A Rainbow Colored White House: Once a nation of leaders–now overrun by second-handers

The White House putting rainbow-colored lights on it during the June 26th Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, or the previous day’s debacle of further sustaining Obamacare by that same court is evidence that the management of the nation is focused on all the wrong things in order to make the world “equal.”  The world will never be equal—because there will always be one thing that will be ignored in that pursuit of equality—and it’s not black or white, rich or poor, or gay and straight issues—it is that the hard-working will always be plucked by the parasites of laziness.  The unimaginative will always wait for those who think to provide direction.  Leaders will always have followers, and those followers will always flock behind the brave.  We call these followers’ second-handers and in the collectivist culture of the present White House they perform in all the classic ways of a typical follower, but they are allowed to believe that they can take equal credit for any successes that might occur.  For the multitudes of second-handers this is good news for them—it makes them feel good, like they are part of problem solving the world.  But they’re not.  As always, and as it will always be, only a few do most of the work and take the responsibility of leadership as the others follow behind.  Those who work hardest in our society will always be discriminated against by the second-handers.  Second-handers are those who live through others—thus their designation.  A leader will survive and flourish with or without a second-hander, but a second-hander cannot survive without a leader.  That is the biggest difference and is the specific reason that capitalist cultures thrive whereas socialist cultures fail.

One of the great challenges of capitalism is in the nature of their corporations, which by their very design are socialist entities, or even raw dictatorships.   The bigger they are, the more they resemble socialist enterprises.  In these companies a ruling elite create a kind of flowchart leadership culture that have a mixture of second-handers and leaders who are all told that they are equal or in subservience to those above them, and they are forced to behave within that framework in order to get a pay check.  This greatly limits the potential of the company because it allows second-handers to rise to the top by default through protection of an organizational chart.  Washington D.C. is filled with these types of second-handers—people who think they are valuable assets to some government enterprise they have worked within for years.  Their merit is not judged by their performances, but by their years of service.  Leaders often become discouraged and either sit on their talents in frustration, or they leave not able or willing to take orders from a second-hander.

Of course second-handers are in the majority throughout the world, and these socialist systems were designed by them to hide their natural timidity.  The primary reason all government departments and most large companies fail to innovate properly or remain competitive in global marketplaces is because the leaders within their organizations stop producing because they do not desire to share their efforts with the second-hander.  Once the leaders stop leading, the second-handers flounder about directionless leaving as their only defense stacks of bureaucracy to buy time until some leader comes along to save them from their own lack of action.  That is in essence what is behind most bureaucratic efforts—a lack of courage trying to hide the nature of the second-hander that designed it for their own protection.

Companies that thrive most are built by leaders.  Those who survive longest find the leaders among their ranks and put them in charge—clearly forcing the second-handers to be driven toward objectives—and success is to be found in such a fashion.  But when leaders are told to provide their benefits to others without merit, and that those others are equal to them, the leaders will just do something else and leave the second-handers to their own devices.  It’s an unnatural relationship that is most exemplified by the current White House.  With their display of the rainbow colors, they have shown the world that they have no idea what makes a country great and the lights are embarrassing.  In this case they are putting an emphasis on gay rights but ignoring the rights of those who work the hardest—and that is a big mistake.

 For instance, Tim Cook is a gay man and is the current CEO of Apple.  Apple as a company is trading at a rate equivalent to a market capitalization of about $1.26 trillion.  When Steve Jobs died, Apple took the best of their leaders and promoted him into the CEO of Apple which was a position personally mentored to Cook by Jobs even as he died.  Cook’s success has nothing to do with him being gay, but that he was competent.  However, without Steve Jobs, Cook would undoubtedly fail, just as it is presently on its decline as a company.  Jobs built the foundation for Apple leaving a CEO like Cook to follow the formula of success, which is why the company continues to have value.  But the innovation that made Apple great today was created yesterday by Jobs, not Cook.  Without another Steve Jobs, Tim Cook will eventually fail and Apple will slide into the depths of mediocrity.  Therefore Tim Cook is a second-hander to Steve Jobs.  Tim Cook could not have created Apple from scratch the way Steve Jobs did.  And without Steve Jobs, the company will collapse on itself as more and more executives take on the tendencies of a second-hander because that’s who is currently in charge.   A failure to understand those relationships leads to eventual destruction 100% of the time.

Colleges are in the business of producing second-handers, not leaders.  That is the reason the leaders of two of the most prominent companies in the world had their leaders both as college drop-outs—Bill Gates from Microsoft, and Steve Jobs from Apple.  Microsoft after Gates retirement as head of the company has held their ground, but their continuous innovation that was seen under their former leader has ground to a stop and their decline is evident.  Apple is not far behind—again because when second-handers are in charge they fail to uphold the ethics of a strong, imaginative leader.  Whether the leader is Lee Iacocca from Chrysler, or Jack Welsh from GE, second-handers study, and study, and attempt to mimic the actions of great leaders, but they always fail.  At best they prevent the decline of an organization with a slow slide into oblivion, but they can never advance it.  For instance, there were many great minds in Europe during World War II.  However, if not for General Patton, would Hitler have been defeated?  No.  It took one unusual general to lead millions of second-handers to victory over a tyrant.  Without that leader Hitler would have won World War II.  A failure to identify the leaders is one of the most detrimental aspects of any culture, and it is terribly embarrassing that the White House in Washington D.C. has displayed their vast ignorance to such a level.

