Tag: State Soverignty

The Socialist Bernie Sanders: Why public schools want the Nordic Model

Many snickered when I stated emphatically that it was versions of communism and socialism that was being taught in public schools. They really didn’t want to deal with that reality. Others snickered when I said that Democrats like Obama and Clinton were functional socialists—that their political ideology was driven by Karl Marx and that liberalism in general had the goal of socialism. Well, the times are what they are—drug abusers want legalized pot, the lazy want great pay for little work, and two decades of children have been raised on liberal causes like global warming, Keynesian economics, and philosophies of collectivism. And now they are ready for socialism in America—openly. That is why Bernie Sanders feels that he now has a platform for a presidential run. Old Democrats like George Stephanopulous are used to hiding their love of socialism behind cocktail parties and racist issues so to deflect attention away from their intentions. But Sanders is one of the only open socialists in the U.S. government. To his credit, at least he’s honest about his intentions. His open embrace of socialism made Stephanopulous cringe a bit in the following interview. While watching, remember I have been saying this kind of stuff for a long time—longer than Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any other modern pundit. What follows is a bit of an article from a millennial website obviously proud of Sanders. This is what we are up against. These are not the Democrats of the 1990s. These are no longer ashamed of their socialism. These Democrats are openly advocating it—and because the youth has already been trained in socialism from their public schools, they are likely to vote in favor of it.

After raising more in 24 hours than each of the declared GOP candidates individually, Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders went on ABC’s This Week to let America—and the D.C. pundit class that has already written him off—know he’s a real player in 2016.

 

“For 30 years I’ve been standing up for workers of this country and I think I’m the only candidate who is prepared to take on the billionaire class which now controls our economy and increasingly controls the political life in this country. We need a political revolution in this country.”

After a bit of half-snark from Stephanopulous over his embrace of the “S” word, Sanders went on to defend democratic socialism and explain, in detail, why America should be trying to emulate Northern European countries rather than belittle them. The ABC host and former Bill Clinton advisor tried to pin the Vermont senator down, musing aloud, “I can hear the Republican attack ad now: [Sanders] wants America to look like Scandinavia,” to which Sanders deadpanned in response, “That’s right. And what’s wrong with that?”

http://www.alternet.org/dont-underestimate-me-after-shocking-fundraising-totals-bernie-sanders-defends-european-style

The Nordic Model that Sanders likes so much is a joke; the GDP of those Nordic countries is like comparing a fly to an elephant. They may both be creatures of biological design, but that is the end of their similarities. The United States has a GDP of over $17 trillion per year, Sweden only has $570 billion, Denmark $340 billion, Finland $271 billion, and Norway $500,000. Most of that GDP is exports from companies Ikea, but other than that, there’s not much going on economically. Yet this is what socialists like Sanders are advocating for.

The Nordic Model – Embracing globalization and sharing risks” characterizes the system as follows:[15]

  • An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[15]
  • Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[16]
  • Public pension plans.[15]
  • Low barriers to free trade.[17] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[15]
  • Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[15]
  • Low levels of corruption.[15] In Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 12 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all ranked within top 5.[18]
  • High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[19] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[20]
  • A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[21] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[15] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[15] At the same time, reforms and favorable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark’s Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
  • Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[17] One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programs is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
  • Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[22]
  • Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world’s highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).
  • The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[24]
  • The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation’s 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Even though per capita income is high in these Nordic Model countries their average tax rates are hovering around 50%. So a $50,000 a year income is only $25,000 a year in useable income. Socialists like Sanders will tell supporters about the nice quiet life in Scandinavia, how happy people are, how long their vacations are—how all their educations were paid for—but what they don’t talk about is how they are not a people creating much of anything new, and that their economic power is largely dependent on their exports from markets that are rich because of capitalism. The Nordic Model is like socialism itself, a bunch of smoke and mirrors—and in the end all its really good for is some cheap meatballs at Ikea along with a table that breaks the first time a child falls into it.

Yet the point of this particular article isn’t to show what an embarrassment the Nordic Model is compared to the United States, or even a country of comparable landmass, such as Japan—it is to show that all along socialists were advocating these Democratic values intending always to advance socialism as a socially acceptable means of political and economic approach. Bernie Sanders in all his ignorance and naiveté is at war with billionaires because he assumes that they have an obligation to share their wealth—as if wealth is a finite resource that all people are born into. He does not know or understand that wealth is created, and that rich people make wealth because of the prospect of profit. When you take away the motivation to elevate oneself by giving them free education, free housing, long vacations and free health care, that you get a population of cattle that is happy to just graze in the field living off the efforts of others. Of course they’ll be happy to eat when someone puts food in their trough, and sleep in the provided shelter. But don’t ask them to invent anything new, or to advance the state of life in the world—because their minds are turned off—fat, dumb and happy. And that is what Democrats like Bernie Sanders always intended with their love of socialism.

It is that brand of socialism that our kids are learning in public schools at this very moment, and is also why Bernie Sanders thinks he can actually be president in this 2015 America. I’ve only been talking about it for around 30 years. They used to say it was crazy, but now Bernie has come clean with it, which for me is a justified poke in declaring that “I told you so.”

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Hero Toya Graham: Villains of progressive failure collide on the streets of Baltimore

Toya Graham is being branded “mom of the year” by the same media who spent much of last year trying to ruin the career of Adrian Peterson for essentially the same thing. The NFL football player nearly had his life ruined for hitting his child with a switch—a practice common in the south, and among the older generation. Yet an intrusive society guiding an intrusive government that has stepped in and taken over as the parents of children has directly created the kind of situation that can be seen so eloquently in Baltimore—a per capita population without two parents in the home, hoards of children raised on the government tit dependent forever on tax payer resources for basic sustenance, and a severe lack of understanding of basic economic principles. The government with all its intrusiveness created the inner city problems seen in Baltimore so it was a bit odd to see that so many were so quick to praise Toya Graham. If there were not riots in the streets threatening to destroy the city, she’d likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Kids know that about their parents these days, so they have lost respect—because government has superseded—and eroded the authority of parents.

In our family there was a guy who was not the sharpest tack in the box, who married into the family through a divorce situation to raise children who weren’t his own. He had anger issues and lots of little psychological problems, but he at least tried to instill in the kids a sense of right and wrong—some structure to live their lives by. One of his step daughters started wanting to cat around with boys and pushed the limits of the rules for a few years, like many kids do—and he got physical and smacked her around too much so to show her where the limits where. She was sneaking out at night putting her in much more danger. The kid told teachers in the school who then called human services and soon the police came and arrested the guy—and put him in jail. He was at the time a six figure earner who was socially, a successful person. After his stint in jail over his daughter, he quickly declined as a person over the next several years and eventually lost his job, and his family. He never really got over that embarrassment. The state had intruded on his family and ruined his authority and the cost was enormous—basically another family destroyed because the male figure from within it was neutralized.

Government has positioned itself to be the end all in all debates domestic or economic. In the workplace they’ve made it so that employees can run the asylum just through threats of discrimination, abuse or a lack of fairness. In some cases employers like the clueless father do sometimes abuse their authority, but when such mistakes are made, the family often sorts out the issue better than the government does. The end result of government intrusion is inaction—so nothing happens to correct bad behavior. That’s far worse.

I never really had to punish my kids. I viewed discipline as being at wit’s end with children, and I have plenty of wits. Sometimes anger is needed, when children push things too far. But most of the time the respect they have for you is enough to leverage them into doing the right things. Generally, at their basic foundations, people want to do what’s right by people they respect. If government interrupts that respect process, they are ruining the relationship of the parties involved which ultimately creates massive neighborhoods of poor people like what was witnessed in Baltimore.

