What Hillary Clinton has in Common with Adolf Hitler: Salon.com reaches deep for a way to smooth reality

To be fair I even took the below Hitler quote from the very progressive online source, Salon.com so that the readers here can reference it to understand how the other side of these diabolical menaces actually think. Salon even went so far to use a University of Chicago professor to attempt to create doubt about the credibility of Adolf Hitler’s desire to control firearms in German society—which of course led to the tyranny of one of the most vile killers of the 20th century. Salon through their source laughably refers to the much stricter gun control legislation of the Weimar Republic, which preceded Hitler’s rise—which was imposed after WWI. What they failed to mention is that because of the bad economy and the crushing impositions by the allied nations against Germany, the path for Hitler’s rise to power was ushered in because of the extreme oppression which preceded him. Additionally, asking a University of Chicago professor to provide accurate history without muddying it with progressive tripe is like ask a sex addict to speak out against pornography. Salon and the University of Chicago are hopelessly liberal; they may even be politically left of Hillary Clinton who agreed with ruthless dictators that societies should ban firearms and confiscate them for the safety of their nations. Here is what Hitler supposedly said–which is consistent with every ruthless human being to ever face down the masses with a desire to control them with heavy-handed legislation and individual tyranny.

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Adolf Hitler (1935)


Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and almost every other Democrat, socialist, vile progressive and old pot smoking, Pink Floyd loving hippie thinks the same way as Hitler. Isn’t that nice to know that the leaders of the Democratic Party are essentially in line with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Mussolini who all favored gun control of their citizens. Guess what happened to the people in those countries. Let me put it this way; they didn’t get to spend their leisure time watching Monday Night Football at Hooters. Their style of life was barely above that of a dog, sort of like the poor people in North Korea and China—who should be liberated, not admired. Yet the same polices that oppress those people are the same ones that Barack Obama and his assistant Hillary Clinton are so enthusiastic about. Of course Obama has connections to the University of Chicago—where many of his Marxist ideas have evolved from student ranting to community organizing.

Hillary Clinton can’t even be trusted with email, let alone the lives of innocent Americans. We need guns in our lives within America to protect our society from insurgents, like these would-be dictators who rule through executive order and lawyerly manipulation of the placement of words within legal phrases. People who will lie to our faces like Nancy Pelosi did in regard to Obamacare right before Christmas—“we have to sign the law to know what’s inside it.” Or Lois Lerner pleading the fifth over the IRS scandal, and its White House origins. Or Benghazi. Or Fast and Furious. Or the Black Panthers harassing voters at polling places. Or the arming of Syrian rebels. Or the attack on Gaddafi to destabilize the Middle East into an Islamic caliphate. Or the criminal spending into oblivion more debt than all the previous presidents in American history put together—all hidden behind the efforts of racism. Everyone is afraid to criticize these criminal actions because they are activated by a man of color—paralyzing white America from judgment. It’s not criminal to point at these people and declare them to be criminals, insurgents, and hostiles to the American Constitution. The evidence is overwhelming—which is why they seek to destroy the evidence, legislate through executive orders, and coercion of the media—just like what Hillary Clinton’s campaign is doing to the Laugh Factory. Take away the guns of Americans and those people will be completely in charge of your safety—and we know they can’t be trusted. So why would we surrender our guns to them. The Second Amendment isn’t there to allow us to hunt rabbits, or even shoot a Turkey for Thanksgiving. It’s there to keep these government types from getting in their corrupt heads the notion that they can rule through force, because their track record indicates that they are very inclined to the type of tyranny that was evident in the worst of the dictators and emperors of history.

Don’t kid yourself. These are bad people and they want you to surrender. A quick look at all the mass gun shootings around the country up until 2015 including the recent one over the last weekend in Louisiana, and the villains were all young people and Islamic inspired despots—clearly victims of the kind of progressive idiocy that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support through public education indoctrination. Yet the intentions always were to ruin those minds to fester the induced violence so that American support for more gun control would be demanded as a natural reaction to curb the incidence of violence. Clinton has often pointed to the Australian gun confiscations as a justification for the path of gun control in the United States. Every tragedy will be exploited with torturous rigor until the Second Amendment is surrendered—which is their game plan. Part of that game plan is to carry us all into a type of Weimar Republic where an overloaded debt destroys the value of our money so that the world can reestablish itself to a new standard of currency. By their time-table a new type of Hitler would have room to emerge from such devastation, and they hope that their Party leader is the one who controls the wheel of power.

