The End of a Beginning: A great American novel emerging

I think it was way back in August of 2015 that I said I’d considered not contributing articles everyday like I do presently if Donald Trump were elected president—mainly because his presence in the race for the White House, or from the White House does much of what I have been doing with all this work.  Well, after tonight’s performance in the East and the strong showing once again in five more states with clear indications of a strong finish in the biggest of all, California—it is clear that Donald Trump should be the Republican nominee for POTUS in 2016.  Even with the silly little Kasich/Cruz alliance, the only hope they have is to get to a floor fight at the convention to be president—which won’t go over well as it goes against the popular vote.  A lot of people never got over the Bush/Gore tie in 2000 where technically Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the electoral votes.  This Trump situation is much more flammable than even that, so I don’t see anybody but Trump running as a Republican against Hillary Clinton.  And as for Hillary, she barely beat Bernie Sanders.  She won’t be able to withstand a focused attack by Donald Trump every day.  He will simply outwork her, and she won’t win a general election.  So for all practical purposes, Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.

I am an excellent judge of character and it may take five or six years for others within the Republican ranks to see what I do in Trump, but history will agree with me.  Conservatives are not going to win major elections trying to shift the country radically back to the political right after 100 years of liberal erosion—so you have to pick your battles.  Trump is all about the economy, border security, and trade negotiations—which is an excellent place to begin.  Real conservatives need to keep their eye on 2024 for all the social issues.  You have to fix the economy first and sustain the integrity of our sovereignty before we worry about guys wanting to use the restrooms of girls.  These are all big issues but moral depravity escalates when people don’t have money in their pockets.  Morality is a lot easier to sell when people have something of value that they appreciate—and right now—we just don’t have that type of society.

Trump from the White House will utilize the power of positive thinking to unlock America’s potential.  It won’t be Trump’s policies that do it—it will be his mouth and charisma, and I see a path where he can do a lot more from the White House than the slow trickle that I perform with all my articles trying to teach people to do the same thing in their private lives.  The next four to eight years will be a whirlwind and situations will change—and a chapter of our lives will close as a new one begins. That means I need to shift my personal role as well.

I have talked prior about a rather epic novel that I’m working on and I have been flushing out the ideas for quite some time.  The articles on this site have played a part of that.  But now it’s time to put pen to paper and to pound out the manuscripts.  Rather than write the 1200 to 1500 words each day that I do here, my efforts need to go into that commercial work.  It’s not the writing itself that is the challenge, it’s the editing and working out the details that takes all the time and that is where I’m going to put my focus at this point   That’s not to say that I won’t make any more contributions—I certainly will.  But as for the daily articles, it is time to let the chain reaction that many of us in this marketplace have set forth to do their thing and to move to the next phase as we see it.

My path is clear and it will take everything I have to get there.  It’s certainly time for me to make this decision.  I’ve delayed my indulgence for about a year because of all the volatility at the presidential level.  It is hard for people to imagine that one guy like Donald Trump might have such a large impact on our culture but I’d ask those who can remember to recollect the difference between 1979 and 1980.  I think the switch from 2016 to 2017 will be much greater and there will be so much news flashing by in such a whirlwind that nobody will be able to keep up.  Meanwhile, I have quite an encyclopedia of articles here to help people through that phase and to guide them into making the correct decisions.  My next role will be context through art—not in the definition of interpretation—which is what I’ve been doing.  Now we need the artistic effort to expand culture and that will be my new focus.   For me the work will be similar, I will write everyday toward a known objective—only people won’t see it as they do now.  They’ll see it in bulk when the projects are released.  For me it is the work of the Great American Novel, something I have been thinking about for quite a long time.  How that novel gets published I’m not sure at this time—because that industry has changed so much.  But first, you just have to write it then measure how best to distribute it.

As for Donald Trump, I know his people have read here and I hope this site continues to be a source of inspiration.  But it’s time for the student to leave the classroom and to utilize what they’ve learned—and I expect that to be the case for everybody—even those silent lurkers who depend heavily on my written words.  I’m not going away—I’m just turning inward so that I can build up to the next great phase which we will see a few years from now.  When we get there—we all need to be ready and I need to focus on getting it right.  I am proud to have played my part in all the multiple fissures that are emerging along the front of establishment debacles.  I consider all this a major mission concluded even if people aren’t aware of the explosions and dawn has not yet revealed all the damage.

Trump winning against the establishment—and I consider Cruz part of the establishment—the church wielding branch—I see an open window for a reiteration of the American idea in much the way that Henry Morgan led the pirates of the Caribbean toward the first free establishment of a constitutional republic without the influence of a king.  I’m not saying that it will be a moral quest, but it will get us where we want to go as a country among the world.  The situation is complicated beyond measure, but ultimately the power of positive thinking will go a long way to getting us there.  So enjoy the victory for those riding the Trump train.  For those not yet there, see you when you arrive. It might take a while but I trust that you’ll arrive in your own way in your own time.  And as for this site, this won’t be the last article.  But they won’t come as often as my focus will be on more commercial material—because that’s what’s needed at this point in time. When the smoke clears—all this will make a lot more sense.

Here is just a sample:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/26/us-unions-donald-trump-us-election-2016

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Sell Your Disney Company Stock While You Still Can: The double standard between Curt Schilling and Howard Ashman

 

Sometimes you readers here ask me my advice on financial matters, and when I give my opinion and you listen you profit wonderfully, and everyone lives happily ever after.  But as I watched with some level of horror that the Disney owned company ESPN fired the great baseball pitcher Curt Schilling over his social media disgust about transgender politics while my third grandson was being born at the hospital I have decided to give this advice for free before being asked.  If you have any Disney stock in your portfolio, then you should dump it now.  Not only does the Disney Company need to be taught a lesson due to their bad management and advocacy of progressive politics using their extensive entertainment vehicles to attack traditional family values—but it’s just good sound financial policy.  Disney is running all its companies in the ground—most people just don’t see it yet.  So for your own good, you should stick by Schilling—who is a real man, and dump Disney.  Perhaps they’ll learn something and fix their company, but as of right now, they are headed toward a miserable end as they have attached their star to progressive politics.  CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF THIS FAILURE.  Here is why Disney stock is headed for troubled times.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/media/espn-dismisses-curt-schilling/index.html

Disney has bet a lot on Star Wars, but those best days are now behind it.  With The Force Awakens breaking $2 billion dollars at the box office and falling short of Avatar, future movies will be disappointments up until 2020.  There are other Star Wars movies that will do well from now until then, and the merchandise sales will be healthy, but the Star Wars mythology is on a downward trend and losing steam quickly.  By 2021 Star Wars will be half the value socially that it is now.  It will still be considered successful compared to the other properties that Disney runs, but it won’t be enough to carry the whole company.