Adrian Peterson, the NFL running back, one of the best in the game, a star on the field and a pretty good person off the field came under fire beating his four-year old son with a switch and breaking the skin. For that action Peterson was rung through the media wringer for a year as commentators suggested that he should lose rights to his son, lose his career and go to jail with all the other miscreants. Likely, Peterson was trying to establish in his son the type of discipline that was enacted upon him when he was a boy. Its learned behavior in how the parent establishes themselves in the dominate position within the family. Kids need that framework so they can identify who they need to listen to. When government sweeps in and puts the parent in jail all they are doing is replacing in the child the dominate authority figure. The government uses force as well as the parent. When the guy in our family was arrested they weren’t nice about it—they stripped him down, did cavity searches and if he resisted in any way at all they threw him about like a rag doll—in front of his kids. That guy essentially lost his authority with those children that day under the force of government. The government could pretend they were helping the kids, but in all reality, they were hurting them by destroying in their lives the symbol of authority they were supposed to look up to. The violence still happened, it was just transferred from the child to the parent showing the family that dad didn’t know best–that government did.

So it was quite shocking to have so much praise thrown at Toya Graham for beating the living snot out of her son during the riots on national television. For government, they were out of answers; they created the slums of Baltimore, they made the people overly dependent and they were out of answers as those thugs, miscreants, and diabolical loons burnt down their city. When a parent actually went out into the street with violence on her mind to apply some discipline to her out of control son they suddenly praised her, because they were out of answers. Arrests and abuse of prisoners is all the authority of the state can muster, and in this case they killed the kid, Freddie Gray while he was in custody. Police often beat their prisoners just like out of control parents beat their kids—because they can. They lack the wits to apply any other method. When Gray died, a bunch of people lacking wits acted out angrily and the monster that the state of Maryland had created had no other recourse but to destroy the world around them. Toya Graham to her credit was trying to being some sanity to the situation because at least she had enough personal value to know that what was happening was wrong.

Yet Adrian Peterson was trying to instill in his son those values before that kid ever ends up on the streets, and that’s what the switch was all about. I wouldn’t have done it, because I have developed other tools to deal with kids besides hitting them, but for those who don’t have those tools, it is better to have something, than nothing. Because the nothing is worse than the violence of the state in destroying families and the values built within them. Toya Graham is a product of the state, a single mom of six kids who has trouble stinging together complete sentences—more a product of her environment than of her intellect. Yet in spite of those handicaps she at least tried to do the right thing by her son when the rest of society was trying to give him a license to destroy the world around him. But if she had been Adrian Peterson, a celebrity NFL player, instead of being placed on national television as a star she would have found herself submissive to the dominatrix tendencies of the state and the perpetual desire of it to exert control. This whole event is a progressive nightmare brought to reality by a lot of really stupid people. But, at least in Toya Graham’s case, her child might actually have a chance at life, because kids need their parents. The state is not an adequate replacement—and in their desperate hour, the police of Baltimore were crying out for more parents like Toya Graham when on any other day they’d likely be the ones arresting her for abuse.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Whiskey Scam of Robert Reich: Students he taught should ask for their money back–because he doesn’t understand economics

If you really want to know what is behind the global push for $15 an hour wage increases at fast food restaurants and other entry-level jobs look no further than Robert Reich–the Clinton economist and academic liberal who has set the pace of the modern socialist movement using MoveOn.org as a platform for insurrection. MoveOn.org is the Soros funded enterprise and has in mind the fulfillment of the same brand of communism that was promised during the Red Decade only introduced with incremental bits of socialism over a long period of time. Professors like Reich are the reason that colleges are failing our young people because it is his nonsense that they have been taught. People like Reich funded by Soros are at war with American capitalism and seek to end it—and have from the very beginning. To understand why and how read the following article shown below from Reich where he introduced his economic theory in favor of a minimum wage increase. Because Reich is so “respected” and accredited, most people take his opinions hook line and sinker without considering the root implications, or source definitions. But to anybody who really understands money and how it’s made and measured, Reich is a functioning communist. He may not name himself that, but his actions define themselves. His major error in the following suggestion which apparently everyone misses is in properly defining productivity. I’ll explain more after the article and a bit of history about Reich.

WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD REALLY BE RAISED TO $15 AN HOUR

Momentum is building to raise the minimum wage. Several states have already taken action  – Connecticut has boosted it to $10.10 by 2017, the Maryland legislature just approved a similar measure, Minnesota lawmakers just reached a deal to hike it to $9.50. A few cities have been more ambitious – Washington, D.C. and its surrounding counties raised it to $11.50, Seattle is considering $15.00

Senate Democrats will soon introduce legislation raising it nationally to $10.10, from the current $7.25 an hour.

All this is fine as far as it goes. But we need to be more ambitious. We should be raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour.

Here are seven reasons why:

  1. Had the minimum wage of 1968 simply stayed even with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour today. But the typical worker is also about twice as productive as then. Some of those productivity gains should go to workers at the bottom.
  2. $10.10 isn’t enough to lift all workers and their families out of poverty. Most low-wage workers aren’t young teenagers; they’re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. And they and their families need a higher minimum.
  3.  For this reason, a $10.10 minimum would also still require the rest of us to pay Medicaid, food-stamps, and other programs necessary to get poor families out of poverty – thereby indirectly subsidizing employers who refuse to pay more. Bloomberg View describes McDonalds and Walmart as “America’s biggest welfare queens” because their employees receive so much public assistance. (Some, like McDonalds, even advise their employees to use public programs because their pay is so low.)
  4. A $15/hour minimum won’t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it – thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history.)
  5. A $15/hour minimum is unlikely to result in higher prices because most businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices. But because the higher minimum will also attract more workers into the job market, employers will have more choice of whom to hire, and thereby have more reliable employees – resulting in lower turnover costs and higher productivity.
  6. Since Republicans will push Democrats to go even lower than $10.10, it’s doubly important to be clear about what’s right in the first place. Democrats should be going for a higher minimum rather than listening to Republican demands for a smaller one.
  7. At a time in our history when 95 percent of all economic gains are going to the top 1 percent, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour isn’t just smart economics and good politics. It’s also the morally right thing to do.

 

 

http://front.moveon.org/robert-reich-explains-why-we-should-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-15-per-hour/

 

http://robertreich.org/post/82134788482

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=2&ref=general&src=me&_r=0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

 

Robert Bernard Reich (/ˈraɪʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.

