Just Type in “Overmanwarrior”: A great offer from Second Call Defense

 

George Lang from Second Call Defense presented a very nice offer during the WAAM radio show I was hosting for my friend Matt Clark.  I’ve done quite a lot of radio but this was the first time I was the host, which took a bit of getting used to.  Its one thing to be a guest as George was, it’s another to be the pace setter watching all the commercial stops and working with the producer on the other side of the glass.  But it was fun, as I expected it to be and as always quite revelatory.  The entire broadcast can be heard at the following link, which I’d suggest listening to again and again because of all the information presented.   I dedicated the show to the use of personal firearms for self-defense spending the first half talking about my personal experience in the matter, then put George on to discuss Second Call Defense, which is to my mind as important as the bullets you put into a gun used during a self-defense situation.  George covered a remarkable number of legal ins and outs during his segment which was worth listening to all by itself.  I have included the script I was working with to provide some guide to the broadcast.  The times include commercials which have been removed from the following recording.  George offered a free month of Second Call Defense subscription to anyone who types OVERMANWARRIOR into the redeem code on their website—which was a pretty good deal.

 

Here are the plans and pricing.  The box requiring the redeem code is on the next page while filling out the payment information form.

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/plans-and-pricing

 

Radio Show WAAM Saturday June 13, 2015 1 PM
WAAM Talk 1600  734-822-1600

5 min — Matt Clark’s secret mission

8 min — Previous show and buying a .500 Magnum after realizing that society is already over the precipice.  Clinton emails, Lois Lerner corruption, Benghazi cover-up, drug violence, open borders, ISIS terrorism, power grab by the Justice Department law enforcement over localized police, Common Core and two generations of poorly educated children, the weakest foreign policy of United States global presence in over a century, bomb scares at the White House, Justice Department cover ups, and men who want to be women and vice versa—the world has fallen over the edge.

10 min — What I wanted to be when I grew up—a gunsmith.

17 min — Soft break

20 min — Treat at the bottom of the hour, old song from T.G. Sheppard and Clint Eastwood from a more civilized time – the 1980s.

  • The reason 80s music and movies still resonate so powerfully in our culture.

o Reaganomics and individual empowerment.

  • Dirty Harry represented by Clint Eastwood embodied traditional America with the encroaching progressivism culminating in the movie Sudden Impact.

30 min — Hard break

35 min — Song “Go ahead and Make my Day.”

38 min — Introduction of George Lang and his company Second Call Defense.

47 min — Soft break

50 min — Continuation about Second Call Defense.  Possibly take a phone call or two.

58 min — Exit to the top of the hour

As George pointed out during the broadcast George Zimmerman could have saved himself a lot of headache if he had used Second Call Defense during the Trayvon Martain shooting in Florida.  Using a gun in home defense or in a stand-your ground situation is only part of the story.  Because of the way laws and modern politics work, the burden of proof falls unfortunately on the shooter to validate their innocence.  When talking to the police after such an unfortunate incident, it is best to give the police as little as possible to turn around and use against you in court during a criminal or civil trial.  Some of those court hearings can be so painful that you might almost wish you hadn’t used a gun—which is the reason for all the progressive legislation—to nudge Americans away from the Second Amendment.  There are entirely too many people involved in self-defense shootings every year that lose everything because of the legal entanglements that occur after.  The very best thing to do in such a case is to turn all the legal work over to Second Call Defense and keep your mouth shut—even if you’re innocent of all guilt.  The system works against gun owners, so you’ll need some help, which is why George Lang is involved in Second Call Defense to begin with.  It’s a much-needed service for firearm use; just as the NRA is needed as a lobby against a gun grabbing government.  They are both very important and go hand in hand in this modern age of a lawyer driven society primarily against gun rights.

As I reported in my broadcast my decision to purchase the .500 Magnum was for all the reasons that the SWAT guys used a .50 caliber sniper rifle to stop the crazed gunman who opened up on a Dallas police station just hours before my show.  They used the big, powerful round to disable the getaway van by putting two shots into the engine block.  The .500 Magnum has the same type of stopping power, which in the world we are living in, is needed.  There is no reason to take risks with personal safety, so I am choosing the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum as my choice for family defense.  But, those big bullets aren’t enough to protect a firearm user from the diabolical reaches of the classic political class and their need for a straw man to prosecute in the wake of a shooting.  Their need for a straw man should never be underestimated.  As a firearm owner, you need protection from them as much as you do the goons, the punks, and the creeps George and I were talking about.  It’s a vicious world out there, and I have to thank George for making it easier for listeners of the Clarkcast to get protected with a free month by using the redeem word, “OVERMANWARRIOR.”  Take advantage of that offer, it is some of the best insurance that you can have for yourself

I’ll be hosting for Matt again on Saturday, June 20th at 1pm.  On that show Gery Deer will be with me to talk more about guns, knife throwing, and bull whips.  Be sure to tune in for more voluminous entertainment and interconnecting knowledge.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

U.S. Economy Drops 0.7%: The cost of too many rules and regulations

Not surprising the U.S. economy contracted 0.7% in the first quarter of 2015. At least it wasn’t a surprise to those outside of the Beltway, and progressive cities of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. Everywhere else in the America they saw it coming. Only in the progressive quarters of the nation are the illusions of government tampering not glaringly evident. Unfortunately, most of the surviving newspapers of any merit are still located in those cities, and the reporters there seemed alarmed by the economic retreat into the negative numbers.

