Why America is Split Down the Middle: What the election of Bibi means world wide

I have learned more about Israeli politics over the last couple of weeks than I had learned in the years prior combined. It started with the Netanyahu speech in front of the United States Congress and ended with the historic elections of this week. The great mystery for me was why Obama was so concerned about the Israeli elections, and why he was so insulted that Bibi was coming to America just a few weeks prior to the election. The revelation was that Obama was working against Netanyahu all along trying to remove him from power with the support of a leftist labor party influence. Now that Netanyahu is back in power, the two state solution in Israel is off the table. Obama and his supporters openly support the Arab Palestinians whereas Netanyahu and his conservative Likud Party are refusing to be divided up as a country. This explains a lot about Obama’s actions. Here is how Fox News reported the situation:

(Josh) Earnest acknowledged Wednesday that the U.S. would have to “re-evaluate” its position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in light of those comments. But he stressed that Obama believes a two-state solution is best. And State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified that the administration “absolutely” will continue to push for this.

Further, Earnest chided Netanyahu’s Likud Party on Wednesday, saying the White House was “deeply concerned” about divisive language emanating from Likud. He said the party had sought to marginalize Israel’s minority Arabs, an apparent reference to social media posts the Likud distributed that warned Israelis about the danger of high turnout by Arab voters.

“These are views the administration intends to convey directly to the Israelis,” Earnest said.


Even worse, like a little baby, Obama refused to call Netanyahu and congratulate him on his election victory. His behavior is really unprecedented and reveals to what extent Obama and his army of progressives wish to change the world into something else. Netanyahu certainly didn’t refuse Obama because of the rhetoric the President uttered in his previous elections—the divisiveness and anger incited by the former community advocate and Saul Alinsky student. Much of the divisiveness in America currently is a direct fault of Obama—yet Netanyahu spoke well of the American president in public when he clearly didn’t need to.

The actions of Obama and the media in the wake of the Netanyahu election point directly to the greater strategy of modern progressives throwing their influence behind the two state solution of a perceived peace in the Middle East. They wish to carry the Middle East into the world before the Sykes-Picot agreement where their president of Woodrow failed epically in the region through the Treaty of Versailles. Now they wish to erase that error as if it never happened—and that means in this case the destruction of a Jewish nation bit by bit.

Ideologically driven, Obama can think of nothing but the aims of progressive influence. Using the same storm the border tactics happening right now in America where foreign influence and money shape American politics for the worse—the same has been going on in Israel with a quiet insurrection by progressives against conservatives like Netanyahu. Obama placed his bets against the Prime Minister. And he lost—and he’s upset about it—enough to make a national incident out of protest. That’s how radical and the media that supports Obama—truly are. They are radical to the point of meanness, and then they wonder why America is a divided nation.

The difference between us in America now are that some of us refuse to be lied to, and others go to the Obama lies like moths to a flame—hell-bent on their own destruction. So the nation is split down the middle between the lazy and stupid and the righteous and wise. Obama likes the stupid and hates the intelligent—because the later sees through his schemes. And it appears that the very same divisions are happening right now in Israel over an election that most Americans thought was inconsequential—but it wasn’t—was it?

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Jeb Bush and Common Core: Why public education is the wrong way to instruct children

Jeb Bush has doubled down on his position regarding Common Core obviously because he’s been with the program from the beginning and truly believes that government is capable of educating the population. However, the results have proven the opposite—government education has been devastating to the American public and is something that needs to be completely overhauled. To understand a bit of the conflict the following videos one by Jeb Bush being interviewed by Sean Hannity at CPAC shows how deeply Bush believes in government education. Then the second video of Michelle Malkin shows the reality of government education and how far left of the correct position Jeb Bush really is.