The Marvel films are in their fourth quarter of effectiveness.  The superhero films are losing their appeal and Marvel is the latest “has been.”  DC Comics is the new fresh face and even those films will have run their course by the start of the next decade.  New films will not hold the same appeal that they have over the last decade and this will seriously damage Disney’s market intentions.

Disney is leaning toward making a gay protagonist and Frozen is on the radar to launch that attempt—they experimented with the idea in that popular musical.  It will be a devastating attempt that will be greatly rejected and severely damage the animation division at Disney.  So far they have been dancing around the surface, but there is a lot of pressure politically for them to commit more deeply to gay protagonists as primary characters.  Once they do that, there will be serious market backlash, and you won’t want your money in the Mouse House at that point in time.

ESPN is going down the tubes with the destruction of cable television.  With streaming services taking over the home television markets, ESPN is one of the first major casualties.  Baseball is already having trouble keeping ratings during summertime broadcasts and with the poor PR issues regarding concussions within the NFL, professional sports are having a hard time attracting a younger audience.  There are too many options for young people and sports are becoming decentralized at a key time and ESPN will find itself on the way out quickly in the years to come.  The problem that professional sports face is similar to what the music industry has suffered from in recent years.  Studio music has been weakened as options have given more people outlets, but taken away the extraordinary profits that have been enjoyed in the past.

The Disney Parks are getting killed in the Orlando market, even in the Hollywood region.  Universal Studios has been far more innovative and has not attached their image so intensely to progressive politics.  They have wisely kept a lot of the politics to a minimum where Disney has chained themselves to rainbow-colored castles and flamboyant employees.  The Disney parks have taken a noticeable dive over just the last few years looking more like an apologist of the Obama White House than an entertainment company.  While Universal Studios was building the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and many other updates Disney was focused on attracting more girls while alienating boys.  They have heavily invested in Frozen and their new Fantasyland area.  Universal’s attractions are appealing to both boys and girls while being equally thrilling to adults as well.  But Disney has alienated boys while focusing on girls and ignoring the adults.   They hope to fix that situation with the new Star Wars land at Hollywood Studios, but that will be a few years away toward the end of the Star Wars appeal.  It will arrive at market too late and will lose steam by the mid 2025 time period.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/04/its-not-just-frozen-disney-has-always-been-subtly-pro-gay/361060/

It has long been known that the great Howard Ashman of Disney died of aids because of his gayness, but he was smart enough to write songs to musicals that featured romance between men and women—because they have mass appeal.  Because of Ashman’s talent Disney has been forgiven by the public.  Yet when Disney goes after a strong sports figure like Schilling—who won a world series bleeding from a last-minute surgery to his ankles–because he doesn’t think that men and women should be sharing a bathroom, Disney has crossed the line.  They believe that by employing Shilling at ESPN that they control all aspects of his life.  Where Disney employees like Ashman were allowed to have a homosexual lifestyle that led to his death—Disney supported that lifestyle.  When it came to Schilling, a man known as a conservative who has taken stands on Muslim troubles and gay rights advocacy during his private life—Disney has shown that it discriminates against conservatives while giving free passes to progressives to express themselves any way they wish.  The double standard is an attack on conservative value, and that of course is a terrible business decision on their part.  So in spite of their social activism, they are making decisions that guarantee their future failures.

What Disney is doing to Curt Schilling is showing conservative America that they have the power to tame a big conservative lion-like the pro athlete and Hall of Famer.  They were supposed to be hiring Schilling for his inside baseball knowledge as one of the greats.  But what they really want is to control society’s behavior by taming one of the great male idols within professional sports.  And that is not the decision-making ability of a great company—but a bunch of idiots and soon to be failures.  For that reason, and many of the others mentioned above, and many, many others not even yet talked about—you should sell your Disney stock today, because you’ll wish you listened tomorrow.   That tomorrow may not come for another ten years, but it will come—and you’ll wish you had spent it somewhere else instead of a progressive company riding the coattails of a truly great man, “Uncle Walt,” to use the company to change America instead of motivating it to greatness.

Rich 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 Ploys of Communism: Defending Boeing from socialist insurgences stationed in Seattle

The commenter below actually said some decent things, so I’m not going to rake him over the coals.  He is the product of his modern environment shaped by public education, popular entertainment and political necessity.  In fact I agree with him on several issues—his comment is a welcome form of debate—and I like to see people thinking.  However, the context of capitalistic function is off and I will explain why after you’ve had a chance dear reader—to ponder over his words as he left them followed by the link to the 2013 article I wrote which initiated the small banter.  When I wrote that particular article Seattle, Washington had just elected an open socialist onto their city council and it was a sign of things to come.  Of course I was right in all aspects—within three years, we have an open socialist running for president and now they are coming out of the wood work everywhere.  They believe the stigma of socialism has been removed from our social context.  They are talking more openly about the topic which is good—because it allows us to finally deal with the excessive problem that collective based cultures face and how it impacts their national GDP.  Here is the comment as printed.