No matter where you go in America, there is a big problem. Work ethics are at an all time low. Employees expect higher wages than ever for doing the least amount of work. Yet their competency is dismal. It is actually shocking now when someone does what they are supposed to do in a task, as opposed to doing something incorrectly. Competency is in short supply. But that’s not the worst of it. Government regulations driven by slack-jawed attorneys have crippled American manufacturing methods with stifling rules that prevent common sense in creating productive goods and services. There seems to be this infinite belief that more rules imposed on businesses will not correlate into a lack of productivity. Most companies, even large ones these days will declare that they are late to a schedule because they don’t have the manpower to execute compliance toward all the rules they have to contend with. For most companies compliance to their industry is a majority of their occupational commitment.

Government has imposed itself into virtually every crack of every endeavor in the United States which has destroyed the creative process of producing GDP. The evidence of this trend is actually in our artistic endeavors culturally. After seeing the latest Avengers movie I came away disappointed. It was a pretty good movie, but it was of a quality that was nearly television from the 80s quality—which is saying that it wasn’t new, spectacular, or worthy of a big screen treatment. Sure the special effects were good, but the music, direction and overall plot wasn’t much different from a typical Dukes of Hazard episode. Aside from the new Star Wars movies coming out, the film industry looks to be in desperate trouble. Most of the big movies hitting the silver screen are 1980 retreads, Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Terminator, etc. In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, a new movie seemed to come out every few weeks, many of which were memorable cultural benchmarks, like the Matrix, Twister, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and so on. But with all the talent and film schools out there, Hollywood is incapable of producing anything new. That is a huge problem.

The music industry is even worse. While at Kings Island recently I couldn’t help but notice that many of the young people were mouthing the words to songs that came out when I was a teenager, and heard while at that very same park. Also, the 80s Store was busy with people of all ages relishing all the great memorable aspects of the 1980s that they remember, or want to remember if they’re too young to have actually been there. The 80s Store features film memorabilia from E.T. to Ghostbusters, which is reportedly another retread coming to screens soon this time with women from Saturday Night Live instead of the original cast. I’ll go see it for fun, but do producers think they can recreate the magic of Ghostbusters just by changing women actors from men and stimulate a new audience? That’s part of the problem. The music they play in that store is a trip down memory lane. Back then every week was a new top 40 song and that went on for the entire decade. It was similar to the 1950 and early 60s where the music industry just hit it out of the ballpark with just about every song released. The art in the songs were about things people care about and reflected a culture of capitalism and freedom that was trying to find its way. There was an underlining sense of optimism in 80s music that was not heard in the late 90s or subsequent decades. The music of today is so hell-bent on political diatribes that the music goes out of fashion within a few months, not even years. Creatively our culture is in trouble, the people in it cannot produce original material, and those that can have been ostracized politically out of those progressive cities to preserve the ideology of those regions and our culture is suffering—clearly.

But those are just the symptoms; the cause is in the heavy-handed regulatory climate of our present government. During the 80s, Reagan gave people the impression that the sky was the limit and that the American dream was obtainable. For a lot of people, it was. For some it wasn’t, and for the undisciplined, they spiraled out of control due to indulgence in excess, whether it was money, drugs, or women. But at least there was a belief that anything could happen in America. The 1950s were similar, it was a post war-time, Americans had a good standard of living and businesses were booming. There was no lack of opportunity for those who wanted it as the world put itself back together after World War II. The music was reflective of the overall culture.

When I came out of Avengers: Age of Ultron movie I told my kids that our culture was headed for real trouble. The movie was average at best, and the filmmakers knew there were high expectations after the first movie did so well. Well, the Avenger movies aren’t a shiny penny anymore. There is a level of expectation that the public has and the franchise is slipping. I first noticed it during the latest Captain America movie, which was good-but not as great as it should have been.   With all the resources available from Disney, Age of Ultron was the best that they could do with a comic series that came out in the 60s and 70s? It should be expected that a movie like Frozen should come out every year instead of the occasional hit that it was. Again, with all the resources at Disney, that’s the best that they can do?

While watching Avengers II, the prescreening stuff was obsessed with progressive causes, such as the new ABC Family channel “Becoming Us,” which features a transgender family dealing with a dad who wants to become a woman. Really? Who thinks that thirty years from now in the Kings Island 2015 store that anybody is going to want to buy a t-shirt or hat with the logo “Becoming Us” on it? Progressives are more interested in being a change agent for an extreme minority rather than giving people what they really want in entertainment. Two or three more people might want to have a sex change operation because of “Becoming Us” but the vast majority of people will just tune out because the subject matter turns them off.

Then there is the ACLU case accusing Hollywood of hiring only men for big projects like Avengers instead of women. They ask questions like “why are all the directors of big blockbuster movies all men?” In fact Melissa Goodman, director of the L.G.B.T Gender and Reproductive Justice Project of the ACLU of Southern California said, “Women directors aren’t working on an even playing field and aren’t getting a fair opportunity to succeed.” Goodman doesn’t see the reality on the wall, she assumes that if a woman is cast in some below the line job or as a director that people will rush to the multiplex to see whatever they put up on the screen and it just doesn’t work that way. Transgender issues are not an issue. Boy George in the 80s had great success and people bought his music. But he wasn’t in everyone’s face about it every 15 minutes reminding people of his rights. He just made decent music that people wanted to hear. These days everything is about fairness and regulating an industry into making things fair. To that effect, in order to make something fair the good must give way to the bad, the strong to the weak, and the brilliant to the stupid, which of course waters down the end product in favor of stylish sentimentality. Yet the net result is a blasé commitment to the final product by a customer base indifferent to the consumer drive to participate.

The same ridiculous laws have migrated out of entertainment and into mainstream occupations. It is more important to government regulators to have a company hire minorities, women, or immigrants than the best people for a job who can make the best product. If companies don’t show an interest in bending to the will of government sentiment, then a government audit of some kind will come in for a shake down forcing the company to either shut down or pay extraordinary fines as a “payoff.” While all this is going on of course the company is less productive and not making whatever it’s supposed to be good at. The energy of the company is on compliance, not productivity.