Jeb’s mistake is in his belief in government solutions to what should be free market competition. Education needs an infusion of competition instead of a standard for everyone. The belief that Bush has that a high standard set by government will provoke quality in education is a false one—it only plays into the mundane complacency of the labor unions behind education and their desire for a comfortable standard that the weakest links of their collective bargaining agreements can sustain. The government model allows the weak to rule the strong and that will never create an environment where the best of anything is brought forth.

It is time to have that hard discussion about education. It has been for a while, but the evidence is just so obvious, even more so than when I so adamantly pointed out this inconvenient truth a decade ago. The more I learned about public education the more convinced I was that it was the wrong thing to do, and was completely wrong for children as a learning tool. Public schools are no different from public housing projects—the intention was good, but they quickly become a cease pool of bad behavior and crime. Test scores and the general wherewithal of today’s youth shows the devastation. Public education with years of Common Core like practices have destroyed the minds of the youth—it has left them ill prepared for even basic tasks in life and certainly isn’t worth all the tax money stolen from property owners to pay for.

Education can only work if there is investment of some respectable level by the students and their parents. Parents can’t just drop off a child to a government professional and expect magic, and in today’s public education environment—that is precisely the expectation. Public education is a baby sitting service at best followed closely by a social experiment.

When my wife and I home schooled our children for a period of time there was serious blow-back from family and friends. Some of those people we no longer speak to as a result of the things that were said back then. The great fear was that my children would not be “socially adjusted” and would become social malcontents. The trouble is that social malcontents was a definition that was created and defined by government schools over the last 100 years, and has largely become a topic of falsehood over the last decade due to the instant rise of social media and technology which connects people in ways they never could before. The rules of conduct established by public education were created during a time when the AM radio was a new invention and telephones were beginning to show up in personal residences. It really hasn’t changed since—due to the labor union resistance to change and their desire to lobby political waves to maintain a status quo. But kids have changed and their needs are different from they were a century ago.

Jeb Bush is caught in that old century long belief that government schools can teach children to be great innovators and there just isn’t any evidence which produces such a conclusion after all this time. The opposite is true. Public schools are more concerned with integrating individuals into a collective mass than in nurturing the thoughts of gifted minds into unleashing new thoughts and concepts. If government schools were removed from children’s lives it is a safe assumption that creativity and individual happiness would increase greatly throughout society. Home schooled children are obvious examples—they statistically out perform government taught children in most categories—so the evidence should be easy to contemplate. But it is scary for old politicians to admit to themselves that government schools are utterly incompetent to the task of their intentions. A brand new means of instruction is needed.

This requires a complete deregulation of public education into a system that is owned and is individually profit driven both at the student level, and the level of the institution itself. They cannot be tied to state and federal money, or grants—but must rely on individual contributions from a student population that values what they offer. Then and only then can bad ideas be tossed out, and good ideas expanded upon. There is no motivation otherwise. Politicians need to get out of the education business—completely. They have trouble building roads—let alone teaching generations of youth. It’s just a stupid outdated model that is in serious need of an overhaul.

Public schools will become more and more irrelevant year by year until eventually people arrive at the same conclusions I have just expressed. It is doomed and over—which I declared nearly 5 years ago. It’s a thing of the past even now in the present. It only exists to keep government employees in a job, and politicians to say they did something positive. But those efforts are destroying minds, and that just can’t be allowed to happen without contemplation. And upon that contemplation, Jeb Bush is entirely wrong whereas Michelle Malkin represents the mode of behavior that will gradually pick up steam until public education is abandoned in favor of something that works.   The periods between now and then is something that will be painful, but will quickly sort out the righteous from the malcontent. On the issue of public education Jeb Bush falls on the side of the malcontent. He only knows to throw more federal money at something that is destroying our nation believing that it’s crucial to success.   And that just makes him out-of-touch, and unqualified to be a president for the age that is coming. The curb of politics is ahead of him, and he is incapable of catching up to it.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman



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.


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.