Reich is currently Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government[2] and professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor), Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

In an interview with The New York Times, he explained that “I don’t believe in redistribution of wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth. But I am concerned about how we can afford to pay for what we as a nation need to do…[Taxes should pay] for what we need in order to be safe and productive. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”[25]

In response to a question as to what to recommend to the incoming president regarding a fair and sustainable income and wealth distribution, Reich said, “Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit — a wage supplement for lower-income people, and finance it with a higher marginal income tax on the top five percent. For the longer term, invest in education for lower-income communities, starting with early-childhood education and extending all the way up to better access to post-secondary education.”[25]

Reich is pro-union, saying “Unionization is not just good for workers in unions, unionization is very, very important for the economy overall, and would create broad benefits for the United States.”[26][27] He also favors raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour over three years, believing that it will not adversely impact big business and will enhance the availability of higher value workers for companies.[28]

Reich is only a modern snake oil salesman trying to palm off whisky as a cure-all medicine. His economic product is Karl Marx communism and socialism implemented through twists and turns of Keynesian economics shaped by the philosophies of Immanuel Kant. And guess what—they are all wrong in their premise. Reich goes wrong in his very first assumption when he states above that “the typical worker is about twice as productive now as they were in 1968.” The worker isn’t more efficient or better, their productive output did not increase—their actual work, and the energy output to produce that work is statistically much less than it was in 1968. For instance, at a typical McDonald’s founded first in 1940 the amount of work a worker had to exert in 1968 meant that all the hamburgers had to be grilled by hand, the buns individually toasted, most of the labor had to be implemented with the touch time of a human hand. But by 2015 most of the food making operation was automated. The average McDonald’s today is very much more productive than the 1968 version, but it isn’t because the worker is better. Arguably, ethically, morally, and in all categories of make-up it should be easy to prove by some academic like Reich that the quality of people available to work is much lower today than they were in 1968. So his comment about the average worker being twice as productive is complete nonsense—it’s a statement made up in the halls of academia for the sole purpose of eating money out of George Soros’ hand and his aims for global communism.

The Reich formula for determining productive output ignores completely the value of individuals, whether those individuals are the CEOs of companies, or are hard-working employees who carry the rest of their workforce on their backs on a daily basis. The socialist utopia that Reich preaches about in his economic efforts is a theoretical fantasy that falls apart the moment that theory is applied to real people. And Reich has ignored these failures for years.

When Reich was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997 the economic success that Clinton and Reich enjoyed were not because of their socialist policies, it was because Clinton was forced to compromise with a Republican congress to get their fiscal house in order. Ross Perot was challenging both parties in 1996 so both wanted to squeeze him out of the debate and after the Lewinsky scandal “Bubba” played ball with House and Senate Republicans and things actually improved a bit economically. However the biggest contributors were the invention of the personal PC market and the spread of the Internet which was still a very new thing back then. The market expansion that occurred under tech sector economies happened on Clinton’s watch, and he got the credit. Most of that tech work was done in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan where the stage was set for such Silicone Valley creations—it didn’t have anything to do with Robert Reich.

Yet Reich stood in front of his Harvard and Berkley economic classes all this time teaching socialism to thousands of young students taking credit for that period of time without telling anybody the whole truth. The guy has lied and taken credit for the work of others for years, and now the communist utopia that George Soros wants to create needs the snake oil salesmanship of the con artist Reich. And that is how the minimum wage debate emerged and how the stage was set for the outrageous sum of $15 an hour fast food jobs. These are ideals proposed by shells of actual people who espouse anti-capitalist sentiments with the purposeful destruction of America’s economic power. They should be seen for what they are, and geniuses they are not. Reich can use a lot of big word and charts to explain his theories but in essence he is just a snake oil salesman proclaiming that whiskey has magical properties to a largely uninformed population. What’s worse is that he seeks to keep people in such a state so that not only he can resume gaining attention and accolades, but that he can advance a progressive agenda that seeks an end to our country as a capitalist power house. His failure is specifically in defining value in productivity assuming that all gains belong to human workers. Rather, the real truth in increases in productivity is from the minority of minds who invented the tools to increase productivity in spite of a declining social intellect. That trick is a masterpiece, and it has nothing to do with the American worker, or the gains made toward justification for a minimum wage hike first started in 1968 under deceitful measures.

If you are one of the many poor fools who have taken an economic class by Robert Reich, then you should ask for your money back. Because he sold you whiskey as medicine that only a drunk would accept as legitimate.

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Who are the Three Percent: Being a shepherd and the sheep

Somebody reminded me recently of a little factoid that I already knew, but hadn’t thought about in a while. Before there was ever a Tea Party in America there was an organization called the Three Percent, which was a reference to the amount of people who fought and won the American Revolution against England. The term is important as it indicates a truth to the winds of change that is pertinent to our times. In the modern media driven culture hell-bent on socialism and various aspects of democracy where majority rules, the Tea Party is viewed as irrelevant because it does not represent the masses of our society. Yet history proves time and time again that history is not shaped by the masses, but by the leaders who are often in the extreme minority. In this case pertaining to the Revolution and the modern Constitutional movement the term Three Percent is relevant. Here is how the actual group, the Three Percent describe themselves on a 2009 website—followed by the link to their material.

The Three Percent in 1775.

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came. Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation. The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic. We are the people who the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html

I have for many, many years considered myself in an even more elite class going well beyond the Three Percenter types. In my family the push has always been to be a 1% percenter, not in measure by fiscal buying power, but by intellectual aptitude. I have absolutely no desire to be in step with the rest of society—but rather several decades ahead of the current democratic driven trends. So it’s not hard for me to feel an affinity for those who consider themselves in the Three Percent.

The philosophic stance between of the Three Percent and the modern Tea Party led by people like Glenn Beck and Matt Kibbe is where I’m at. I don’t feel a need to proclaim violent action against an out of control government because I think any of them can be easily beaten with intelligence. Conversely, Glenn Beck is a bit too evangelical for me—a bit too soft-spoken. I understand why he’s the way he is, but he’s too soft for my sentiments. But I’m with him on most things, and I admire the vigor of the Three Percent. If things get out of control, I would be ahead of the Three Percenters in resistance. However, I have little faith in the competency of government to even organize such a thing—so I don’t entertain much in the way of options in that direction.

The point of the matter is that minorities are what shape the future. It currently is a small minority of radical leftists who are shaping the modern world of politics starting with George Soros and trickling down of money to puppet politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They are in the minority, yet they behave as though they have always been in the majority—democratically speaking. They have committed a ruse—but they are vulnerable to the same tactics—which is what they have been seeing over the last decade. Even with all the George Soros money spent advocating on behalf of socialist/progressive policies—the gains they have made have been limited and the pendulum has swung toward groups like the Three Percenters and the Tea Party to show guidance away from the left-leaning minority domination of the national message.

One of the most frequent criticisms that I see leveled at my work is that it only has an appeal to the minority—in most cases one percenter types who are even more vigilant than the three percenters, or the more general and soft minded Tea Party types. An angry leftist will write me with proclamations that the masses are not behind my view points and suggest that I should abandon them in favor of a more popular view. I have a long history of this type of resistance and my hatred of public education can be traced back to my firm belief in going against the grain of popularity. For instance, when I was a kid it was very unpopular to like the popular Star Wars films in school. Showing an open love of those movies were guarantees at social castigation—even though privately most people enjoyed the films. I took great joy at stepping on the school bus with my Han Solo shirt on and feeling the parade of insults cast at me to make me want to change my behavior. The more the other kids threw insults at me, the more deeply into my convictions I planted myself. When verbal insults didn’t work, kids would resort to physical violence, which did not work with me—at all. I had some rather memorable fights in school which taught kids that they were best off to leave me alone. Meanwhile, I wore my Han Solo shirts well into my high school years and never stopped moving into adulthood.