Then of course comes the most intrusive element of all, taxation. There is a belief that a corporation should be willing to pay infinite amounts of tax just to operate within the United States. Well, that’s not how it works. Companies exists for one reason, to make money. Not to lose money. If they have to pay too much in taxes, they have to cover their margins somehow, and usually that means either relocating their business to a region that has low taxation—or they will just decide to shut down. There is no moral case for paying taxes to support government programs invented by politicians who know nothing about running a business. Companies will either not produce their product, or they’ll leave the country.

So when it’s wondered why there was a 0.7% drop in GDP during the first quarter of 2015, now you know why. Regulations are too intrusive, taxes are too high, and the political climate is more interested in all the wrong social issues than in actually making things people want. That has created a stifling atmosphere that is quickly evident in our arts, which directly translate over into our more productive sectors of society. Regulations and rules kill GDP. They do not enhance productivity, they hurt it, and in American society there are too many rules. That is why there is a retreat in productive output. Government has intruded itself into the affairs of the American people and the net result is less of what makes us good. Why is that so hard for progressives to understand? More rules don’t work in sports, why does anybody think they would work in business?

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Tea Party Goes to Washington: Rand Paul’s Success at battling the “Patriot Act.”

Very seldom does anything done in Washington D.C. ever get turned back to a reset. Rand Paul’s stand over the Section 215 of the Patriot Act signed into law on October 26th by President Bush is one of them. On May 25 2011 President Obama signed the Sunsets Extension Act which was a four-year extension of the three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. The act stands for United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It was created out of panic, some in the Senate actually had wanted the spying program well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks for the data collection it would allow. Like the TSA which also came as a result of the terrorist attack in New York, the Patriot Act was anything but patriotic. It was a chance for government to grow and become more powerful. 9/11 could have been avoided if only people had been doing their jobs ahead of time. Instead of expecting government workers to perform their tasks of security as the FBI and CIA knew about the planned terrorist attack—the government for a whole lot of bad reasons created the Patriot Act to step all over the rights of Americans as defined by the Constitution with a more ominous intrusive government trading safety for security.

Rand Paul entered the Senate as a Kentucky representative in 2011 on the backs of a book called The Tea Party Goes to Washington. He is often the smartest guy in the room as he has had a successful career as a doctor prior to his bout with politics. Like most Tea Party supporters, Paul is not interested in politics as a way to further his social status. He only seems to care for solving problems the way a doctor would want to solve a patient they actually wanted to fix. This makes him a nightmare for the establishment politicians.

In Butler County, Ohio it was declared by establishment Republicans in John Boehner’s district that Tea Party Republicans were about to go extinct after the 2014 elections. The feeling was that the radical Tea Party types who expected politicians to follow the Constitution were going to be shoved out of the orthodox portions of the party and discredited. Once such a thing happened it wouldn’t take long for everyone to lose interest and go away. CLICK HERE to see how that’s going and what types of things really go on behind the scenes to facilitate that fantasy. But now well into 2015 that isn’t happening. The Tea Party still meets every month, and is still holding politicians feet to the fire and within only four years of entering office, Rand Paul is doing the hard work of what needs to happen many, many more times—he’s actually eliminating laws that should have never existed in the first place.

The purpose of this little article is for the novice to understand what Rand Paul is all about. Likely there will be a lot of anxiety toward Paul for the next couple of years as establishment Beltway types will panic at his resiliency, and buoyancy. Rand Paul is one of the few candidates in the GOP field of potential presidents who I want to see as President, so I put this article up to show newcomers what he’s about and how he handles himself. As shown in the videos included he is equally persuasive speaking to liberal pundits and conservatives alike. As a Republican he is able to reach across the aisle and speak with liberals in a way that doesn’t demonize them displaying a leadership tendency that truly frightens lesser politicians who make their livings with slimy activity. Rand Paul’s exclusive reason for running for president is to put those slimy politicians out of business—which means if his name is on the ballot, I will be voting for him.

Rand Paul has promised to eliminate the Department of Education if he is elected president which is another thing that truly must happen soon if America is going to survive into the 2020s. Without something truly dramatic happening in the public education system, out future generations of Americans will be destroyed before they ever reach adulthood, just because the public education system is so bad. The DOE was created in 1979. President Reagan wanted to eliminate it, but didn’t. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY. Under President Bush it expanded by double under the No Child Left Behind Act and from there kids under labor union influence have been swept away toward socialism at a maddening pace—which has been a byproduct of a centralized federal effort. Education has to be a state’s rights issues and must be decentralized if it is going to survive in any form. So far only Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and probably Scott Walker are able and willing to do anything this controversial. But it has to be done and soon. Make no mistake about that.

Another federal department that Rand Paul has vowed to end is the Department of Commerce. That department has turned out to be a giant make rich scheme for the well-connected and has nothing to do with the expansion of national GDP. It could be completely eliminated without anyone realizing it was gone. For America to survive these are things that must happen. Failure to do so will lead to a slow integration through collapse into United Nations led efforts to mold the world into one big stew. This is certainly the intention of the Clintons, and appears to be the purpose of the Obama Administration. The Bush family is also perpetually headed in that direction as they always turn toward bigger government each time there is pressure placed to do something responsible—whether it’s providing security to the people of the United States or expanding the economy. For most Beltway politicians they rubber stamp more government expansion and head to K-Street for easy money and sinful recreation—no republic can survive under such conditions and poor leadership.