Paul Brar

Doesn’t Boeing earn a healthy profit every year? If so, why cannot they pay their workers decent wages and provide decent pension options. If a company was not profitable or earning low profits, then your article would be justifiable but when it come to very large corporation who make millions in profit every year, I think the workers should expect decent wages, working hours, good working conditions, etc. Further, please do not confuse Socialism with Communism, they are not interchangeable. For example, Social Democratic countries in Europe are mostly democratic capitalistic countries with social values that protect the workers from exploitation. That is the future and once we keep evolving, we will realize profits are not the main aim for humanity but evolution. Evolve to be able to travel to other planets, advances in medicine so that we can live for 400 – 800 years, where the whole planet is connected and basics needs are free for everyone (i.e. food, housing, clothing, etc.) and profits are made by advances in technology which compete with open source technologies. There is enough on this planet for double or even triple today’s population but greed has led to social/economic inequalities. We have to evolve as we are not much better than animals with basic technology. Reason for life would be to evolve as humanity, not hoard for the next generation.

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/the-socialist-kshama-sawant-who-is-she-where-did-she-come-from-and-why-unions-are-bad/

 Here is the problem with what he said, Boeing has one primary objective, it makes airplanes—the best airplanes that it can and their profits are a product of the successful implementation of that objective.  The employees are there to serve the needs of the business so that Boeing can achieve its stated goals.  If Boeing needs to secure its workforce to retain their skills and reduce unneeded employee turnover, then the company needs to pay what they need to in market value to retain those employees—through benefits, work hours, etc.  Boeing does not exist to be a job provider—their primary purpose is not to provide sustainable jobs to the people who work for the company, and the employees are not equal partners in the productive enterprise.  They show up to work, punch the clock, do their task, and they return home to do whatever they desire with their earnings exchanged for their labor.  The mistake that socialists and communists make is that they assume that a job is collectively owned and that they are equal partners in providing labor to a marketplace.  They completely ignore the tendency of free-enterprise for which the founders and ownership of Boeing participate in to assume all the risk of a profitable venture and that any disproportionate rate of pay which might be enjoyed at the top—by CEOs and the board of directors, is that the risk of success or failure is completely on their shoulders so the greatest rewards are garnered by them alone.  In a capitalist society—which is what America is supposed to be—income is directly linked to the amount of risk assumed by an individual.  And by risk it is attributed to the level of responsibility for task completion that a worker possesses.

Under collective bargaining agreements unions have destroyed the value of a good wage because everyone gets it no matter what they bring to the table of productive enterprise or the level of risk assumed by individuals.  The lackluster sloth that only has a passion for video games once they are off work can make as much money as the person who desires to work through all their breaks to achieve more productivity at work and continues to work long after everyone sleeps for the night.  What happens as a result is that you get fewer of the latter and much, much more of the former regarding employee behavior.  If you have ever done business with a French company you get a taste of what I’m talking about.  In France, which is a heavily socialist country, the emphasis isn’t on productive output in most cases; it’s on personal time and vacation periods incurred.   There is very little passion among the French workforce to complete tasks because they take the products for which they manufacture for granted.  They believe they are all equal contributors to output.  As a result, most of their workforces are planning their two months of vacation each year instead of thinking about accomplishing the task of productive enterprise, and their nation suffers as a result.  Human beings are driven by the opportunity to profit and when employees see that they can get ahead in life and that profit is there for them if they do well; they tend to find ways to be productive.  But if they get paid regardless of whether strategic product objectives are fulfilled or not—they tend to perpetually plan for their lunch breaks and vast amounts of vacation time that they incur as a result of their socialist underpinnings.

All this European socialism which emerged from the communist plunge taken early in the last century is derived from Immanuel Kant’s philosophy which has spread like a disease across the world.  While many don’t consider the collectivist theory to be reminiscent of communism, it is a direct byproduct of small “c” communism without the ruthless dictators.  America’s plunge toward socialism is directly the fault of labor unions which have been functioning under communist oriented sentiment for decades and 7 years of a presidency that openly beholds the softer European versions of collective bargaining at the first sign of a sizeable profit margin.

The failure in understanding is that money is a unit of measure and not of actual value.  To fall in love with money or profit and base a philosophy on it is like basing the value of a measurement off a yard stick and not the thing being measured.  By itself a yard stick, a ruler, or anything resembling a measuring instrument has little value until it is used to measure the height and width of something.  In relation to those results, we might say something is bad or good based on the dimensional characteristics.   Profit is a measurement of a company’s’ financial success, it is not a pool of money meant to be equally distributed among a mass workforce.

Collective bargaining has muddied the water of free enterprise and made it so that companies hoard their profit to protect themselves from mass employee insurrections such as layoffs and disproportional yearly increases not rooted in value toward a company’s actual worth.  A line worker does not have equal value to the risk takers at the top.  They may physically work harder as the line worker, but they get to leave at the end of a work day relatively free of responsibility—so the input toward a company’s wealth is not equal.  The executive at the top of a company worries about the health of the company usually 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Sure they play golf with clients, go out to eat and get to travel around the world, but it’s not all fun and games—the stress they endure is not proportionally distributed among those enjoying collective bargaining benefits.  That is why the executive likely earns six figures for a 50 to 60 hour work week while the hourly worker has to work 70 to 80 hours of overtime to receive the same.  However at Boeing, members of their machinist union are easily compensated at the six figure range as seen at the link below—and most of them are not exceptional employees by any measure—they are average and can only achieve such high rates of pay because the health of the company has been able to sustain it without leaving for another country where they can protect their profit margins.  The union and the collective bargaining that the company has to endure due to socialist policies never stops asking for more money and Boeing is at a point where they are seriously balancing out whether or not to out-source all their work because the collective bargaining agreements are too unreasonable—and they are at a tipping point.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=The_Boeing_Company/Hourly_Rate

The concept of collective bargaining is a faulty one; it is a socialist concept that should not be in any American business.  It’s not wrong for a line worker to make six figures if they outwork all their peers—but when all boats are forced to rise together the incentive to be better than the next worker, or to learn and endure more for the productive enterprise of a successful business is taken away, what we get is lackluster performance that ultimately makes that company less competitive.  The only reason that the United States has endured with these socialist policies as long as they have is because most of the world isn’t any better off.  America is still the best option for a company like Boeing because it is close to the end-user of their products and the labor pool is relatively stable for the high-tech jobs they require.  But that doesn’t make it right and at some point in the near future we either have to reject outright the socialist collective bargaining concept for the good of our national GDP, or we will gradually lose more and more manufacturing until only service oriented businesses remain.  And that is where America stands in 2016—dangerously close to the edge of oblivion.