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]


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



Ideas are Scary: The important task of being a place that lets them grow

By far my favorite commercial of 2014/2015 is the one below from GE about how ideas can sometimes be scary featuring a little alien looking ET creature being born and ridiculed until GE opened its doors to the innovative prospects of the fledgling creature. It’s a very honest commercial for such a huge corporate giant and it tells me that at least in practice GE hasn’t lost its way in understanding where it came from and what role it plays in America’s future. Growing up in Cincinnati it is impossible to not have GE a major part of my life and whenever I have to travel downtown and drive by the Evendale plant there is a little happy place that keys off in the back of my mind knowing to what a great extent GE has advanced technology and really lived up to the aspects of the commercial on innovation.

Being a corporate giant isn’t easy, and I am often distrustful of them to stay nimble in the field of innovation simply because there comes too much pageantry and fluff just to keep rules and regulations off their back to maintain the kind of forward thinking that made them great in the first place. Jeffrey Immelt after Barrack Obama was elected was put into a very difficult position. Here was a president openly hostile to corporations and business that would see GE as a massive target for socialist implementation. As a CEO it is first the job of such a person to guide their corporation through the potential threats that exist so that those gates of innovation can stay open for such fledging ideas shown in the commercial. So Immelt did what he thought was best, he made a partner out of Obama running the president’s Jobs Council for a few years. In so doing he was able to exploit the lack of financial understanding of the barely concealed socialist by enacting 54 of the 60 recommendations made by the Council—such as fast tracking key infrastructure projects and selling more leases for both oil and gas production. But in the end, only 4 of those recommendations were completed as is typical of government which loses focus quickly as life in the Belt Way quickly kills off ideas like an African hunter on the Serengeti. Under the auspices of government ideas quickly become extinct—and Jeffrey Immelt’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness was one of the first things that Obama hung on his trophy wall. Obama tried to use GE to stimulate his economy, and largely took Immelt’s advice without knowing anything else to do—but failed to nurture those ideas into fruition


For the last 20 years the GE90 engines from GE have been a game changer in commercial aviation. It is largely because of this engine that oversea travel has been on the increase just because now airlines can perform such a task with such a powerful engine without massive fuel consumption. That engine is exactly what the metaphorical commercial about GE innovation was all about. It was one of the great leaps of innovation from American culture that could have only come from such a large corporation that embraces such invention. And to make the GE90 work, it took a lot of the best minds at the time in the field of aerospace to pull it off.

There is a new generation of engines coming to serve for the next two decades, so the GE90 today is something of a Payton Manning in aviation. It’s still a great engine, but it has set the bar very high and newer, younger players are entering the market to break those previous records—but it took the pace setter first to show everyone what the innovation looked like. While some may look at the GE commercial in respect to Immelt’s work with President Obama and cry foul, I have a tremendous amount of respect for those open doors which allow scary little creatures like new ideas a place to go. I wish there were a thousand GEs in America—and I believe there is plenty of room for all of them—but unfortunately for most, they end up in the trophy case of some politician’s game wall—hunted, killed, and stuffed for memory.

I don’t watch much television so I didn’t see the GE commercial until I was watching the start of NASCAR last weekend. I love NASCAR because of the innovations—the new MAC tools, the tires, the corporate sponsors. I love seeing a pit crew in action trying to troubleshoot a problem in record time to get their driver back on the track as quickly as possible. There are a lot of ideas born on those tracks which end up in the cars we drive, so I love to just watch NASCAR for a glimpse into the future. It was in looking for innovations that I actually saw the GE commercial.