Rand Paul on the other hand is refreshingly intelligent—and a natural leader. All leaders know that their position is not a popularity contest. Most of the time people will hate you for being a leader—that comes with the territory. Rand seems very comfortable with that role, which is another reason he is such a good presidential candidate. The GOP would be crazy not to nominate him for the presidency if it comes down to a choice between some big government slug like John Kasich, or Jeb Bush. I know for a fact that most establishment Republicans want Kasich in my home town because they want corporate welfare—they want to get rich off the government in all the wrong ways that safety net welfare often occupies regarding poor spending and corruption. Paul has stated that he will get rid of corporate welfare before he touches social welfare—which I can agree with.   I want welfare gone for everyone so to allow recipients to become better. If a company gets corporate welfare, they are allowing government to falsely prop them up against competition, which is not how capitalism is supposed to work. It’s cheating and is no different from “deflategate” in the NFL involving the Patriots cheating that has gone on. It doesn’t matter if you win a Superbowl if you cheated to get there. The same in business, a company isn’t really good if it cheats to be profitable. If a better company comes along that can do something better, then the old company should fail and possibly go out of business in favor of the better company. That’s how things are supposed to work in America and Rand Paul understands that.

Undoubtedly many in the Beltway are secretly hoping that something bad happens during this whole PATRIOT Act issue. There are probably loose plans for false flag events to take place just to attempt to hurt Paul’s stance on the government surveillance programs that are in jeopardy. But in reality Rand Paul knows that the entire NSA could be shut down and nobody would really notice. If the United States would stop fumbling the ball in the Middle East either on purpose or out of sheer stupidity, it wouldn’t take long for ISIS to run out of bullets. And if the FBI and CIA would actually talk to each other there wouldn’t be a need for The Department of Homeland Security. That is just another branch of worthless government expansion. I’m sure as I’m writing this there are plans to rattle the nerves of the American people and to make Rand Paul look bad for his steadfast resolve into shrinking government instead of allowing perpetual expansion. But if everyone holds to the line they will discover that most of the debate is strictly rhetoric. Most of government could be eliminated and nobody in the core of America would notice, or care. And that is the game of chicken that Rand Paul is playing, and for which we should all hope he succeeds. This is what it looks like when the Tea Party goes to Washington. And it’s a wonderful thing for Constitutional purists—for which every American should be.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Truth Behind Pseudoscience: How the Forest Hills superintendent played a part in the destruction of scientific method

Pseudoscience is a growing trend which I cover quite a lot, mainly because it is evolving out of a lack of trust in the current intellectual institutions. As it turns out the imagination of mankind is more reliable than its ordained collectivism—the level of reality that the masses are willing to accept. For those masses, their level of intellectual aptitude is not very high, and they are happy to relegate their trust to those they consider authority figures. But that trust quickly evaporates when it is discovered that those authority figures are extremely corrupt individuals lacking basic leadership skills, which is certainly the case when the Forest Hills superintendent was caught trying to manipulate his child’s individual test scores—because obviously those types of things are important to his family. This is not an uncommon occurrence. In my dealings with public schools I was amazed at how simple their thinking was, and how easy to corrupt they were. My net result of observation was that they cannot be trusted with much of anything—especially the framework that science and education in general are bound by. Here is the story of the superintendent as reported by Channel 5.

ANDERSON TOWNSHIP, Ohio —Forest Hill School Board members have released the results of their investigation into allegations that Superintendent Dallas Jackson is accused of invalidating a first semester exam score, because his son did poorly on the test.

It could be a packed house at the Forest Hills School Board meeting Monday night after the district’s superintendent was accused of tossing out a test because of his son’s grade.

The board met in executive session for more than three hours Monday night.

According to an unnamed investigator, Superintendent Dr. Dallas Jackson attempted to interfere with grades on a pre-calculus honors mid-term exam, but the Turpin High School principal addressed the exam grades without influence from the superintendent.

Teachers first sent a letter to the school board questioning the ethics of the superintendent’s inquiries into the test his son took.

WLWT has been pushing the Forest Hills district for the documents for days. The station obtained a copy late Tuesday afternoon.

Jackson tried to step in after 44 percent of the honors students, including his son, failed an exam in December.

An independent investigation found Jackson sent a text to the principal saying he was not happy with the way she was handling the issue.

The district reported Jackson met twice with the principal at Turpin about the exam. Jackson told the principal the failure rate was due to either “a bad test or bad teaching.”

The principal approached the teachers in charge of the exam about averaging out the test grade, but they refused. Ultimately, the teachers, the Turpin principal and assistant principal agreed on a plan to give students a chance to raise their grades.

Jackson disagreed with the plan, but it was implemented anyway.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/forest-hills-school-board-ends-investigation-into-superintendents-conduct/32623884

In my experience at witnessing, writing, and researching many stories like the one above from Forest Hills, it is safe to say that I don’t trust much of anything that comes from institutions backed by government—especially if they have connections to international trade unions. There is just too much temptation to cover up bad human behavior, or interpretations of a strongly held static pattern—such as a religious preference—to alter and manipulate data intended to be involved in critical thought. As I say that I can’t help but think of a book a person I greatly admire wrote called The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. Sagan is not the type to jump into conspiracy theories and wanted very much to fight back the trend to take imaginations into pseudoscience. But the scientific data he often relies on to make proper decisions are known to be deliberately revised. Evidence cannot be considered if it is destroyed and proper assessment of data cannot be deduced if it is avoided to protect intellects from the challenges of new data that may be contrary to a static pattern of thinking.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a 1995 book by astrophysicist Carl Sagan.

In the book, Sagan aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople, and to encourage people to learn critical or skeptical thinking. He explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking, and should stand up to rigorous questioning.

