Donald Trump Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize: Winning New Hampshire and on to South Carolina

 

I was not surprised that Donald Trump won in New Hampshire.  I’m happy to see that the polls were correct, and with that measure, Trump shouldn’t have any trouble in South Carolina or Nevada either.  I have stated many times why I support Donald Trump for President, so I am glad that he is beginning to pull out ahead from the pack, and that the reality of that is beginning to set in.  I know there are many of my liberty fighting friends who don’t understand why a guy like me would support Trump, but they will in time.  Some were beginning to understand after Trump’s acceptance speech in New Hampshire, seen below.  The world is beginning to see what a Trump White House would look like, and they are starting to see the big picture.

The first sign of this new era, which is great for those who truly love America, could be seen in the melt-down that the left-winged web sites spewed upon realizing how strongly Trump finished.  I truly enjoyed the Huffington Post diatribes given how they behaved at the start of his campaign.  It is for all the reasons that “they” hate Trump that I support him.  He is a conqueror, and that’s what we need right now.  We don’t need a Constitutional attorney or a sweet talker; we need a tough guy who can beat up on the insurgents.  Trump is that kind of guy.

It seems many missed the story prior to the New Hampshire primary, that Trump had received a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Kristian Berg Harpviken, a Nobel watcher and head of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, told Agence France-Presse that he received a copy of the nomination letter sent to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that selects the recipient. 

According to the letter, the author of which was not disclosed, Trump deserves the prize for “his vigorous peace through strength ideology, used as a threat weapon of deterrence against radical Islam, ISIS, nuclear Iran and Communist China.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/donald-trump-has-been-nominated-for-a-nobel-peace-prize

This is just one example of how Trump is changing the very definition of things, and the longer he continues, the better things get for traditional America.  With each state that he wins, the radical leftist utterances we’ve all had to endure for years swings back in the proper Constitutional direction.  When people wonder if they can trust Trump or to know if he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, just study his children and his personal wealth.  You can tell a lot of things about a man by the type of lifestyle that he lives. Trump doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke, and he has never done drugs.  He’s rich and beyond financial influence, he’s smart and leans more toward Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones than Glenn Beck.  And his kids are better than him in morals and ethics.  He can outsmart the political left with a wit none of them embody and is the best man for the job of president at this particular point in history.

So it’s on to South Carolina.  I am looking forward to watching him uncover more of America state by state.  If he can redefine the trend of the Nobel Peace Prize, he can do just about anything—and for them, those who love the American flag; they have a lot to look forward to.  To those who hate that flag, they hate Trump and everything that is coming.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Jealous Glenn Beck: His hatred of Trump is deeper than even he will admit

There were times when Glenn Beck was on Fox News from 5 to 6 PM where I thought he was doing his shows directly off my blog material or that he and I were intellectually tied to some cosmic root. But he was a fighter back then obviously ahead of the curve.  He’s not held up well over the last five years.  The constant beatings it takes to be at the front have harmed his health and eroded his intellect.  I have heard him say some really dumb things over the last few weeks as it has become obvious that Donald Trump is going to remain the front-runner of the GOP.  Beck has lost a lot of ground over the last year, starting with his declarations of being done with the GOP, and the NRA over endorsements, then lately turning around and saying at a Ted Cruz event that he’d rather support the socialist Bernie Sanders over Trump.  I used to listen to The Blaze everyday so that I could hear my buddy Doc Thompson each morning. I’d stick around and listen to Beck afterwards sometimes, but with all the Trump hatred as the months have went on it has just turned me off to Beck.  I think the hatred Beck has toward Trump runs far deeper than anybody knows and for reasons nobody would suspect.  But Beck has done this to himself.  It makes me sad to see, but he clearly has put himself on the wrong side of history.  Here’s a little what Beck said earlier this past week in regard to Trump and Bernie Sanders while endorsing Ted Cruz for president.

BECK SAID HE HAD NEVER ENDORSED A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HIS 40 YEARS OF BROADCASTING, BUT HE MADE AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF THE MOMENT…

HE SAID HE EVEN PREFERS SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT.), A SELF-PROCLAIMED “DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST” RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, TO TRUMP.

“HONESTY, FAITH AND TRUTH ARE BASIC REQUIREMENTS. AND QUITE HONESTLY, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THIS PROBABLY ISN’T GOING TO GO OVER VERY WELL, THAT’S WHY I LIKE BERNIE SANDERS,” HE SAID. “BERNIE SANDERS IS LIKE, ‘YEP, I’M A SOCIALIST.’