Is this saying too much? No, the evidence dictates that honesty be used to approach these matters. We are dealing with ideological zealots who want to destroy the American concept of capitalism and replace it with global socialism. Just look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation. What do those foreign governments want in exchange for that money? They want a seat at the table and a disabled America so that they can compete for a change from the vantage point of socialism. They are like the classic villain who purposely sabotages a superior opponent so that they can have a chance of winning. They must lie, cheat, and steal to survive and to make it easier for them to do these things they have started to disarm America.

Salon of course is in on the scam, they want to “progress” beyond traditional America just as the University of Chicago has desired for several decades now. There are many collective villains and you can easily spot them because they want to do like Hitler has done in the past—support gun control so to enable them to rise to power—because that’s all they really care about anyway—power for power’s sake. Any real student of history knows about the Weimar Republic and how it was established. The same path is being placed before America by the same allies who supported that action against Germany in 1919. Their hope is that they can bring America into the global union and put all nations on an equal footing economically. But before they can do that they have to take our guns, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—along with most of the Democratic Party want exactly what Hitler wanted—gun control so that they could work their deeds without the fear of insurrection. And they’ll play every dirty trick to bring down the United States if that’s what it takes. They are what we term in Constitutional reference as a “domestic enemy” for which we are required to protect our Constitution from—particularly the anti-Federalist Bill of Rights.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Samurai Sword Cuts a Baseball in Half: Warnings about how gun control can destroy a country

One important thing about Japanese society is that they have maintained their connection to their samurai heritage. It shows, they treat most aspects of their life with some reverence toward that feudal period and the disciplines enacted through their history. So it came up while I was complaining to a few of them recently about their excessive necessity toward visual articulation on matters of importance that their tendency was rooted along with the disciplines connected directly to the life of a katana swordsman and the focus and concentration it takes to perform feats with it. I appreciate that discipline to a point. I spent several years studying the seemingly simple, yet philosophically detailed Japanese book on strategy called The Book of Five Rings. However, I’m an American and I have determined that the American gunfighter is much more poised as a national philosophy to release the wonders of capitalism than the sacrificial tendencies of the samurai. About that point in a recent conversation the video shown below was brought to my attention. In the video, a katana sword master cuts a baseball out of the air at 100 MPH. It looks pretty impressive but after watching it, I’m pretty sure I could do the same thing with just a little practice. I wasn’t that impressed, not as much as I am compared to the shooters in my Cowboy Fast Draw Association. Have a look for yourself.

As I pointed out to the propionates of samurai culture versus cowboy arts is that in Japan they wear flip-flop shoes and these little paper-thin robes and focus on applying everything through the sword. George Lucas has been so impressed with samurai cultures that he largely modeled the Jedi Knights after their role within Japan, including knocking away laser bolts from powerful guns. The assumption was that the samurai warriors were functioning so fast that their perception skills were superhuman. But not so much. Actually, the samurai warrior in that video stood next to the pitching machine and timed carefully the rate that the baseball was feeding through the projection unit and was able to measure the point in space and time that the target would move. So essentially the sword master only had to anticipate when the ball would travel through the space that his sword would be. Once the samurai drew his sword and placed it in the path of the ball. The momentum of the projectile carried it across the sharp blade making it appear as if the warrior cut it in half. In fact the momentum of the ball did all the work. It’s the same basic trick in the below video where a samurai warrior chops a BB out of the air. Once the sword master had the trajectory of the projectile memorized from practice and could anticipate the muzzle velocity, it’s not so difficult. I have a katana sword and I could do these tricks with a little practice right now.