So while the commenter above was right about the tail end of his observations—about the direction of the human race—he isn’t quite there regarding the motivations for getting there.  If we expect entrepreneurs to continue evolving and driving the marketplace forward, we need to take the shackles off them and not expect them to carry all of society forward with little to no profit incentive.  Boeing does not owe its profits to the workers—the workers are compensated based on their value—at least they should be.  The collective bargaining agreements under their labor contracts are excessively burdensome and will eventually destroy the company just as insects acting as parasitic entities on a nice healthy tree will eventually kill it for their own sustenance.  Socialism is a concept that must be rejected at every level—especially at Boeing and the Seattle region in general.  Socialism only benefits the lazy and unproductive and holds back the efforts of the exceptional.  But it is the exceptional that drives mankind forward, and that is a concept that every socialist and student of if ignores—which is why under any name that they call it—collectivism destroys culture—it doesn’t enhance it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

I Hated ‘The Hateful 8’: A terrible movie by a failing Hollywood industry

There was a lot not to like about Quentin Tarantino’s latest film The Hateful Eight. I personally didn’t see it when it came out in theaters around Christmas of 2015 because of Tarantino’s political activism against police, but I put it on the checklist.  It was sold as a western shot in 70mm traditional wide—just as Ben Hur was many years ago—so I figured it would be worth watching.  My chance came once it was released to the home theater market and I was a little excited about it. But after two hours of movie realizing that the whole thing was going nowhere, I was very concerned that if Tarantino was the best that Hollywood had to offer—that they consider him a “modern” Shakespeare–that there is no wonder their movie industry was in trouble.  At that point there was still about 45 minutes of movie left to show and I was ready to turn it off—but didn’t because I already had too much time invested.

This is what happens when someone becomes so full of themselves—and have been told by hundreds of aspiring actors and progressive movie producers that they are the greatest thing to arrive since fire.  They forget that people actually will see their movies and that those people think very differently about the world than those tucked up against the mountains of California and the Pacific Ocean. The only good characters in The Hateful Eight was the Kurt Russell character.  Samuel Jackson wasn’t the greatest and once he revealed an oral sex scene with another guy—I decided I didn’t like him and didn’t want to invest any more time into learning about him.  Most of the movie took place inside a cabin getting to know all these characters who were telegraphed very early to being all completely killed off.  There was no point to their stories or the interaction between them because it all led to one place—death.

The Hateful Eight is like a person being walked to an execution getting to know all the people spitting on him along the way.  It just doesn’t make any sense because that person was going to be dead soon—so why waste the time?  It was just horrendously stupid.  Beautifully photographed, good soundtrack—most of the time—but just a stupid story—I can’t believe anybody read that script and thought it the work of a genius—and I can’t believe anybody gave Tarantino money to make that movie.

Coming from a guy who shares with me a love for the great movie, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Tarantino obviously isn’t at the same level of Sergio Leone, and I went into The Hateful Eight hoping sincerely that he was.  Not even close—not even close to the sincerity of a spaghetti western, which I thought was the point of The Hateful Eight. It ended up being just another sign of a broken and declining culture that doesn’t make anything original anymore—even though all the tools were provided.  To suggest that The Hateful Eight is anything close to the masterpiece Hamlet, just because everyone ended up dead in the end is ridiculous.  There weren’t any sympathetic characters for which to hang a morality on in Tarantino’s movie.  All the characters were villains and none of them were people I’d want to get to know if they sat down next to me at a bar.

Even using the barroom metaphor with The Hateful Eight seems underwhelming.  Typically when a man wants to pick up a girl in a bar he engages in small talk to get her to reveal bits about herself.  Once she decides to talk about herself the conversation evolves into more personal matters.  Then as a climax and some trust won, the girl decides whether or not she wants to sleep with the guy.  It’s a little mating game that our species plays to make the experience not seem so cheap.  The Hateful Eight is like walking up to that girl and just flatly saying, “Let’s have sex.”  Then spending three hours talking about all the things you should have talked about before blurting out the obvious.  It was just despicable as a story—pathetic at every level.

I have liked other Tarantino movies—I thought Pulp Fiction was clever, and I enjoyed his work in other things—but I wouldn’t say he’s a master of anything.  He’s only smart compared to the very stupid people who now make up the Hollywood industry which these days are just a few rungs above raw porn in its creative impulse. I am really glad that I did not go to see this Tarantino western at the theater because I would have been angry at wasting the money. The Hateful Eight wasn’t a western; it was a monstrosity of undeveloped ideas from a director who obviously has personal problems holding back his artistic ability.