“I CAN ACTUALLY SIT AT A TABLE WITH A MAN WHO SAYS, ‘YES, I’M A SOCIALIST, AND YES, I DON’T LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE SHOULD BE MORE LIKE DENMARK,’ ” HE ADDED

http://prntly.com/blog/?p=4313

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/22/national-review-donald-trump-is-a-menace-to-american-conservatism/

Going back to Beck and I, there have been many times over the last five years where our paths have crossed a bit but either my reluctance or his prevented the next step.  My friend Doc Thompson works for Glenn Beck.  I have promoted Doc for several years now and The Blaze when it first announced its radio programming—which I think is good, especially in the beginning because I wanted Beck to find success.  There were even a few phone calls about going to Dallas and working some projects at Beck’s studio there.  This is all before Trump announced his presidency of course.  There was something about Beck that was making me weary—almost like he was comparable to the Jim Jones cult with him as the central figure.  I’d listen to Doc talk about working at The Blaze, which he loves, but something just seemed wrong about it, so I never took the next steps of discussion.

I think it’s fair to say that I have extraordinary judgment.  I can read body language extremely well.  I can detect tonal inflections and get to a truth behind words, and I can see way out in front of the train if you know what I mean.  So I tend to trust my instincts on all things.  There is a reason that I peeled back my support of The Blaze over the last six months.  I listened to their Trump bashing for several months every morning and gradually I realized they were off the mark.  All this Christian stuff has gone to Beck’s head and ruined his mind—likely a byproduct of his serious illnesses that he has been dealing with until last year.  It has changed him and taken the fight out of him.  He’s not the same person he was when he had a dominant Fox News audience that was ruffling the feathers of Bill O’Reilly.  Beck was pumping out New York Times bestsellers every few months and everything was great.

I thought it was good that when he was fired from Fox, essentially for going after George Soros, that he got back on the horse and started his own network and movie studio in Dallas.  But there was something missing in him that was noticeable.  He had lost his will to fight, which was obvious.  He had been beat down and was living off his earnings.  But he wasn’t the same guy.  He evolved from an Ayn Rand type of advocate to just another religious type leading a congregation.  He didn’t impose his beliefs on other employees of his at The Blaze, but he certainly set a standard.  What is certain is that he stopped fighting and become much more reconcilable toward the enemy.

I think the reason he and I never hit it off in spite of our mutual connections is that he’s a pacifist and I’m not.    I’m all about conquering the enemy and using The Art of War to do it.  I love to fight, I love aggression, and I get bored with peace.  I don’t want his Christian nation.  I like the values, but I love conflict and I would be bored to death in Glenn Beck’s America.  I don’t want Abraham Lincoln as president, and I think George Washington was too middle of the road.  I personally love people like George Patton as opposed to George Washington.  I could have worked with Beck, but I don’t think he could have worked with me.  He has become used to being the center of attention and that’s impossible to do around me, so I and he went in very different directions.  Doc Thompson tried more than once to reconcile that, but knowing Beck was involved just robbed my ambition for an opportunity.  I determined through observation that Beck was on a sinking ship.  I hoped to be wrong, but of course I’m usually not because I do read situations with great clarity—no matter how controversial.

Along comes Trump and he’s all about fighting so naturally I support people like him over pacifists and obviously this has effected Beck.  His audience has been split in two, some were happy to follow him and others moved in my direction for similar reasons.  Beck used to do the work Trump is doing now-but the New York billionaire swept in and took that audience quickly, and maintained it since.  The same type of people who showed up to Beck’s rally in 2010 in Washington has gravitated to Trump.  People who loved the religious aspects of Beck’s work have stayed with him, but a lot of former Beck people have moved to Trump because they want a fighter, not a crier.

What I hear in Glenn Beck is a man jealous of Donald Trump.  Beck lost a large portion of his audience to Trump and now he’s throwing a fit.  When Beck was in his prime, 2010 to 2011 a lot of people were willing to overlook his past with drugs to hear the message he was speaking at that moment—and those same people are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  But Beck was showing the signs of wear even in Wilmington, Ohio where I was in the cold of winter just shy of Christmas.  I went there to meet Beck and to post video of the event up on The Blaze website with Scott Baker.  What I saw was a man running out of gas.  I didn’t want him to of course, but he did a few years later.  He couldn’t handle having his family harassed in New York City, he let Soros run him out-of-town and he hid among Texans hoping to recapture his former glory.  I am grateful that Beck hired my friend Doc Thompson and that he started The Blaze Radio.  But it is obvious that Beck lost his will to fight in the middle of a major battle, and that just isn’t forgivable.  As nice as it is to think that Beck is doing the work of God—the Devil has just as soothing of a voice in the middle of a nightly dream of divine inspiration.  You can’t know who to trust especially when it comes to spiritual matters, and I don’t trust a pacifist who puts down their arms in the middle of a fight–I don’t care if God gives specific instructions through revelation in a dream.  I would question God 100% of the time—and Beck is instead on his knees asking for guidance.  That is not my kind of guy. A warrior must be decisive and ruthless when it comes to the enemy—and be willing to use all tools available to destroy the opposition.  Screw all this brotherhood crap, and understanding.  The enemy must be identified and destroyed.  End of story.