Thirty years later, which seems like a long time, but it was only a few election cycles—Star Wars is openly enjoyed by just about everyone. Nobody looks sideways at me when I wear my Han Solo shirt out somewhere with my grandson. People actually respond favorably to it. The new movie, Episode 7 The Force Awakens is projected by the Hollywood Reporter to hit over $2 billion in global revenue during its upcoming Christmas run. I personally think the number will be higher, but it’s a start. It’s not that people all of a sudden started liking Star Wars—it’s just become suddenly fashionable to publicly say so as the years have traveled toward us. I knew when I was a kid that Star Wars was something special and I was certainly well within the 1% percentile who publicly stated it—proudly. It was quite a shock when I had a chance to date a girl in the 8th grade who was the most attractive girl in the school—and I gave up on that date to play Star Wars with a bunch of geeky kids who were younger than me. A lot of people thought something was wrong with me. Society in general didn’t understand. But I did, and that’s all that mattered. So I told the girl no and instead spent that Friday night in the basement of my parents house with four other kids playing Star Wars all night—and it was a lot better than a date with a pretty girl. Believe me. Pretty girls mostly come with rules aligned toward social values current to the day. They expect their boyfriends to get along and like the ordainment of their peers. Those are rules I was never willing to deal with. Star Wars was much better, and it still is. Trust me kids, after tens of thousands of sexual experiences—Star Wars is more rewarding.

Since those days I have felt the same pressure for a hundred million different issues, but I generally handled them all the same. I do what I know to be right in spite of what “society” thinks is correct. If the issue is controversial, so be it. Some of the worst and most violent fights I’ve had were when my wife and I were the only two people in a Mason neighborhood who were against the teenage drug dealing that was going on in front of our house. The issue got so out of control that the mayor of Mason had to get involved as the entire police department had turned against us—because they didn’t want to deal with the issue. Talk about pressure. We had the same kind of social rebuttal when we home schooled our children for a time. That was hard as everyone turned against us socially. It was harder than wearing a Han Solo shirt onto a hostile school bus full of rough neck kids from the Gregory Creek trailer park. If you wore a KISS shirt you were cool and didn’t get picked on. If you wore a Star Wars shirt, you got picked on bad. Put your kids in public school, and sign them up for every sports program available and you will be the star of your neighborhood. Home school your kids and you will be ridiculed. Publicly endorse all the modern big government entitlements and the news outlets will paste your face on every station. Stand against them, and you will be seen as a scourge on progress. But as we know, Star Wars is now popular—by virtually everyone, and the liberty movement has now migrated beyond the typically three percent of the population. It takes a leader to see these events way ahead of the masses—it is for the masses to follow the leader. There isn’t a cell in my body that desires to be a follower—to be a mere lamb in the flock herded by a wise and knowing shepherd. I only want to be a shepherd and typically only around three percent of an entire population feels the same way.

While many from the masses bulk at the topics on this site, I am certain that within twenty to thirty years—just like Star Wars—these topics will be popular among the masses. They hide their feelings now—those masses, but deep down inside they support them—they just don’t feel confident to proclaim those feelings in public. Three percent of the population understands that, and they are typically ahead of the masses. So there is no reason to bend the will of the leaders to the masses of any society. Because eventually, the masses will catch up to the leaders—and everyone can’t be a leader. Only the rare few—and it is among them that the world hinges. There is no other way—the only difference is in knowing what type of person you are. Sheep need to be herded—and they like it. Shepherds do not—and among those shepherds are the Three Percent.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Mason High School’s Covered Girl Challenge: Public education purposely turning children against you

As public education advocates were marching on Columbus to protest Governor Kasich’s budget cuts to affluent school districts, the Mason school system showed what the government schools are really about. For those who think that my criticisms of public schools are exaggerated check out the activity that was being organized at Mason. Keep in mind that Christianity is heavily ridiculed in government schools yet in Mason, Ohio—one of the wealthiest regions in the country students are being encouraged to wear a Muslim hijab to school as a gateway to Islam. What is interesting in this is that radical ISIS beheadings are the news topic of our day and thousands of years of archaeology is being destroyed in the Middle East by radical Muslim terrorists—yet here is a publicly funded institution encouraging the spread of Islam. Here is the memo that went out to students and their parents announcing the upcoming event.

Mason High School is blessed to have a unique and diverse student body. In order celebrate this diversity and promote open-mindedness, the Muslim Student Association is inviting all female students to participate in “A Covered Girl Challenge” which will allow students to wear a headscarf for the whole school day. Afterwards, there will be a discussion (open for all students, male & female) held in Z223 to share experiences and reflections.

In order to participate, students and/or parents should attend the informational meeting offered and turn in the attached permission slip to Student Activities or Mrs. Jenkin’s room in Z223.

On the morning of April 23rd, there will be booths set up in A2, C1, and Z1 to help participators adjust their scarves and answer any questions.

To learn more about what the Covered Girl Challenge is all about and what a headscarf is watch this video: https://youtu.be/_WosD_GTz_E

Please note the important dates below: Informational meeting: April 20th after school in Z223 Covered Girl Challenge Thursday April 23rd during school day

Covered Girl Challenge Discussion after school on Thursday April 23rd in Z223 Flyer and permission slip are at the link below:

http://www.edline.net/pages/Mason_High_School/2684432697290919314/Student_Activities/FORMS/EMA

If anyone has any questions please email masonhsmsa@gmail.com

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/ohio-public-high-school-hosting-a-covered-girl-challenge-asking-students-to-wear-hijab-for-a-day

Now, what conclusion would any rational person make by that event? It’s not like Mason is some backwater school in the middle of nowhere—its right in the heart of America.

Here’s the deal, public schools are all about using confiscated wealth and breeding into the minds of youth nice little socialist followers who will support an aggressive agenda once they are of voting age. They are unhealthy places that no parent who truly loves their child should send an innocent mind. Public schools are bad places that intend bad things for newly formed minds. What other conclusion is there about the Covered Girl Challenge at Mason High School? Think about that and let me know…………………………………………………………

Why are we paying for these palaces of doom to destroy our children?

Send this to a friend and ask them the same question………………….why?

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Secrets of the Moon: We are not alone, and never have been

The great danger of having the government in control of so much, particularly education, is that it makes it easy for them to conceal information that they do not wish to emerge. And this has never been more evident than in the issue over mankind’s actual origins or its relationship to the heavens. For instance, NASA recently had a press conference announcing that it would be likely that mankind would discover alien life within the next decade as seen in the video below. This was a remarkable statement by a government organization that has traditionally tried to debunk some of the wild UFO theories that have emerged throughout the years. Yet innately we all seem to understand that there is something not quite right about the stories we were given as children, and we look to the heavens as if yearning for home. We hide those yearnings behind religion and trust in government because the implications are just too terrifying to us in discovering, (or rather re-discovering) the truth. But the truth is headed in our direction quicker than mankind can deal with it and is on a collision course with destiny that none of us are ready for. Government has some idea, although it’s unlikely any one person in government has the whole story. For instance, NASA is planning on getting a manned mission to Mars by 2035 and they already have a pretty good idea what we’ll find once we get there. Just recently it was discovered that there was a vast ocean that covered the Northern Hemisphere of Mars and at a time, the red planet was very earth like. If there was water, it is likely that some form of life was in it. It is even possible that a whole life cycle of intelligent life rose and fell well before humans were even mating with (angels) in the time before the Deluge.

The most suspicious giveaway of this massive cover-up is the fact that mankind has not returned to the moon since the 1970s. Our journeys to the moon came to a sudden stop never to return or even send a probe. When the Apollo missions were over, everything just came to an end. NASA moved into a phase of launching shuttles and building an “International Space Station” content to float above the earth, but never to venture out too far from our home planet. The moon was strangely off limits suddenly.