As an example of how all westerns should be presented these days, The Revenant is still the featured example.  If you are going to make a western, at least put in the work.  So what if someone stole the script to The Hateful Eight and that’s why Tarantino made it into a feature film.  The material wasn’t so good that an eight year old child couldn’t have written it—so whatever provoked big money donors to give Tarantino money for that piece of crap sadly overrated the ability of the troubled, progressive filmmaker.  The movie wasn’t just bad enough to write a poor review about, it was bad enough that I personally feel like I was robbed just by watching it, because I can’t get back my time.  It would have been a much better movie if Samuel Jackson hadn’t forced a naked man to perform oral sex on him, because in the last dying moments he was the only one left and I couldn’t help but think that he was the last person I wanted to see on the screen in the end.  Given that, he was the best character in the movie after Kurt Russell’s character died of poisoning.  The Hateful Eight was horrendous filmmaking and storytelling at its absolute lowest.  Sadly, it represents a new generation that thinks it’s the work of genius—because people are now so stupid and have such a low opinion of themselves that they don’t know any better.  People now can actually relate to these despicable characters.  And that’s the real problem with The Hateful Eight and the filmmakers who put that trash on the screen.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Ending the Republican Party: The “stuffed” elephant in the room

The answer to the elephant in the room is that it is dead—and has been so for some time.  It is time to acknowledge it and move on to something else.  The Republican Party, which was created to end slavery, for which Abraham Lincoln was its best spokesman—died a long time ago—and is no longer effective.  If you put Karl Rove, John Kasich, Mitt Romney and me in a room together all three of them added up would not even come close to me as far as conservatism—so they do not represent me as a political party.  They have lost their war with the left and become too much like the enemy—the political left in America.  They are useless to me in a representative republic.  I have voted for them over and over again for several decades, but they have always been ineffective and the reason was that we were voting for a taxidermy version of an elephant, instead of a real creature full of vigor.

That nagging prospect has been on my mind for quite a long time, but it was never clearer than on the night Ted Cruz won the Wisconsin primary.  Cruz has no shot of winning the nomination, yet the party, the media, and all the #NEVERTRUMP fans worshiping the dead and deceased Republican Party behaved as though a New Year had dawned on them and life had been returned to their caricature.  Only Donald Trump has a mathematical path of achieving the Republican nomination at the Convention in July.  Nobody else does—yet the party is willing to use anybody and anything to delay Trump so that they could hold onto their grip of party control and what they believe are conservative values. Yet studying the voting patterns of Wisconsin, it was only in the heavily populated areas—particularly those most affected by the major talk radio stations which espoused the #NEVERTRUMP mantra loudest that Cruz won.  All of the surrounding, rural counties went for Trump.  It was almost a carbon copy of the type of voting pattern seen when Democrats compete against Republicans.  Country people were having their voices drowned out by the more heavily populated urban areas—and they were not happy about it.  The Republican Party wanting any good news that it could get was willing to accept any information that stopped Trump from becoming head of the party—even to the point of self-destruction.  The short-sightedness was grossly obvious.

But the glee that emerged from their mouths was rather pathetic.  It signified a political party at the Alamo not acting heroically in one last stand, but of a bunch of soldiers out of bullets knowing that the end was coming then seeing that the encroaching army was short on ammunition themselves and was awaiting supplies—they were able to live for five more minutes and were happy about it—even boastful.  They were so happy that they denied Trump of roughly 40 little delegates that they missed the point of what the supporters of the GOP frontrunner were espousing.  They were just happy that they had a better chance of getting the nomination process to a convention so that they could insert somebody they were more comfortable with—as if the public would put up with it.  It was a pretty disgusting display.

My first thoughts and those which stayed with me after considerable contemplation were that the Republican Party just needed to be put to rest.  A new party needed to be created, one that better represented conservatives and rural voters much more accurately.  I think Trump should make a point and win his remaining primary victories, but that he should then just start his own party—likely a continuation of the Reform Party for which he, Pat Buchannan and Ross Perot were a part of in the past.  Even Rob Portman was a part of the Reform Party when he ran for the congressional seat he took over in 1993—I know that because he was going to the same meetings I was—I knew him back then.  It’s time for a fresh start and a completely new political philosophy not rooted in the failures of the past.  A return to the Party of Reagan is not enough for me. I want something better than what Abraham Lincoln was the head of.

Regardless of how many delegates Trump has, the #NEVERTRUMP people have shown that they will not behave themselves and unite behind him—which they should do.  So they need to be destroyed as a movement.  We need to have a head to head election with Hillary, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump.  Trump as everyone knows by now has a solid 30% support base no matter what.  In a three-way race, that almost gets him an assured victory.  I don’t believe Hillary will be able to get 50% of a vote in any election—especially with the troubles she has, and there is no way Ryan beats Trump.  I think it’s obvious that given a choice in a three-way race it’s not Republicans that will be split.  Kasich as it stands now is similar to Hillary in politics, Cruz with Ryan, and then there is Trump who is about 7 to 8% ahead of everyone else routinely.  That is the number nobody is talking about, and it would give Trump a victory in a three-way race without question.  So why not?  If we don’t have this showdown now—voters will continue to be tricked into voting for the stuffed caricature of an elephant—and that’s just not fair to them.

The only advantage for Trump to win the nomination from the Republican Party is to tap into the funds to run a national campaign.  However, Bernie Sanders has shown what people are willing to do to fund a campaign, and Trump has more access to funds from his fans than any political candidate has in the history of politics.  I wouldn’t fault Trump for taking $10 million dollar donations from his friends—like Carl Icahn and others to win a general election.  I think he has a better chance of winning as a third-party candidate than as head of the Republican Party with all the inner back stabbing that will take place even if he wins the nomination outright.  So he should just leave and let them flail on the vine rudderless.   The Republican Party doesn’t deserve Trump and they certainly don’t deserve me and the many voters who are sick and tired of the establishment passivity toward Democrats.

To all the #NEVERTRUMPS, I don’t want to be in a political party with you people. I want nothing to do with your stupidity.  I’m happy to have it out in a general election in a three-way race and see what happens after the smoke clears.  What has to happen is a major philosophic shift in political philosophy—the standard mode of operation just won’t be acceptable.  I have always supported the Reform Party, I did when Ross Perot ran in 1992 and in 1996, and I supported Trump and Buchannan when they toyed with the idea in 1999.  The reason that the election between Bush and Gore was so close in 2000 was literally that people had to pick between one piece of shit and another.  Which one was better—nobody knew and the country was split right down the middle.  Bush was not a good president, and then the GOP thought to offer us John McCain, and Mitt Romney. 

