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

 

An Insulting Budget Proposal: What happens when you let a drug abuser become president

What happens when you take a former drug abuser and put them in the White House and ask them to come up with a budget? Well, you get the 2015 budget proposal by president Obama who brought out his budget this week with great fanfare only to essentially reveal it as a word for word utterance of the preposterousness shown in the recent Greek election. In Greece the communists are now in control of the economy which swore to reject the austerity measures there. In the United States, Obama declared the same with an insane budget against austerity as reported by USA Today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama submitted his $4 trillion budget wish-list to a Republican Congress Monday, calling for a return to increased domestic and military spending to be paid for in part by higher taxes on the wealthy.

The plan includes a $478 billion public works infrastructure program for roads, bridges, and transit systems, to be financed by taxes on overseas earnings. The budget calls for new tax credits and other initiatives devoted to education, child care, paid leave, and infrastructure, with tax hikes resulting from the closure of tax loopholes. The president also wants to put an end to the automatic across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration, calling for a 7% increase in spending over the budget levels he agreed to in a 2011 compromise with Republicans.

“I want to work with Congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security. “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward. It would be bad for our security, and bad for our growth.”

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/obama-budget-399-trillion-republicans/22695611/

For those who don’t know, austerity by definition is a severity of discipline, regime, expression, or design—a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxury. Obama instead of austerity applied to an out-of-control government suggested even more debt, spending, and taxation. It really is amazing that he even could conceive of such a proposal as to actually put it in printed form, because in reality, it amounts to the blithering of an intoxicated drug addict. It is amazing that this kind of nonsense even gets print in USA Today without a complete castigation for the mere proposal. Who is going to pay for all this stuff—the “rich?” That’s the plan, just increase taxes on people who create wealth? He’s kidding right?

Well, apparently taxing the rich and bitching about austerity is the essence of Obama’s entire budget proposal which is as ignorant as giving the keys of a nice new car to a slithering drunk barely conscious. It’s not even in the realm of viable possibilities, let alone considered seriousness. Yet Obama put out the proposal and the media covered it as if it were a legitimate attempt which was only laughable to those who can actually read.

Obama is an embarrassment to the United States and is a functioning communist based on the type of values he expresses. “Laughable austerity” means he doesn’t think there should be financial restrictions that are confined to a budget at all—his world view is simply beyond consideration of any legitimacy. It is as loony as the slap stick Greeks believing that their debts can be forgiven without payment and that the social spending they are all addicted to can continue forever. One might expect such stupidity in a country like Greece, or some Middle Eastern armpit of a world where economic activity is traded in goats—but in America—such budgets as Obama’s 2015 anti-austerity proposal doesn’t even count. Congress should have stopped the delivery of the proposal right at the door without even wasting further time—and sent them back to the White House unopened. Unless the President’s budget included budget cuts—and a reduced deficit plan—there isn’t any worth to it. It was disrespectful to the American people to even print such foolishness on actual paper.

Corporate taxes are already too high, yet Obama proposed a 14% one-time tax on overseas profits. He proposed $478 billion over six years for roads and bridges and he suggested a $38 billion dollar increase in defense spending over sequestration levels due to his mismanagement of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Obama’s numbers don’t even come close to balancing out; he expects to increase the national debt to 26.2 trillion dollars by 2025. That is insane!

Look, if someone put such an insult on my desk I would have likely blasted them out of a canon in less than a second. So I have no personal tolerance for that kind of thing. Congress should deal with this recklessness appropriately and set an example that future losers in the White House will never forget. Because if they don’t, more attempts like this one will be tried—and its about time that Americans learn the hard truth about our economy rather than through politicians who are obviously mentally deficient and seek to hide it by giving away other people’s stuff.   Obama is a spending addict—just as he needs to chew gum to keep from smoking cigarettes, covering up his drug abusing past, and his Marxist teachers who made him the person he is today.  He has an addictive personality. He needs an encounter group to help him with his various addictions. He doesn’t need more enablers in his life. He needs to hear the word “NO” much more often and to be treated like the louse that he truly is. Obama is a reckless loser who happened to talk himself into winning elections by giving things away to those too lazy to work. It doesn’t make him capable of putting together a budget—obviously. So his proposal deserves the ridicule measurable to the insult of even trying.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

‘Tail of the Dragon': ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington’ meets ‘Smokey and the Bandit’

imageMy 2012 novel Tail of the Dragon stayed sold out at Amazon.com most of that first year of release and well into 2013. However, by the fall of 2013 the cash strapped publisher had too many books on their roster not making money that they had to fold up their tent and close. Traditional publishing is difficult for small to medium markets, which is understandable. Even giant book sellers are having a hard time these days keeping books on shelves with the advent of the book uploads that are so fashionable now. My publisher was slow to embrace this technology which was a major problem. As my novel stayed sold out I had to constantly lean on them to keep books stocked, but they couldn’t keep up with the printing demand so it seriously stifled sales. This is what the cover looked like during this period, shown above.