That’s all fine for the Japanese. It’s nice that they have something in their culture that they value and connects their modern society with their heritage. But I’m not a big fan of all the paper walls, the thin robes, and the sandals. I prefer the heavy leather of the gunfighter, the large brimmed hats, the heavy jackets, durable pants, and the leather boots. In a fight between the gunfighter and the samurai, the gunfighter wins—100% of the time. It’s not even a contest. Those examples were given to me knowing I’m into the single action quick draw, but they really aren’t comparable. However, it did leave me thinking more about a topic that has bothered me quite a lot lately—how important guns are to American culture and why people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to take them away by watering down the Second Amendment.

You don’t hear much from the world in attacking the Japanese for their love of the samurai sword. Obama when traveling around Asia even wears the little paper outfits to show respect of those foreign cultures—which shouldn’t be surprising I suppose because he was raised in one of them. So he has no problem respecting the traditions of those cultures. Obama would not preach to their Emperor Akihito or the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that the samurai sword is a weapon of death and that it should be eradicated from their folklore. However, which is kind of the frustration that originated the conversation; the Japanese heavily regulate the ownership of samurai swords. If you buy them, they need to be genuine Nihonto, made in Japan as knock-offs are greatly discouraged. The swords were banned during the Meiji period as the samurai were abolished. After World War II laws were written in a way to disarm the Japanese people as a conquered nation. So they Americanized themselves, but looked fondly back toward their samurai days—for which Obama wouldn’t even consider preaching against. What Obama and Clinton want to do in America is essentially take the United States on the same path. The progressives have attacked the American cowboy in the way that the Meiji period was ushered in to destroy the samurai with the fall of the Tokugawa ruler Edo in 1868.

Japan once they allowed the samurai to fall and collectively united the nation under one ruler disarming their common citizens then became an evil empire that was defeated by the United States. Then to eliminate the potential threat of restructuring back into a hostile state, the public was forced to have strict weapons confiscation and laws preventing their use. With American help, they thrived as a culture for a number of decades succeeding well in electronics and automobile manufacturing. They embraced capitalism for the most part and took a tiny island and turned it into a respectable economy at just over $4 trillion GDP. But they have their limits. Currently they are in a deep recession. At the conclusion of the third quarter of 2015 the Japanese economy shrank .8 percent. It’s not because Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered quantitative easing to jolt the economic back from the brink that is the cause, it’s likely because Japan’s unemployment is so low and there is no room to accommodate new growth to cover the debts of the past. That leaves the Japanese people looking back toward their most prosperous and structured days, before the Constitution of 1890 to their successful samurai days for pride which they apply to much of the work they perform. Only for them it has become a kind of Don Quixote story, and it shows. At least to me—cutting a baseball in half isn’t that impressive. It’s a trick, not a feat of great skill.

That is the primary reason I am moving more each day toward fighting the gun grabbers of our modern time. Obama, Hillary and their progressive infusion of maniacal anti-gun diatribes want to write a new constitution in America—one that reflects the global trend toward centralization of authority and disarming the public. Likely the goal behind the current Syrian immigration is that within those young people will be insurgents who will invoke violence within the decade that will mandate gun control in the future. Those three-year olds that Obama is talking about today will likely be like he was as a boy which is why he’s sympathetic to them. Orphans who lost their fathers to ISIS, or because they joined ISIS and were killed in an American air raid, or some other activity will be at risk of seeking revenge through jihad at some unfortunate date—then with each act of violence will be progressive activists seeking stricter gun control laws until finally the Second Amendment is abolished and progressives can get a constitution more like what Japan currently has.

That would be a mistake. They are nice people, but they are obviously disconnected from their heritage and can only touch it through daily tasks. The swords that grandparents used to keep on the walls passed from family to family are now gone and collected by a mass confiscation program started first by the Japanese government then by American occupying forces. In many ways I feel sorry for them that they think cutting a baseball in half with a samurai sword is a big deal. It’s not. America would be wise to avoid the fate of the samurai. They need to stand by their guns in the face of the gun grabbers to avoid the stalemate that Japan finds itself in, largely due to their government centralization of their micromanaged society. America really is the last place on earth that is still free, and weapons are a large reason why. When the samurai were banned, the government took control and World War II happened. And the country never really has recovered since. They have enough pride to keep trying, but they have a limit on their abilities because of their micromanaged society.