Recently I had one of the worst days of my life where everything that could go wrong did and there was just a mess of activity that had to be cleaned up from more of those idea killing vermin. So to brighten my day, my wife went to McDonald’s and picked up a couple of Big Mac meals so I could watch the news while enjoying that wonderful idea from McDonald’s ancient past—which I still think is one of the greatest inventions ever created. Big Macs would be an impossibility to the typical hunter and gatherer in New Guinea or Africa—yet out of the mind of Ray Kroc came a company called McDonald’s that made quality fast food easy and affordable on the go—the Big Mac was created. When I have a really bad day-one of those days where it’s difficult to breathe from one moment to the next, I typically get a Big Mac and just like that—I’m good to go. My worries and concerns evaporate. It’s not just the taste of the burger that drives my interest, it’s the story of McDonald’s itself that does. It reminds me of what innovation is supposed to look like. As rapidly as McDonald’s makes Big Macs it is astonishing that they always come out well, cooked perfectly, possessing just the right amount of lettuce, onions and sauce, and can be done so quickly. To this very day if I buy a Big Mac in Florida, it will be made nearly to the same specifications as one that I might buy in Wisconsin. They are little miracles—now taken for granted like the GE90 jet engine—but they have changed the way the world interacts with each other—and each one of those ideas is beautiful.

So I have a major soft spot for the GE commercial with the little alien idea being born to the voice over about ideas being scary. Ideas are the natural-born enemy of the way things are. They are ridiculed and mocked, and are often hunted by members of the political class for sport. When Immelt joined Obama’s Job’s Council, the move to me was to protect all the ideas brewing at GE from the hunters of the political class who want to destroy those wonderful creatures before they can bloom into beautiful creatures. That’s what a CEO should do, and if that sometimes means drawing fire away from those they are trying to protect—then so be it. Because as the commercial says, “under the proper care, [ideas] become something beautiful. They do.

The task of a massive corporation like GE is to create an environment where ideas can grow. Not everyone within that culture embodies such a spirit, of course, but in general, the philosophy of the company must seek to strive for such creation. If it does, then it will bring into the world ideas that would otherwise be destroyed by humanity always speculative, and short-sighted. It was a bold commercial from a company that really didn’t need to push the limits of perception—yet they did. They didn’t have to ruffle any feathers, yet they did—and for that I deeply appreciate the commercial. It is good to see that GE is not playing it so safe in the public relations market—and that they are remembering who and what they are—and how they got where they are today. Ideas are beautiful—even when they look scary to the un-enterprising and clandestine political hunters. It is good to be the natural-born enemy to the way things are. That is the spirit of innovation—and the direct benefit is humanity and its offspring.

Rich Hoffman



Ayn Rand’s 1961 Capitalist and Communist Warning: Why Apple is successful and everyone else copies

The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted the below video from 1961 by Ayn Rand herself about capitalism and communism. At the time there was a lot of debate about which was better for society. The political class and intelligentsia decided they liked communism whereas the American people still in love with their John Wayne westerns and old-fashioned ideas of westward expansion loved their capitalism. Democrats and labor unions in a partnership with each other decided that they would avoid the name of communism in much the same way that Fidel Castro did during the period that he was trying to convince Cuba to turn toward Marxism by denying that his proposed dictatorship was a party of communists. Of course we know by history that it was a complete lie, just as history will show that in America public schools, colleges, and the federal government itself has fully embraced communism all along—and sought to teach children those “communal” concepts from before even kindergarten. Visit any daycare facility and you will see communism being taught to 3 and 4 year olds in great abundance. In 1961 Ayn Rand was despondent as to how the great America could even conceive of making the mistakes she had just escaped from in her mother Russia. So she made the below recording to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association to contemplate why.

Speaking of management associations and the innovations available to America it is an aspect to my life that I know first hand. I came to know Ayn Rand and the ARI work because I share with them very similar ideals about how business should be conducted and why capitalism is such a vastly superior mechanism in any global marketplace. I never read Ayn Rand until just a few years ago, yet I lived my life nearly in parallel with her character Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. When I finally did read it I wondered how I had traveled through life for over 40 years without running across it—and once I did I understood completely the intentions of the novel.