America used to be looked at as a global leader, but with the proclamation that equal rights for second-handers is the primary motivation, instinctively the world knows that America is no longer a Patton of global trade, a Steve Jobs of innovation, or a George Lucas of imagination.  It is a country waiting for somebody else to do something, and while everyone waits they pass silly laws about equality without paying homage to those most important to success—their leaders.  When second-handers are promoted over great leaders the decline of the culture is dreadfully present.  Therefore, equality is never possible.  The vast majority of second-handers might be allowed to feel good about themselves at the expense of their cultural leaders, but when those leaders throw up their arms in frustration and walk away—the second handers have nothing to do but put rainbow lights on the White House and somehow declare it a victory.  Meanwhile the world is laughing at the grotesque priorities of a nation that used to create leaders—who is now more concerned with appeasement as all second-handers do.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Fanned Flames of Racisim: Barack Obama’s role in the South Carolina shooting

What an absolute idiot! What a diabolical fool. What a pandering, blundering loser. Barack Obama did it again, he attempted to take a tragedy that happened in a Charleston, South Carolina church and make it all about racism and gun control. Without question the shooter who killed nine needlessly within the church, was a bad person choking with hate. But it could easily be argued that he was a flame stoked by Barack Obama himself for the racial division the current president has brought to America under his terms of progressive lunacy.   Obama said in a speech shortly after the shooting, “frequent incidents of gun violence do not occur in other advanced countries.” What advanced countries? Who does Obama consider advanced? France??????

The insult of the Obama statements about the shooting reside in his behavior. He has went well out of his way to resurrect racism in all its ugly glory, then complains about the tendency of the behavior he instigates in people. He is both the guilty party contributing to violence and the victim all in the same sentences—and as he cries about nine deaths he does nothing about the hundreds and thousands loosing their lives in Iraq and along the Mexican border—and in Chicago, his home town.

The statements from Obama are those of an actor who has been hoping that through his provocation someone like this stupid kid who was the shooter would do something along these lines so that he could advance his progressive agenda in the wake of tragedy. The facts where hardly clear before Obama decidedly made statements against guns within a breath of the incident while other issues—such as the national debt—linger on unanswered for years. It’s not hard to figure out what he’s up to by his actions. Sure he’d deny such an allegation in a court of law, but when people no longer care what the Bible means anymore, the swearing-in court is worthless, and forked tongued words will flow out of their mouths like water over the Niagara.

The progressive elements of our society were quick to point out statistics from the United Nations indicating that 81,300 nonfatal injuries and 31,672 deaths a year involve guns, which are 308 shootings every day. That sounds truly terrible—yet context is conveniently left vacant. There are approximately 32,000 deaths a year by automobiles and yet nobody has a press conference and declares that we should get rid of cars—so what’s at work here? What’s worse is that a whopping 44,000 people die every year from some form of drug overdose and the president supports more of that type of behavior even getting behind efforts to decriminalize it. Isn’t that hypocritical? Of course it is. The drama around the latest shooting rampage has nothing to do with the loss of innocent life—it’s all about building a case against guns so that Americans might be convinced to give them up in favor of some measure of safety.

I don’t care about what the United Nations thinks about anything. And as I look around the world I don’t see a close rival to the United States in regard to culture, economy, diversity, innovation, and intellectual advancements in all fields. Show me any country in the world and they are lacking behind the United States in some fashion or another in their totality. A lie is being spread from the lips of Barack Obama and it should anger people more than it does. Guns are at the heart of American culture and they are there to keep the progressives within organizations like the United Nations out of our productive efforts—which often culminates in private property ownership. The rest of the world has not yet realized that governments cannot be trusted. They have not yet learned that the only way to keep corruption from seeping into their homes from the seething carcasses of their federal buildings is the threat of a gun which keeps even the bad as honest as possible. Without guns, violence escalates, it does not retreat.

When a robber proclaims to put up your hands, and drop your guns, they intend to disarm you so they can have easy access to molest you. Barack Obama is advocating the same, with the United Nations at his back. They don’t care about nine innocent people; they are collectivists, actors, and diabolical activist lawyers hell-bent on social change toward communism from capitalism. They want the gun removed American culture, and they will stoop to no low to achieve it. They will exploit any tragedy—even the ones that they created indirectly by blowing on flames they nurtured along.

The shooter was 21 year-old Dylann Roof who was given a .45 caliber handgun for a birthday present by his father. Fathers often do such things for their sons in America. There is nothing unusual about that. It is a bit strange that young Roof was so incensed by racial hatred that he drove from North Carolina to the 200-year-old historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church to shoot four pastors, six total women and three men dead on a site which was burned to the ground in the late 1820s during a slave revolt. It takes some unique motivation to drive such a distance to a very specific site like that to perform a terrible deed. There will likely be additional facts, but the killings were foolish and senselessly painful. Yet there were more shootings in Chicago where guns are “illegal” in just 24 hours from this writing—2 killed and 6 wounded coupled with homicides 11 out of the 12 last days—than in this South Carolina shooting. Obama didn’t have a press conference about those. Can you smell that?

In my book all lives matter. All men, women, and children of all colors and creeds—everyone deserves a chance at life. I apply the same to insects, if a little bug gets stuck in my pool and I get a chance to fish it out to extend its life—I do 100% of the time. I avoid stepping on bugs and worms if I can, and I certainly care about all human life. But guns protect that life from parasites like these big government types who want to disarm us so they can rule us. That’s their end game and believe me, we are far safer with our guns than without them. Bad things do happen from time to time. People like this kid Dylann Roof do get caught up in the drama of the moment and act foolishly due to their own ignorance. But in cases like this, just like on a sports field the original violation often goes unpunished. It’s the reaction that most of the time gets blamed and it can never be disputed that under Obama’s watch racism has escalated by his own design. And it is really stupid to be provoked by him into doing something brainless, and even dumber to give him your gun in the process. Obama doesn’t care about more safety—he wants to integrate America into the rest of the world defenseless and victims to the ignorance within the United Nations. That is the endgame to the tragic shooting in Charleston, South Carolina in June of 2015.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

A Gringo Like Me: A day that’s coming

A Gringo Like Me: Keep your hand on your gun! 