Thankfully, because of my hobbies and personal experience I can see through the haze of fascination. The sword cutting trick appeases the people of that country for their heritage by also making it look so difficult that nobody could possible achieve such a thing except for a “specialist.” But in the United States I know about two dozen people who could practice with me in an afternoon and do exactly the same thing. And that’s because we play with weapons all the time, and collect them as well. And when it comes time to solve real problems in real-time, we know how to fix things without falling for the simple tricks. We know better largely because we are an armed society and under those conditions, we are still free to think. Which is the key to all things in life—it is the Second Amendment that sits at the roots of American exceptionalism—and we better start protecting it a whole lot better than we are now. We are currently $19 trillion dollars in debt on an economy that only produces slightly over $17 trillion. The gun grabbers who have mismanaged the situation don’t want you to have guns when you realize that the only way they’ve staved off complete financial breakdowns in the United States is through quantitative easing. History tells us where all this leads and when it happens, you’ll want your guns on the wall and in your closet, because you’re going to need them. We don’t want to lose our gunfighters the way that Japan lost their samurai. Because you may never get it back again. They certainly didn’t.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Donald Trump’s Wollman Rink: A sample of what a private sector president could do

I have spoken very well about a possible Donald Trump presidency, but maybe some of my evidence was a bit too complicated for the non-political voter without deep roots into historical perspective. Some are skeptical of Trump because of his use of bankruptcy laws, eminent domain—and even social etiquette. People have been conditioned over a long period of time to believe that only politicians are qualified for “public” office and that the “rich” should not be trusted—except when funding the political campaigns of the political establishment. Starting really with Teddy Roosevelt, the rich—“fat cats”—were to be despised and publicly scorned to appease the masses turning their heads toward the communism of China and the Soviet Union as a future possibility in America. Given that, the natural reaction to Donald Trump is that he isn’t qualified to be president. But I beg to differ. Watch the following video, about 20 minutes in and you will see a version of Donald Trump that if President has all the ability to do exactly what he did in New York with his work at the Wollman Rink.

Wollman Rink is a public ice rink in the southern part of Central Park, Manhattan, New York City. The rink was opened in 1949 with funds donated by Kate Wollman (December 5, 1869 – October 15, 1955) who donated $600,000 for the rink to commemorate her entire family from Leavenworth, Kansas. Kate’s brother was William J. Wollman who operated the W.J. Wollman & Co. stock exchange firm originally in Kansas City and later in New York. After he died in 1937 she helped administer his estate. Historically, the rink has been open for ice skating from October to April and in the summer seasons is transformed into a venue for other purposes.

For many years the rink was the venue for a series of outdoor summer rock, pop, country and jazz concerts. Then it was known as The Wollman Theater or “The Wollman Skating Rink Theater”. In the summer of 1957, WOR-radio personality Jean Shepherd hosted a series of memorable jazz concerts at the Wollman with Billie Holiday, Bud Powell, Lionel Hampton, the Dave Brubeck Quartet, Dizzy Gillespie, Buddy Rich, Dinah Washington and others. The first summer music festival at the rink opened on July 1, 1966 and was sponsored by Rheingold Beer. The Rheingold Central Park Music Festival also took place during the summer of 1967.[1] The next summer, Schaefer Beer took over sponsorship. The first annual Schaefer Music Festival opened on June 27, 1968 and continued each summer through the summer of 1976.[1] The following summer, Dr Pepper became the sponsor, and the first Dr Pepper Music Festival opened on July 6, 1977 and ran annually through the summer of 1980.[1] Led Zeppelin, the original Allman Brothers Band and singers Tammy Wynette, Peggy Lee, Judy Collins and Pete Seeger are some of the greats who played the 5000-seat Wollman during those years.

Wollman Rink has been featured in several movies, including Love Story and Serendipity.