Trump knows what he’s doing and where he’s going.  A lot of what Beck is criticizing Trump over; there were plenty of people accusing Glenn of the same kind of stuff when he was at the front of the fight.  Now that Beck is doing that against Trump it comes out sounding like a jealous has-been instead of someone who is capable of winning the fight at hand.  In the end, I trust my own judgment and before Trump came along I could see that Beck was in trouble over something in his head.  I still like the guy, but he’s just not the kind of fighter I can support—so I felt sorry for him putting himself on the line like he did with his Cruz support.  He’s just not seeing the real fight—and I really thought he was smarter than that.   A lot of people think that Trump is going to turn out to be a gigantic Trojan horse of progressivism and that he’s like Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars movies.  People, I’m smarter than that.  I don’t fall for false prophets and spiritual utterances that come from who knows where.  I can see things way out in front and I’m right most of the time, and I’m sure I understand Trump.  Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are not enough for me—I want better and I don’t see many people with their hand up.  Especially not Glenn Beck.  Ted Cruz is a good guy, but he’s not right for this job at this point in time.  As I’ve said before, I think Ted would be great in 2024 but not in 2016.  For this election, we need a fighter—a vicious one.  We need a George Patton not a pacifist who nearly lost the fight of the Revolution in Valley Forge during a hard winter looking for luck to come as divine providence.  That makes a nice child’s story and it may happen from time to time by default.  But my money goes on the guy who is willing to take on anybody at anytime and never wears down.  I don’t wear down and I expect people I elect to office to reflect my work ethic.  Beck is functioning from the wrong values.  And it has cost him dearly.  He is hiding his jealousy of Trump behind divine conviction—which is a ruse that his immediate supporters may not see—but to me it’s as plain as day at noon against a cloudless sky.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Corporation of Disney Versus Sole Proprietorship of George Lucas: Why the new Star Wars is so terrible

With all the accolades given to the new Star Wars film The Force Awakens I take a bit of pride in being one of the very few to point out the obvious problems with it, and the gross neglect it represents on not only American culture, but international civilization.  Star Wars has a responsibility provided to it by its half century long quest to play that part with the human race, so when it takes that role for granted, it is the job of people like me to point it out.  Anybody can do such a thing after others have already jumped on the bandwagon.  Presently, The Force Awakens is the fastest movie to hit $1 billion in global sales and it’s still moving along at a respectable rate.  By every box-office measure, The Force Awakens is a glorious success.  Yet I’m saying that it’s not successful, which to some may appear baffling.  Here’s why, Star Wars surrendered what it was to become something that it isn’t and that deduction can be reduced to a very simple social understanding of how things work outside of a mother’s womb.  To get the gist of what’s wrong with The Force Awakens watch the very interesting reviews shown below. Watch them all, they tell the whole story.  I’ll go a step further in my explanation, but it’s a good place to begin.

One of the most difficult things a job creator can do is make decisions to eliminate the jobs of the people who count on you.  It is excessively hard—I think it’s one of the hardest things a human mind does in a capitalist society—because a means to a living is the sustenance used to survive from day-to-day.  George Lucas wanted to retire at 70 years old but he had all these employees that he felt responsible for, so he went looking for a way to keep them all busy so that he could retire in good conscience feeling he did what was right by them.  He sold his company to Disney hoping that it was the closest company to his own methods that would respect his former property and do well for an entirely new generation.   I was a supporter of it, until I saw the results. It would have done more people more good to just leave Star Wars alone and laid-off all the Lucasfilm employees.  Laying off 2000 Lucasfilm employees would have been painful, but the results have been worse.  Because in destroying Star Wars, it has taken away the good meaning it has possessed to literally hundreds of millions of people who now consider it something of a religion.

When the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney took place, many proclaimed that it was a sale to the dark side, but they said so without really understanding why.  Corporations have a tendency to be viewed as evil, while individuals are given great latitude for forgiveness.  This is the heart of the problem.  As a fan of unlimited capitalism, I should be very supportive of corporations—which I am in that they provide jobs and great products to a free marketplace.  But, they are often very socialist in their nature and their employees bring that mentality with them to the voting booth. For instance, a worker at P&G or GE works in an environment that does not promote personal growth and individuality—they work in very team oriented environments where the greater good of the company is often the focus.  This is a standard in most corporations—so when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton expresses the values of socialism most voters are already receptive to it because they live that life within the corporate world.  Corporations are collective based organizations that are often top-heavy and loaded with too much management at the back of the train defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Not enough people at the front providing leadership, and too many in the back which slows down the train from true productivity.  To hide this problem, corporations hire lobbyists to work K-Street in Washington on their behalf to prevent competition, so that the corporation can stay alive longer at the expense of more capitalist invention.