There is no other song played on my iPod more over the years than the one below. My favorite song of all time is “Desert Chase” by John Williams which is an orchestral piece without any lyrics. But even that I have not listened to more than the lyrical masterpiece by Ennio Morricone from the movie Gunfight at Red Sands done with Peter Tevis.   The lyrics are a masterpiece that captured the spirit of the typical mythology of the American western and represent a time and attitude that built what is now considered the Greatest Generation. I firmly believe that the music of a culture directly influences the mind of it and you can directly tell the direction of a society by the type of music it enjoys. When the song “Gringo Like Me” was made, this was the kind of America that westerns portrayed, and while the modern hippie would bulk at the violent suggestions of the lyrics, there is an honesty to it that I find infinitely refreshing.

Here are the lyrics in all their masterful glory.

 Keep your hand on your gun

Don’t you trust anyone

There’s just one kind of man That you can trust That’s a dead man…

Or a gringo like me

Be the first one to fire

Every man is a liar

There’s just one kind of man Who tells the truth That’s a dead man…

Or a gringo like me

Don’t be a fool for a smile or a kiss Or your a bullet might miss Keep your eye on your goal

There’s just one rule That can save you your life It’s a hand on your knife And the Devil in your soul

Keep your hand on your gun

Don’t you trust anyone

There’s just one kind of man That you can trust That’s a dead man…

Or a gringo like me

Keep your hand on your gun

Don’t you trust anyone

There’s just one kind of man That you can trust That’s a dead man…

Or a gringo like me…

Or a gringo like me..

Or a gringo like me… …like me…

 

As a guy who’s been around more than a block, and been in conflict with other human beings—many times—I can say that there is an honesty in that song that is very sincere, so I listen to it often. That kind of brutal honesty was represented in the westerns of the past and is only hinted at today in movies like Star Wars and Mad Max. For me though, there will never be a better time than the kind of values shown in those old westerns, and that song embodies all those values.

Even though the temperature of the day is to wear the peace sign on our clothing and sing about world unity—the direction of society is headed back in the opposite direction. The experiments into progressivism will leave in its wake a world on the precipice of Vico’s anarchy and theocracy—and violence will be in the futures of most of us. We may not like that reality, but it’s coming, and the best way to deal with it is with the kind of mythology that evoked values that worked—and to stick with it. As of this writing it is being reported that American birthrates are down meaning that the legacy costs of government within just a few short years will leave the world scrambling for dollars in a vast wasteland. That wasteland may look more like Mad Max than the Gunfight at Red Sands but it will be an untamed world governed by what’s left of human failure.

We can see that failure of society at virtually every turn today. There is no way a dumbed down public that values intoxication over logic, and sex over family sustenance can survive long into the future. The money that was spent by baby boomers born of that Greatest Generation mismanaged virtually everything, and the top-heavy bureaucracy they created will collapse in our lifetimes. I think for the world of tomorrow—with all the opportunities provided by wonderful inventions coming from Elon Musk, and the legacy of Steve Jobs will provide decision gates. But I think it will be more valuable for a young man in the future to learn to shoot a gun than to study at a four-year college—just to survive and keep what they have worked hard to obtain. That is why that song for me is honest, not because it reminds me of the cowboy values of yesterday, but of the values it will take to live and preserve capitalism in the future.

Westerns essentially were about preserving individual value and defending private property as they were made from the 1920s to the 1950s. Clint Eastwood’s westerns took the cowboy individualism to an Ayn Rand level overman largely dropping the social aspects in favor of individual power. The spaghetti westerns that Ennio Morricone wrote some of his most memorable music for were operas on individualism—and they are just wonderful. In a few years when the stand alone Star Wars film is made about the origin of Boba Fett, it will be those Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns that will be the model used to make the film. Just as the new Fury Road is an update on the original Mad Max, which was essentially a cowboy film transposing horses for cars. The honor in individualism is all there—the raw solitary figure standing against insanity represented by a band of collective bandits is a classic western tale.

In the future there will be hoards of young people raised by failed public schools who won’t be able to own private property, because the means for doing so will be out of their reach. They won’t respect the private property of those who do have it. They won’t respect our cars, our children, or our spouses. We are quickly arriving at a desperate age where those who don’t have the intellectual aptitude for owning private property will want to take it from those who do. When that day comes, and the law of the land has been suppressed and legislated out of existence—where the courts are so overloaded with cases that they can’t process them all, and attorneys have made mockeries of those that do go to court, there will be only one defense on that day—that of the gun. There will be only one thing that stands between those with property and those that want to take it—and that is the gun.

At that time when society falls into such a shambles, you will want to keep your hand on your gun. You won’t want to trust anyone. In that time there will be only one kind of man who you can trust, and that’s a dead man. And it will be that way because progressives failed in their social experiments and left the world a wasteland of shattered dreams and desperate souls low in intellect but hungry for material goods they can obtain by the only means their government schools taught them—by stealing it.