The rink was closed in 1980 for an announced 2 1/2 years of renovations. When the problem-plagued work was not completed by the city by 1986, Donald Trump persuaded Mayor Ed Koch to let him complete the work and he completed the renovations in three months to have it open by the end of the year. Koch initially objected to Trump’s proposal when Trump offered to pay for the renovations himself with the stipulation that he be allowed to run the venue and an adjacent restaurant and use the profits to recoup his costs. Public pressure prompted Mayor Koch to reverse his position.[2]

Wollman Rink is currently operated by the Trump organization, and is today known as the Trump Skating Rink. Donald Trump operated the rink from 1987 to 1991.[3] From 1991 to 2001 George Makkos from The Makkos Organization of M&T Pretzel, operated Wollman Rink. Since 2001, Wollman Rink has been operated by a joint venture between Trump Organization and Rink Management Services of Mechanicsville, Virginia. The Trump name is prominently displayed on the walls of the rink as well as on the Zamboni that maintains the rink. Operation of the Lasker Rink on the north edge of Central Park is also handled by the group.

In 1961 Kate Wollman’s estate donated funds for Wollman Rink in Prospect Park which closed in 2010. Among her other philanthropies was paying for the schooling of great nephew Henry Wollman Bloch, founder of H&R Block.[4][5][6][7]



If not for Donald Trump there would be no Wollman Rink today. It would have died on the vine stuck in government apathy swallowing endless amounts of money while accomplishing nothing—like most government work. The amount of government projects right now that could tell the same story as the Wollman Rink presently is likely countless. What they all need is a Donald Trump to jump-start their projects in the right direction and unleash their limitless potential. But to do that the advocate would have to be a lover of capitalism and convince Democrats to get out of their way, just as Trump did with Ed Koch—who was not a fan of Trump at the time. But the real estate tycoon used his charisma to do something really good for New York and is just one example of how one man can make a tremendous difference if so empowered.

I have no doubt that Trump would push the American Constitution to its limits—in ways that Teddy Roosevelt likely never dreamed of. But I’ve read his books and I know the guy well enough to realize that if I give him the keys to the car that he’ll bring it back without me having to hunt him down with the Second Amendment. I think Trump for all the theater is a generally sincere person who can do for all of America what he did for the Wollman Rink. I see Donald Trump infinitely better, and more capable than anybody who has run for president in last century. The concept of taking a lost ice skating rink mired by politics and unleashing it to the private sector into a blazing success is just what is needed to spur growth in all sectors of our economy, from public education, to drilling for oil. All sectors of our economy could use the Donald Trump spirit of entrepreneurial persuasion that can turn opponents into benefactors in a way that nobody else is capable of. To understand Donald Trump as president, just think of the Wollman Rink and you’ll understand what to expect from 2016 on—no learning curb, no meandering, from day one. I believe only Donald Trump can provide the results America needs to put our country back on the right course—where it should have been all along. It needs a businessman, not a politician. We’ve had enough of those.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Quantitative Effects of the Idiotic Millennials: A complete failure within society to do the right thing

Dear reader, if you go back to my arguments on the radio, in the newspapers, on television, and in public speeches about the state of education in 2010, then look around the colleges and public schools of our day now—you’ll understand what I was saying. It has come to fruition. And there is no going back. The tragedy will have to run its course. The situation was dire when I was talking about it then, but now that train has come and already left the station and the tracks that it’s on will take our country through one of its darkest periods. My children are members of this Millennial age that have had their minds nearly completely destroyed by progressive politics and public education. Only my children had the benefit of being home schooled for a time and had very traditional parents who helped them through the minefield of modern progressivism.  All the things I write about on this site they’ve heard from me before in person. But most children weren’t so lucky, and it shows.

