I saw the same type of thing during last year’s Godzilla—specifically the scene where the classic movie monster was tearing its way through the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It was nearly a scene for scene duplication in sound to the original Jurassic Park when the T-Rex first appeared. These directors today were obviously fans of the original Jurassic Park, and they want to make movies representing that love. There’s nothing wrong with that, but what is troubling is that there was once a day when Jurassic Park, and all these other movies from the past were original—and our culture is not presently making original films any longer. Now that Jurassic World is having so much success, studios will be very hesitant to attempt funding new projects because given the cost of movies these days to make, the box office expectations are just too high to justify the expense on anything less than a movie property that is not deeply imbedded in the consciousness of movie fans percolating for twenty or more years. Jurassic World is good on its own and might even do similar numbers as the original did 22 years ago by itself. Yet the massive drive to see the film, and huge oversea numbers are attributed to the recognition the film has historically in the hearts and minds of millions for two decades now. So there is a lot of pent-up desire to see this new film. Studios now will be so focused on resurrecting old properties that they will be extremely hesitant to do anything new—which is taking our culture to the edge of disaster.

When a culture is no longer making new art, it is losing its ability to think—and that is where American culture is headed. The public education system has failed to ignite in several generations a sense of wonder, televisions have made thinking a lazy exercise, literature is laughed at by younger people, and the music of our day seems only concerned with political motivations than anything of the human experience. Our society is making more Colin Trevorrow types who copy those from the past and less Steven Spielbergs who made the original and that is dangerous.

It’s not just in film that we are seeing this—but in the movie industry there are behavioral indexes that are easy to track. Likely we will see this same behavior in patent filings and new job creation in the coming years. It probably shows up already if there were proper ways to collect that data—but there really isn’t. The effects will be seen none-the-less in a less creative culture. Creativity is not just about making dinosaurs in a motion picture but in solving little problems that create new kinds of cars, new concepts in philosophy, politics, law and order—in just about every field where thought turns to action to advance civilization.

From experience, on the business side of things I can safely say that from one end of this country in the United States to the other are brain-dead slugs, which is unique to our time. When you pick up the phone to call someone in Seattle, New York, Chicago, or Atlanta—and everywhere in between, a person just going through the motions of life answers. Their primary objectives are to eat, reproduce, and pursue further reiterations of endorphin utilization—pursing pleasure over thought in nearly every circumstance. It wasn’t like that even when the first Jurassic Park came out two decades ago. This brain-dead society is a fairly new phenomenon, and the entertainment industry is the first to reveal its ugly realization. I would also dare to say that the reason there is so much hunger for Jurassic World is due to this obvious vacancy of thought. Suddenly there is a movie about things that has heroics, hope, horror, and possibility in it that people can see and touch—and they like it. Those are traits in our art that is becoming less obvious by the day, which of course leads to artistic and intellectual disaster for a society falling from its precipice.

A further perpetuation of that thoughtless manifest is in the so-called intellectual culture who thinks that Jurassic World is low brow and that films like Dope are proper representatives of a culture—and teach such nonsense to film students and college literature courses. They consider a Broadway play of Kinky Boots to have more artistic appeal than say Terminator Genesis—yet the masses of American culture do not find such progressive art appealing—they can’t relate to it. So they tune out and turn off—and remain that way sometimes for their entire lives. It’s quite a crisis.

After 2020 – 2021 I see a major drop off within the film industry. The movies we make as a culture will fall in on itself—and even the retreads will wear away in their appeal. New concepts will have to take their place and I don’t have faith that we have a culture any longer that can produce anything new. We should be in a period of incredible creativity with the modern tools available. But they are being wasted on pornography and gossip—not on innovation. That is when you know you are in trouble, and as much as I love the box office numbers of Jurassic World—they speak most obviously of the desperate hunger people have for that kind of entertainment that they aren’t getting from any other source—which is sad. A lot of what we take for granted today will be treasured greatly tomorrow—and that is obvious most distinctly in American art. As hopeful as movie studios are today in staying relevant—hard times are ahead for them—and the culture in general who consumes the product of Hollywood. That is the disaster I think is behind the massive success of Jurassic World.

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.

	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:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: