The Rodizio Grill at Liberty Center: Why Bruce Springsteen is crack-smoking wrong

I spend a fair amount of time discussing the Giambattista Vico cycle as it pertains to the human race. You could say it’s a hobby of mine. That particular cycle effects mankind over a relatively short period of time lasting centuries to decades. However, for culture building, which is another hobby of mine, the Vico cycle can be seen easily in how money moves around any given city. Take for instance my hometown of Cincinnati. A century or so ago most of the good money and investment around the city was in the location of the current zoo, just north of downtown. Now those regions due to the insistent rule of micromanaged and mismanaged mayors and city councils demanding ever-increasing tax dollars, retreated into the suburbs, specifically the Springdale and Fairfield areas, along with parts of Sharonville. About thirty years ago, those were the parts of the city that were flourishing. But mismanagement drove out the good money there leaving behind high taxes and ruins. Now, and quite spectacularly, it is the West Chester and Mason area that has all the investment as those who create and drive culture have gathered in the rapidly developing West Chester corridor. Among those developments is the Liberty Center development with all the wonderful new commercial announcements coming from it. For me specifically, I am excited for the announcement of a new Rodizio Grill.

Like my love of Mad Max, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW I am hoping that the Giambattista Vico cycle will be destroyed because honestly I like my home area and that is where this new Liberty Center is located. Unlike other people whom I am friends with I love new development. I am excited—REALLY excited about the new Liberty Center, and I am quite sure that I will eat at the Rodizio Grill—a lot. I will take my family there often, and likely business partners—because it’s cool, it’s the best that human civilization has so far produced by way of food and the way it’s presented for consumption. Liberty Center is about human culture and the creativity of that culture—and I find that more valuable than just raw nature—because human beings took various elements, put them together in an artistic way, and produced something wonderful like Liberty Center.

But there is of course a warning that twenty years from now, the Giambattista Vico cycle will strike. If taxes are allowed to migrate north and local governments lose sight of what the driving forces of the community truly are—the individuals like those behind the Rodizio Grill, the new Cabelas, and all the other new creations that are so exciting—and they start imposing unnecessary restrictions on creativity and penalize profit making—then all that will leave for more profitable destinations. What will remain is poverty and decline. Good people are often the first to leave from the corruption of bad people—so to avoid the Giambattista Vico cycle bad people require judgment and definition.

As we watch this new Liberty Center open, and everyone is excited for what will prove to be one of the finest examples of commercial development in the entire United States up to this point, it is important not to lose ourselves. It is important to understand that the hotels rising in West Chester by the Streets shopping complex and upcoming Bass Pro Shop are not there because of new investment so much. They located there because that’s where the profit is. There isn’t any profit in downtown Cincinnati because there isn’t any money there. Government is too intrusive and too costly meaning investment will always go elsewhere. But that investment money is not guaranteed, it is fragile. It can leave as fast as it came. It requires local government to keep their hands out of the cookie jar and to allow creativity to flourish.

Prosperity is possible for long periods of time if we are all willing to step away from the Giambattista Vico cycle. For Liberty Center and the developments to the south in West Chester, many generations of flourishing economic activity can commence if government resists the trend to regress backwards—as is always the trend when it comes to human beings. If West Chester can resist the temptation to become a city so that politicians can have supreme power over all this creative development—it has a chance to continue to grow. If the Lakota school system can hold off their radical government union and keep their unrealistic labor needs tucked away in a corner—keeping taxes on property reasonable—there is a chance that the Liberty Center will continue to fill its leased property and ever expand.

I remember well when Forest Fair Mall opened with great fanfare. The Tri County and Forest Park area was a boomtown of innovation and creativity. Now Tri County is loosing stores rapidly due largely to the quality of their clientele declining so intensely. And Forest Fair Mall which was once touted as the new Mall of America is nearly empty. The mall was mismanaged by allowing low quality people to take over driving the Giambattista Vico cycle toward anarchy. The dagger in their coffin occurred when they tried to turn the mall into an adult playground of sin—with nightclubs and other low intellect activity. Good money left, bad money stayed, and when the bad money was spent—the mall went bust and never recovered.

It’s an exciting time for those of us who live near the Liberty Center development. It will take time for the threat of Giambattista Vico to emerge. But once he does, it doesn’t take long, and I hope that government which currently is largely conservative to various degrees stays that way well into the future. Once democrats are allowed to corrupt the logic of creatively through development, it’s over, the Vico cycle will begin to destroy all that is currently being built. So for those who want to see the continued economic development of West Chester and Liberty Township flourish, an avoidance of the Vico cycle is absolutely essential. Never take for granted that everything will stay as it is presently. It will only continue to flourish so long as government takes a back seat and stays out-of-the-way of good people using good money to invest in new business opportunities, like the Rodizio Grill. When that place opens, I can see myself on its reservation list many evenings—and I hope well into the future.