The moon is pretty easy to see and amateur astronomers have been looking at it for many years. No matter where we are on earth, we all see the same side of it, never seeing anything on the back side as the same face always gazes at us—yet human beings have been more curious than their governments have been comfortable with. They have seen strange events happening on the moon and speculate as to why or how. But the real evidence that gives away the mystery is that nobody has returned, and if they have, it was a secret not disclosed to the public. When mankind does return to these other planets we’ll confirm the long-held suspicion that we are not alone. We were never alone, in fact, our galaxy is teeming with life—most of it very primitive, some of it advanced, but we will share with that advanced life an origin story that will be difficult for all of us. It will shatter our religious convictions and a perceptual understanding of reality—so for now our governments protect our fragile emotions with the thin veil of concealment like children still wanting to believe in Santa Clause. We want to believe in the Leaky theories of evolution, in the hand of God shaping us into our present form. But what we’ll discover very soon is that God was not some deity in the heavens but only part of the story of a race of people who came to earth from someplace else and made the world into the image of their homeland. Likely some of these relics will be found on Mars which will finally put all the speculation to rest. And before Mars was settled, there are other home worlds some of which still host life and have with them the origin stories what will shatter our current perceptual knowledge and leave mankind reeling with panic. The government isn’t all sinister, just filled with human frailty and an understanding that such revelations will shake the very foundations of society to its very core—and they have an innate desire to stay in charge and protect their “flock” from such trauma. But, it’s too late. It’s coming whether or not we want it to.

It is common in government schools for children to ridicule other children for believing in UFOs even though the evidence in support of alien life far surpasses the official press releases provided by government. The government has shown that it will lie collectively about small things, like Benghazi, or the true nature of a deal with Cuba and lifting sanctions with Iran—so it is quite a mystery why anybody would be so willing to believe the government in regard to alien life. But in public schools the government helps shape the consensus of learning. Children are encouraged to keep up with all the latest trends in pop culture and social concerns filling their brains with irrelevant material doomed to revision once government gets caught concealing the truth. That time is coming quick especially with independent private sector companies moving into the space race. Government will have to come clean or put a stop to free will because they can’t prevent the curious from uncovering the origins of mankind any longer. There are just too many tools available to the modern adventurer. Kids still make fun of other kids in school who dare to ask questions that have their answers outside of the latest happenings of a boy band singing the latest greatest hits. Many young minds are happy for a time to turn off their thoughts so they can feel the boobies of some girl during their adolescent years, but eventually their curiosity will catch up to them. And the evidence won’t be concealed any longer.

It wasn’t that long ago scientists—(individuals functioning under government grants) doubted that there was life anywhere but earth and that water was unusual to our planet. Now we know that Mars had an ocean—a big one and given the nature of our personal mythologies and early “pagan” religions, that in our background on earth there is evidence of life that was quite vast and intricate. Before there were governments in the form that we have them today, there were kingdoms and religion was used to control the minds of those within those kingdoms to serving their kings as a link to the heavens. Government has expanded this role, it is no longer just one or two monarchs sitting on a throne, but a whole class of people we are supposed to trust to manage our affairs as we work to pay our taxes to them and pick one of the few religions provided to us to focus our eye toward some version of immortality after the death of our bodies on earth. We are taught in our public schools to cattle prod our classmates into staying in the lines and not believing the strange reports of UFOs that flood in from the curious. But later, when the school days are done and government doesn’t provide answers to the strange things we see around us but to tell us to look somewhere else and keep our minds focused on some religion to answer our questions, all we have to do is look up and see ancient relics looking back at us.  The moon is right there—yet human kind does not see it for what it really is..

The moon itself is an ancient artifact and this will be confirmed once we finally return and stay on its surface. There won’t be concealment of the truth any longer and NASA can see the day within the next few decades when this reality will occur. So they are slowly floating out to the public what is expected to be discovered, so that mankind has a chance to grapple with the implications. And those implications will shatter the religions of the world too stringent to accept the reality that we have never been alone but were only a colony on earth from a vast species that still roams the universe. And from there is the real origin story that will bring with it many new religions and a destiny not rooted in such sure footing. The strongest evidence to the fact is in what NASA or the government in general has avoided doing. The moon is so close, yet so far away. It is right there in the sky and on it is the truth—a truth we ran away from after the Apollo program. But a truth that is catching up to us faster than government can conceal the information.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Vote No on the Midpointe Library System: Philosophy and the changing way of expanding knowledge

I am against the MidPointe Library System in Butler County, Ohio for all the same reasons I am against school levies. Even though I tend to love people who strive for knowledge and desire to feed minds with information, the quality of those efforts can cast people adrift all of their lives ruining them, and a library in many subtle ways contribute to that personal destruction. Before detailing why and how, here is the case that the MidPointe Library System makes for itself looking for more money from voters during the upcoming May 5th 2015 election.   Essentially to make a long story short, they make the same arguments that public schools make, helping the children, offerings to the community, and all that kind of nonsense.

The MidPointe Library System will have a renewal levy on the ballot on Tuesday, May 5.  Please find information regarding this levy, as well as why the Library is asking for continued community support below:

Something for Everyone in the Community

With current funding levels, the MidPointe Library System is able to provide many resources, materials, services, and programming to the residents of eastern Butler County. 

MidPointe offers a collection of over a half million items, and partnership in the SearchOhio lending consortium gives patrons access to over 16 million items from across the state. In 2014 over 2 million items were checked out. Additionally, MidPointe provides internet access and public computers to assist people in finding jobs, accessing data and doing school work.

In 2014, MidPointe offered over 2000 programs.  These are as diverse as yoga class and technology instruction for adults, to storytime and early literacy book clubs for children.  The Library’s Summer Reading Program, which promotes literacy for all ages, reached record involvement last year, with nearly 10,000 patrons participating. 

MidPointe’s influence expands well beyond the buildings. Librarians visit schools and community centers to engage young people in the joy of reading. Educators are able to stock their classrooms with books as a result of MidPointe’s “Teacher Collections.” The MidPointe Outreach Services Department delivers materials to over 200 patrons who are unable to physically visit the Library.

Library Budgeting

For the past two decades, Libraries in the state of Ohio have faced reduced funding.  In 2008, the most drastic of these cuts occurred and as a result, the Library had to dramatically reduce hours, services and staffing.   For the first time, the Library approached the public with the possibility of a .75 mill levy to supplement operations.  The voters of our Library district passed the levy, which represents almost 40% of the MidPointe budget. Overdue fines and fees only represent 3.25% of the Library’s overall budget.

The overwhelming majority of the Library’s expenses are devoted to collection development and public service and programs. Administrative costs represent only 12.5% of overall expenses and the MidPointe Library System has continually been recognized as one of the most cost-effective in the state. 

Levy Details

  • The levy on the May 5 ballot is a renewal. This is not a new tax.
  • Levy funds make up 40% of MidPointe’s budget.
  • Levy Millage:  .75 mill
  • Length of Levy:  5 years
  • Cost: The cost of this levy to the owner of a $100,000 home is approximately $22.97 a year(less than the cost of one hardback book).

Levy funds will:

  • Maintain services and materials at all MidPointe locations.
  • Continue to provide current technological resources to the public.
  • Allow for sensible expansion in our growing community.
  • Sustain programs for children, teens and adults.

 

 

http://www.midpointelibrary.org/news/renewal-levy-information/

Essentially they simply want more money to continue a practice that is rooted in socialism. I have never liked libraries because I have never liked sharing my books. I like buying them, and owning them—collecting them like treasures to be guarded by me as part of a life’s journey. It has always seemed wrong to “borrow” a library book from the library where they maintain “collective” ownership. The concept of a shared resource is disgusting. Library books are routinely abused because nobody owns them and are reflective of the type of society that is not centered on personal responsibility and individual ownership.image

I have not been to a library for years. In my community within my little network of a neighborhood I have one of the best libraries in the entire country, the West Chester Library, yet I never, ever use it. I would not borrow a book or movie from them, because I don’t want to use someone else’s stuff. However, I go to one of two Barnes and Nobles book stores about two times a week. The children sections in both of those book stores are tremendous services to children and show how much better private investment is in constructing the mind of young people. The book store in Newport, Kentucky is just fabulous and is still one of my favorites anywhere—which is pictured within this article. It is a temple of knowledge and I love it—yet it is struggling to stay afloat in the changing climate of online offerings. Unlike the MidPointe Library System, Barnes and Noble cannot ask for a tax increase to stay afloat in a changing economy. So they have to adapt—where libraries are doing the same things they always have—and they lose a lot of money because of it. They are essentially money pits and their offerings to the community are not beneficial as they pretend.

The job of teaching children to read falls on the parents or less directly, the extended family members of a child—aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on. Not a socialist librarian or volunteer who has a subtle agenda of encouraging sharing as opposed to ownership. The world of a capitalist society like the United States is rooted in ownership—not sharing. When something of value maintains its worth because someone owned it and cared for it, it is then valuable to someone who might want to purchase it for their own. Libraries encourage sharing and while that might sound good on the surface—the mentality created from this exchange of ideas often leads to various acceptances of degrees of socialism—like public education, public housing, public assistance and so on.image

From the book shelves at Barnes and Noble in Newport, Kentucky in my favorite section—the philosophy section—the two primary competing ideas regarding philosophy are on full display—because that is what people are buying. Amazon.com can provide obscure books within a few days and at a great price. Barnes and Noble put on their shelves titles that sell. All the other sections in the book store, politics, fiction, and cooking, current events—etc, all stem from the philosophy section. People think the way they do and are attracted to some things rather than other things based on their personal philosophy, so I see it as the most important section. In the various schools of thought in Western philosophy everything is basically built off two individuals, Plato and Aristotle. In the east it is Confucius, which leans toward Western Platonic thought. What that translates to through a long line of philosophic thought is essentially Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. imageI certainly lean toward Ayn Rand—yet I think her Objectivism is limited to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and that there will be new schools of thought stemming from her Objectivism that will have to encapsulate the bizarre behavior of quantum mechanics now being discovered. But Karl Marx has been a failure and is a dying philosophy that will either be extinct within the next two hundred years, or it will destroy our civilization. I have no use for Karl Marx in any fashion. Libraries are part of a Karl Marx mentality.image

I love libraries for their historical significance—especially the library in Alexandria. At the time the cost of printing books was prohibitive and everyone couldn’t own a book. So the borrowing of books at a library was the best way to achieve an exchange of knowledge. But that time has passed. Now there are so many books printed that the market is saturated with knowledge. It is easier, and more efficient for people to upload books onto their devices, or just buy them at Amazon.com. Stores like Barnes and Nobel fill the traditional role of a library being a center of learning—especially for kids. But as for motivation into intellectual endeavors, libraries are not a substitute for a good parent or mentor. The reason I don’t go to the West Chester library is because it feels like a socialist utopia to me. But Barnes and Nobel feels like the intellectual center of a capitalist country and I could essentially move into every one of them and be very happy. It is for that reason that I will vote no for the MidPointe levy on May 5th. I feel sorry for them, but they are a dying enterprise that will evaporate under the changing times—and it would be better for them to see that happen now than prolonging the agony. Community isn’t very valuable unless the members of that community believe in an Aristotelian logic as opposed to a Platonic sentiment. A community of socialists is a destructive force, and that will be the unintended consequence of a continuation of the library system in America. It is time for a replacement and it begins with a withdrawal of funds from the black hole of tax increases for which libraries currently represent.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Rich Hoffman Hosting WAAM Radio: Matt Clark’s Honeymoon and Hillary’s destruction of evidence

The news is fresh; my friend Matt Clark at WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan is getting married in June 2015, and has asked me to cover for his show while he’s on his honeymoon. Of course I said yes, because I like the station and what they are doing in a part of the country that is typically a blue state. Matt’s show is a shout in the darkness toward entrenched liberalism with their hand firmly on the light switch. Yet Matt does his show each week even though he doesn’t need to financially, just as I do with my blog. The show is an extension of himself in the perpetual fight for freedom. We always have a good time on Matt’s show, which was obvious from the clip shown below where we discussed Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

Several years ago I was offered a similar deal at 700 WLW with Doc Thompson just prior to his own honeymoon, which eventually cost him his job. Not because he asked me to fill in for him, but because the station was preparing behind the scenes to get rid of him. After Doc’s termination I more or less cut my ties to WLW and Clear Channel in Cincinnati including 55 KRC. Some of that led to the controversy the following month—they were as eager to part ways with Doc’s memory as I was of them. The other person I was loyal to at WLW was Darryl Parks, and he was not far behind Doc as far as a termination—the station obviously wanted to go into a different, more moderate direction, which did not fit the scope of my concerns. So I drug my feet with Doc because instinct told me something was wrong. I wasn’t sure what, but it was obvious that something was brewing, so I knew to stay away. I turned out to be more than right—as usual.

I have no such concerns at WAAM and have no problem making a commitment to the station even this far out. It will be fun to fill in for Matt, and I’m sure it will make his honeymoon just a bit sweeter knowing that someone of like mind is taking care of his show while he’s traveling. Like me, Matt does quite well for himself so his radio show is mostly a labor of love for the republic that is America. It means more to him to have the show do what he wants it to do while he embarks on one of life’s great adventures—marriage.

As far as the content of the show we did together about the Hillary emails, his take on it comparing her to The Office was spot on. Obviously she is obstructing justice by destroying evidence and covering up her involvement in the death of people who lost their lives because of her actions—or inaction. Her management of the situation in Benghazi led to the death of people and empowered the terrorists in the region on her watch to grow into the threat it is today. We had some fun with it on talk radio because the only other option is to grow depressed about how far we’ve fallen as a nation where the expectations of people in positions like Secretary of State have become simply a stepping stone to the presidency. The message behind the Hillary emails is that no evidence of incompetence would be allowed to be seen to derail that objective of obtaining the Oval Office. Hillary is the ultimate case of why institutionalism is nearly always a failure when individual responsibility is not nurtured.

Hillary Clinton is such a bad person that she will literally stop at nothing to obtain her personal quest for power and prestige—which is gained from collective enterprise and social acceptance. She’s a disgusting person, and is the reason that people like Matt Clark does a radio show every week. There are bad people in the world, and somebody has to call them out on their treachery and on Matt’s show, it’s a way to do that even if the task might seem like a drop in an ocean of corruption. Calling out the actions of one bad act, or even five during the airtime on WAAM is better than allowing them to go unanswered.

So yes, I’ll enjoy hosting Matt’s show. I’m sure we’ll light some fireworks and fire them off in a way that might be a little different. But I know that Matt wants what I do—and that is to save the Republic one broadcast at a time, one blog post at a time, one speech, or sometimes a whip crack all in the name of justice. The books I write and activities of enterprise I embark on are not necessarily for the immediate gratification of financial security—as I am a productive person, and already have those bases covered. They are for a functioning philosophy for the 22nd century. It will take that long to turn back the wheels of progressivism and get people thinking of a new and better way of maintaining and preserving a free republic with an intellectual aptitude that is required to sustain it for subsequent centuries. America has not yet come to those terms—and neither has mankind for that matter. But it never will so long as people like Hillary hide evidence of their incompetence to fulfill personal ambitions rooted in collectivism. The inept and treacherous find it too easy to hide under the covers of collectivism—which is why they support such things, and are often the loudest voices in favor of progressivism, socialism, and communism.

I will promise one thing, and those who read here every day know full well, I will make it count on the airwaves. It may be for a short time, but I will promise to give people something they haven’t received before—just because that’s my tendency when doing things like this. Otherwise, anybody could fill in for such a spot. Since Matt asked me, I will give him what he’s looking for. And for the listeners of WAAM, they will enjoy it immensely.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Sacrifice to Santa Maurta: Understanding the nature of terrorism

It is a pleasure to release the third installment of the Cliffhanger story, The Curse of Fort Seven Mile titled “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta.” These stories are part of an ongoing project I have to contemplate a philosophy for the next century dealing with themes that go well beyond the typical action adventure story. They are specifically construimagected to cover difficult aspects of our culture and weave them into the motivations of the present through a mythological means greatly underutilized in modern entertainment. The Cliffhanger series allows me to cover very difficult subject matter similar in manner to one of my favorite books, The Republic, by Plato where he uses Socrates as a character canvas for concepts of a philosophic nature to articulate the thoughts of their day. Using the modern Cliffhanger as a type of modern Zorro/Batman character it allows me to explore difficult contemporary subjects that just aren’t getting coverage any other way. A fine example of that is in our modern drug culture.

It is hard for people to understand the motivations of terrorist groups like ISIS or the drug cartels on the Mexican/American border. In many ways, I see the drug cartels as every bit as dangerous as ISIS. Like the Islamic extremists of late, the drug cartels routinely cut the heads off their enemies and incite terror all over the south western states and all across Central America. Terrorist cartels run Mexico and it gets very little press coverage leaving most people uninformed as to their motivations. What drug cartels and ISIS have in common is a sense of collectivism where the gang of thugs for which they are members are considered part of a family unit—and they partake in deity worship. In the ISIS case it’s Allah, in the typical drug cartel it’s Santa Maurte. This latest Cliffhanger story puts readers into the minds of a typical drug cartel member and covers some very provocative ground intellectually. I’m very proud of the way the story has come together and how it fits into a much larger philosophy which is of course the intention. The following description is what the “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta” is all about.  I changed the spelling a bit to avoid a direct insult of a goddess that is quite popular today.

The Los Ebola drug cartel is executing a young woman as part of a sinister plan to enact terrorism, drug addiction, and social unrest through-out America. Of their prime concern is the drug trafficking lanes lost recently to a rival cartel into the neighborhoods of Fort Seven Mile. The goddess of their religion, Santa Murata demands to be fed the blood sacrifice of an offering to turn their luck back to a favorable standing.

Yet the bandit Cliffhanger has other plans and uses his flaming bullwhips under the cover of darkness to enact justice against the blood thirsty desires of the skeletal deity and her otherworldly plans for global insurrection. But first a damsel in distress is in need across railroad tracks as a freight train looms upon her intent on creating a corpse. In spite of Cliffhanger’s heroics a forbidden technology is brought forth that will point to an answer that is more mysterious than the question—who is Cliffhanger?

It is exciting even though the subject matter is quite serious, to tell stories like this.   There is the typical swashbuckling aspect which is consistent to what they are becoming known for. That’s entirely on purpose. I’ve always thought that classic westerns were wonderful vehicles for instructing contemporary values and that is something missing from our culture. Cliffhanger as a series of stories is certainly modeled after my love of westerns and the villains are often dirty politicians, and drug cartels, but something that extends this into the work of philosophy is that the primary villain is a philosophy of collectivism as opposed to just an individual functioning from greed. That takes this work out of the realm of whimsical fantasy and makes it a platform for philosophy.

In the “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta” a concept is explored that permeates all collective based cultures—the concept of sacrifice, and the belief that something must be given up to something so that something else can happen. So far in the overall story arch of The Curse of Fort Seven Mile, sacrifice has been a consistent message. In the first installment, the police union wanted the community to sacrifice money to their requirements of a collective bargaining agreement to bring safety to Fort Seven Mile after a series of deaths and tragedies grabbed headlines. In the second installment, “Latté Sipping Prostitutes” a teacher’s union expected a sacrifice on behalf of the community in order to care for the children attending their schools. In this installment, “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta” the belief in sacrifice isn’t disguised behind altruism like it is in typical political efforts previously described—it is quite literal and cuts straight to the thoughts of the typical drug trafficker.

To write this story I reflected back to personal experience. The first adults I knew outside of my family professionally were hit men, money launderers and drug traffickers. Even though I was never part of their criminal activities I was recruited and had their trust, and they’d tell me things. I learned what being a “heavy” was before I had a driver’s license and would hear stories of bringing enforcement to their targets. It was a good experience that I would never trade away even if I disagreed with the way those people made their living. What we all had in common was a love of the dying order of manhood where bravery and valor were still traits men admired in each other—even if they were politically and ideologically opposed. I learned close-up how those types of people thought and it sent me on a life-long quest to understand all the nuances.

Drug cartels in Mexico tend to name themselves after dangerous diseases and superstitions. Their real life belief in Santa Maurte is a mix of Mayan culture and the Catholic influences of the Spanish conquistadors. She is a grim reaper like figure that is commonly found at drug festivals, paraphernalia shops, and flea markets. She also has many shrines dedicated to her along southern American highways. They are much like ISIS in their desire to incite terrorism among their targets. They don’t often see themselves as evil, but as opportunists who are fighting for some noble cause. They see America as a corrupt and evil place largely because they were raised in socialist cultures south of the border taught to hate capitalism. They see America as a place that lacks spiritual direction and have no problem with poisoning the culture of North America so it softens the great capitalist nation for their subtle invasion—a revenge for the Spanish-American war.

It might be noted that the leader of the notorious Zetas drug cartel was captured recently in the city of Monterrey. Alejandro Trevino-Morales nicknamed Omar was the head of one of the most violent modern drug cartels. He was so dangerous that the Mexican government had a $2 million dollar reward for his capture and it’s beyond question that he’s directly responsible for many killings, beheadings and general terrorism inflicted among many innocents. But in the cartel business, it will be the next man up. Omar’s capture will do nothing to curb the supply of drugs coming into America because the demand out-weighs the risk of supply. Just before the arrest of Omar Servando “La Tuta” Gomez leader of the Knights Templar cartel was arrested. Yet the drugs continue because the cartels are built from the foundations of collectivism and sacrifice where their actions in this life are measured toward the aims of the afterlife—and that makes them dangerous. They actually believe that they will gain some measure of success in their post life years because of the violence and terror they inflict on behalf of their deities.

To really comprehend terrorism in general you have to understand the ridiculous nature of the fuel which feeds them—which is the notion that by sacrificing themselves or others to a cause of greater importance—that they gain redemption in the afterlife. Their definition of greater importance is defined by the parameters of collectivism not the individual motivations of property rights. Their hatred points straight back to the gulf between socialists and capitalists.