They are just stupid—rooting for the GOP is like cheering on the Cincinnati Bengals to win a Super Bowl.  They just don’t have the ability to get to the big game—let alone win.  So let’s just drop them once and for all.  Even if Trump secures the nomination with a win in California—he should still go third-party so that the Republicans can be put in a museum with all the other stuffed animals.  They are guaranteed losers who will continue down that path until they are taken out of the game.  And the time to do that is now-before they do any more damage.  Basically, either the GOP brings in fresh blood, or we dump the party, change the name, and have something else to represent conservative values.  Not “progressive” conservative values like many of these #NEVERTRUMPs believe (Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, ETC.)  But something all together different and more representative of the rural inhabitants of this country—I’m at the point in 2016 of its either Trump for president or nothing for me.  Hillary is not even a factor.  She can’t even beat an old communist lover.  She is not as formidable as the media wants you to believe.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Bill O’Reilly’s Question about Donald Trump: Defining a divided party and why Glenn Beck has lost his mind

Bill O’Reilly asked an important question when he wondered why members of his network, Fox News were so divided over Donald Trump.  The same could be said about the different between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—who are the clear front-runners in the 2016 presidential race. The divide is unusually deep because the two candidates properly represent the philosophic divisions that are taking place within the Republican Party.  As much as hard-core establishment supporters would hate to admit it, Ted Cruz represents what they seek in a president, someone from within their political ranks that is a person of faith who gets their guidance from prayer and deity submission—religiously pious.  They also hold that the presidency is America’s version of royalty, and they that take that oath of office very seriously.  Trump on the other hand represents the fighters, the businessmen who have bent over backwards to one too many regulations–the financially independent—the self starters.  Trump appeals to people who turn toward themselves first for an answer before soliciting government help or prayer to a deity whom has never physically manifested in a logical way.  That last type of conservative has never really had a candidate—they have held their nose and hoped that they might get lucky because options were limited—which is often not how they do most things in their life.  But with Trump, they finally have someone running for the White House who thinks like them for a change.  To confirm my statement just read the linked article from Glenn Beck about why no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and you’ll get the gist.  Glenn Beck whom I used to like—has lost his mind.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274267-glenn-beck-no-real-christian-supports-trump

Personally I liked that Thomas Jefferson answered the door to the White House in his night robe.  I liked that Teddy Roosevelt skinny dipped in the Potomac River—just a century ago.  I liked that Andrew Jackson would target shoot from the White House grounds.   I’m not big on formalities and in regard to the President of the United States—I feel as Jefferson did, as an Anti-Federalist, such tokens of ordainment should be cast away in America and dropped from assumption.  We should go out of our way to strip away formality anywhere we can in regard to the White House, not increase it.  We don’t elect a king, we elect a public servant—and we should treat them that way.

We also need a president who makes decisions based on their life experiences and the use of cold hard logic.  I don’t want a president who gets his decisions from “praying.”  For instance, let’s look at the reasons that John Kasich decided to expand Medicaid—which he did in Ohio against an amendment to the Constitution passed to protect residence from the grips of Obamacare.  Kasich claimed when he went against voters and the Ohio legislature that God told him to expand government so dramatically when pressed by reporters.  Well, screw that.  We didn’t elect “God” to run our public offices.  With all the bad dreams and insanity that goes on in any civilization it is difficult to tell God’s providence from the claws of insanity.  While I can claim many similar stories of providence—as miraculous as Andrew Jackson’s assassination attempt by the unemployed painter who tried to kill him with two guns—that both misfired—I don’t make decisions based on providence or the hope of it.  You can only make decisions based on what you know or see.  If God decides to help out, that’s fine.  But such an ill-defined character cannot be a part of any strategic plan—because there isn’t enough evidence to count on such things.  You don’t think with your heart—you do with your head—and having faith that things will just work out is not enough.  When faced with a problem I want a president who works through it, not one that sits at the side of their bed and “prays.”  I don’t care what George Washington did—if he prayed less and acted more—he probably would have won more often.  If you want to pray, be a preacher or volunteer at church.  If you want to lead a nation—come to the table with self-reliance.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jasonahart/2013/06/19/gov-kasich-god-wants-ohio-to-expand-medicaid/

Kasich, the closet liberal that he turned out to be could have misread his inclinations.  We as a voting public have no way to know if what Kasich said about God’s desire is true or not.  God did not have a press conference with us and tell us to expand Medicaid.  And we didn’t elect a “leader” to be some ancient go-between between God and man in the form of a priest holding some kingship based on the merits of “godly access.”  This is exactly why we were supposed to have a separation between church and state—not one where the church runs the state.  If people want the church to run the state—as Glenn Beck seems to—you might as well sign up for communism.  Capitalism requires self-reliance and logical thought—not altruistic sacrifice to divine will.   The worst time to make a decision of any kind is after a bad dream where some figure speaks to you in the form of some disembodied spirit.  The even dumber thing to do is to assume that the voice is “God.”  It in all actuality could be anything—some ghost from the past, some vengeful demon, some inter-dimensional terrorist—or it could be the lingering effects of an emerging insanity where deep-seated insecurities manifest into a mythological story played out among the brain’s neurons.  You never know.  When we elect a president, we elect a manager and we expect that person to make hard decisions based on reality as we can observe it.  That is the best that we can do given the limited scope of our human senses.

Then there is this ridiculous notion that the presidency should be beneath earthly squabbles.  I watched Republicans for well over thirty years play the moral high ground game and lose every time—especially George W. Bush.  He thought the office of the president was so elevated that he could not, or should not answer his many critics.  Well, that was the old alcoholic coming out of him, and the kid who was in the Skull and Bones society who participated in embarrassing hazing rituals.  When you are elected by the people for the people—you don’t surrender yourself to the political left by becoming a punching bag—using the “high office” excuse to mask internal fears.  You don’t sit in the White House on my behalf and make yourself a “pussy.”  You are expected to fight when attacked and to represent the constituency that elected you into office.  The office is not a higher authority than the people who put you there.  That kind of thinking leads to kingship—and we should not think of an American President as a king or as royalty.  He’s just a manager.