You see dear reader here is the secret……people listen to songs from artists like Bruce Springsteen and his liberal ravings about the value of hometowns, but he fails utterly to understand what forces he is fighting against. He believes falsely that capitalists are the robber barons from his song “Death to my Hometown.” He thinks it is the developers, the bankers and the soothsaying realtors who destroy hometowns. But he’s wrong, and so is everyone else—because they don’t understand the cycle of Giambattista Vico. Hometowns don’t last without money, and money doesn’t stick around when government seeks to steal it and distribute it to low quality people in exchange for a vote. It is the Vico cycle which destroys hometowns, not developers, or capitalists. It is profit that is the blood of a hometown. Without profit, that blood leaves and the town dies. So Bruce Sprinsteen can dance on a stage with great fanfare and get millions of driveling idiots to follow his words, but until they step off the Giambattista Vico cycle hometowns will continue to die—and I don’t want to see that happen in my hometown.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why Grover Norquist Lost His Value as a Republican: A battle within the GOP that has to happen

In the debate between Grover Norquist and Glenn Beck the battle for the Republican Party of our modern age is clearly articulate. Beck had Norquist on his television show and did a considerable amount of radio about the ties that the machine political leader had to the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Abdurahman Alamoudi who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Through his Islamic Free Market Institute, Norquist has apparently fancied himself as a kind of insurgent in the Arab world, hoping to spread free market capitalism to the socialist leanings of the Middle East. The trouble is, the Muslim extremists had the same idea and they appear to have come out on top in that battle for the minds of the world. Here is the interview where Norquist came on with Beck to defend his record, and intentions. But as you can see in the subsequent videos dear reader—it is obvious that Norquist—Mr. Republican inside man himself shaping the mind of the party for all to follow—was the one seduced by the sentiments of Muslim radicalism. He likely wasn’t always this way, but in 2004 just a few years into his attempts to convert the Middle East into a capitalist zone, he married Samah Alrayyes a Palestinian Muslim and Kuwaiti PR specialist. After this marriage he appeared to radically support the position of Muslim causes. He wouldn’t be the first man to adopt the views of a woman in exchange for a good bed mate—but when he is advising the entire Republican Party on policy and strategy—it makes him a liability. Watch closely.

This game where Republicans think they can out-wit the loose liberals of political ideology is a failed tactic. The typical liberal has very little personal conscience and view themselves as part of a collective whole, so they tend not to take personal responsibility for their actions. In the extreme, this is why they are willing to blow themselves up as terrorists. In the norm, they will lie to your face because they have no sense of personal responsibility—rather they focus on collective salvation. Norquist I believe thought he was smarter than his political opponents, and that he could get the White House to support his actions as a change agent in the Middle East. But he fell in love with a Palestinian woman and began to soften his position. From there his enemies, the people he was trying to convert, used him as a platform of insurrection from the inside out. In the battle Norquist tried to wage in the Middle East, it was he who lost and it likely started in his bed.

As much as Republicans like Norquist try to utter the conservatism of their actor president Ronald Reagan, they discover quickly that they are too easily led astray under pressure. I have a lot of personal experience with this from my own community, which contains some of the strongest Republican elements in the United States. I have been invited into their inner circle, but I keep my distance because they lack conviction. They don’t stick to their principles as stringently as I require and are too in love with the power of their position instead of the essence of their political philosophy.

Norquist as much as the political left wishes him to be the face of extremism for his desires toward tax reform and smaller government is a dangerous moderate because of his softness on issues of conservatism when the rubber hits the road. Clearly his marriage to Samah Alrayyes was a turning point for him, which led to likely a prolonged war in Iraq because of Norquist’s proximity to President Bush. The strategy formed by the Republican Party through Norquist and Karl Rove was one that favored his bed mate, and not the hard lined conservatives from Kansas—which is a polite way to put it.

Norquist likely has more in common with Bob Bergdahl today than he ever would Ronald Reagan. As Bowe Bergdahl defected to the Taliban his father who encouraged the behavior tried to justify the issue by growing his beard and reconciling with the enemy. The Taliban had his boy—because of his bad advice, and he tried to reconcile the situation with appeasement. Norquist as a power broker and social climber went to the Middle East hoping to convert them to western ideology—but once there he saw that many on the other side were just like he was—social climbers looking for power. Instead of using political parties to control people and money, they used religion—so they found common ground. He married one of their women and began to soften his position against them. But, all along, because the radical Muslims in question identify themselves with collective salvation, they were able to easily outwit the Republican Party, and they already had domestic penetration ideologically in the Democratic Party—so their influence spread in North America instead of the way Norquist originally intended. His plan backfired.

I’m sure Samah Alrayyes is a nice lady—people tend to become friends and lovers with people who they share some things in common—whether it is a love of power, prestige, or a breakfast ritual. When a man decides to put a ring on the finger of a woman, it is usually not just so that he can have sex with her, it’s so that he can share other parts of his life with a spouse. But a man is crazy to think that a woman won’t have an influence on him once she’s in his daily life. That’s usually not a problem so long as the man isn’t trying to sell himself as the savior of the Republican Party while trying to bring peace to the Middle East with the kind of mind games that belong on day time soup operas. At that point a line was crossed that Norquist cannot return from. He blew his credibility and his years of fighting for conservative causes because he fell for the exotic appeal of a foreign culture.