The novel features what is clearly the most exciting car chase in history—without there even being a close second place contestant, so I thought my publisher was losing a major opportunity with the book. Another issue was that the publicist I was working with was a major left-winged softy who personally despised me,–my blurbs and the content of my novel–so that didn’t help matters. Up until meeting him, I had a wonderful experience with my publisher. But the moment I met that guy I knew trouble was ahead and that my publisher would be at the front of it. Not only did it affect my project, but several other authors as well. All it takes is one weak link in a chain on something like that, and everything falls apart.

After the proper amount of time passed my son-in-law and I decided to take it upon ourselves to release the title as a special edition for online readers—which required a version of the book that I personally preferred early in the editing process, to satisfy a market that I had heard all too much about during the release. Fans of the novel wanted Tail of the Dragon as a digital download and my publisher didn’t offer the option, and the contract I had with them prevented me from doing it on my own. But now that I am free of that contract, I am making the popular novel available for digital download as we are on the recent Cliffhanger series, The Curse of Fort Seven Mile.

For those who need a review, my novel Tail of the Dragon features the character of Rick Stevens—a rebellious loner whose NASCAR dreams have fallen short. He finds himself victim to the governor’s plans to run for President of the United States. Governor Wellington Royce of Tennessee relies on support from the Fraternal Order of Police to catapult him into The White House. Royce beefs up the police presence on The Great Smoky Mountains’ highways, and offers incentives to those generating citations from tourists. Thrown in jail, abused, and setup, Rick Stevens accepts an offer from the governor’s political enemies to declare war on the highway patrol. With twenty million dollars, Rick builds the car of his dreams and wreaks havoc in what will become the greatest car chase in history. The car chase becomes a journey of self-discovery and new-found romance as a gauntlet of guns, missiles, and the might of the military wait for him at the finish line. The treachery of politics proves more sinister than even death.

The novel is loaded with very controversial political elements and riveting action. I’m a bit of an adrenaline junkie, so I wrote it to impress my sensibilities, which are often way over-the-top for average audiences. When I say that the car chase is unlike anything ever done before, I am quite serious. It is on a scale very close to a second Civil War in America and makes some points that I think are quite important, and timely to contemporary standards. It is an exciting piece of work and was a lot of fun to write. The book was listed as action adventure/philosophy which raised a few eyebrows, but there really is no other way to describe the work. For those who just want to read an exciting love story full of patriotism, history, and lots of car crashes through shopping malls, down the city streets of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, and destroying entire towns as the might of the United States military comes down on the fleeing bandits—they’ll be more than satisfied. Is it possible for such a story to have a happy ending? Well—you’ll have to read for yourself. Even seasoned readers had no idea how this story would end and did not see the climax coming. The point of the story is not so much in all the lives lost, the laws broken, or the politics between two old rivals connected directly to the White House—or even the sex—it’s in the final pages which take place in the Oval Office with the President of the United States. It’s a story that came directly from personal experience and is why this is more a work of philosophy than just pure action in homage to the Dukes of Hazzard or Smokey and the Bandit. Like the popular radio talk host Doc Thompson for Glenn Beck’s The Blaze said of the book, it’s like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington combined with Smokey and the Bandit—only with a lot of carnage and fast cars. It’s a slam dunk for readers who want an exciting experience.

It is a pleasure to release the novel under my old company of Cliffhanger Research and Development, as The Curse of Fort Seven Mile will be. As part of this new age of publishing, companies like my old publisher just can’t compete with fast on their feet competitors who can by-pass their gates, their edits, and their softened exposition to water down the content.   When I started Cliffhanger Research and Development years ago, it was exclusively to shake up established thinking and get people asking questions, so it comes with great pride to release Tail of the Dragon under this company. It is safe there and is best positioned to deliver the type of material that is lacking in modern works of literary endeavor which is saying a lot, because there’s a lot out there.

Even two years ago when I was doing media for Tail of the Dragon digital downloads were just coming into the main. Many people were telling me that I needed to provide an online edition—which I agreed so I approached the publisher about that as well, and they weren’t interested. They were set up to make their money off traditional publishing and didn’t know what to do with online publishing. The reason was that a much smaller outfit was now able to perform the task that publishers traditionally did, and they weren’t interested in giving in to that strategy. I guess they thought that if they dug in their feet, they’d wait out the storm. But, the storm never stopped, it just intensified sweeping them out to sea. At the time, all I could do was watch and wait out my contract.