In The Curse of Fort Seven Mile stories Cliffhanger is an unfettered capitalist and the hints as to what extent are first shown in “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta.” It becomes clear toward the end of this story and in the next couple of installments why Cliffhanger is viewed as a villain by the collectivist organizations so far shown, first the police union, then the teacher’s union, and now a drug cartel. Cliffhanger is fighting for something philosophically foreign to collectivists and they hate him for his success. It is in that conflict that I am proud because it’s difficult to frame in a way that can become part of a story and the necessity of entertainment value. The essence is a long forged contemplation that can be brought forth through such a charismatic character. Some will hate him, some will love him—and the reasons why there are different interpretations of the same character are why this can only be a work of philosophy intended for a new century of understanding as the old modes of instruction have contaminated the minds of many with improper thinking and lost values misplaced due to their notion of sacrifice and its social necessity.

Read the “Sacrifice to Santa Maurta” by clicking the link below:

http://www.amazon.com/Sacrifice-Santa-Maurta-Curse-Seven-ebook/dp/B00VC0ORII/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427577126&sr=1-1

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Kind of People Public Education Makes: Reasons not to fund government school

Every now and again I get a very revealing comment from some dissident who expects the collective hive of humanity to finance their personal whims. Such a comment can be seen below which has three main topics contained within it worth note regarding my video on the upcoming 2017 Lakota levy proposal. The commenter makes some very concise progressive arguments that require extensive examination, but first, let’s have a look at their opinion not just for its entertainment value, but for its essential argument.

Sean Robinson

7 hours ago

 

I know you thrive on people like me commenting, but if you are that miserable living in this district find somewhere else to go. Or run for the school board. Your consistent attack on schools shows you didn’t have a good time in school growing up. That isn’t the case for everybody. Being this negative all the time has got to feel miserable for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZR0ob708q8&feature=youtu.be

The first assumption is that as a long time resident in the Lakota district that I should be willing to move just because a bunch of tax increase supporters moved in from progressive regions of the country—like the East Coast, and brought with them the mentality of their homeland. The same flood of ideology is actually behind the argument of amnesty where Democrats support bringing in voters from south of the border in socialist and communist countries so that they will vote in favor of measures that favor progressive advancements. The same happens with housing developments. Government schools see alliances with increased housing development as a change agent for community relations. I liked my community before those people showed up. I put up with them when I have to see them around town. But I find it intolerable that their lifestyle choices dictate that I pay them more money. There isn’t anywhere on earth where you can run from these second-hander type people, because they seek to consume everything and everyone in their path as they must consume the essence of others to sustain themselves—like any typical parasite. There is a reason that most levy supporters have in their ranks a host of real estate agents who use school levies to make easy sales to cultural dissidents looking for the latest and greatest new thing. Currently my community is that latest and greatest thing. In two decades people like that commenter will be off to the next place leaving the Lakota district an empty husk like a plate after a meal. They will have consumed everything they could and moved on to something else leaving someone else to clean up the mess. At that time, I will likely still be involved in the area and that will be people like me. They’ll be long gone and their kids will be saying the same stupid stuff to somebody else who moved deep into the country to get away from idiots like that, only to have a new generation of saps sucking off the efforts of others.

The next question is that if I know so much about education management of resources then why don’t I run for school board and solve the problem from the inside. Well, I have been approached about this before and many thought that during the Lakota campaigns in the past that my eventual angle was to be a school board member. Actually, I just didn’t want to pay higher taxes for something I think is inefficient and in desperate need of a reboot. Public education to me is one of the dumbest and most out-dated concepts in our modern society. I don’t think there’s anything effective on a substantive level, about public education let alone enough to support justification of the money forced from property owners to continue financing. My management method as a school board member would be to shut the whole thing down, not to find a way to preserve it. If pretentious people like that commenter want a free baby sitting service for their children, then they should pay for it. There are much, much better ways of getting an education in modern America and if parents really cared about their children, they’d pull them out of a public class and teach them in a private school or at home with the vast resources available today. Loving a kid does not mean sending them to school. It requires a lot more than that. Supporting children in educational opportunities is important, but restricting children to a government education system that is obviously not working is not the answer.

One of the things that Scott Sloan from 700 WLW wanted me to do during the Lakota campaign was to join with the pro levy people to argue at the state level a proper allocation of state funding, which is currently considered unconstitutional. His wife is a real estate agent and put up with our school levy rants only so long, until it became problematic and evident that I wasn’t buying into the state funding solution. I wasn’t going to argue toward the state to send more money to Lakota because the money would just be lost in inflated wages driven too high by collective bargaining agreements. So long as there is a labor union in charge of Lakota or any public education institution, management is not possible. My answer is to just de-fund it, shut it down, make the labor unions illegal, then and only then can there be some measure of management and reform of public education. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time. Any discussion of money, funding, or taxes to support failure is just stupid.

I have said recently in another article, which is probably why this guy brought it up, that I didn’t enjoy my school years. I thought of it as a waste of time. I was ready to graduate in the third grade and was miserable every single year thereafter until I graduated. I looked at the school as a prison and on my graduation day, I was released and I never looked back. I had lots of friends and I still do. I’m far from an anti-social hermit. In fact, I have so many people who I correspond with that I don’t have hours in a given day to spend with all of them. I couldn’t in a hundred lifetimes. My school years were not as this commenter alluded, miserable because of some social status whereas people like them had fun in school—within the social structure of a government backed entity. Some people love that kind of structure and I see those people as huge contributors to many of the modern problems facing our world today. It is not my job to fund people’s good experiences, which is what the commenter expects. Because they are the feeble type that like functioning within the structure of government schools they expect everyone to pay for their sustenance. I think government schools make people like that commenter worse and more neurotic as people, so paying them more money to create more of that behavior makes no sense to me. I couldn’t wait to leave school. I sure as hell don’t want to spend the rest of my life paying for other people to attend such a place. That is also just stupid.

As to being a miserable person or feeling miserable because of always thinking about such negativity—nothing could be further from the truth. Naturally, I’m a positive person—actually excessively so. I can endure large amounts of negativity without being encumbered by misery. I am also self-sustaining meaning that I don’t live through other people the way a lot have been taught to. So there is a spill over effect to my optimism which many enjoy, and depend on. It is no problem for me to deal with really complex and sorrowful issues without personally becoming miserable as a result. I can write long articles like this one every day for the rest of my life and then immediately turn around and do something fun with my wife and kids at the drop of a hat. Life is something meant to be approached the way children play. You have to extract some level of joy out of all situations otherwise you are doing something wrong. The mere fact that this commenter brought this issue up dictates that they are subject to misery, depression, and other forms of mental illness derived from living an incorrect life lacking intellectual mechanism for navigation through day-to-day activity. That is not a problem for me and it never will be. That is why I take these issues on, because other people seem to have trouble staying on course and still maintain their sanity. The utterance of a miserable condition is not applicable. Public school helps create neurosis which leads to mental illness of various degrees, and it would appear the commenter is prone to such things based on their perceptual reality. They shouldn’t assume that everyone in the world is prone to the same weaknesses.

You can learn a lot from the type of comments that people make, and over time you can build up quite a data base of behavioral conditions which invoke them. When it comes to public education the most successful products of government seem to be the greatest menaces to modern freedom and righteous thinking. The obvious conclusion is to eliminate that corrosive element which is my position on public education. As a government backed entity its exclusive product is to create second-handers–people who live through others for their personal sustenance. The commenter is clearly one of those types of people and he assumes that the entire world should think the way he does. And his ultimate presumption to the comment provided is that if you don’t like the way he thinks, then it is your obligation to leave. That is not how the world works. The fault is his in allowing himself to think incorrectly about things and to be taught such ridiculous concepts that are completely stupid, and irrelevant to logic.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.