It is one thing to respect a culture and its people—to even be friendly to them. There are a lot of people who I like from different cultures—some of them come from communist backgrounds and I try to help them see the wonders and joys of capitalism because I want to see them improve their lives. But, I have to maintain my emotional distance from those people because they think differently. If I feel I cannot convert them over to a right way of thinking according to my viewpoint, I don’t bang wine glasses with them. I drop them like a dirty rag before they get too close. It looks like that’s what Norquist should have done in 2002 and 2003—but he didn’t. He might make a nice husband and friend to the Arab world but a leader in the Republican Party he has forfeited. Conservatives like me aren’t going to put up with it. So we are having this ideological battle now because we are between major elections.

The left may enjoy the spectacle because they don’t fight each other—they assimilate toward the same collective ideology easily. But to me they also aren’t relevant to the debate. Republicans have to stand for something or they will be like Grover Norquist—full of a lot of tough talk, but soft in their core and easily swayed by skirts and lobbyists because their real love is not the ideology or philosophy of conservatives, its in the power they wield as beltway insiders. I don’t think Norquist is a bad person, or even had bad intentions. But he’s weak at his core and has allowed himself to be a carrier of Muslim radicalism into the roots of American politics and that means people like him have to be shoved aside for more conservative representatives less in love with power, and more in love with conservative philosophy.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Habitual Liar: Many examples of Obama’s falsehoods

On August 9th 2012 I wrote an article here titled “A Criminal, a Liar, a Communist, and a Terrorist: Barack Obama Insults America.” CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. At the time it seemed to others to be just more Republican attacks against a sitting president from the opposite party. To others it was “white male anger” that a person of color was in the White House. But time has proven the validity of my claims and the future from then to now has revealed that my title was more than correct. Obama is an habitual liar. He lies so well and often that he doesn’t even think consciously of it. He can literally look a person in the eye and lie without an increase in heart rate or a shred of guilt. He is a fatherless menace perpetually in search for identity and meaning which is impossible for him because he was raised by extreme leftist radicals. So he lies to himself to cover the pain of his dotted past and to justify to himself why he never quite measured up to the expectations placed upon him as a youth. He is the worst kind of liar and that makes him extremely dangerous. Glenn Beck more than anybody has done a great job of tracking Obama’s lies, most recently just the other day. But in the videos below he has done voluminous amounts of television and broadcasting trying to warn people by presenting the vast amount of evidence.

The danger is that Obama will likely be more dangerous as a person after his presidency. He is a socialist without question, and once he no longer has the trappings of the White House to limit his mouth, he’ll be a radical paid spokesman receiving $200,000 to $1 million speaking fees for the next 40 years traveling the world and doing massive amounts of damage against capitalism. He will do what his terrorist insurgent mentors always wanted out of him—to destroy that “God damn Imperialist America” as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers might have said to him as a young community organizer smoking cigarettes and quoting Saul Alinsky for fun within the Chicago social scene.

I knew he was a liar as far back as 2007 when he first started talking on a daily basis. Of course there wasn’t much of a track record back then to go on—it was just a feeling. I gave him a slight chance—as I was skeptical. I certainly didn’t vote for him but I wasn’t ready to turn the American flag upside down either. I was hoping that Obama might actually open up the regulations on stem cell research as he indicated—but that campaign utterance went away quickly during the opening months of his presidency and so did my hope that I was wrong.

My first job out of high school was as a car salesman. It allowed me to make adult money right out of high school and I was good at it. But it has a reputation of drawing unsavory characters to the profession for a reason. I came to know several. One car salesman had the same compulsive tendency to lie as Obama does, and he was successful—he made a lot of money off the job. I once watched him sell a car to a couple and actually had sex with the wife of the man buying the car while they were waiting to go through finance. The couple was desperate for money and were paying nearly sticker for the car and the slick liar of a salesman offered to take a thousand dollars off the price if the woman would perform oral sex on him. The young wife and cash strapped husband agreed—it made them feel the wife was worth a lot of money and actually injected them with a feeling of pride that she would be worth so much. I went to the lobby to buy a Coke while all this was going on and actually asked the guy how he felt about it. I was curious after all; I couldn’t fathom doing such a thing. But the husband justified it believing that the thousand dollars knocked off the price would be good for his family. The salesman had presented such a strong case through lies and deceit that the couple didn’t even question that they could have gotten a thousand dollars knocked off the price just by asking—because the markup on the car in 1986 was about $3,500. The dealership could have knocked $2000 dollars off the sticker and still made $1,500, which was routine. But the salesman thought the woman was attractive and told me ahead of time what he was going to do without even speaking to the couple. I watched him take the reluctant couple from “just looking” to the backseat of his car in the back lot within three hours. The couple did everything the salesman told them to do—he had complete control over their minds until they left the dealership parking lot. In the car business that type of behavior was known as being “strong.” A good salesman would do the same to his own mother—and that’s how we judged one another. The salesman was a complete caricature of reality—there wasn’t anything truthful about his life and I never believed anything he told me—other than when he knew he could manipulate someone with his immense ability to lie. He dressed like a million bucks, wore lots of gold, always had a slick suit—but he had a serious cocaine habit and lived in a dump. I actually took him home once and was shocked that his apartment was a dive. I would have expected an expensive condominium with the amount of money he made. But he couldn’t hide his true self from reality. He lied, and lied, and lied until it eventually caught up with him.