Learn to shoot, and keep you hand on your gun……………..always. I will miss the days where it was possible to go somewhere without worrying about someone trying to threaten you in some way. It has been relatively nice for a long time. But progressives thought they could manage violence away from human beings with the same stupidity that they thought they could eradicate poverty. They thought that government instruction and management would solve all those problems. But all they succeeded in doing was in making more of the behavior and ultimately placing society on a collision course with collapse and devastation. It is then that the individual must turn to the gun to protect themselves from the encroaching mob of collective stupidity democratically mandated to steal from those who have, and kill those who resist. In such a time there is only one rule that will be sufficient—you must be the first one to fire. Because there’s only one kind of man who you can truly trust in that future—and that’s a dead man. That’s also why I love that old Ennio Morricone song so much and why it holds so much truth not as a relic from our cinematic past, but of the prophetic times to come.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Failure of the Nordic Model: What the world needs to learn from America

The best argument against the Nordic Model type of socialism so advocated today by progressives, Democrats and socialists—like Bernie Sanders is not necessarily the quality of living which can be argued as whether or not it is good—it’s the type of people the cultures produce under those heavily taxed, and controlled societies. Advocates for the Nordic Model declare, which is appealing to an American society currently drowning in college debt–which is likely the perpetual strategy of the progressive political class—just as it is behind every public school levy—is that the education is free, average median income is high, and lifestyles are good—there’s parks, lots of government services, and the trappings of an otherwise utopian society that seems wonderful to those who find the challenges of capitalism to be ominous. Nordic societies have given up on the gifts provided by brilliant and ambitious citizens in favor of collective comfort and the cost to their society is a mundane culture of generally happy people just content to live and die like in the movie Soylent Green.

I once had a friend who was a Penthouse model from Sweden who was so in love with American life that she oozed it in every aspect of her life. Her reason was that Sweden was so encumbered with socialism that she found that society stifling. As a beautiful woman she had an advantage over the average Swedish female, yet that society didn’t give her many options to take advantage of her exceptional good looks. So she came to America, posed for a men’s magazine, found herself a very rich husband and lived a generally good life shrouded by the trappings of capitalism, and she loved it. I learned a lot about Swedish society through her, and the conclusion was that I would feel choked by it—it was far too limiting for me.

Now becoming a nude model for a soft porn magazine is hardly a noble profession, nor is marrying a sugar daddy husband the result of enormous skill. But in America that was an option for her which was not an option in Sweden. There weren’t that many rich guys looking for a beautiful woman to pamper—because everybody pretty much had the same level of income. For a girl like the model, there was certainly a glass ceiling limiting her ability to the collective opinion of the masses—so she came to America. Her story is just a microcosm of the type of people who come from other places to take advantage of the gifts of capitalism to make their lives better, and overall enrich the level of life for everyone in the overall culture. Arnold Schwarzenegger could have told a similar story as my model friend. In their home cultures they would have just been average every day people, but in American society, the limits to their lives went as far as they were willing to take it.

These are examples of entertainment personalities who found success in America and it should be considered as a representation of American culture the kind of entertainment that is exported—such as the motion picture industry. What great Nordic films are breaking box office records around the world these days……………………………..(crickets). What great companies besides IKEA are spreading across the world as a result of Nordic Model economies……………………..(still crickets)…………………anybody? What great sports stars, musical influence, new computer technology have emerged from Nordic Model society? How about novelists? Who are the great writers who are shaping philosophy coming out of Sweden, Finland or Norway? (still crickets) That is the problem with Nordic Model societies. They may have a nice standard of living for the average person, but their culture ends up being happy to just be happy leaving their exceptional people with no place to go but to regulate themselves into mediocrity. And the mediocre do not advance human civilization. They never have, and they never will.

In America mediocrity is acceptable. People are free to ride on the coat tails of the exceptional all the time. Last week during the NFL draft many exceptional young men received the opportunity toward fortune and glory by being drafted into an NFL team. For me the excitement centered around Jameis Winston who was drafted by my favorite team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Given all the headaches centering on the young man from the rape allegations, and the theft of crab legs, the organization took a chance on the 21-year-old quarterback out of Florida State because they were looking for an exceptional leader for their football team. They deemed his talent as so exceptional that they bent over backwards to get him, and had a signed contract within 24 hours of drafting him. When Jameis arrived in Tampa the day after the draft the hungry city treated him like a king reborn pampering him like he was a god. It was quite extraordinary, and was evidence of the recognition that they saw in the young man a chance to win once again. Winston would not have had an opportunity like that as a 6’-4” man of color in Sweden. He might get a chance to play soccer, but that’s about it. In America Winston had the opportunity to play football, baseball, maybe even basketball and to become a multi-millionaire well before the age of 30. Life is good for Jameis Winston and for fans in Tampa Bay; they are free to ride on his coat tails to future victory—or at least the chance of it. The reason that ownership, the coaches, the fans, players and much of Tampa Bay showed up at the training facility to welcome Winston to Tampa as a savor of the franchise was not because of some ridiculous notion of team, or a collective recognition of the common enhanced by a quality player—it was because Jameis Winston as an individual is a great football player and there are parades of people willing to fall into his wake to benefit from his individual heroics.

Who are the Steve Jobs types in Nordic society, or the Elon Musk types? What about Bill Gates–who is the equivalent of those billionaire inventors in Sweden?   I’m sure they have a few, but per capita how many creative types are inventing a new means of wealth in the Nordic Model? The answer is that there are far more people per capita under a capitalist society that have great success than those in a socialist country who manages to leverage their interests with the government in charge to become one of the rare elite. There is no reason for anybody to work to do anything great in the Nordic Model because everyone is comfortable just being average. It pays in a Nordic Model society to be average, so nobody does anything exceptional. That is the terrible cost of socialism under any guise.