Science to Sagan is not just a body of knowledge, but a way of thinking. The scientific way of thinking is both imaginative and disciplined, bringing humans to an understanding of how the universe is, rather than how they wish to perceive it. Science works much better than any other system because it has a “built-in error-correcting machine”. Superstition and pseudoscience get in the way of many laypersons’ ability to appreciate the beauty and benefits of science. Skeptical thinking allows people to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He states that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

Yet we live in a world where public schools have deliberately avoided critical thinking and reason—so that emotional decisions centering on collective endorsement can be utilized instead. The result of this action is an entire society that has lost the ability to think critically or to use reason to make determinations. When those types of people are in charge of an institution what you get is the kind of results seen in Forest Hills Superintendent Dallas Jackson. His son had a bad grade, he was a superintendent of an important public school, and he didn’t want the embarrassment of having his kid not performing at the top of his academic expectations………….what would the neighbors think? Worse yet, what about the rest of the family? So he used his power to abuse the system to his needs. This has happened within the IRS involving Lois Lerner. It happened in Benghazi. It happens every time a teacher decides they want to have sex with one of their students. It happens all the time and at all levels.

Its not unrealistic to imagine that some curators at The Smithsonian Institute, or The National Geographic Society who have poured their faith behind the Charles Darwin theories of evolution and built their careers around those assumptions would not stuff the bones of some giant discovered in a Ohio mound into some vault, or even destroy the evidence to preserve their scientific outlook. For instance, everyone knows that whatever wreckage was found in the Roswell incident was sent to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Not long thereafter there were many UFO sightings around Southern Ohio probably related to new military technology either being developed at WPAB or the testing of alien technology found in the wreckage. Or perhaps somebody or something connected to the wreckage went looking for their stuff back. Supposedly the complex of this mysterious Air Force base was connected by tunnels to the Mound Nuclear complex nearby in Miamisburg. And in the middle of all this activity was the Masonic temple that looks down into downtown Dayton and the Great Miami River upstream from the nuclear site. Old buildings around Dayton all up and down the river in that area have lots of references to gargoyles and strange winged creatures that really don’t have a direct connection to the frontier development of those communities, so something really odd is going on behind the veil of the presented reality there. I probably wouldn’t think anything strange about any of this except that somebody decided to build the entire nuclear research facility right in the middle of a magnificent mound builder complex right in the middle of the site. At the Miamisburg Mound at least two skeletons of people over 8 feet tall were found, so any credible university it would be thought would seek to do some major excavations in Miamisburg to discover who and what they were. Instead, science and industry backed by politics built a nuclear research facility supposedly connected to the alien conspiracy theories of WPAB. If you take Carl Sagan’s scientific method at face value one has to ask—what proof is there of any paranormal, or pseudoscience behavior? Well, the mound itself there in Miamisburg is large, and the entire nuclear faculty was built around it for some reason—perhaps to give the illusion of having respect for Native American culture. Yet nobody has dared to do a proper excavation of the site in over 100 years. Why? The University of Dayton is literally just a few miles away—they have some anthropology courses that they offer. Nearby University of Cincinnati and Miami University both have respectable archaeology programs, yet nobody has pulled together the ability to do a suitable dig at the site—which would unquestionably produce many more skeletons—probably some of which were giants—relatively speaking. Science creates the pseudoscience speculation because of the various cover-ups which likely stem from a religious desire, or a European pride issue of maintaining that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the cultures that were already in the New World were truly primitive hunters and gathers. The culture that built those mounds was more advanced than previously thought, and those in charge wanted to manipulate the facts to force reality to be shaped to their desire.

That’s why it’s a big deal when someone like Dallas Jackson abuses his authority to make his son look smarter to his peers. Jackson manipulated the science of critical thinking to create a desired outcome. When this happens in a local school system, you get mistrust and some chicken gawking toward righteousness. The teachers had a chance to push back against management and show what ethical people they are ahead of their next levy attempt, and the news outlets get a story to cover. But when the same thing happens on a national level with all the coordinating institutions protecting their version of realty—whether it is in preserving the illusion of European history and cultural superiority, religious orthodox, or even political alignments the only way to scratch at the truth is through the pseudoscience.

Public education institutions have lost their relevancy because they have shown themselves all too willing to behave as a filter to reality by programming the masses into illusions of understanding—so to preserve versions of reality they see as valuable. For Dallas Jackson it was more important to him to have his son look like a smart kid than in the actual fact of his son’s intelligence. So he sought ways to fudge the numbers in favor of his boy. This is how Carl Segan’s trust in the scientific method goes wrong because institutions and those in charge of any collective oriented enterprise are prone to doing just as Jackson did meaning that very little of what is produced and offered as truth can be taken as such without more evidence being sought out through speculation. Little things do add up to big things rather quickly and because of that pseudoscience is gaining ground where orthodox science is failing. And sometimes it all starts with a superintendent just trying to change the grade of his son to look better in a social setting. That is the damage that is done, and why it is so perilous a path to take.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

I’m Sick of Homosexual Marketing: Their lifestyle choices are imposing, and disrespectful

Personally I’m really sick of the whole social homosexual issue and don’t have much sympathy for the Indiana and Arkansas governors under protest from gay groups over their recent legislation which should be covered already by the 1st Amendment anyway. I’m not gay, and don’t personally associate with gay people because they typically don’t share my values, and I have no plans to change that value judgment. I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show was a terrible movie, and I hate gay pride parades because of all the stupid color combinations. Yet in spite of the opinions of the progressive left and right, that does not make me a homophobe—as they like to call people who don’t share their appreciation for anal intercourse—which is gross in any fashion—man or woman. When I look at people I try not to think about what kind of sex they enjoy, just as I don’t want to know if they like fried chicken or sushi. Whatever their choices—keep it to themselves, because I likely don’t want to know. Sex is a very small part of existence, so policy should not be built around any sexual orientation. Gay people don’t have a right to molest straight people with audacity and gross behavior in public—then cry foul when people don’t like what they see. When those people utter such, they don’t deserve to be called names and attacked socially by a collective mob to change their behavior under coercion, which is what has been happening in Indiana. At that point gay people lost their sympathy and have simply become bullies. They may have a rainbow inspired aggression—but they are still bullies.