A lot has been said of this Millennial generation. I’m not a fan of them. I didn’t even like my own generation, or my parents generation. My favorite generation was that of my grandparents days, so I won’t rationalize my own generation or those of the idiot sixty’s flower children as being better than the present one. They weren’t, in fact they set the stage for the mess that the Millennials find themselves in. The parents of these poor children allowed themselves to be pulled into the lure of dual income homes leaving kids to raise themselves. The mothers allowed themselves to be emasculated into more of a male role within the home all in search for “equal rights,” which was a mistake. And the net result has been catastrophic. The Millennials are a self-entitled group who had to raise themselves by parents who felt guilty about what they’ve done to those poor children. The parents wanted to believe the government—that if they spent $50,000 to $100,000 on a college education that they could purchase success for their children—but it didn’t work. It only liberalized those kids into believing the platform of the Democratic Party. In just a few short years those kids will be voting and in charge of our nation—and they aren’t intellectually prepared for it.

And I will be there to tell everyone so. As the world walks toward that edge of social, economic, and intellectual destruction—I will not be with it. The current toward that destruction may be swift but I will continue to stand against it and will be there to rub everyone’s face in the dung of their own creation—just as I have for years against those who are openly making serious mistakes in their own families driven by social pressure. For instance, I had an aunt once who tried to emasculate my wife—since she was a stay-at-home mom who poured everything into raising our children—which I fully supported by working two full-time jobs and all the overtime I could get at them to make the money our family needed. Our social rejection of progressive engineering within the family structure made other family members uncomfortable with their own choices so some of the more radicalized feminists sought to undermine my wife behind my back—many times—with pressure lunches encouraging her to go build a life for herself outside of our home. Of course that angered me, but I always let my wife make her own decisions and eventually she always snapped into the right frame of mind without my input. I certainly gave my opinion, but I always let her make up her own mind—even if it personally cost me a great deal. Because if we weren’t both on the same page, it would flow over into our children—so I’d allow those types of manipulations knowing the intent hoping my wife would come to the same conclusion after our discussions. She always did and on that particular occasion that braless feminist angry at my wife for her life decisions threatened at the end of the meeting—uncharacteristically violent—“we women must stick together.” We haven’t spoken to that person in over a decade—only on the most polite of occasions, a death or some other unfortunate gathering. I never forget things like that, and neither does my wife, not for the sake of holding a grudge, but because it is people like that who have made this ridiculous generation of the Millennials.

Millennials are lazy, entitled, essentially neurotic spoiled brats. They take too many drugs, have too low of a pain threshold, and are messes politically. They pick government dependence over self-reliance because it gives them more game time on their Xboxs and social networks. They don’t make the connection between productivity and healthy living because nobody taught them anything about any of that. They are lost, weak, and intellectually soft. Their music is depressing, their world outlook shaped for them by public education is too liberalized, and they are going to make terrible parents because they don’t want to work at it. They want to buy a good child like a fast food hamburger. They make no connection between hard work and success—even though many of them will work hard to become proficient at Call of Duty. They certainly don’t work to keep a car nice, or to maintain a home, or a job. If they have they slightest little fever, the call off work and log onto Facebook. They figure the world will go on whether or not they show up for work and they take that attitude with them to everything in life.

I told the kids who interviewed me during the Lakota debates between 2010 and 2012 what was coming their way and they’d look at me like I was an out-dated old man warning them about it being too cold outside. Now just three years later many of them are in their early or late twenties and they are starting to see the writing on the wall. Rent is too high, jobs pay too little, relationships are too hard, and children soak up all their “me” time. Life is hard and they don’t know how to work on their own cars, they stay on their parent’s insurance plans too long, or they just get on government help having the honor of providing for themselves stolen before they ever get started in life, and their nation will soon be $20 trillion in debt with little to no hope in paying that money off with a declining GDP nationally, because those Millennials won’t fight to start a new business—it’s just too hard and regulations make it impossible for their short attention spans to muscle through. Government has loaded up opposition and they lack the will to fight back. So bad times are coming for their poor generation which has been excessively fortunate up to this point—but that will change rapidly in the years to come.