I’m not a fan of corporations, but I am a fan of the people who lead them, individuals like George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the original Walt Disney—among many others.  To me, once those strong leaders leave their corporations, everyone who follows are second handers.  This is why I am a fan of people like Carl Icahn who is the original corporate raider—who defined the term, “hostile takeover” by purchasing the stock of failing corporations and inserting new management with real leadership to make a sizable profit.  The introduction of competition to the corporate world makes everyone better and more honest and is needed in a capitalist society.  Without that behavior, you only get degrees of socialism which is terrible because it forces people to behave as collective entities proving detrimental to individual integrity.

Star Wars was always about the power of the individual, Luke Skywalker being the only hope for the Force to overthrow the emperor, Han Solo to always be functioning just outside the organized systems of the rebellion long enough to save everyone, and Obi-Wan residing in a desert all alone as the last of his kind to preserve goodness for a new generation.  Even the robot Artoo Detoo functions as a rogue individualist often breaking protocol to do what he thinks is right as C3PO representing the corporate world of doing as programmed berates him for comic relief.  In The Empire Strikes Back when Luke senses that Han and Leia are being tortured on Cloud City Yoda tells the young Jedi that he must stay and not be lured into a trap if he honors what they fight for.  The designation is clear, the relief of collective pain is not more important than the value of an individual who alone has the power to save the galaxy.  That is powerful stuff and why I along with millions of others have been a fan of Star Wars for over three decades.

The Force Awakens is a corporate movie made by the second handers of George Lucas and Walt Disney.  They are corporate minds who think in terms of sacrifice and the greater good before individual integrity, just as any corporation resents the individualist–those who do what they want in the corner cubical, and does not socialize during lunch with others and doesn’t follow orders from their superiors.  Rey the strong female who is obviously Jaina Solo from the Expanded Universe miraculously knows how to do everything which is a problem that many people have with the film upon viewing.  Many are willing to suspend their disbelief because the female hero is such a strong and compelling character that viewers are willing to overlook the problem initially.  The dilemma is that the characters in The Force Awakens are just along for the ride.  The Force is the hero of this movie and all the characters are subservient to it.  Rey is the victim of the sword that finds her, not because she finds it—her role is a passive participation in the adventure which is a direct violation of the “Hero’s Journey” that all Star Wars movies embody to some degree.  The Force uses her to get through impossible situations like flying the Falcon and fighting Kylo Ren at the end of the film.  She doesn’t survive them because she is an active participant.   She’s just “going with the flow,” and yielding to a mysterious Force that is guiding her actions.  Those are aspects of Star Wars that have always been weak, easily overshadowed by the efforts of Han Solo.

In the original films The Force was something to be listened to, but according to Obi-Wan, it also obeyed your commands—as an individual.  In The Force Awakens The Force is doing all the heavy lifting which is a corporate view of what Obi-Wan said in the film A New Hope, “there is no such thing as luck.”  This indicates that all the heroics of Han Solo in the past movies were not because of his skill as an individual pilot, or a decision that was made at a key time, but was due to The Force working through him.  This cheapens Star Wars considerably into a religion instead of a myth building tool to encourage people to follow their personal bliss.  It is the difference between a company run by a strong individual, and a corporation ran by a board of directors and a CEO as their representative.  One is an individual enterprise; the other is a collective based entity.

In time, once the fun of a new Star Wars movie fades, the impact that the films had will fade considerably as they will lose their meaning due to this corporate interpretation of The Force as opposed to the one that George Lucas nurtured.  The corporation puts up memos on a bulletin board and expects everyone to be appeased and to serve the needs of the collective entity—no matter who it is.  A company ran by a strong individual personally speaks to everyone and gives them guidance in developing their own individuality for the good of the company. It is a slight distinction that makes all the difference in the world regarding the end result.  Clearly George Lucas understands that distinction, and Disney as an organization collectively based, does not.  That is why The Force Awakens is a failure even though on paper immediately it appears successful.  Its mythology has been tampered with and is now changed forever—for the worse.  The message is one now of collectivism as opposed to individuality and that makes it very dangerous—and vile.

Now you should understand dear reader why you felt that The Force Awakens was a bad movie, but didn’t quite know how or why. It looked like Star Wars, sounded like Star Wars, had the same characters as the original Star Wars—but it wasn’t Star Wars.  It turned the overall message away from the rebellion of freedom fighters fighting for an individualized galactic republic and put the emphasis on collectivism and the reach and authority of corporations and the eventual tenacity to grind away everything that stands in their way.  And there isn’t much anybody can do about it but wait for some unseen Force to tell us what to do.  To those broken by corporate socialism into waiting for permission to use the rest room or get their vacations approved by a superior, they love Rey in the film because it’s all they can hope for in their lives after being beaten by collectivism for many years into no other option but to hope that they’ll win the lottery or gain an inheritance to earn their freedom from the grind.  But for hard-core Star Wars fans, Han Solo was the self-determined individual who functioned heroically not due to special powers or hooky religions—but by his own actions.  And in The Force Awakens, they killed off that character—for the “greater good.”  The message couldn’t have been clearer from the corporation known as Disney.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

 

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

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Pot Users and Insects: How they are one and the same

One of the biggest problems with the way the marijuana push to legalize it within the state of Ohio was displayed clearly in the ballot language itself, shown below. The emphasis of protection from “weed” use and sales was placed on “public” places, such as public schools, churches, parks and libraries. But what were completely ignored are residences and especially home schoolers. What if a neighbor is smoking pot in their backyard in full view of a family who happens to be home schooling their children? Issue 3 and the recreational push for marijuana across the country completely ignore this issue which is probably the most devastating imposition of the proposal. Here is how the ballot languages was presented—notice that the emphasis of the entire legislation is on public protection, not private individuals.