Just a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to shake Donald Trump’s hand.  I could have certainly had him sign any of my books–easily.  But I didn’t do either—even though I love the guy for president.  He’s on a job interview as far as I’m concerned and I’m the boss.  The boss doesn’t seek autographs and tokens of friendship from the people they employ.  Given that, if President Obama broke down in front of my house and needed to use my car jack or even the phone—I would tell that bastard to get off my lawn.  I wouldn’t shake his hand; I wouldn’t be getting a selfie to show that I had managed to get my picture next to a “powerful” person.  To me he’s just another person and in the case of his actions—he’s conducted his presidency as a domestic enemy that any constitutionally minded person is sworn to protect the nation from.  Needless to say, I will never shake the hand of president Obama under any circumstances.  He doesn’t rule over me, he doesn’t make decisions on my behalf, and he is a proven incompetent that has not earned the right to shake my hand.  And to be fair, I feel the same way about George W. Bush—he blew it.  I don’t care that he made some mistakes—but he was a lot like Glenn Beck—a former alcoholic who turned to “God” to straighten out their weak lives. I don’t fault them for their mistakes but they are smoking crack if they want to tell a person like me—who has never been addicted to anything, who doesn’t drink, has never smoked, has never done any drugs of any kind—who even avoids pain killers for surgery or at the dentist—and assumes that they have some place between me and the everlasting.  Give me a break!  They are not qualified to be in that position, and really, I can’t think of a single person on earth that is—even religious leaders.  If they have my high standards on personal living, I might listen to them—but short of that—forget about it.

Ted Cruz is way too much of a “god boy” to me.  I don’t want someone in the White House praying for answers.  I want someone who can extract answers from reality by sheer will.  I don’t want someone who will only enter the Oval Office with a jacket and tie on.  I want someone who will work there for 14 to 16 hours straight if needed to accomplish whatever task is on the table.  And I certainly don’t want a king—but I equally don’t want a self-sacrificial lamb that is willing to be plucked apart by the political opposition.  So to answer Bill O’Reilly’s question about Donald Trump there are still too many Republicans who want a president for all the wrong reasons—all the types of things that George W. Bush represented—meekness, sacrifice, divine providence-and policy concocted by voices from God which in all actuality were their addictive pasts calling out to them to return to the bottle.  For all those reasons I support Donald Trump—he’s a self-starter, he’s never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, and while he’s respectful of religion—he tends to guide himself before seeking the council of some otherworldly creature.  That’s good because I don’t have to worry about him waking up and starting wars based on dreams he’s had about “weapons of mass destruction,” or expanding Medicaid because God told him in a dream to help people.  I just want someone to do the job as president for the first time in the modern era.  I don’t want a king—I want someone to do the job—and I certainly don’t want a politician with ties to any lobbyist.  The deep divide over Donald Trump within Republican ranks is that not all conservatives quite understand what they want out of a public servant.  They know what they’ve had and are basing everyone on those examples.  But to me, what we’ve had was never good enough.  And the answer is not in more of the same—but in an entirely new direction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Superman, Batman, Zach Snyder and ‘The Fountainhead’: How to define a Trump supporter

With all the press over the new Batman vs Superman movie the director, Zach Snyder told The Hollywood Reporter that one of the next projects he’s working on is an updated version of The Fountainhead.  The faces of nearly everyone in the liberal community of media and entertainment nearly melted off.  Snyder is a highly respected film director and is at the top of his game.  But it doesn’t surprise me that he and a growing contingent of Warner Bros. directors and screen writers are showing themselves as Objectivists—Ayn Rand’s philosophic dispute against Kantian collectivism.  It’s no secret that I was very supportive of the film makers of Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a successful cliff note to the great American novel—Atlas Shrugged.  That book is what America is all about and could have only been written here by our culture.  Ayn Rand was onto something with her work and I personally think The Fountainhead is one of the greatest novels ever written and I’ve read Finnegan’s Wake—and I understand it—just for reference.  Finnegan’s Wake to me is probably the greatest novel in the history of mankind as far as its scope—but within it there are way too many Kantian limits.  Ayn Rand takes away those limits and delivers us to a time before Plato and Aristotle’s great debate—to a time when mankind was contemplating that it was not the gods of Mt. Olympus who ruled the universe, it was the minds of mankind.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-v-superman-married-creative-874799?utm_source=twitter

This is extremely important to understand because the candidacy and potential presidency of Donald Trump is the kind of story which might be a sequel to one of those Ayn Rand classics—he is a clear combination of characters from both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Trump’s popularity is very similar to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels even to this day nearly 60 and 70 years after their release.  Atlas Shrugged is the most reviewed book in the Library of Congress behind only the Bible for a reason—people are curious—but the life around them built largely in the summation of Kantian philosophy doesn’t assimilate well to what they feel in their heart and souls.

I know people from every side of the argument regarding Donald Trump.  I know the Glenn Beck Tea Party types, I know hard-core Objectivists, and I know traditional Republicans and I see their difficulty in understanding Donald Trump and his supporters.  Some of them like Glenn Beck and even Ted Cruz are staunch Atlas Shrugged supporters—they love Ayn Rand—yet they don’t understand her—because religion clouds their thinking on the philosophy of the matter.  Ironically, that is their same aversion to Donald Trump—that he’s a godless heathen who lives for himself counseling only himself not seeking the advice of God in times of crises.  Trump declares that he relies on his own mind to make decisions—which is a very Ayn Rand type of thing to say—and Beck along with Cruz followed by a contingent of Tea Party supporters are frazzled by such a proclamation.  Establishment Republicans hate Trump because he isn’t Kantian enough—meaning he doesn’t think in a Platonic fashion deep enough for them.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES)  Then of course Objectivists aren’t sure what to think.