For me the most powerful part of the book was when Roark refused to be a member of the architectural board for the World’s Fair exhibit because of his strict personal revulsion toward collectivism. I too have been invited and had to decline many such associations and it has cost me likely millions in so doing. For thirty years I have been given many, many, many opportunities to do just as what was offered to Roark in The Fountainhead and I declined for the same reasons so to keep my own integrity intact. I had never heard of anybody doing the things I had been doing and taking the social positions I had until I read The Fountainhead, which was really the first time I had a measure that I was actually right in my instincts—and it was good to hear Ayn Rand from beyond the grave tell me she understood.

I had for years been struggling with the communism so present in American business—everything from Six Sigma concepts to Jack Welch management methods. I was sent to many classes over a great deal of time and on day one I lost interest because essentially what they were teaching was classic communism—not capitalism. It was no wonder that companies struggled with profits and innovation and I had no desire to learn such a stupid thing. I often refer to my years at Cincinnati Milacron as one of those pinnacle moments of understanding. I was sent to a Lean Manufacturing seminar as a hand-picked bright spot in their future only to discover that the company was dying on the first day of class. I lost interest in that company once I realized that they were has-beens and would soon go out of business more or less—which of course they did. My views at the time I couldn’t articulate against the current because everyone essentially thought I was nuts—since I was the lone voice against “consensus” and other focus group derivatives. I knew from experience that I wanted to maintain my individuality because it was within that element that true innovation in thought was brought forth.

I still run into the same opposition—actually every day. But I now have a track record to beat over people’s heads which quiets them. When I was in my 20s and 30s everyone just thought I’d grow out of such thoughts of independence—but instead I just got worse over time the more I saw that my methods worked as opposed to other studies. During the 90s I likely read every management book there was in Barnes and Nobel over a ten-year period, and most of them were so wrong, that they might as well be the equivalent to the latest “quick diet” fad because the methods were built around the same mysticism. Most corporations, and most businesses function like a communist dictatorship which quickly saps the strength of an organization of its most valuable resource—the individuals who actually work for the institution. It isn’t long that a company dies on the vine once a few decades of communist dictatorship ruins them for life. Cincinnati Milacron died in this fashion—as did General Motors. The later was only saved by government bail-outs.

Banking institutions, corporations, political structures—everywhere that there is a hierarchy of a few nameplate administrators who have power over others just by title, communism is found to be at the core philosophy of the leaders within the institution. Many of those tuning in to listen to Ayn Ran only cared about what she had to say about profit—not about the means of obtaining it. Most American businesses in 1961 were already infiltrated with communist ideals through their education institutions. They were already thinking in the wrong manner and were mapping out their own personal destructions even as the leaders built their careers and retirement pensions. Those same individuals might have been paid good money for their leadership—but what they often left in their wake was a declining business, not a flourishing one. I simply refused to play along—and over time it has benefited me and many others because when fresh ideals are needed, they are available because I have not destroyed the means of obtaining them.

As Ayn Rand said, it wasn’t communism that proved to be superior to capitalism. It was that in America capitalism committed suicide because businessmen and women discovered that to be good at capitalism they actually had to be good people to the very core of their being and could not have their egos uselessly massaged by corporate structure. The ability to dictate the lives of others because they held power over their employees’ financial purse strings proved too tempting and they fell in love with the power of communism—the ability to be the center of control of all things distributed to others according to their need. For men, the best way to test this morality is in placing a beautiful young secretary outside of their offices. If they contemplate using their power and influence to bed her—they are not moral enough men for capitalism. For women, if they use their power and position to decorate themselves with excessive sign stimuli and tales of oversea travel not out of necessity—but grandeur for the sake of it—as if to exemplify that they hold a higher title than others and therefore hold the fate of so many in their hands—then they are not moral enough for capitalism and will become seduced by the profiteer communism eventually. Once they do, you can hear the term, “team” uttered from their mouths more and more often as they are always on the search for “communal” exercises intended to achieve consensus. A typical episode of The Office is a good place to start to see this withering, pathetic diatribe of failure manifested through comic relief.