A classroom of well-behaved children is not necessarily a good thing if what’s snuffed out is their individuality and the imaginations of their specific gifts. In America if a person has developed something that they can do better than anybody else, they can have a shot at the American dream—at riches and a lifestyle typically reserved for kings and nobility in European cultures—and it galls the world to no end that Americans have little respect for the ways of the past, where a select few ruled the many. Even if a person is physically ugly, they may do something so much better than someone else that they can have a shot at wealth. Socialism simply takes the monarchy of thought into government rule as opposed to a heredity rule. It is still the rule of a minority of the majority in trade for safety and security.

Ohio Senator Shannon Jones, who I used to like when she showed a willingness to take on labor unions—has now lost my support forever. Why, because she proposed a bill that says children should have to ride a bicycle with a helmet. Give me a break! What an utterly stupid rule! Government telling little kids that they have to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle—those helmets are hot, and stifling to the impulse of jumping on a bike and riding over to a friend’s house as needed. Helmets are a ridiculous imposition created by that panic driven mom class who think their children are so precious that every bump on the head is a life or death situation. Then when those overly coddled children do have a major crises in their life, like they end up in a car wreck where they bleed a lot, or end up in some other catastrophe, they end up dying because they have not been trained to withstand physical punishment, and then the mothers really lose their children just because they allowed their lives to be governed by panic and a drive for safety at any cost. The product of such children are a kind of limited life stuck in a bottle living their entire lives slightly detached from reality—which is ironically the kind of people produced by the Nordic Model. Shannon Jones belongs in the Nordic Model socialism that wants government imposed bicycle helmets at the cost of individual liberty and the potential evolution exceptional people. I never rode with a helmet and I had lots of wrecks. I learned exceptionally well how to roll out of trouble and protect my head from trauma. To this day I ride motorcycles every day often without a helmet and I’ve been in crashes at well over 100 mph. Because of my childhood I developed an ability to survive that is exceptional—something I wouldn’t have developed if I would have been forced to wear a helmet as a kid. If that was how it was when I was a kid, I likely would have just stayed inside and done something else—and said heck with riding a bicycle.

America is great because it creates the path for the exceptional to move away from the control of overly coddling government types like Shannon Jones. Sure people like the Penthouse model, Jameis Winston, or Elon Musk are the exception, but in a Nordic Model society, they would be stuffed into a jar for the common good. Their entire society would miss the gifts of their exceptionalism even if the benefits are as small as a nude woman in a magazine, or the wonderful technology coming out of Space X. The cost of the socialist society even if everything seems comfortable on the surface is that people live half dead lives in a kind of haze because there is no purpose to their life, no dreams to reach for, no fantasies to pursue. They just live and die guided quietly by the state toward an inevitable end comfortably put down to rest in service to the great collective.  Only the collective isn’t so great when compared to individuals produced by a capitalist society. Of course the masses will always have the bottom feeders. Those types will happily cheer on Jameis Winston with godlike reverence and dream of sleeping with women like the Penthouse model. And they’ll love the products of Apple and Tesla. And they may even dream of being one of those people one day. The opportunity of having that dream is worth more than the comfort of the Nordic Model. Sure kids with helmets on a bicycle may live if they fall down and bump their head. But the cost in using the helmet often slowly kills their minds in other ways. And those ways are the difference between the Nordic Model and a capitalist society. The evidence of which is the best method can be measured directly by which one produces better people for the society at large. And the winner of that race is obvious. Just go to the movies and see which culture tells their story best on the silver screen.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Vote No on the Midpointe Library System: Philosophy and the changing way of expanding knowledge

I am against the MidPointe Library System in Butler County, Ohio for all the same reasons I am against school levies. Even though I tend to love people who strive for knowledge and desire to feed minds with information, the quality of those efforts can cast people adrift all of their lives ruining them, and a library in many subtle ways contribute to that personal destruction. Before detailing why and how, here is the case that the MidPointe Library System makes for itself looking for more money from voters during the upcoming May 5th 2015 election.   Essentially to make a long story short, they make the same arguments that public schools make, helping the children, offerings to the community, and all that kind of nonsense.

The MidPointe Library System will have a renewal levy on the ballot on Tuesday, May 5.  Please find information regarding this levy, as well as why the Library is asking for continued community support below:

Something for Everyone in the Community

With current funding levels, the MidPointe Library System is able to provide many resources, materials, services, and programming to the residents of eastern Butler County. 

MidPointe offers a collection of over a half million items, and partnership in the SearchOhio lending consortium gives patrons access to over 16 million items from across the state. In 2014 over 2 million items were checked out. Additionally, MidPointe provides internet access and public computers to assist people in finding jobs, accessing data and doing school work.

In 2014, MidPointe offered over 2000 programs.  These are as diverse as yoga class and technology instruction for adults, to storytime and early literacy book clubs for children.  The Library’s Summer Reading Program, which promotes literacy for all ages, reached record involvement last year, with nearly 10,000 patrons participating. 

MidPointe’s influence expands well beyond the buildings. Librarians visit schools and community centers to engage young people in the joy of reading. Educators are able to stock their classrooms with books as a result of MidPointe’s “Teacher Collections.” The MidPointe Outreach Services Department delivers materials to over 200 patrons who are unable to physically visit the Library.

Library Budgeting

For the past two decades, Libraries in the state of Ohio have faced reduced funding.  In 2008, the most drastic of these cuts occurred and as a result, the Library had to dramatically reduce hours, services and staffing.   For the first time, the Library approached the public with the possibility of a .75 mill levy to supplement operations.  The voters of our Library district passed the levy, which represents almost 40% of the MidPointe budget. Overdue fines and fees only represent 3.25% of the Library’s overall budget.