Unfortunately for everyone else, I am right most of the time. If I care enough about something to declare it in some sort of statement, then I know enough to give a warning. If people listened, they could save themselves a lot of trouble. But most of them don’t. I saw a fabulous looking young Millennial woman the other day. She had all the features of a top Victoria Secret model, and she couldn’t have been much older than 21. However, she had a nose piercing, tongue piercing, and an eye brow piercing–gauges in her ears and she had full body tattoos that were visible through her lace stockings and mid-section which was revealed to everyone as she stood confidently smoking on a lunch break. She was working retail selling perfume for a nice establishment and she looked far from a skank. Most of the men with me gave her that “I’d like to plow that” type of middle-aged stare, but I felt sorry for the girl. In just a few years those tattoos would start to look terrible. By the time she’s forty, they will be embarrassments on saggy skin. The holes she’s put in her body will never really heal, but will leave behind scar tissue. When she’s fifty she’ll look like she was a burn victim in a fire—her skin will stay stretched out in proportion for the rest of her life. And she’ll lose all her moral authority for her eventual children because her past will be on full display for them to see during those important impressionable first years.
The saddest thing of all is that she’s not alone—she’s actually quite common. She was prettier than most, but the results all lead to the same place. If her generation is detrimentally terrible, then her kids will be worse—because she will have proven herself to be a terrible role model and we now know that public schools and colleges are unable to complete the job of raising proper children. They ruin them. So her children will have no hope whatsoever of a happy and good life. I’m as sure of it as she was standing there. All of life is a math problem. You don’t put together a negative and a negative and get a positive. In fact, a positive and a negative lead to a negative. Only a string of positives can provide a net result toward desirable outcomes. If three negatives are introduced to a child’s life, then six positives are needed to overcome the quantitative effects toward a net gain. It’s not hard to figure these things out.

Now, as is evident in the videos above, it has started—and it will be a mess. The evidence is literally everywhere and its all coming unraveled much faster than anybody was prepared for. There will come a day when the kids of the kids of these Millennials will want to go back in time and fix everything. For them, I will write it all down so that they can have a playbook on how to get out of the quandary they inherited. I don’t blame the Millennials for being complete idiots. They were raised by my generation who listened to the generation before as those old hippies failed to maintain a proper national philosophy in favor of the family unit. But that is all water flowing under the bridge now. There is no stopping it, the damage is done. But once those waters recede, there will be a future who will want to rebuild, and for them I will proudly declare that I always stood on the right side of history, and will gladly show them how to live correctly toward the proper objectives that are best for themselves, and their society. Inwardly however, I will say proudly—“I told you so.”

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke Skywalker—“but she’s rich.”

Han Solo—“How rich?”

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

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

Luke Skywalker—“you’ll get it.”

Han Solo—“I better!”

Luke Skywalker—“You will!”

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

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

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Welcome to the Future: Liberty Center opens and a city unfolds within a small town community

imageI really didn’t think it was possible. I always did love the Back to the Future films, especially the second one when they traveled from 1985 to October 21st 2015, which was just a few days ago as of this writing. So I had those old movies on my mind when Liberty Center opened in my neighborhood on October 22, 2015—one day after Back to the Future Day. I parked in the back parking garage behind the new movie theater a little displaced because for my entire life this area had been an empty field alongside I-75. I never imagined that anything of any importance would ever be where I parked my car on that sunny October day. I was meeting my family at the Rusty Bucket but wasn’t quite sure where lead to where, so I made my way south until I found the main road which ran through the center of the complex. It was ironically just like the scene in Back to the Future II, where I came out of an alley into the hard sun of a fall afternoon and the future hit me right in the face. It looked just like Hill Valley from that famous movie series, square and all.

Short of hover boards and flying cars, it was the future as I never would have imagined it. The stores were modern versions of the type I grew up with, but the way they were presented were very tech heavy and architecturally specific. Living space was stacked in creative ways to make a dynamic world that really has not been possible before in any other shopping experience I’ve ever seen. As I thought of some of the places I’ve been, such as Downtown Disney, La Isla in Cancun, or the Americana in Glendale, California, nothing was like what I saw at Liberty Center in my hometown. It was more astonishing than I thought it would be. The reason we ate at the Rusty Bucket was because it was next door to the Cobb movie theater which is extremely important to me. I wanted to talk to the owners about some upcoming plans, and that was why my family was there on opening day. It was as nice as I would have imagined a luxury theater to be that has made its mark in Tampa, Florida where another shopping destination that I love a lot, The International Mall is rather common.