I waited a year for legal issues to settle after they sent me the official separation agreement. It felt a little like a divorce and the last thing you want to do after such a relationship is run out and start sleeping around. So instead, I formulated a plan with my entrepreneurial minded son-in-law and a year later in the fall of 2014 we decided to launch our own publishing projects under Cliffhanger Research and Development to start a slow burn in literature that clearly was going to have an impact on future generations. We are aware that the stories we are working on will meet with some resistance, but they wouldn’t be possible through traditional publishing, because the philosophy that drives these stories would not be acceptable. Like the publicity guy from my former publisher, they don’t like traditional stories where heroes are white hat good guys against unmistakable black hat bad guys. Even though this Tail of the Dragon story could be considered a bit of a modern Bonnie and Clyde, the heroes are unmistakable wearing a white hat metaphorically speaking which is how I like my characters. That certainly goes against the grain of modern storytelling—which is OK, because I’m not happy with those methods. I fight against them with every thread of my essence. And that fight comes out in my written work. Of that written work, I am very proud of Tail of the Dragon. It will be always one of my favorites, and I hope that it inspires people the way I intended it to. There is hope in the darkest of hours—and yes, the good guys do win sometimes.

image

http://www.amazon.com/Tail-Dragon-Rich-Hoffman-ebook/dp/B00T2ST8O0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1422875896&sr=1-1

So to read the book again, or for the first time, you will find it at the link above seen with the new cover. Cliffhanger Research and Development proudly presents Tail of the Dragon for your reading pleasure. Forget the seat belt, because you are about to go on a car chase with hundreds of police cars hot on your tail in a car that travels over 200 MPH. Seat belts won’t save you under those conditions, so don’t even bother. You can take that journey now with the simple click of a button. So enjoy the ride!

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Thank Charles Koch for Artistic Expression: Defending the “rich” from the 99%

I do happen to know of some organizations in the liberty movement that are funded by the Koch Brothers. I don’t blame those organizations one bit. As I write this Greece has just swept control of their government by extreme leftist socialists so there is a lot of current against logic that funding from conservatives like the Koch Brothers provides to keep those organizations in the fight. There are a lot of left-leaning organizations who fund the efforts of collectivism and what Charles and his brother Dave are doing is just a drop in the bucket compared to the efforts of George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the labor unions who advance like a disease political collectivism at a maddening pace. But Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom is not one of those organizations backed by the Koch Brothers. As a matter of fact in 2012 I cut all ties to such relationships after my group No Lakota Levy was applying pressure to not fight the good fight as aggressively as I wanted. At the time there were a lot of wealthy people affiliated with me. At no time did we exchange any money or did they do me any favors—and I made sure to keep it that way because when the time came to cut those ties, I could without stopping the fight at hand. So I have a very rigid policy on those kinds of matters. If Charles Koch offered me millions of dollars to do what I’m doing right now with Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom I wouldn’t take a dime of his money, because it might limit my freedom of movement on the battlefield according to my assessment of what needs to be done. So my work and his are vastly independent from each other—yet it isn’t.

I admire Charles Koch as an industrialist. Every day I drive by one of the Koch plants in my neighborhood and I wonder often what American manufacturing would be like if not for the Koch Brothers. They all by themselves are responsible for a vast amount of the wealth created in America and my only regret is that there aren’t twenty or thirty more people just like them. Often what happens to billionaires like Ross Perot, and Bill Gates over time is they go soft as the guilt of their holdings wears on their minds as their testicular fortitude fades a bit with age. For Charles Koch to say what he did at a conference on Saturday January 24, 2015 was quite extraordinary. People in his position don’t often defend themselves or their wealth as a creation of their own making the way he does which is worthy of a highlight. He stated to a packed room in public which ended up in USA Today:

“Americans have taken an important step in slowing down the march toward collectivism, Koch said. “But as many of you know, we don’t rest on our laurels. We are already back at work and hard at it.”

Koch said his vision is of a “society that maximizes peace, civility and well-being;” encourages hard work and ensures free speech and “free markets.”

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/01/24/charles-koch-warns-of-march-toward-collectivism/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

Bravo……………..I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I currently know a number of people who are considered “wealthy.” Most of the people I think of as friends are certainly in the upper portion of the 1% category. And the thing that drives me nuts about most of them is their susceptibility to the guilt that society applies on them to “share the wealth” they have made for mass consumption. They are obviously smart people because that’s how they obtained wealth in the first place. The people I know did not acquire their wealth the way typical Santa Monica or New York day traders do—like gamblers betting on value and happenstance. They earned their money through a creation process of a new sustainable business and investments in tangible assets. The result is that most of the people I most closely associate with are people of means. I am in a unique position to voice my thoughts about the guilt process that is applied to these types of people because honestly, my passions reside in artistic endeavors. So I don’t put myself in a position to have my tangible assets plucked apart by a flock of social looters—and could care less if I piss off those who believe in wealth redistribution. Much of what I do and say against left-leaning wealth redistribution through collectivism schemes is based on this inside knowledge. I have been on both sides of the fence and I understand extremely well the personalities involved. There is a reason I know mostly wealthy people as friends as opposed to those who believe in wealth redistribution. My values are more aligned with them than the social looter who believes that wealth is a finite resource that is plucked out of the air for equal distribution—and the wealthy are those who have hoarded that value selfishly.