Obama won’t reach such a fate as he has now been shielded from reality. He has been given celebrity status by the political elites—so he will always have money thrown at him to further falsify his value. He’ll never have to deal with his habitual lying. He’ll be paid more for it. Just this past week he bought the Magnum P.I. house in Hawaii which is just the beginning for him. As a communist he will be given a microphone and a stage to utter his lies and nonsense for decades to a public just as naive as that wife mentioned. But when you peel away all the gold and tailored suits, there is just a pathetic little boy in there raised by scum bags and rudderless—careless adults lacking a strong father figure.

In these clips Glenn Beck has presented a compelling case over the last four years. The evidence is so clear that nobody can dispute it. And I put them here for preservation so that when history asks, it will be known that some people tried to warn the world. There is nothing that can be believed from Obama. He is a caricature of reality—a puppet for insurgency against a capitalist enemy. He is a made up person who is nothing but an actor, an empty vessel when there isn’t a speech writer or teleprompter around. He is a person who will say and do anything to fulfill the strategies of his creators. And those creators are domestic terrorists—and have been from the beginning. The Obama lies are meant to hide that reality. But not everyone has bought it—unfortunately most of America is in the back seat of a car hoping to get $1000 knocked off the sticker price—when they could have had it all along just by asking—and not being seduced by a soothsayer who is only an image of what comes out of his mouth.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Labor Unions are a form of Terrorism: Scott Walker was right

The scum bag old hippies from the labor movement sent me one of their propaganda pieces over the weekend still upset at Scott Walker for successfully making Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Their argument was an implied insult made by Walker during a speech poising himself for a presidential run saying, “If I can take on 100,000 protestors, I can do the same with Islamic terrorists.”  The labor unions of Wisconsin and within the Democratic Party felt that the comparison of labor union workers protesting the reforms that Walker was implementing were inaccurately being compared to terrorists as if such a thing was a radical departure from reality. But the truth is, any labor union that uses force, coercion, or fear of any kind to make their point is an act of terror. They may not go to the extra level of killing people to make their point, but they certainly did try to damage Walker politically and personally on several occasions and their motives were to invoke terror upon the governor with the same tactical aims in mind as the terrorists of Islam are seeking to achieve through their actions.

Just because the terrorists in this case aren’t wearing towels on their heads and cutting the throat of so-called infidels on a beach in the Mediterranean, if the intention is to make a point against a rival position by using fear instead of logic—the action is one of terrorism. The labor unions have been conducting themselves in such a manner for years, and they don’t get a free pass just because they are American citizens, or members of the Democratic Party backed by laws created by the Department of Labor. Terrorism is anything that invokes fear to accelerate acceptance of the perpetrator’s point of view.

And while we’re at clarifying definitions, let’s also look at the type of language used by labor unions to describe themselves. In the propaganda piece the labor union described their position as such, “Scott Walker compared Wisconsin workers to terrorists. He wants to be president, STOP HIM.” From there they have a little link you can click that takes you to a petition page so you can sign your name to their plight as if some collective mass of ignorance could stop the reality of their foolishness. Workers in the way that labor unions and members of the Democratic Party machine use it, is a term utilized by the philosophy of Karl Marx in his various articulations on the merits of communism, such as in the Communist Manifesto where he ends the book “workers of the world unite.” In the manner that Marx indicated he was calling for an act of terrorism against the management of labor in capitalist enterprises. When “workers” strike and don’t perform tasks of labor, they are no longer “working” they are denying labor to an employer—so they require a different technical classification. A worker in a capitalist country is someone who conducts productive enterprise. A worker in communist and socialist endeavors is a protestor who uses terrorism to extort money they did not earn through collective bargaining agreements by threatening to destroy productivity or the profit margins of their employer through a strike.

Recently the labor unions of the west coast port workers managed to wrestle a contract negotiation settlement for themselves by slowing down work for a number of months costing many millions of dollars in profit. That was economic terrorism where the employers were forced to take the lesser of two evils, they could not operate their business due to the back log in work the labor union “workers” were imposing on them, or they could agree to the labor demands of their protestors and at least collect enough money to stay in business. With average wages of $147,000 per year the ILWU union deliberately brought the management of the west coast ports to their knees with drag-assing techniques designed to hurt their employer so to wrestle away more money from them. That was and is an act of terrorism.

In my home school district of Lakota in 2013 when they wanted to pass a tax increase which they had been unsuccessful three prior times due to arguments that I posed to the public which they could not overcome, they resorted to terrorism through labor union radicalism. The district wanted to give overpaid government employees more money so they needed a tax increase on property values to do it. They used the recent school shooting at Sandy Hook to swing voters about 5% into their direction as they promised to spend the money on “safety and security.” Lakota as a district was doing what public schools do all across the nation when they want more money for their teacher unions—they make parents afraid that something might happen to their children if something isn’t done in their favor. To help drive the point home just a few days before the election a death threat was found in the girls bathroom promising a shooting spree which of course made all the papers and news outlets. Enough parents were scared to vote in favor of the tax increase and Lakota received their money. They didn’t get the money in a straight up and down vote on logic. Lakota had to utilize some form of terror to provoke people into voting for their cause making it an act of terrorism. Of course they didn’t cross the line to become actual killers like the ISIS terrorists have, but they did use fear to achieve their objectives.