Not long ago I compared Donald Trump to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead and Objectivists sent me private messages concerned about my sanity.  They declared that Trump was not ideologically pure enough to be an “Objectivist,” and he certainly wasn’t the hero Howard Roark.  But a real life examination into the way that Trump has lived proposes a direct comparison.  Trump has always had a very Roark-like certainty about hm.  I don’t claim to be an Objectivist.  Personally, I think mankind is at a stage where we need to deep dive Rand’s thoughts expanding on Aristotle’s original concepts—but perhaps either going back to a time well before Greek philosophy or into a new period that mankind has never been before.  I am personally concerned with flushing out these kinds of thoughts over my years.  I see Objectivism as a first step in that process and Ayn Rand was certainly onto the scent.  However, Rand’s books were relatively simple-because they are exploring complex concepts and needed a host of adult characters to drape those concepts off of—for instance, there are no children in Rand’s books, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged—which makes it easy for the characters to act on their authentic natures.  The world is neatly aligned in a way that represented Ayn Rand’s time period and her personal decisions which was to not have children with her husband and to carry on lavish affairs of her own with other men and force her husband to watch essentially.  In the end Rand was a bit broken-hearted with some of her decisions and it hurt her following regarding Objectivism.  That doesn’t mean she was wrong—it just means she wasn’t completely right.

I think the life of Donald Trump would be a sequel to Ayn Rand’s classics—and I think his third wife Melania is the key to his present success.  I think Donald Trump fits right into the pages of Rand’s heroes with John Galt and Howard Roark and that is essentially why people are so bothered with his presidential candidacy.  Objectivists would obviously disagree, but they share with most religions an almost sanctimonious relationship with the purity of Ayn Rand’s characters that they have become Holy figures to them similar to religious fanatics who insist that the life of Jesus Christ as it was written in a book 1700 years ago is testament to the precise way that we must all live today—and that the interpretation provided over the years and nurtured along by Immanuel Kant followed by many others—like Karl Marx would formulate political philosophy around the values of altruism.  Donald Trump was a great person before he met Melania—but after she became his Lady of Tubber Tintye.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She was his hero’s journey much the way Dagney was brought to such a figure in John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.  In that case Galt was the type of treasure found in the classic story of The King of Erin and the Queen of the Lonesome Island.  In real life, Melania was the treasure that Donald Trump found and what we have today is a presidential candidate who has successfully completed a hero’s journey equivalent to a classic novel and he is here to bestow upon mankind the boons of his adventure.

While many people think their version of reality is the correct one, the established political people have their Kant, while Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and their Tea Party followers have their Bibles and the Ayn Rand at war within their very souls trying to fit a square peg into a circular entrance.  Conservatism to many of these people means “obedience to God.” The education class has their Marxism—which was formed by Kant to proclaim that Trump is too stupid for the right to “rule” because that is how archaic they still think of mankind—as a species that needs to be ruled over by an aristocratic elite.  And Objectivists hate all of the above, but they don’t think of Trump as equivalent to John Galt or Howard Roark.  Yet to know Trump through his many years of work, he is clearly willing to stand his ground for the authenticity of his creations, like Roark did at the end of The Fountainhead.  There aren’t any other people on earth in any positions of authority or wealth that have ever done as Trump is doing now—and that is to risk it all for a chance to fix everything for the sake of American authenticity.  He’s not retreating from the world the way that John Galt did to let the system collapse on itself the way that Ayn Rand suggested.  His stand is a much more masculine one—and one not yet defined by any art or literature—at least those known in establishment circles.  Donald Trump is the next step in that eventual evolution.

Trump supporters have been lied to and manipulated by all the groups mentioned above, religious groups, political groups, activism groups—everyone, and they still see things sliding into an abyss.  They have been told that they are bad because they are a particular color, that they are bad if they think well of American sovereignty, and that they are bad if they aren’t willing to give the skin off their very backs to those too lazy to make their own way in life—and they are the majority.  People like Trump were allowed to the table of power so long as they brought their check book, but they weren’t invited to help fix anything.  For Donald Trump I think love brought him full circle and into this political theater and the instincts of the American people understand it in spite of what everyone is telling them.  Trump has great love for his wife, his children, and of course himself.  People don’t comprehend it yet, but they know to trust it because literally everyone else has let them down.

From what I know of the new Superman movie with Batman, the debate is going to be precisely what I have been talking about.  Superman represents the type of Ayn Rand hero that evolved under American philosophy—essentially Objectivism.  Batman represents the law and order of a Platonic society—which migrated from Kant to Marxism riding on the back of organized religion—all denominations.  Can Batman simply let society fall in line behind a man who is superior in every fashion—and could destroy the world if he cared to in a moment?  That is the theme of the new Zach Snyder version of Batman vs. Superman—arriving in theaters soon as of this writing.  But filmmakers must make their livings looking five years into the future to anticipate the trends of that future time.  Given Trump’s impact on the world of politics it does not surprise me that Warner Brothers is looking to Snyder to provide an update to The Fountainhead.  Even though many might fight the words I’m saying about Trump today, our civilization will be looking for answers in the years to come and only Ayn Rand has offered a plausible explanation into the nature of Donald Trump so far in the entire history of the world. 

 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche before Ayn Rand likely started the chain reaction—but prior to them in all of known history only gods of some mystic realm held such power of mankind.  It was the job of human beings to appeal to the egos of their deities.  Trump is not that kind of offering.  He is something else that nobody has ever seen before in politics—or philosophy—and Trump supporters feel innately that they can trust it—because they still hope that its possible in America to step beyond the shackles of Immanuel Kant—even if they’ve never heard the name before—and live their lives as free people for the purposes ascribed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels.  Zach Snyder as a filmmaker has his hands on that pulse—and is working on The Fountainhead to show it to us for later analysis.  For decades in the future we will still be coming to terms with this time period—and it will be through our art that we understand what has happened.  In hindsight, we’ll be glad that it did.  But we will rely on art—as we always do—to define it in our lives—even if the Trump train is moving too fast now to do anything but vote in favor of that gut we have in our stomachs.  That is the very definition of a Trump supporter.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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