As a guy, I don’t like shopping very much—my wife does, but I don’t like the task of actually shopping. I do love the exhibition of capitalism, especially when it’s as openly unapologetic as it is at Liberty Center. As I’ve said many times, I have a soft spot for developers because they are often the first cogs in the wheel toward economic development. Because of their creations money moves through an economy and in an age where the shopping experience is competing directly with online sales, something new has to be tried, and they did at Liberty Center—a long time in the making.

Yes they have an Apple Store. Yes, they have a really nice Victoria’s Secret which is good for me and my wife. She likes the quality of that store and it makes me happy to see her happy. Yes they have a number of upper crust restaurant experiences. Looming over the square I was in was a large facade of a Marriot hotel looking down into the action below. It replaced the clock tower in the Back to the Future film regarding iconic skyline. As I hiked and drove the back roads that used to pass through that location way back in 1985 I never would have imagined that in 2015 there would be terraced gardens exotic fountains, and advanced shopping destinations in such a place, unless I could have been placed into a time machine and shown first-hand.

And that’s where my family found me, they were perched above the shops on a patio waving to me to come up and join them in the sun. Step for step I felt just as Marty McFly when he first saw Hill Valley in 2015. It was a strange experience that I couldn’t have anticipated even as I watched them build the place brick by brick. Liberty Township instantly had a downtown district that was every bit as cultured and sophisticated as any of the big cities of America or the world for that matter. As I thought of the countless hours I’ve spent around Fountain Square in Cincinnati on business and pleasure surrounded by skyscrapers and dozens of neatly tucked restaurants situated everywhere, the rural community of Liberty Township had instantly built for itself a downtown that looked big time, but was small enough to still have the feel of a tight-knit community.

If engineers designing living conditions for intergalactic space travelers had to design something that divided function, luxury, and necessity into an all-encompassing package Liberty Center would be it. It was small and enormously large all at the same time and surrounded shoppers with an all-encompassing experience. People walked the streets without worrying about prostitutes and beggars—which is impossible in most big cities these days totally ruining the experience of economic frivolity. A quick trip down Times Square in New York or the strip in Vegas as a couple out for a night together means you are often molested by whores and malcontents. Vegas is terrible for that kind of thing. Times Square is nearly as bad. Liberty Center was free of that mess—but it had all the good things left behind. It was for all matters of thought a conservative utopia. If John Galt had built a shopping center, this is what he would have designed, from the famous novel Atlas Shrugged. It had all the plus elements of an economic development without all the trash created by liberal city governments who mismanage their downtowns into a trash heap of mixed values and nonsense. Liberty Center was built for people who like the good life, and know how to live it.

I heard up to his opening that Liberty Center would essentially be a carbon copy of The Greene in Dayton, or Newport on the Levy in Northern Kentucky—but it was obvious that it was different right from the start. It was the infusion of sophistication mixed with rural charm that really is unequal and reminded me almost of a movie set, something that is common at Universal Studios where complicated streets change the whole feel of a place just one block from a previous position. Clearly the designers had learned something from those entertainment complexes in Florida as far as space utilization where geographically the terrain may seem simple, but architecturally a visitor might feel like they had visited a new world getaway by the time they walked from one end to the other.

It was special more for me because I picked just the right spot to walk in at just the right time of day to nearly simulate a Back to the Future moment. As I stepped onto a sidewalk out into the Center square a car went by, a modern looking Cadillac nearly on queue with the events of when the same thing happened to Marty McFly. All that was missing were the flying cars and the holographs, but that technology isn’t that far off, and Liberty Center looks staged up to take advantage when it does hit the market. On one end was an enclosed mall that led to Dillards and Dick’s Sporting Good, both marvelous stores in their own right. At the other a Marriott hotel and a gorgeous movie theater that really was designed in one of my dreams—and in the middle was everything else.

It was for me, the future.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.