And in Wisconsin, against Scott Walker, there were death threats, political maneuvers designed to invoke fear in the population, threats that the economy of the state would be wrecked if Walker got his way—none of which actually happened. The labor unions were using fear to preserve their grip on the state’s economy and under Walker’s leadership, they failed. So out of all the presidential candidates seeking a run for the office in 2016, Walker is the most experienced in dealing with terrorism. He did successfully battle it among the various labor unions in his state. Those labor unions did sometimes threaten to kill him, but unlike ISIS, they didn’t actually try to carry it out. But the threats were made—and those threats are considered to be terrorism with the same intentions as the ISIS terrorist—to achieve a tactical objective through the means of inflicting some form of terror to move an opponent off their position.

The word “worker” is not sacred in American politics. To people who create work the term indicates the potential for some radicalized protest that will cost money and a huge amount of damage to the public relations of any endeavor. Labor unions don’t get to live under different rules by the shadows of reality just because they are Americans. If they desire to inflict fear because they can’t win an argument through logic, they are in fact a form of terrorist. Any time coercion is utilized to achieve a political objective; it is an act of terrorism.   Obama conducted himself as a terrorist when he sent a picture to congress with his pen promising executive orders if they did not do as he demanded. When they refused, such as in the amnesty issue, Obama signed an executive order that ended up as a rider to the Department of Homeland Security bill which is presently being voted upon in the House. Those against the DHS funding bill are upset at Obama’s executive order for amnesty which is really just another way for Democrats to buy votes for future elections. They make up lots of fancy terms for things, but at the heart of the reality, they are behaving as terrorists, because they use fear to drive policy implementation. And of the potential candidates in 2016, Scott Walker has the right kind of mind to deal with the type of domestic terrorism that has so crippled the American economy for years in the labor unions. It’s quite clear that he has the ability to deal with terrorists who don’t even try to hide their actions behind suits and ties—and Washington lobbyists. Walker’s track record and statement was correct. And the labor unions know it—that’s why they’re afraid of him.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Why FCC Chairman Wheeler Wants Net Neutrality: Sign the petition today against it

Below is a good video that demonstrates exactly what Net Neutrality is and it should be watched. It’s a very confusing issue because the advocates of Net Neutrality are actually taking the position of the opposition in saying they are defending the freedom of the Internet. However, it is a ruse. The FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a Obama guy, as will be shown below and is a former lobbyist for the cable companies. The Net Neutrality supporters are trying to make it sound as if it is the cable companies who are pouring millions of dollars into defeating Net Neutrality, but it is the opposite that is really happening. It is the status quo technology that wants Net Neutrality and it is all the upstarts that are against it—because the FCC chairman under Obama’s direction is seeking to make the Internet a public utility—so they can control it—tax it, and unionize it. Just four days before the FCC historic vote, over 200,000 signatures have signed the below letter to the FCC, which can be accessed for yourself at the following link.

https://www.protectinternetfreedom.com/

Dear Chairman Wheeler,

Internet use and online communication is the scourge of autocratic governments that deny basic freedoms to their people. Internet information has proven to be a spark that creates the fire of freedom in the most oppressive corners of the world.

The Internet is one of the most positive forces for improving the human condition the world has ever known. It is the hub of innovation for the economy in America and the world. It’s a source of progress, democratic distribution of information, societal change, personal empowerment and technological innovation.

The attempt by the Obama Administration to control the Internet as a public utility takes power away from consumers, website developers and small business owners and puts it in the hands of Government. This will drive up costs, slow down innovation, and put unelected political appointees in charge of picking winners and losers.

And it will take away America’s moral authority to argue that autocratic regimes have no right to assert control of the Internet in their own countries.

Mr. Wheeler, I am signing my name here today, asking that you and your colleagues vote NO on bringing the Internet under Federal Government control.

Sincerely,

Now watch this video–they are all on the same team.  The protestors, and Wheeler.

It is the right thing to do to sign the letter and send it to the FCC, but be warned, the Chairman already has his marching orders by the president, so the letter won’t have any levity to his decision-making process. All that signing the letter will accomplish is in letting the government know how many people actually stand against them in a fashion to actually put their name to it. By traditional White House analysis, 200,000 signatures is a large number. It’s a small number of the population, but it represents a fairly scary opposition that they will try to minimize, but to a less successful effect. To understand why, study the history and background of the FCC chairman.