The official ballot text was as follows:[1]

Issue 3

Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Proposed by Initiative Petition

To add Section 12 of Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land in Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Hamilton, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Delaware, Stark, and Summit Counties. One additional location may be allowed for in four years only if existing facilities cannot meet consumer demand.

Permit retail sale of recreational marijuana at approximately 1,100 locations statewide. Such retail establishments must have a state license that may be obtained only if the electors of the precinct where the store will be located approve the use of the location for such purpose at a local option election.

Legalize the production of marijuana-infused products, including edible products, concentrates, sprays, ointments and tinctures by marijuana product manufacturing facilities.

Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to, grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana plus four flowering marijuana plants if the person holds a valid state license. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Authorize the use of medical marijuana by any person, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition.

Prohibit marijuana establishments within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day-care center, or public playground, however: after a certain date, a new day-care, library, etc., cannot force a preexisting marijuana establishment to relocate by opening a new location within 1,000 feet of the business.

Prohibit any local or state law, including zoning laws, from being applied to prohibit the development or operation of marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facilities, retail marijuana stores, and medical marijuana dispensaries unless the area is zoned exclusively residential as of January 1, 2015 or as of the date that an application for a license is first filed for a marijuana establishment.

Create a special tax rate limited to 15% on gross revenue of each marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facility and marijuana product manufacturing facility and a special tax rate limited to 5% on gross revenue of each retail marijuana store. Revenues from the tax go to a municipal and township government fund, a strong county fund, and the marijuana control commission fund.

Create a marijuana incubator in Cuyahoga County to promote growth and development of the marijuana industry and locate marijuana testing facilities near colleges and universities in Athens, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Mahoning, Scioto and Wood Counties, at a minimum.

Limit the ability of the legislature and local governments from regulating the manufacture, sales, distribution, and use of marijuana and marijuana products. Create a new state government agency called the marijuana control commission (with limited authority) to regulate the industry, comprised of seven Ohio residents appointed by the Governor, including a physician, a law enforcement officer, an administrative law attorney, a patient advocate, a resident experienced in owning, developing, managing and operating businesses, a resident with experience in the legal marijuana industry, and a member of the public.[5]

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative,_Issue_3_(2015)

After the measure was defeated on Election night 2015 a pot supporter wrote me on Twitter to advocate that pot was so similar to alcohol that it was an unfair prohibition. Well, I’m rather sick of that argument. It is not the same, and for the record, I don’t like to look over the fence into a neighbor’s backyard and see a bunch of drunks drinking beer and carrying on. If they stay to themselves, it’s a personal freedom issue, but if that carries over into my life, it’s something else that intrudes on me. Intoxication in all forms is disgusting and is something I don’t want children I care about to see as their young minds are building hope for their futures.

I saw two young people smoking dope in the car next to me at a traffic light just the other day, a West Chester cop sitting behind both of us watching smoke pour out of the windows. The kids probably anticipating the mood of the nation and potential of Issue 3 to pass had an arrogance about them that I’ve only seen recently. Just five years ago with a cop car behind them, those same types of kids would be stuffing that pot under their seats afraid of being caught. Now dope smoking millennials have been led to believe that marijuana is acceptable in public due to the massive amounts of money that has been spent promoting it by progressive groups. When I was a kid it was actors like Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood who were the stars of cinema and they didn’t smoke pot on-screen. There are reports that Ford smoked it with the cast and crew of the Star Wars films, but that was kept tightly under wraps until the present time, because it used to be shameful. Now young people have Seth Rogen, Seth MacFarlane, and several others who openly advocate pot use. Kids today don’t have a chance as their role models are dead head pot scum. They don’t care about the current laws because they’ve been convinced that its equivalent to the prohibition movement of a century ago.

But pot is different; it’s a mind altering drug that stays in the fat cells of your body way too long. With alcohol, there is a natural regulator, it takes a toll on your body to consume too much—so there is a natural risk and reward element to it. If you drink too much, the next day there will be a price to pay. Marijuana steps around that issue and gives all the fun about “losing your mind” without the negative effects which provides too much of an incentive for a country to be weak-willed and lack luster. Progressives are obviously behind the pot push to change the country from a conservative one into a liberal one in the same fashion that Indians were easily conquered by getting them addicted to alcohol. The same is happening to our youth.