As I write this article my wife and I just bought iPhone 6 mobile devices—which to me is one of the most innovative items on planet earth presently. The company itself is nearly at a $1 trillion market cap valuation, and they’ve done it their way. They are very much as a company the way Howard Roarke conducted his business—vastly independent of other companies. They make the market come to them instead of forming themselves to the market. Many analysts college trained to think like nice little communists wonder why the market evaluation of Apple isn’t already over $1.26 trillion—after all it could be. But Apple does things their way for their own reasons and they are driving the market according to their creative input as a company driven by individuals. Steve Jobs after all was a very informal businessman who didn’t have a college degree, and was actually fired from the company he created. But in the end it was Jobs who made Apple what it is and paved the way for creative minds through an excessive commitment to a capitalism loving culture that made Apple such a successful company. Jobs was one of the first to introduce casual wear to the business place just to break down the top down communist culture of rigid dress codes and oppressive company reminders that the employees served the institution—not the other way around. What Jobs did at Apple he was able to perform because he wasn’t taught in college to hate it capitalism—but to use it to be a creative human being. He was essentially a modern real-life Howard Roarke.

Apple isn’t the only company out there who understands that communism has no place in American business. There are others, but they are definitely on the fringe. I am one of those proud fringe people and I know of several others because like-minded people tend to know each other. But what Ayn Rand said in her lecture to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association was completely accurate. It’s not that communism is superior, or had even won. Communism has seeped into our culture as a profiteer while those who were supposed to protect capitalism were too busy thinking about how powerful they are over their employees, or in banging their secretaries. Instead of conducting themselves in a moral way, they have instead turned toward Apple and tried to copy everything about the company hoping that they will strike gold in the same manner. But they can dress in jeans and follow other similar attributes of Apple, but if they don’t develop a creative—capitalist environment for their employees to prosper in—they will fail leaving the default mode of operation to the mindless communists who will sweep in to save the day with bail-outs, focus groups and the constant reminder that institutions are all about “consensus” building. But they were, and will always be wrong. Successful companies are built by individuals for the sake of creative enterprise and it is there that capitalism shines best and brightest—and for the most people’s benefit. It is what’s missing from our present culture and why everything taught counter to that basic ideal is a waste of time.  American business knows how to get there, but they are not willing to act morally to achieve it—which is why Ayn Rand in 1961 was so baffled by the American approach to the long-standing debate. There just weren’t enough defenders of capitalism out there because too many executives were staring at the boobies of their secretaries—instead of on the next great idea and how to free the minds of mankind to unleash the power of capitalism and the ideals that spring forth from such a culture.

Rich Hoffman



Dana Loesch and the New Counter-Culture: Superbowl and American football

I was never a fan of the first major counter-culture movement in the United States. You might say I hated it with every cell in my body. Even as a little kid I despised the dirty, smelly, tattooed hippies with their long air, and smoke smelly cloths. I’ve never liked what they stood for, and I have never thought for one half of a second that there was something that might come out of their brains that might have value. Ever. So it should be assumed that I am a big fan of the new counter-culture movement that has risen up to undo all the terrible impositions induced by the old scum bag hippies. It brings great pleasure to my mind to watch exchanges like the one below with Glenn Beck and his very articulate news personality on The Blaze TV, Dana Loesch who quite successfully punches all kinds of holes into the Washington Redskins debate below. I was thinking of this interview during the recent Superbowl as the game of capitalism played out on such a vast national stage. The game was complete with all the wonderful commercials displaying American products arriving to a marketplace thriving with freedom and unapologetic profit. So I thought it was time to revisit this clip and share it in mind for the wave of counter-culture behavior that I know is coming.

My friend Doc Thompson and his producer Skip LeCombe are part of this counter-culture of goodness that is spreading rapidly. If you haven’t listened to their radio show in the morning from 6 AM to 9 AM on The Blaze Radio network you are missing a rare treat. You can get them on satellite radio and is one of the best morning shows in America presently, and is a force behind this new counter-culture movement hell-bent on destroying the one created by the vile old hippies. Their show is extremely funny, and informative in a way that talk radio has not been able to produce since its inception. It’s a little Rush Limbaugh, a little bit of The Daily Show, and a good ol’ fashioned variety show that might have been heard at the start of radio. But better yet, Doc produces the kind of material that makes the faces of progressives melt clean off—which I find delightful.