The overwhelming majority of the Library’s expenses are devoted to collection development and public service and programs. Administrative costs represent only 12.5% of overall expenses and the MidPointe Library System has continually been recognized as one of the most cost-effective in the state. 

Levy Details

  • The levy on the May 5 ballot is a renewal. This is not a new tax.
  • Levy funds make up 40% of MidPointe’s budget.
  • Levy Millage:  .75 mill
  • Length of Levy:  5 years
  • Cost: The cost of this levy to the owner of a $100,000 home is approximately $22.97 a year(less than the cost of one hardback book).

Levy funds will:

  • Maintain services and materials at all MidPointe locations.
  • Continue to provide current technological resources to the public.
  • Allow for sensible expansion in our growing community.
  • Sustain programs for children, teens and adults.

 

 

http://www.midpointelibrary.org/news/renewal-levy-information/

Essentially they simply want more money to continue a practice that is rooted in socialism. I have never liked libraries because I have never liked sharing my books. I like buying them, and owning them—collecting them like treasures to be guarded by me as part of a life’s journey. It has always seemed wrong to “borrow” a library book from the library where they maintain “collective” ownership. The concept of a shared resource is disgusting. Library books are routinely abused because nobody owns them and are reflective of the type of society that is not centered on personal responsibility and individual ownership.image

I have not been to a library for years. In my community within my little network of a neighborhood I have one of the best libraries in the entire country, the West Chester Library, yet I never, ever use it. I would not borrow a book or movie from them, because I don’t want to use someone else’s stuff. However, I go to one of two Barnes and Nobles book stores about two times a week. The children sections in both of those book stores are tremendous services to children and show how much better private investment is in constructing the mind of young people. The book store in Newport, Kentucky is just fabulous and is still one of my favorites anywhere—which is pictured within this article. It is a temple of knowledge and I love it—yet it is struggling to stay afloat in the changing climate of online offerings. Unlike the MidPointe Library System, Barnes and Noble cannot ask for a tax increase to stay afloat in a changing economy. So they have to adapt—where libraries are doing the same things they always have—and they lose a lot of money because of it. They are essentially money pits and their offerings to the community are not beneficial as they pretend.

The job of teaching children to read falls on the parents or less directly, the extended family members of a child—aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on. Not a socialist librarian or volunteer who has a subtle agenda of encouraging sharing as opposed to ownership. The world of a capitalist society like the United States is rooted in ownership—not sharing. When something of value maintains its worth because someone owned it and cared for it, it is then valuable to someone who might want to purchase it for their own. Libraries encourage sharing and while that might sound good on the surface—the mentality created from this exchange of ideas often leads to various acceptances of degrees of socialism—like public education, public housing, public assistance and so on.image

From the book shelves at Barnes and Noble in Newport, Kentucky in my favorite section—the philosophy section—the two primary competing ideas regarding philosophy are on full display—because that is what people are buying. Amazon.com can provide obscure books within a few days and at a great price. Barnes and Noble put on their shelves titles that sell. All the other sections in the book store, politics, fiction, and cooking, current events—etc, all stem from the philosophy section. People think the way they do and are attracted to some things rather than other things based on their personal philosophy, so I see it as the most important section. In the various schools of thought in Western philosophy everything is basically built off two individuals, Plato and Aristotle. In the east it is Confucius, which leans toward Western Platonic thought. What that translates to through a long line of philosophic thought is essentially Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. imageI certainly lean toward Ayn Rand—yet I think her Objectivism is limited to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and that there will be new schools of thought stemming from her Objectivism that will have to encapsulate the bizarre behavior of quantum mechanics now being discovered. But Karl Marx has been a failure and is a dying philosophy that will either be extinct within the next two hundred years, or it will destroy our civilization. I have no use for Karl Marx in any fashion. Libraries are part of a Karl Marx mentality.image

I love libraries for their historical significance—especially the library in Alexandria. At the time the cost of printing books was prohibitive and everyone couldn’t own a book. So the borrowing of books at a library was the best way to achieve an exchange of knowledge. But that time has passed. Now there are so many books printed that the market is saturated with knowledge. It is easier, and more efficient for people to upload books onto their devices, or just buy them at Amazon.com. Stores like Barnes and Nobel fill the traditional role of a library being a center of learning—especially for kids. But as for motivation into intellectual endeavors, libraries are not a substitute for a good parent or mentor. The reason I don’t go to the West Chester library is because it feels like a socialist utopia to me. But Barnes and Nobel feels like the intellectual center of a capitalist country and I could essentially move into every one of them and be very happy. It is for that reason that I will vote no for the MidPointe levy on May 5th. I feel sorry for them, but they are a dying enterprise that will evaporate under the changing times—and it would be better for them to see that happen now than prolonging the agony. Community isn’t very valuable unless the members of that community believe in an Aristotelian logic as opposed to a Platonic sentiment. A community of socialists is a destructive force, and that will be the unintended consequence of a continuation of the library system in America. It is time for a replacement and it begins with a withdrawal of funds from the black hole of tax increases for which libraries currently represent.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why Grover Norquist Lost His Value as a Republican: A battle within the GOP that has to happen