I’ve been to rock concerts and parties where there was a lot of pot smoked, and I have always felt the way I do about it. I never took it and I never will and I always looked down on people who did it. It’s a weak and pathetic substance that isn’t good for the human mind in any fashion. And I shouldn’t have to smell it in my back yard. Kids shouldn’t have to see it in a car at a traffic light. And I shouldn’t have to walk down the road and see a pot store next to anything. As it stands right now, I don’t see pot. It may be easy to get, but so are insects. If I want to find them, I can. But I typically don’t notice them out in the open. Drugs and insects have that in common. What pot users want is to function out in the open, and that is an insult to me and people like me.

The next step for the pot people is to try again with medical marijuana as a gateway to public acceptance. They won’t go away. They will be back just like insects are when you leave food out too long. Their parasitic nature will mandate it. What they want is for their vile behavior to be accepted—legally, and if we allow that to happen, it won’t just be arrogant kids in cars smoking weed—they’ll be in out in the open everywhere, because the stigma will have been removed. And once that happens, it’s over. You can’t get back to a time when pot heads, losers, and scum bags hid themselves form the sight of the righteous. Once pot is legal in any way, the insects of our existence will have a foothold into the world of goodness, and will seek with every effort they have to ruin our lives with their presence.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Was Bush at Fault for 9/11: Is Trump right to ask the question?

Another thing that I like about Trump is that he isn’t afraid to call out a tough issue—even if it’s controversial—such as the county’s reaction to post 9/11. There has been a lot proven that there are discrepancies in the whole event, the destruction of the World Trade Center, the allocated blame, and aftermath of the destruction—the deficit spending it created, the expansion of government with the Department of Homeland Security and many other fallacies that could have been averted if people had just done their jobs pre 9/11. When Trump said the event probably wouldn’t have happened on his watch, he’s talking about a level of management competency that only people used to positions of power understand. George W. Bush had barely won a hard election against Al Gore, was over his head with a lot of the management aspects of the job as President, and clearly wanted to right wrongs issued against his family from the first Iraq War. Judgments were clouded and decision gates not attended by the best minds—clearly. Conspiracy theories abound regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center—and subsequent buildings in the area—and those conspiracies are created by minds adding up the facts and noticing holes. So there is merit to Trump’s criticism.

But more telling is the response from brother Jeb Bush who is actually pleading big warm blanket progressive government in defense of George W. Bush. Trump is talking about competency of government; Jeb is talking about sentimentality instead of hindsight 20/20 analysis. If many of the follies of modern American patriotism could be traced back to a single event, 9/11 is it.   Hatred of George W. Bush brought us essentially the socialist Barack Obama and the tremendous debt we currently hold. It gave rise to the Tea Party movement 8 years later as a direct reaction to the mismanagement and rapid expansion of government since 9/11. It launched the second Iraq War and eventually put ISIS into power by 2014. It lowered the respect of the American brand around the world—so from Trump’s position, the criticism of 9/11 is perfectly valid. But the Bush family expects no questions to be asked about such an event because George W. Bush made America safe.

How did 9/11 make America safe, and is safety worth what we lost with the creation of the TSA, DOH, and the general overreaction of just about every government agency that was caught sleeping on that bright sunny day in September prior to open terrorist insurrection against the United States on American soil? It wasn’t the first time of course, and that point was made during a defense of the Bush family by some political pundits angry at Trump. It was mentioned that Trump’s criticism of George W. Bush is as ridiculous as assuming that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor would be bombed by the Japanese and that 9/11 would assume that Bush the younger as president allowed the World Trade Center to be bombed so that a war with Iraq could be provoked—and thus get revenge on a long time family rival. Well, that idea is not so crazy; in fact, there is likely some truth to that conspiracy about Pearl Harbor.

We know that FDR supported the clandestine activity of the AVG Flying Tigers over China against Japan leading up to World War II. He supplied outdated planes to General Claire Lee Chennault to lead the effort of defending China to keep Japan from gaining access to the natural resources of that country so to slowly choke off the military of the Rising Sun from a long sustained fight in the Pacific. All of this was unofficial of course. There are also reports that Japan in retaliation against FDR was planning to bomb Pearl Harbor and that the President knew about it. So outdated battleships were lined up in the harbor while the valuable carriers were out to sea—in safety. The conspiracy suggests that FDR knew that if the Japanese attacked it would unite the nation behind the war effort, which was inevitable anyway. So the valuable assets were removed and disposable collateral assets were put conveniently in place for the Sunday bombing run which to everyone else was a surprise.

Guess what happened next, the nation united behind the war effort, defeated the Japanese and FDR was able to usher in many of the socialist policies he had been working on, including an update to the League of Nations first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson called the United Nations. All that happened because of World War II and the obvious patriotism behind the war effort as a natural reaction of anger toward a recognized enemy uniting the country under a flag of malice. Many Constitutional liberties were trampled on as a result including the gathering up of American/Japanese citizens into prison camps for the “safety” of all Americans.