An example of how gays step over the line all too often occurred when I was much younger—I was at a video game arcade using the rest room when a very wiry person came up to the stall next to me. Now it was a big bathroom so there were many other stalls he could have used, instead he stood right next to me. That was problem number one, because I don’t like people too close to me unless there is no other option—and there were options. Then he tried to have a conversation with me, which was mistake number two. I really don’t like to talk to people when using the restroom. I like to get finished as quickly as possible and get out of those places—because they usually smell bad. So I didn’t want to talk to him. Then he tried to look over the divider at my assets, and he was not shy about it. I’m not ashamed of anything there, so that didn’t bother me so long as I’m dealing with a heterosexual. But as it turned out, the guy was gay, and he asked me if he could perform oral sex. That was it. I called him a fag. He called me a hater and grabbed my shoulder to look me in the face as if he had authority to touch me, so I punched him. I heard a pop when my fist hit his face and he went down and stayed there. I stood there for a moment to see if he would move, which he did a little. I finished with my bathroom visit taking extra time to see if the guy would try to engage in conversation—but he didn’t. Instead he stood up, refused to engage in any further conversation not even bothering to wipe the blood from his face in the sink and left. It was a really strange ending to a really uncomfortable trip to the restroom.   He was obviously embarrassed that he ended up on the floor after trying to engage in sexual activity, and left quickly once he could stand again. I expected security to come, but they never did so after waiting around for about 15 minutes, I left never to see that guy again. If that had been today, I would have had an army of PC police there to put my face on the news and the newspapers would have written about it until they ran out of ink—but back then distinctions in such behavior were still judged as something negative—and the sentiment toward change has not enriched our culture. There have been similar incidents over the years, but that was the worst and most obvious—and the question I’ve always had is–why should I have to put up with those people?

Men and women have separate bathrooms for a reason, so that sexual conduct doesn’t get mixed together. But with gay people, there are no barriers, and they defiantly have the advantage because only they really know if they are gay or not. If a guy wants to use the stall next to me in the restroom, my wife has a right to know if some rival for her affection is trying to get a mental picture of her private affairs. If the guy is heterosexual, she doesn’t have a rival, but if he’s gay, she does. This is a problem, as a straight person, I should have a right to use the restroom without sexual advances—and in this modern society—you never know. If you’re endowed, you can’t hide that stuff behind a stall, so the eyes of a gay person can see everything clearly—if they want to. So where are the rights of heterosexuals in this whole discussion over non discrimination—because in order to protect ourselves from sexual advancements, one must make a value judgment against those who clearly are willing to cross the lines of acceptability?

It is baffling to me how critics of the new Indiana law interpreted The Religious Freedom Act. Gay advocates as reported by The Blaze in the following article reflect the lunacy.

MSNBC host Ed Schultz clashed with a conservative guest from the Heritage Foundation Tuesday night over Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law.

The liberal host opened up his show asking Ryan Anderson, “How does this law open it up for blatant discrimination?”

“This law doesn’t open the door for discrimination,” Anderson quipped back. “This is the law that’s been on the federal books … and it governs over 30 states.”

“Wait a minute, that’s not true,” Schultz responded, contending those laws don’t have “the definition of a person connected to a corporation.”

“No, no it does,” Anderson rebutted. “The Supreme Court held just last term that the definition of person in the federal RFRA includes corporate persons.”

“Cut his mic off! Cut his mic off! We’ll bring him back if he wants to be courteous.”

Share:

Schultz disagreed and reiterated his view that the law opens the door open for discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.

“Corporations do have rights!” Anderson said. “The New York Times has free press rights. It goes not just to each reporter, but to the institution. … In the same way, people who form organizations also have their religious liberty rights protected.”

Schultz then asked Anderson if it was the position of the right-wing that business owners should be permitted to tell gay people to “get the hell out” of their restaurants.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/31/msnbcs-ed-schultz-loses-it-on-conservative-guest-over-controversial-indiana-law-cut-his-mic-off/

To make matters even worse, members of the UConn coaching staff are boycotting the Final Four in Indianapolis because of the Religious Freedom Act saying “UConn is a community that values all of our members and treats each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of their background and beliefs, and we will not tolerate any other behavior.” Well, given that they are a progressive institution to begin with, their statement is consistent with the teachings of the progressive movement—but they fail to identify one glaring issue. In order for this whole thing to work—this equality thing, it requires people like me to put up with swanky perverts who want to turn our bathrooms into pick-up joints and to treat them with some level of restraint. If I were to walk into a women’s bathroom undoubtedly there would be quite a stir as woman would likely scramble to cover their private parts from my male eyes. But we are supposed to disregard this restraint in the presence of gays and allow them to view without any feelings of guilt the fruits of our privacy for the benefit of their sexual perversions. The action on their behalf requires nothing. But for someone like me, it requires an abandonment of value and preservation reserved typically between the sanctity of a husband and wife.

If there is a business that typically caters to a religious crowd, don’t they have a right to discriminate against those who might drive away other members of their business who seek refuge in their endeavors? Don’t straight men and women have a right to use the restroom without being eye candy to the deviant—or will UConn protest the term deviant to describe a person who spends too much time thinking about sex? Don’t businesses have a right to sport productive enterprises that might be negatively impacted by a couple of dudes making out in public with pink tights and a hat full of flowers? Of course they would. To argue otherwise is insane. Yet the progressives have done just that and revealed to what extent they wish to impose themselves on society. They want normal people to lower their expectations to the level of the valueless, and to allow themselves to be sacrificed to the mass whims of collectivism. And when faced with such a vile understanding, the conservatives don’t even have the guts to speak out against it—except for Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. He defended the law quite well and you saw what progressive Ed Schultz did—he cut off his microphone.