Yet Dana Loesch is unique as shown in her above video with Beck. She is uniquely qualified to make arguments against progressives; she is very pro-gun, very pro constitution, and extremely liberty minded and knowledgeable about history. She is the exact opposite of the kind of losers who found themselves attracted to Charlie Manson’s family of communists and dope smoking losers. Dana is a counter-culture to the counter culture-movement. She’s young, attractive, and smart and she can argue with anybody leaving all the duds from the hippie generation in intellectual dust with obvious superiority. To say the least, I’m a fan of Dana.

Progressives have intended from the beginning to “progress” beyond American pride. They have attacked American football because they know it’s a game unique to the United States and the most powerful economy in the world. They have attacked it to bring down the capitalism that drives that massive economy and to a large extent, for over thirty years, the erosion from the old hippie has moved unchecked against tradition. So to counter that erosion a new counter-culture movement is needed to push back against that social destruction. It has been emerging for a number of years, but Glenn Beck has managed to put a point on it that is directed in very positive ways. Doc Thompson found a home with The Blaze because of Beck, and so has Dana, along with a whole host of similar counter-culture stars in the stable of the creative studios now built in Dallas.

Progressives wanted to destroy the Star Spangled Banner sung at the Super Bowl just like they wanted to change the name of the Washington Redskins out of guilt for some perceived sins long ago committed. But they didn’t know all the history involved, just like they ignored that the Redskin name came from one of the first Native American coaches for the Washington-based NFL team. Progressives just wanted change and they attempted to use guilt to provoke that change, just as they have tried to use guilt about the economy to redistribute wealth to the far corners of the world to indirectly feed communism and its massive failure.

Every time I watch a Superbowl in America I am reminded of what a great country it is. I love the pageantry before the game of all the pre-event ceremonies during media week. I love the half time shows. I love the commercials. I love the violence and strategy of the game itself. I love the Superbowl parties, the chicken wings, the beer, I love all the gatherings of family and friends that often come with viewings. I love watching the game on big televisions and I love the commentary by the various media personalities before and during the game. I love everything about it—and much of that is what the first counter-culture movement sought to undo.

The NFL rose to prominence during the hippie movement of the 1960s, so it deserves credit for staving off the impact. Even hippies enjoy football in America, so the game itself has cast doubt upon the thoughts of even the most ambitious hippie. The Superbowl in 2015 cost over $4 million dollars to run a 30 second commercial during the broadcast. And it cost a minimum of $9,000 per ticket to attend the game in person. That value is a created exception to the tide of the rest of the world hoping to spread the message of the dirty hippie to the soccer stadiums and sports forums everywhere. In America they have failed.

As much was said about Marshawn Lynch’s bizarre interviews during media week, he really livened up when he did a commercial/interview for Skittles. It was another fine example of capitalism by a popular player who really increased his brand with controversy leading up to the Superbowl. Many throughout the world would find the behavior disgraceful in that it was an open example of American product placement. But I love it.

It’s good to see a counter-culture movement coming out in defense of capitalism for a change instead of standing against it. And of that counter-culture Dana Loesch is the new Oprah and Connie Chung. Those old names helped feed the previous counter-culture movement—the progressives and excessively liberal Democrats slowly eroded the value of American society with guilt and sappy old hippy dialogue against capitalism. But their time is waning to a new movement which is emerging preserved by American football and maturing under fine people like Dana Loesch. Because of people like her, the Superbowl this year was just a little bit sweeter—pointing to a future that should be much better than the present as the hippies whither away into dust and are replaced by people like Doc Thompson and Dana Loesch.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development