Did FDR know about the bombing of Pearl Harbor before hand? I think history indicates that he did and I also think he did what he did thinking it was good for the greatest number of people. He thought that a sacrifice was needed to unite the country and that a terrible thing he wished hadn’t happened did on December 7th 1941. But he was awfully well prepared for the speech he gave which launched America into the war.

During 9/11 a lot of very stupid people let a lot of things slide through the cracks to allow a bunch of terrorists to attack the symbol of American economic power around the world. Americans united behind the effort and Iraq was crushed into dust—government expanded, and spending against the United States GDP sent our economy into an eventual collapse culminating in a 2008 recession and the reckless antics of the years since. Do I think that George W. Bush screwed up, that he ignored reports of clandestine activity emerging from Florida—from pilots training to fly, but not to land? Yes, I don’t think he was as stupid as he looked in that event. I think that there was a political desire to unite the country behind a tragedy while evidence that needed to be destroyed was in the devastation that followed. I believe Presidents of the United States can justify a fight for the greater good by accepting collateral damage as a reality of their job—and their desensitization and lack of professional training in these kinds of philosophic matters make them easy to steer by manipulative CIA directors and power-hungry domestic insurgents all with their focus on a global prize. After all, George W. Bush was an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. He didn’t have to make these kinds of life and death decisions when they decided to trade a pitcher. So he was probably incompetent at that stage of his presidency to think properly on the matter. That is Trump’s complaint.

Logic and emotion are not equal in the defense of an issue. Bush defends his family name with emotion when logic shows that his brother made serious mistakes obvious in hindsight. And this is what has fueled the conspiracy theories. Did Bush and his team plan the 9/11 bombing—probably not, but did they secretly hope in the back of their minds that something would happen to unify the country behind their desired tactical goals? And when those goals were implemented, and proven failures, how do you cover the burden for the bad decision? Bush in that case tossed money at the situation to cover the embarrassment—which threw us into a massive deficit and gave Republicans Barack Obama for eight years as punishment for their incompetence. Trump has a spectacular point and it should be covered. Bush doesn’t get off the hook just because George W. Bush kept us safe for a few years. How did he keep us safe if he expanded the size of government and threw us further into debt just because he couldn’t deal with some towel headed terrorists? The answer is he didn’t, he just used money to hide the real issue, that the government failed under his watch and that is why there was a tragedy, because people didn’t do their jobs either deliberately, or by accident—but regardless, his administration was too loose and ill prepared.

Trump is right again, and nobody else will dare say it—but him. No wonder he is the Republican front-runner after everything else that has occurred.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Stop Being Afraid of Guns: Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman talk about gun free zones on WAAM radio

Matt Clark had me on his WAAM radio show in Ann Arbor, Michigan recently to discuss some of the hot stories of October 2015. There was enough to cover to last a lifetime of live radio—the stories and their frequency are exponentially increasing by the moment, and it’s a lot to keep track of. Without talk radio, it would be nearly impossible for the average person to follow everything. That’s why I’ve always been a fan of talk radio, because you can get a lot of news provided to you as other tasks are done, such as driving, changing the oil, and installing new hot water heaters. Talk radio is miraculous in its ability to cover a lot of ground quickly, and on Matt’s show, he is one of the best. Typically in a short hour, he can hit a lot of topics in a very fluid manner—and when he has me on with him—we really hit the topics in a furious fashion. That broadcast can be heard below.

Toward the end of the broadcast there were a couple of callers that Matt wanted to get on the air. I am typically sympathetic to callers because it takes a lot of guts to call into a radio show, to sit on hold for up to an hour not knowing when the host will put you on the air to millions of potential listeners.   If the callers are respectful I typically don’t interrupt them because it’s important to get their view points out on the table. A police offer took issue with my proposal that regarding gun control, my more guns are best approach was something he had a problem with. Matt and I let him talk which directed him to the real point he was trying to make—but it was near the end of the show, and we didn’t have time to expand down that line of thought. The cop of course felt that civilians were not as equipped to handle a crises situation as compared to law enforcement. As Matt and I had been talking about gun free zones needing more independently armed citizens to keep things in check, the officer wanted more police on staff to protect schools from violence.

Well, more cops won’t work because they are too expensive. There is a cost for safety and security, and if it does incur too much of a burden, there needs to be other alternatives. The solution to gun violence is not more gun control laws, or more cops patrolling the streets and schools—its more armed citizens who will do the work for free not in a reactionary way, but a proactive way. A cop in the school in Oregon would not have stopped that violence. A well armed student could have. More cops working off tax payer funds are not the answer in almost every situation. We do need the police, but more for the report that happens when violence occurs so that courts have evidence to look at. So I don’t agree with the nice guy who called into Matt’s show. From his point of view, more cops in schools make sense—because he doesn’t care how much police cost an area in increased taxes. To his mind taxes can be perpetually raised so long as safety is the focus. But that’s just stupid.