Thomas Edgar Wheeler (born April 5, 1946; Redlands, California)[1][2] is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

He was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

Originally considered a frontrunner for the position,[7] Wheeler was confirmed as the new Federal Communications Commission chief in November 2013.[8] Despite a letter written by several prominent former Obama administration officials endorsing Wheeler for the position, many people expressed concern over the consideration of Wheeler for the position due to his history of lobbying for industry.[7]

In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[5][9][10] He is the only member of both halls of fame.[6] Cablevision magazine named Wheeler one of the 20 most influential individuals in its history during cable’s 20th anniversary in 1995.[5]

During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over US $500,000 for Obama’s campaigns.[7][11]

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

On the current path, large cable companies are becoming extinct, the government cannot get their control around information because of the free and open Internet that exists now, and they want the FCC to begin getting things back under control from Google, Microsoft, and Amazon to actually protect the companies they are claiming to be against like Comcast, AT&T and other traditional communication companies. They are playing the same tricks they did with Obamacare, Benghazi, and open border immigration to overwhelm the system, hamper the minds of the masses with too much data-and to shove through new controls and regulations that nobody will stand against until it’s too late.

Wheeler is going to vote in favor of Net Neutrality because he’s been told to by his boss in the White House to do so. This is a power grab by the FCC for more control, not less. The government position is actually that they want to protect start-ups and porn providers with a free and open Internet by defeating a pay to play system—but what they don’t tell anybody is that they are seeking to control and limit that freedom for everyone, not just the big companies. In that respect the Internet will be “equal,” it s just that everyone will be equally limited and taxed.

So fill out the form, send it in so that guys like me will have ammunition to slam the FCC with later when we can expose the crimes about to be committed. The more people who fill out that form, the better the case will be later to prove that we told you so—so that by the time there are new elections in 2016, congress, the senate and hopefully a new president will pull the FCC back in and defund them into oblivion. That is the best way to strike a blow at this encroaching insurrection. So, make sure to fill out the form today, so that when we fight tomorrow—there will be some statistical information to use in proving what a gross violation the FCC actually imposed on the freest place on earth, the Internet. And they did it all in the name of control, taxation, and much more limited options for a tomorrow they dread to see coming.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

A Rudolph Giuliani Defense: Why all the effort

As I’ve said before, there is a very good reason I write all these articles, and they are never intended for the masses. I offer them to everyone, but due to their length, and content, the masses will tend to reject them as too difficult. Purposely I present most of my articles at over 1000 words—because people of poor intellect will avoid the contents—leaving a target audience of approximately 1% to read them. That 1% tends to be the social elite, the news makers and shakers of society who aren’t so easily scared off by such lengthy presentations. They require such explanations as they cannot find in typical 400 word pieces because modern problems require more information for their inquiring minds. The Drudge Report has its niche, which is to present many links to several pertinent articles on a daily basis from one location. Other news sites do a good job of reporting daily events, but they only go surface deep not giving the proper depth of an argument that might typically fill a 12 to 22 minute television or radio segment. Being a person with a background in doing a lot of live radio and television I have a pretty good idea what is needed for a typical interview so I present my articles in a way that will settle the mind of the type of people who find themselves in a position to do important things—by means of shaping the social dialogue.

The general rule is that it takes approximately five years for the typical 1% of the target audience to fully embrace the topics of my articles. This is due to the train metaphor discussed in a recent article I did on leadership which can be reviewed by (CLICKING HERE.) It takes about that long for my target audience to properly embrace the things they read and for the events I report to begin being seen to their eyes. So my task for quite some time is to report the conditions and circumstances as early as possible so that 1% of the target audience can contemplate those observations for a number of years while balancing out their own information obtained through experience.

Going through Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom articles a number of them especially from 3 to 4 years ago are routinely at the top of many Google searches because minds seeking that information start inquiring about the topics about a year and a half before they feel comfortable talking about these controversial issues at a social occasion or even more daring—in front of a camera. I am not the only one providing this service, but I do make sure that I provide each topic in a way that would be able to be discussed credibly during a news segment—because I have the unique experience of performing that task myself. One of my most popular articles is the one about Barrack Obama’s mother revealed through nude photographs taken likely by Frank Marshell Davis—the communist and mentor to the current president which at the time seemed very controversial, but presents enough evidence to declare that there is something really wrong with the mind of the man currently sitting in the White House.

When that article was first written I had taken an article from The Blaze discussing the new book The Communist written by Paul Kengor and provided a means for framing the argument by logical, articulate minds. Anyone who has done live interviews knows that before you can articulate fully a statement during a debate, that you have to know the who, what, why, when and where backwards and forwards otherwise you will stumble through the interview sounding foolish. It’s not enough to provide the observation that Obama was trained as a communist—and these are the facts—you have to paint the story in a way that makes sense to the 1% of the population that actually considers things, and tend to be leaders in their own right.

So it gave me great pleasure to watch former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani defend American exceptionalism and lay out essentially the primary topics presented in my article on Obama mentioning specifically the Frank Marshelle Davis connection on the popular Fox News show The Kelly File. It was an explosive interview by a guy who traditionally speaks his mind and hits hard in his positions. But, five years ago, he would not have dared to say any of the things he did on The Kelly File because of the scrutiny it would have provided him as a spokesman for the Republican Party. Back then, Obama’s presidency was still new, and people like me were being viewed as extreme. Now, the facts are in, and those at the back of the train of thought—not always their fault—are seeking answers. In Obama’s case the foundations of his beliefs point back to a childhood developed by socialist leaning grandparents and a number of father figures scooped up by his sexually carefree mother over many years. These men were Islamic and Hindu in their faith and in some cases were communist radicals shaping the mind of the young confused little Barrack Obama in a way that ruined his mind.