The only way that gays can win their position is to stop the debate against them with name calling, or break down any moral retribution that might be cast in their direction due to them being entirely too focused on sex instead of higher elements of mental acuity. In both cases they act as a parasitic organism against society at large, and personally, I’m tired of hearing about their feelings. Homosexuals represent between 2% to 10% of the total population depending on the survey source. At best they are asking 90% of the rest of the country to put up with their marketing efforts toward finding more dating options. That’s pretty much what it boils down to. And for the rest of us, particularly me, I’d say we’ve heard enough from them. I’d like to go to the can without worrying about some rainbow princess trying to watch me, and if two drag dressing transvestites want to suck face in a business of mine, I should have a right to toss them out to keep from intruding on the privations of the other customers, and all their kids. At some point enough is enough, and we’re there.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Obamanation: Just too embarrassing to discuss

I don’t like Obama, I think as a president he’s an idiot, and he’s at best one of the worst things that’s ever happened to America. But today I actually feel sorry for him. It would be terrible to live in his shoes, to have such an intellect that has led to so much destruction—and to be solely responsible for it. What a mess his presidency is—its not even dignified enough to have a closure as Nixon did—with a resignation ahead of impeachment. Obama’s time in the White House is such a miserable failure that it can’t even end with dishonor and an apology. He is so bad that such things wouldn’t even help.

“Was it worth it?”

That’s the first question Fox News host Megan Kelly posed to State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Wednesday night, several hours after the U.S. Army announced they were charging Bowe Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The Obama administration released five Taliban commanders to free the former Army sergeant from captivity last year.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/megyn-kelly-gets-tough-with-state-dept-spokeswoman-on-bergdahl-swap-was-it-worth-it/

I hate to say it, but I reported on all this in 2014 when Obama brought the Bergdahl family to the Rose Garden for a press conference as if his actions in releasing a very controversial figure would give him a chance to wipe his hand across the ass of the deserter’s mother and allow the father to show the radical roots of their son through his speech. Obama stood by and smiled a knowing smile looking fully supportive of the misunderstood terrorist of the Taliban as Bob Bergdahl spoke Pashto–as if the Bergdahl family represented the future fate of all Americans—soon to buckle under the weight of Stockholm syndrome complete with a Taliban beard and worship of Allah from the White House. Obama had just made plans to release 5 terrorists for a deserter and had the parents of the weak-kneed solider thank the god of the terrorists in front of millions of people. Somehow Obama calculated that his Saul Alinsky tricks would wipe the minds of America so that they wouldn’t see what he was doing.

It took the army most of a year to release their findings but finally they had to agree that Bowe Bergdahl was in fact a deserter and had actually caused the death of American soldiers trying to retrieve him from his defection to the Taliban. There was no way for them to spin the situation in the White House but Jen Psaki tried—but to no avail. What was she thinking even going on the Kelly File to try to spin the story? As I watched I couldn’t help but feel sorry for her—as all her words would go down in history and never be forgotten. Even worse was the thought that Obama himself was watching and hoping for a half court miracle shot by Jen to turn the tide against public opinion. But she only dug the Obamanation deeper into the quandary of failure.

It was ugly. So ugly, I can’t even write any more about it. I’ve said all this before, and as usual, I was more right than I wanted to be. But even as much as I despise Barack Obama as an American president, I don’t hate anybody that much—to watch them make such complete idiots of themselves—the failure of the White House is complete. And they have nobody to blame on earth but themselves—and that is the worst punishment for their crimes imaginable, because it will be stuck to all of them for the rest of their lives. This Bergdahl situation is simply that bad. It is embarrassing, insulting, and deeply revealing all in a single action. And it is a story that will have legs for a long time, and go down in history books for centuries.

Even worse look who is defending people like Bob Bergdahl. Here is a quote from the extremely liberal New Yorker.

“Imagine that you have a child, a wanderer by nature, who gets caught up in a war that has persisted aimlessly for many years; his roaming has festered into a chronic pathology for which there is no known cure. Then imagine that the child, who had hoped to help make a change for the better, becomes so disillusioned that he or she decides that there is no choice but to just walk away into unknown territory. If that were your child, what would you do?”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bob-bergdahl-good-father

Clearly, Bob and his wife started the process of imbedding in the young Bowe the type of weakness that made him a deserter. For that family, as bad as the embarrassment is for Obama—it will be worse. What a mess!

These are just embarrassing human beings.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

50 Years of Marriage: The Rams draft Michael Sam–the first openly gay NFL player

It was a rare privilege these days to attend the 50th wedding anniversary of some family friends hosted at a church they had spent their entire life attending.  Prior to the event my wife and I had just celebrated a few days ago our own anniversary of 26 years.  My parents were there and next year they will celebrate their own 50th anniversary.  Growing up I had two sets of grandparents who both went past the 50 year marriage mark which didn’t seem unusual back then.  In the middle of the celebration came the news through social media that Michael Sam had been drafted in the 7th round by the St Louis Rams—which was significant because he is the first openly gay player to enter the NFL.  Talk about locker room tension, or even on the field concern of being tackled by the guy who will unquestionably struggle to keep his sexuality in check around naked men every day.  The kind of idiots who think that gay athletes can be paired together without circumstance are the same fools who can’t fathom being married for 50 years to a member of the opposite sex, raising a family and falling in rhythm with that person in a lifelong dance that builds good people as byproducts to the relationship.