There is always a danger when tragedies occur for the timid minded to seek out more government to provide security. More cops in schools are an expansion of government. Whereas a more open gun carrying society would provoke cheaper and more direct security in a laissez-faire kind of way which big government types simply don’t understand. If progressive minded people are not tampering with the lives of other people, they don’t feel secure themselves, so my typical laissez-faire style of security is something that drives them crazy. Gun laws in America should essentially be the same as the laws that govern business and commerce. Less laws and more responsibility invoked at the point of contact driven by self-preservation.

There was a lot right that occurred during the “Wild West” period in America of which guns were such a part of the mythology of western expansion. To consider the effort it took for Americans to load up in covered wagons and head west for up to a year of travel at roughly 20 miles per day with all the dangers that such a journey provoked, and that within 100 years of that type of settlement, there were railroads, cars and airplanes invented that could connect all that open space seamlessly is quite a miracle. Forget about who the Native Americans were—whether they were caretakers of Mother Earth’s land, migrant Chinese people, left-over Viking warriors, or a lost tribe from Israel, the effort of frontiersman is one of the great stories of human innovation and tenacity ever conducted by free people. Guns evolved from muzzle loaders at the start of western expansion and ended as a pretty significant technological innovation resulting in lever-action repeaters and the Colt .45s that tamed the West into one of the freest land masses on the face of the planet. Progressives hated the Wild West because it was a period of history where laissez-faire lifestyles provoked hopes through capitalism and innovation that has never been repeated at any other time in known history. For all the barbarity of frontier life, it paved the way for a wonderful country that exploded upon the world an immense economy. Without the gun, none of that would have happened.

I am of a mind that Americans shouldn’t even have concealed carry anymore; they should make guns a part of their fashion. It should be as common to see a gun on the hip of a person as it is to see a business suit now. The American gun is a tribute to our heritage and a reminder of what a laissez-faire approach to legislation, and justice can provide a free people. As a society, we have to get away from this crap of being afraid of guns. We have to stop putting orange indicators on toy guns at Wal-Mart so not to scare some pansy police officer with a happy trigger finger willing to shoot anything that they might consider a threat. It ruins the experience for a kid of pretending that guns are real when they play with those toys. Schools need to stop trying to keep kids from playing shoot-em-up at recess by making fake guns out of their hands. Playing with guns is good for kids—they should do a lot more of it—especially boys. Avoiding guns is making our society into a bunch of wimps and it’s getting worse year by year. That’s what happens when you take advice from people like that caller into Matt’s show. More government employees and more gun laws turn our society into a much more regressive one. Aside from the obvious expensive nature of continuing to add government employees at tax payer expense, micromanaging society is an even more cost incursion that has detrimental effects on social responsibility. The 100 years where America operated as a much more laissez-faire society between the War of 1812 and the rise of the progressive era with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 America became a global superpower. Under progressive influence, America has regressed steadily from 1912 to 2012.

2012 will be viewed as a pivotal year in American politics. Obama won a second term, Ohio’s governor Kasich lost his battle with the unions, and many of those who refused to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney as a Republican presidential nominee decided they had enough of politics as usual. Since 2012 the American people have started to turn more toward a desire for a laissez-faire approach to all things related to government which will increase as millenials realize that most of their educations during the first twenty years of their lives were a complete farce—they learned all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. It is among them that they watch the big government reaction to all these failed progressive problems and are starting to consider other options. Of those options I believe we will see a new trend that guns will become more open and accepted. They should be, they are an important aspect of American culture.

As Matt and I closed out his show it was obvious that the government has well overplayed its hand in this card game called politics, and police officers have seen the last of the days where panicked parents and squishy minded voters just increased taxes and threw more bodies at every danger that presented itself. We are dealing with a whole new age in a new century, and if America is to survive, it will only do so with an overall political approach that is laissez-faire toward everything—starting with guns. Once more guns are injected into our society with more frequency, and openness–then all things related to our commerce will reflect that less restricted approach. It’s a mentality that we are missing in America that goes or comes based on how our society maintains its relationship to the gun. A laissez-faire approach to firearms is not an extreme position with equal measure against the gun grabbing liberals on the opposite side of some political spectrum. It’s not up for debate with a high low bar between positions where left and right politics meet in the middle. Guns are a part of America and there should be no apology in wanting them, carrying them, or using them. If America had that attitude presently, a lot fewer people would be dying in these mass shootings. The shootings themselves are caused by failed policies and an overly cautions society that is so afraid of guns that they can’t even allow a child to have a toy unless it’s colored in some way so not to scare other people into believing its real. Nobody should be such a bunch of wimps as to be scared of guns. Our education system has made our society that way—to our own detriment. And now its time to stop being afraid.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.