I started out my article on the Frank Marshell Davis character with a sensational headline that typically grabs a reader’s attention, but once they see the lengthy contents they turn away. However, there are plenty of who, what, why, when and wheres presented and by the time those readers finish one of my articles, they are well equipped to seek out support information. I even put the link to the very good book by Kengor at the end for people to read for themselves.   After they’ve done a bit of personal investigation they can then ask the question how we allowed such a Trojan Horse like Obama into the White House to begin with. That appears to be the path that Giuliani has taken-and it was good to hear him double down on The Kelly File when he was being offered a platform to apologize from.   I’ve been in that situation a time or two myself, so I understand and sympathize with what it means, and when Giuliani held his ground, he put himself in a position to lead many others in the proper direction of actually questioning Obama’s intentions in a way that the political left has successfully deterred for six years.

Just because a person is President of the United States it does not mean they love the nation. Glenn Beck actually did a good radio piece about Obama in the wake of the Giuliani comments about love for a country specifically and was spot on in his analysis. Obama does not love America the way we might love America. He was raised away from the mainland in a third world developing country by a sleep-around mother who brought many men to the young man’s life leaving a very confused little boy who communist radicals later befriended to send the fair-skinned community organizer behind the scenes to dismantle the “imperialist” monster. They saw America as something to “transform” not to protect so they went about their business of hiding their insurgent behind the protection of racist accusations. Influential Republicans who often tour the talk show circuits held their tongues because of the volatility of bringing up anything negative about Obama’s past giving him a chance to show what he was really about. When they saw his actions over the last six years, they sought out answers to provide some context to their observations leading them to articles like mine that have been out there a while, but are only just now being accepted as a viable examination into the insurgent mind of America’s current president.

Obama is an American president that we’ve never seen before—and there is a reason. He was raised and developed to be a radical within the White House. He was elected through guilt—accusations of an ancient past that involved slavery cast against the political party that actually freed the slaves. Through their timidity Republican leaders stayed away from the controversy and gave Obama a chance. Now, they are seeing what people like me have been saying all along as the facts have caught up to their positions at the back of the train and they can’t hide from the facts any longer. Of those Giuliani is among the first of the top 1% of party leaders and people of means to speak about these matters in front of a camera instead of at social gatherings under hushed voices and for that he deserves credit for his courage. Now that he’s shown the way, others will follow, and it is at that time that a proper exploration into the real motives of President Obama can be understood.

It takes a while for the contents of these articles to do their job, but it’s the nature of the human mind. If I wanted to appeal to the masses, I would write much smaller, less controversial and far leaning articles. But I’m not. I want people like Giuliani to read these articles from his iPhone in a New York café and consider—what if. I want him to think about it for some time with the reassurance of talk radio, books like Kengor’s and to want to add up the evidence and finally do something about it when they get the opportunity. Because guys like Giuliani get in front of the camera often, they get a chance to really break open a story—even if the information is old. The Frank Marshell Davis story is old at this point, but it never really hit the American consciousness, because it is too complicated and deceitful to consider among a busy public. But that was always the plan to place an insurgent communist type thinker into the White House of the freest country on earth to dismantle its power and influence the world over. It’s one thing to present the evidence, it’s another to stake a reputation on it. And for a man of Giuliani’s reputation, it means a lot that he’s finally willing to make such statements. It’s a sign that the type of people who typically find themselves in a leadership role, are finally able to articulate an argument against the Obama presidency that steps beyond the pageantry of the office itself. And that is the first step in solving the problem. The masses of democracy that Obama appeals to have enabled the insurgent to hide his true colors behind a political office meant to be above scrutiny. It takes that unique 1% to take action against such maniacal schemes. And it is for them that I do all this work.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Why I’d Vote For Scott Walker: The worthlessness of a college education

Out of all the potential candidates for the upcoming presidential election in 2016, it is Scott Walker who most personifies my expectations for such a high administrative position. He is certainly the most qualified, and vetted of any potential candidate except for maybe President Obama himself. Walker has been through a remarkable amount of tribulation—and has come out on top each and every time. He has the even temperament to take on anything and still come out as someone who can build bridges with those he disagrees with. From my vantage point, he’s the perfect candidate including the fact that he did not graduate from college. Recently when progressives have witnessed the polling numbers of Walker and realized that he could have a legitimate chance at running for President of the United States, they have been clamoring for anything and everything negative about Walker that they could—which has been a very short list. Even when they looked for skeletons in his closet they found it surprisingly empty. All they could muster was an attack on his intelligence because he did not complete college—which again to me is one of his greatest strengths.