A long time friend of mine gave a nice speech to the crowd amassed in the bowels of the Grace Baptist Church in Middletown about how important his parents had been to he and his sister over all those years.  It wasn’t difficult for him to conger up many good memories of all the years his parents had been there for him like a rock to depend on.  As I listened I knew my own children and now grand children had similar thoughts which would become that much more pronounced when my wife and I hit our own 50 year mark.  That seems like a long time ago, but we realized during the speech that all these 50 year marriages had essentially all been present at our own wedding and they were at the stage then that we are now.  I remember thinking at the end of the 1980s when divorce was becoming rampant and easy by lawyers looking to make money off other people’s misery that many then thought 25 to 30 years of marriage was impossible, yet many were present at our own wedding at the Becket Ridge Country Club.  That in itself was sadly unusual.

Long marriages are not about sexuality.  They are about teamwork, commitment, determination, tenacity, love, and a willingness to walk through the fires of life and spit out the flames one by one at whatever cost.  No marriage over such a long time goes without pitfalls because life has a way of issuing out detours to such journeys without any compassion to our sensitivities.  Long time couples find a way to work through things and come out on the other end and their families are stronger for it.

The news of the new openly gay NFL player is a judgment based on a person’s sexuality only.  It is a progressive desire to destroy all resemblance of traditional family values and place before the world the progressive notion of an athlete that is gay as though such a thing could be normal.  Regardless of how one believes another might become gay, the fact that Michael Sam is will without question cause difficulties in the lives of his teammates.

Being married for a long time I can declare with safety that if I were playing football and the cheerleaders had to shower in the same location as my team mates, my wife would not be OK with that.  The reason is because sexuality needs to be focused and conducted in the bedroom of our home in order for her to manage all the other tasks of our family.  Having nakedness and sexual temptation outside of our marriage would then weaken all the important tasks in our relationship, such as picking out new trees for our yard, keeping track of events in the extended family, needs that the children might have and so on.  Seeing the naked bodies of many women even if the occurrences did not lead to sex would be distracting to our relationship.  It introduces elements that would pull the context of our marriage maneuvers into the primal realm which is not sustaining to families at large.  It’s not a matter of trust so much as sacrament.  If every other young woman prancing around gets a nice view of the tripod and can go home to satisfy themselves to its memory—what sacrament is there for my wife who is then supposed to worship it as a phallic beast meant only for her appeasement.  At football games she would know that all the little girls had the same knowledge of it as she.  They may not handle it but the vision of it is there in their minds for their enjoyment.

NFL player wives already have to accept that their husbands are likely cheating on them while on the road for away games.  That is bad enough.  But now they have to worry that Michael Sam will be doing more than playing ball on a football field and even if it isn’t beyond just looking—the act will be a sexual one.  For a man who likes to be under other men, nobody can legitimately ponder that for a gay male—being on the bottom of a football pile is not a fantasy that he will carry with him to his private acts.  For each man who adds a bit of sweat and odor to the fantasies of Michael Sam, it is sexual essence robbed from the wives of the players who are left with almost nothing sacred for their own bedroom.  Part of the appeal of a married couple is that their sexuality is committed to each other—not the world at large.

I do not like it when my wife goes to a doctor.  Her nakedness belongs to me.  Now, in the scheme of the human body we are all just clumps of flesh and once the soul is removed, the body decays away into dirt.  Humans bring value to such nakedness through their relationships.  If every other man out there has seen the naked body of a wife, then there is less sacred appeal in the bedroom—and anybody who has been married for a long time knows the need for such things.  Sure you get used to seeing each other but there is still purity in knowing that every neighbor up and down the street has not seen her which makes her treasures a gift of the relationship.  Without such enticements, fighting through the really hard stuff is not very appealing—and people usually give up.   This is also why being married to a stripper will bring unusual tension to a relationship.  It might be fun while she is young and attractive, but down the road when her old customers are lonely and looking her up online after she’s popped out a couple of kids—her naked body will be on their mind.   They don’t want to talk—but to remember.

To people who think marriage is a mystery and really have no clue to how relationships work, they are cheering for the progressive step forward society has taken as the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam.  They believe that putting a gay man in a locker-room with other guys will actually work but it won’t, mark my words.  The two things are not biologically, or intellectually compatible and the tension of sexual premise will be distracting to the organization in a very negative way.  Progressives are fine with the conflict, because they are out to change the essence of how human beings conduct relationships.  They are interested in the social impact of changing behavior—especially in marriage.

An old friend sat at my table at this anniversary dinner—one I hadn’t seen in about 20 years.  We picked up our conversation upon the last sentences we had uttered two decades ago only he filled me in on the three marriages he had over that duration.  Such things are normal these days.  Having children with one wife then children with a second and third and trying to see all those kids who are essentially being raised by other men who do not share the same kind of values as the original father is simply destroying children—and these days it is normal behavior.  Nobody thinks twice about hearing his story—but when people find out that my wife and I have been married for a quarter century they almost act like they stumbled into a leprosy village.  Yet everyone yearns for the 50 year anniversary.  I doubt there is a woman alive who goes to her wedding day not hoping to someday celebrate 50 years of marriage to her husband. Yet increasingly, such thoughts are a fleeting fantasy.

The progressives have destroyed the lives of many millions of people by teaching them the wrong values; this latest stunt involving Michael Sam is just the most recent.  Unisex bathrooms, easy pornography, and cheapened sexuality mixing gender roles attacking the family unit of tradition aggressively have destroyed our modern culture and left the children to be raised essentially by government schools.  Behind every marriage these days is a parade of parasitic lawyers chasing after the couple like hyenas waiting for one of them to stumble so that legal action against the other can take place and the state can take control of the children.   What my friend was thanking his parents for at the anniversary dinner was for giving him a sense of tradition and value as the trend has moved toward thinking that the Michael Sam draft is fashionable. Anybody coming from such long-term marriages whether it is my friend, me, or my children are lucky and we know it.  But it will be up to us to protect such opportunities in the future as the trend is against it.  Yet it shouldn’t be.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com