In the debate between Grover Norquist and Glenn Beck the battle for the Republican Party of our modern age is clearly articulate. Beck had Norquist on his television show and did a considerable amount of radio about the ties that the machine political leader had to the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Abdurahman Alamoudi who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. Through his Islamic Free Market Institute, Norquist has apparently fancied himself as a kind of insurgent in the Arab world, hoping to spread free market capitalism to the socialist leanings of the Middle East. The trouble is, the Muslim extremists had the same idea and they appear to have come out on top in that battle for the minds of the world. Here is the interview where Norquist came on with Beck to defend his record, and intentions. But as you can see in the subsequent videos dear reader—it is obvious that Norquist—Mr. Republican inside man himself shaping the mind of the party for all to follow—was the one seduced by the sentiments of Muslim radicalism. He likely wasn’t always this way, but in 2004 just a few years into his attempts to convert the Middle East into a capitalist zone, he married Samah Alrayyes a Palestinian Muslim and Kuwaiti PR specialist. After this marriage he appeared to radically support the position of Muslim causes. He wouldn’t be the first man to adopt the views of a woman in exchange for a good bed mate—but when he is advising the entire Republican Party on policy and strategy—it makes him a liability. Watch closely.

This game where Republicans think they can out-wit the loose liberals of political ideology is a failed tactic. The typical liberal has very little personal conscience and view themselves as part of a collective whole, so they tend not to take personal responsibility for their actions. In the extreme, this is why they are willing to blow themselves up as terrorists. In the norm, they will lie to your face because they have no sense of personal responsibility—rather they focus on collective salvation. Norquist I believe thought he was smarter than his political opponents, and that he could get the White House to support his actions as a change agent in the Middle East. But he fell in love with a Palestinian woman and began to soften his position. From there his enemies, the people he was trying to convert, used him as a platform of insurrection from the inside out. In the battle Norquist tried to wage in the Middle East, it was he who lost and it likely started in his bed.

As much as Republicans like Norquist try to utter the conservatism of their actor president Ronald Reagan, they discover quickly that they are too easily led astray under pressure. I have a lot of personal experience with this from my own community, which contains some of the strongest Republican elements in the United States. I have been invited into their inner circle, but I keep my distance because they lack conviction. They don’t stick to their principles as stringently as I require and are too in love with the power of their position instead of the essence of their political philosophy.

Norquist as much as the political left wishes him to be the face of extremism for his desires toward tax reform and smaller government is a dangerous moderate because of his softness on issues of conservatism when the rubber hits the road. Clearly his marriage to Samah Alrayyes was a turning point for him, which led to likely a prolonged war in Iraq because of Norquist’s proximity to President Bush. The strategy formed by the Republican Party through Norquist and Karl Rove was one that favored his bed mate, and not the hard lined conservatives from Kansas—which is a polite way to put it.

Norquist likely has more in common with Bob Bergdahl today than he ever would Ronald Reagan. As Bowe Bergdahl defected to the Taliban his father who encouraged the behavior tried to justify the issue by growing his beard and reconciling with the enemy. The Taliban had his boy—because of his bad advice, and he tried to reconcile the situation with appeasement. Norquist as a power broker and social climber went to the Middle East hoping to convert them to western ideology—but once there he saw that many on the other side were just like he was—social climbers looking for power. Instead of using political parties to control people and money, they used religion—so they found common ground. He married one of their women and began to soften his position against them. But, all along, because the radical Muslims in question identify themselves with collective salvation, they were able to easily outwit the Republican Party, and they already had domestic penetration ideologically in the Democratic Party—so their influence spread in North America instead of the way Norquist originally intended. His plan backfired.

I’m sure Samah Alrayyes is a nice lady—people tend to become friends and lovers with people who they share some things in common—whether it is a love of power, prestige, or a breakfast ritual. When a man decides to put a ring on the finger of a woman, it is usually not just so that he can have sex with her, it’s so that he can share other parts of his life with a spouse. But a man is crazy to think that a woman won’t have an influence on him once she’s in his daily life. That’s usually not a problem so long as the man isn’t trying to sell himself as the savior of the Republican Party while trying to bring peace to the Middle East with the kind of mind games that belong on day time soup operas. At that point a line was crossed that Norquist cannot return from. He blew his credibility and his years of fighting for conservative causes because he fell for the exotic appeal of a foreign culture.

It is one thing to respect a culture and its people—to even be friendly to them. There are a lot of people who I like from different cultures—some of them come from communist backgrounds and I try to help them see the wonders and joys of capitalism because I want to see them improve their lives. But, I have to maintain my emotional distance from those people because they think differently. If I feel I cannot convert them over to a right way of thinking according to my viewpoint, I don’t bang wine glasses with them. I drop them like a dirty rag before they get too close. It looks like that’s what Norquist should have done in 2002 and 2003—but he didn’t. He might make a nice husband and friend to the Arab world but a leader in the Republican Party he has forfeited. Conservatives like me aren’t going to put up with it. So we are having this ideological battle now because we are between major elections.

The left may enjoy the spectacle because they don’t fight each other—they assimilate toward the same collective ideology easily. But to me they also aren’t relevant to the debate. Republicans have to stand for something or they will be like Grover Norquist—full of a lot of tough talk, but soft in their core and easily swayed by skirts and lobbyists because their real love is not the ideology or philosophy of conservatives, its in the power they wield as beltway insiders. I don’t think Norquist is a bad person, or even had bad intentions. But he’s weak at his core and has allowed himself to be a carrier of Muslim radicalism into the roots of American politics and that means people like him have to be shoved aside for more conservative representatives less in love with power, and more in love with conservative philosophy.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lobby: Progressive groups making themselves extinct

You know the rule, its been covered here before—typically if an organization of any kind has the word, “international” in front of it, it’s a progressive front group desiring to regress the world of capitalism into a world of socialist utopia. It doesn’t matter if it’s your local fire house, or the slack-jawed thugs passing out pamphlets on a street corner advertising membership into their International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers. They are all progressive organizations hell-bent on changing America from a capitalist country into a socialist one. Their record is clear, and there are no exceptions—if it’s a labor union with an international designation—their strategic objectives are the destruction of capitalism. To drive the point home, they recently met with the extreme progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren lobbying the Trans-Pacific Partnership because they are afraid that it will cause American jobs to leave for distant shores due to actions of their own making. Have a look at a report from their own website with the link included to see for yourself the unbelievably ignorant position in politics they take for themselves.

IAM members meet with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Stop Fast Track Lobby Day in Washington, DC. Warren has been outspoken in her opposition to the administration’s plan to rush through the Trans-Pacific Partnership with only an up-or-down vote.

IAM members joined a blitz of union activists in Washington, DC to lobby against a dangerous proposal to “Fast Track” the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free trade deal that will allow more of the same trade policies that have hurt working families for the last 20 years.

Fast Track authority would limit Congress to an up-or-down vote on the TPP with no opportunity to offer amendments.

“The President won’t even tell your Senator or your Congressman what the details are, but he wants Fast Track Authority to present this and rush it through,” IAM International President told members before they fanned out around the Capitol.

Over one hundred IAM members were out in full force with members of other AFL-CIO-affiliated unions, hustling from office to office to tell members of Congress that the TPP is shaping up to be a disaster for working families.

“I’m here to say that we’re here to make a difference,” said Kirby Boyce, Vice President of IAM Local 1746 in Connecticut. “We have to keep the jobs in America and we do not want them to go, they went in NAFTA already and we don’t want them to go again.”

Hawaii IAM Local 1998 member Roxan Bradley-Taylor said her mother’s job at General Electric Vacuum Cleaner in East Cleveland, OH was offshored to Mexico in the 1970s. Her mother suffered a stroke after she was laid off and died at the age of 43.

She scheduled a meeting with Rep. Mark Takai (D-HI), who has signed a letter opposing Fast Track.

“I hope he can convince his colleagues to vote no too,” said Bradley-Taylor.

The TPP is being negotiated behind closed doors between the U.S. and 11 Pacific-Rim countries, including notorious human and labor rights violators Vietnam, Brunei and Mexico. It dramatically expands corporate control over the U.S. economy and reduces the ability of the U.S. to promote health, safety and environmental regulations with our trading partners.

 

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/latest/14138-iam-lobbies-on-capitol-hill-to-stop-fast-track-save-us-jobs

So the IAM union went to Washington to lobby for job safety by essentially trapping employers into dealing exclusively with their monopoly on the labor pool—or their desire to have such a monopoly. Labor unions are dying state by state with Wisconsin being the latest to do the correct thing and bring right-to-work to their bastion of progressive history. Yet the IAM refuses to see the writing on the wall and instead of dealing with reality, they are pretending that it’s 1930—the height of the Red Decade in America where communism was trying to squeeze itself under the doors of capitalism. And their solution to jobs leaving America is to trap those jobs in place with more laws from their lobby efforts.

Labor unions are a really stupid idea and they should be against the law in the United States. They are the ultimate snake oil salesmen selling job security and seniority rights, but their efforts at collective bargaining destroy the jobs they propose to protect. You can have a haphazard slob as a protected employee gaining the same rights as the hardest worker in the company. The hard worker will resent the slob and will back off their efforts out of anger—since there is no profit for them over anyone else. Everyone isn’t equal, and all wages are not meant to be the same no matter what their effort. When union employees get paid whether or not they work hard or take it easy, there is no motivation to be productive—and unions destroy that productivity. They have never worked and they never will.

When an employer has to deal with constantly high wage expectations from average employees, and work stoppages every few years that there is a contract negotiation, companies have little choice but to pick up and leave for someplace friendlier to their efforts at making money. Imagine dear reader if you spent the entire afternoon picking apples so that you could make apple pie to sell at a profit. Consider that you had a good day and had picked three baskets of nice green apples ripe for a pie. Then consider that a labor union came along and took two of those baskets demanding collective bargaining compensation for a perceived value they have about who owns the apples. The labor union might assume incorrectly that the apples belong to nature, so are available to everyone who wants to eat them. However, if left to them, the apples would never be plucked from a tree, but left to rot until the tree drops them to the ground for the worms to consume. The union only wants the apples because someone else picked them. If they had to pick them on their own, the apples would stay on the tree and the slugs would pick up what they could off the ground as they needed them, worms and all. That’s what it feels like to business to have a union demand their profit as though excess belonged to everyone—the progressive “worker.” But it’s the effort of job creation that takes the initiative to pick the apples that counts, and the employer is more important than the employee, because without the job creator, there is no job. If someone doesn’t pick the apples, nobody enjoys apple pie.

Society is inherently lazy—at least the masses are. The hardest workers are likely to be the wealthiest and unions favor the lazy at the expense of the most productive. There’s no job security in laziness. That is the reason jobs are leaving America, not because of the greed of American corporations, but because too many workers are lazy and expect too much money for doing entirely too little. Unions spend a lot of time lobbying Washington as they did over this TPP issue—and if they expended that effort on actual productive work, they may actually keep their jobs instead of losing them to a country with a workforce hungry for effort and the benefits of enterprise. But they don’t, because inherently they are a self-destructive organization much like their progressive influences. Their real aim is to regress backwards, not to progress toward anything better. And in the case of the ignorant IAM, they would rather twist arms and break backs with extortion and laws, than to actually work—and that is why they are a dying species of collectivists destined to their own extinction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.