So it does my heart a lot of good when I see those wealthy people fighting back the way I always thought they should. They give power to the social looters when they yield to the voices of radicalism—as I witnessed many times during my No Lakota Levy campaigns where protesting PTA parents threatened boycotts against businesses because they supported lower taxes. It was appalling the types of things that came out of the mouths of the typical levy supporter. But the indiscretions didn’t stop there—I saw the same radicalism from police and fire departments towards friends of mine just over the allocation of tax payer resources. I have heard much about the plush life of the 1% who fights against higher taxes because the belief of the other 99% believes that by taxing the rich that somehow the world will be a better place. The belief of such advocates is raw unfiltered communism disguised by a different name of progressivism. Yet if you took the 99% and gave them all the wealth of the 1% they would squander it away in a few short years because they do not have the same abilities to maintain that wealth.

Wealth in America is created. It is an artistic expression of formulating an idea from inception to profitable construction which directly creates jobs. It is an amazing thing to do—creating wealth—and those who can do it deserve to be honored, not chastised because they have a skill that others don’t have. Hating the wealthy is as ridiculous as hating another person because they are more attractive, or can throw a football further than the average person. The hate of the 99% against the 1% is jealousy and nothing else and the collectivism spawned from that activity is sheer evil.   When the wealthy stop producing everyone suffers—mostly the 99%. When the wealthy are given a free canvas to paint upon, they create wonderful things. Tax incentives to a business are like paint to an artist. It gives the fledging entrepreneur more paint to work with—and the opportunity to create better masterpieces.

So to hear Charles Koch defend the right of the creative 1% to stand against the collectivist brutality of the 99% is 100% correct. Good for him. Instead of feeling guilty for his wealth the way Bill Gates does, and philanthropists like George Soros who is one of those scheming day traders—Koch is fighting to defend the system that he uses to create wealth, jobs, and products that make the world better off—and its about time.

Over the weekend I went to Wal-Mart with my wife, which is a rarity for me, because I don’t care much for crowds and chaos. A trip to Wal-Mart usually encompasses both. While there I couldn’t help but think of the recent attempts to unionize the popular retailer and consider the vast wealth of the Walton family. The Walton family is among the richest families in the world. Their wealth inherited from Bud and Sam Walton, founders of the world’s largest retailer, Walmart is extraordinary.[1] The three most prominent living members (Jim, Rob and Alice) have consistently been in the top ten of the Forbes 400 since 2001, as were John (d. 2005) and Helen (d. 2007) prior to their deaths. Christy Walton took her husband John’s place after his death.

Collectively, the Waltons own over 50% of the company, and are worth a combined total of $175 billion (as of January 2015).[2] In 2010, six members of the Walton family had the same net worth as either the bottom 28% or 41% of American families combined (depending on how it is counted).[3]

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

That vast wealth created by the Walton family is providing low-cost goods to a huge demographic population in America and providing jobs to China that would not exist otherwise. They created wealth and on a typical Saturday afternoon the reason is on full display. Without the Walton family endeavors Wal-Mart would not exist and the people shopping there would be forced to pay 20% to 30% more for average items. Wal-Mart because of its vast purchasing power forces retailers to lower their prices which of course drive the entire market value down—a gift to the so-called “middle-class” and poor. Without that power, everything would be much more expensive and it would be unlikely that average homes could even hope to afford a flat screen 47” television. But these days, it would be difficult to find the home of a technically poor person that doesn’t have at least one such television. Thank the Walton family for enriching American society to such a vast extent, and they are not obligated in any way to “share” that wealth with any wealth redistribution scheme—because typical people will blow through the money like water over Niagara Falls. All the wealth in the world would be gone within a few years if given to the collectivism of the masses.

It’s about time that the wealthy start defending themselves and not feeling guilty about a $500 meal out at night with friends, or a round of golf at a posh country club. They should not feel bad because of a nice new car that is valued at $100,000 after installed options. Because they earned it in the same way that artists earned critical praise for a fine work painted upon a canvas. Building wealth is an art form and the wealthy are artists who build things that didn’t exist before their influence. I am happy to hear Charles Koch defending that value in public on a large stage knowing that the parasites have targeted him and his brother for years. He knows there will be back-lash over his comments, yet he made them anyway—and good for him. After all, only a handful of people in the world are capable of doing what Charles Koch does for a living. And he deserves to be paid for that productivity accordingly without an ounce of guilt.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development