The college myth was created by the progressive class to perpetuate the complete lie that college would allow kids to purchase their way into merit for income earning potential. It has only worked in regard to government workers who don’t have any real expectation of performance anyway. In the private sector college experience has not replaced the traditional ground up mentorship’s which used to be so common—where a hard enterprising worker learned everything there was to know about a business and worked their way up the ranks through tribulation and experience. Progressives in their desperate task of creating a society of collectivists decided that the best way to accomplish the task was through public education and colleges—which they have done. There is a good reason that most educators throughout the United States are known liberals. It is to teach students liberalism and to implant in their young minds the concept of selflessness. For instance, when my wife attended college she was told to read the Koran. When she asked the question about why the Bible wasn’t offered she was instantly told that she wasn’t there to ask questions but to do as she was told—which came as a surprise to both of us. The college had an agenda for their students and that was to spread the theocracy of Islam while charging students huge amounts of money for the indoctrination. The results can be easily seen around us to this day.

In college I was primarily interested in economics and philosophy—and my professors were wrong on both. In philosophy on the very first day the topic of conversation and first reading assignment was I Ching, which I thought was stupid. I explained the book to the class and professor as a ridiculous expression of oriental mystics that had very little to do with American economic power. Of course the professor attacked American domination through economics around the world and cited that the oriental people had it right as a best approach through a happy life toward our deaths. Even more shocking to me was the fact that out of a class room of 50 students I was the only one who had read I Ching so I was the only one who knew what I was talking about—except for the professor who was clearly a huge bleeding heart liberal. I Ching essentially preached the ideals of Confucianism which was really a back door approach to preparing the mind to accept communism as a state-run option—because the orient is essentially a collectivist based society and their philosophies reflect a lack of focus on individuality. I had read the book on my own the year before and already knew what I was going to get out of it, yet the philosophy professor was planning to spend four weeks on the book—which to me was just ridiculous.

There was a similar story which involved my economics studies. When I discovered that the professor in that class was essentially preaching the merits of Keynesian economics I completely rejected the class and was ready to withdrawal. Again, I had already read enough prior to the class to know what the professor was teaching and to stay in his class meant I would have to turn off my mind—not turn it on to a greater degree. Clearly, the experience my wife and I had in college was evidence that the college experience was not about teaching students to be productive people in society—it was to indoctrinate them with as much liberalism as they could cram into a four-year degree hoping that students would take with them that idiocy into the real world to implement progressive political strategies.

I lived on the campus of the University of Cincinnati for one full year and part of another without the desire to party at the fraternities, or to hang out at the bars and nightclubs. I went to a few of those events just to see what all the fuss was, and I didn’t like them. So I spent my time reading books in restaurants that were open all night and maintaining my emotional distance so I’d have clear observation. I was able to watch the college students—who were my age, with the gained insight of uncommitted logic and I drew my conclusions—which turned out to be extremely right. College for most people is a really bad idea. It’s good for learning something in the medical industry and other sciences, but for practical application into the manufacturing sector, or in sales, invention, and even engineering—college does a terrible job in producing intelligent, hard-working masterpieces. College is the dream of progressives to ruin the minds of the young with collectivist crap with the promise that success in life can be purchased. All you have to do is sit through the liberalized classes like a time share victim and hope that you come away from the experience with a free vacation from life.

College teaches people to think within a system—but often the answers to the hardest problems are outside of any organized structure. This is why major progressives like Howard Dean were threatened by Scott Walker as seen in the video above. This is also why Walker has been so successful in Wisconsin where other governors throughout the country have faltered. Walker is functioning from personal experience instead of direction from a system of collective thought. College graduates make nice little party leaders who will think for the good of the political orthodox, but if a problem falls outside of those parameters, they are often lost as to what to do—because collectively their party has not yet answered those types of questions. That happens to Barack Obama all the time. He is the epitome of a college graduate ill prepared for the world outside of liberal institutional thought.   He cannot think on his feet.

College success is a myth created by progressives and largely the baby boomers bought into the lie completely surrendering logic to pure speculation. Boomers wanted to believe that they could purchase a better life for their children with a college ticket—but all their kids really received was a trip into the “Brave New World.” College often ruins minds and destroys opportunity—and most kids are better off not going. There is no replacement for good old-fashioned hard work—and that is the kind of person that Scott Walker is. A quick study, and one of my most popular articles seen on the sidebar to the right indicates that most successful people avoid the damage that college does to their minds. I saw little of nothing in my college days that was helpful to a human being who desires to think. What I saw happen to women in particular I thought was devastating to their integrity forever. What I gained most out of college was found at a local Burger King that I sat in and read my many books—which I could have done without going to college. It was the most positive aspect of my experience. I ate a lot of Whoppers.

The panic of a Walker candidacy from both Republicans and Democrats is in finally convincing America of the worthlessness of a college education. If Walker wins, it will be a major blow to the progressive myth—and that has all those who love their institutions deeply concerned. But that issue needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later, because America needs the innovation that comes from those who normally get frustrated with college and drop out all together as opposed to those looking to purchase their way through life by turning off their minds just so they can get a piece of paper. From my personal experience there are a lot of potential Bill Gates types out there along with his nemesis Steve Jobs—both who didn’t have a college education. College destroys minds, it doesn’t help them grow and develop new ideas—not at the normal pace of human need. College limits people far more than it helps them, and that is what a Scott Walker President would illustrate to the 21st Century masses. The college scam is already falling apart and people will discover it by default, but Scott Walker could accelerate the process, and might actually save some of what’s left of America. So if I get the opportunity, I will vote for Scott Walker.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT