The Blaze Coverage of Tesla: Zero to 60 in 3.2 seconds and a smiling Preston Tucker

I was listening to Pat and Stu on The Blaze Radio Network when Glenn Beck rushed into the studio to interrupt their show declaring with great excitement that he had just driven one of the new Model S Tesla dual motor cars that accelerated from zero to 60 in 3.2 seconds. Beck offered anybody who wanted to test drive one of the new cars by Elon Musk a free ride which immediately sent the radio crew into tapes so they could take Beck up on his offer. Musk has been proving himself to be leaps beyond the current automobile offerings. I have been complexly turned off to electric cars viewing them as environmental wacko projects—because electricity is still largely generated by fossil fuels. However, the magic of the Model S and the rest of the Tesla product line is the dual engine concept which removes all the mechanical linkages which inefficiently drop power dispersal in conventional cars. The Tesla delivers power exactly where it’s needed achieving supercar acceleration in a car that is priced like a regular luxury car.   Watch Stu’s test drive in the following video.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/03/19/i-thought-i-was-going-to-pass-out-glenn-test-drives-a-tesla/

One of my favorite and deeply personal movies is the George Lucas production Tucker: A Man and his Dreams. In that classic film Preston Tucker invented a car that was far superior to the products being put out by the Big Three–Ford , GM, and Chrysler in 1948. Tucker is certainly one of the people I most admire and he was about the age I am now when he was trying to get his Tucker car off the ground. Otto Kerner was a US attorney who on behalf of the Big Three attacked Tucker for making his revolutionary car “too good.” Kerner was later jailed for three years and fined $50,000 for 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and other charges for stock fraud. The result was that Tucker’s cars featuring a 5.4 liter Franklin 0-335 aircraft engine with hydraulic vales, fuel injection, torque converters on each of the rear wheel—disk brakes, a padded dashboard, self-sealing tubeless tires, and an independent springless suspension—was stopped before it even got started. At the time it was an incredible car about thirty years ahead of its time. The Big Three rather than compete with Tucker looked to bury him, literally suppressing automotive development for nearly a half century thereafter. Only now are they finally starting to climb out of the stalemate technologically that they have been under for so long. Tucker never went to jail, but he never got his car to production either.

Elon Musk unlike Tucker was much wealthier going into the project and was able to achieve market domination in the electric car market while the Big Three were reeling from years of mismanagement and stagnate technological development. At the same time foreign offerings were starting to finally bore Americans. Musk using American ingenuity and the benefits of capitalism launched a new car company that has put on the road a car far in excess of the current offerings. It is technically well ahead of its time and is setting a new standard.

Even as I write this roller coaster season is coming to Southern Ohio where I live. I love the technology of roller coasters and have watched them evolve from wooden roller coasters to the sleek new metal coasters. The electric current launches common now in the best of them make it seem like the logical next step for personal transportation. But it took Elon Musk to actually use the technology in a way that should have been applied decades ago. Tesla’s technology is only state-of-the art because the technology involved was purposely underdeveloped to protect the industry of old. Yet the direction of General Motors didn’t save them from going bankrupt before 2010. The direction of the old cars just doesn’t meet the future, and they failed as a company. In amusement parks new technology comes out all the time to unleash new sensations to thrill parks. The same enthusiasm should have been carried over into personal transportation—but it wasn’t—leaving the door wide open for someone like Musk.

And Musk isn’t alone, just a few days ago I wrote an article about the new self driving Mercedes, and of course Richard Branson is emerging into the market. Both Branson and Musk are also building companies that are punching the reaches of space—so it is natural that their automotive companies are going to push the limits of previous mediocrity. The race for the best between Musk, Branson and the rest coming into the field of play will change the way we all transport ourselves around and I’m excited to see how it transpires.

With the electric car power is not so easily lost to where the tires hit the road. I can easily see a day where the very power that makes them run could be cheaply produced through Thorium energy leaving cars that never ran out of power—no matter where on earth they are. Power creation is another field of endeavor that has been deliberately suppressed by the previous generation. For the same reason that traditional coal power was kept over the emerging technology of Thorium Tucker was destroyed so to protect the Big Three—but to what result? The big companies failed anyway, just as the current energy creation companies will—its only a matter of time before someone breaks through the deliberate suppression of better methods using competition to drive human beings toward advancement.

It was exciting listening to Pat and Stu during the Tesla portion of their show. It was unscripted and their enthusiasm was noticeable, and contagious. In just a few weeks, I have been largely won over by The Blaze and their coverage of this emerging technology. If I could have a car that goes from zero to 60 so quickly without the noise and violent expulsion of energy—I’d take it. If it’s truly better, it should replace the old, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is something we should all embrace and thank because it is yet another example of the wonderful attributes of capitalism and the excitement that comes from minds un-tethered from the rules of engagement established by criminals like Otto Kerner. When people like Elon Musk have success, like he is with his Tesla Company—I smile a bit to myself at a victory Tucker predicted would happen. Musk is doing what Tucker couldn’t—and that makes me very happy to see someone—ANYONE—doing it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/19/israeli-election-means-obama-likely-stuck-with-netanyahu/

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Hillary Clinton’s Love of Titles: Why she’s unqualified for President

I want to see the presidency of Hillary Clinton explode right out of the gate. I can’t stand her, I am certain she is a crook and a criminal—and she is an embarrassment. I want nothing to do with her or her sex addict husband. I don’t like her life choices, I don’t like or respect her family, and I don’t want her sitting in my White House embarrassing the United States more than it already has been under President Obama. Hillary is a liar and a hypocrite and shouldn’t be elected to a pooper scooper position because she would screw that up. She is an idiot.

However, many hearing my utterings would accuse me of being a sexist. After all, they have accused me of things like that before when progressive types found they couldn’t win an argument laced with facts against me, which is the usual playbook for liberals. When they can’t win, they just call names that have no reflection in reality. Because in actuality, I have no problem voting for minorities or women into the presidency—as long as they are smart. And such an example of one such person is Carly Fiorina. I’d vote for her in a New York second. Why you might ask dear reader—well because of positions like this one:

 Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite on women’s rights,” says Carly Fiorina, a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president. “I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women’s rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights,” Fiorina said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.” 

“What counts is, what have you done? What have you accomplished?” she said. “And in particular, what have you, Mrs. Clinton, accomplished on behalf of the American people? Have you kept us safer? No. What have you accomplished, honestly, on behalf of women and girls — which she talks a lot about.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Hillary-Clinton-Carly-Fiorina-hypocrite-womens-rights/2015/03/17/id/630786/

I am glad that Fiorina said what she did about Hillary because if a man had said something to that effect in today’s progressively politically correct world, it wouldn’t have had the same impact. I’m not a big guy on titles. Even when I hold important titles, I often deliberately downplay them—because I honestly hate them. If I were president, I’d be much more like Jefferson than any other—I’d have a tendency to wear a robe and slippers to the front door of the White House just to show that I don’t care about the “power of the position.” That holds true for every situation unless I’m dealing with a culture that expects titles as a means for communicating with them. Personally I hate titles, and I hate people who think they’re important.

At the core of the problems with Hillary Clinton is her love of titles—thus the reason I hate her. It’s also why I truly admire Carly Fiorina. People like Fiorina should be president. People like Clinton should be condemned. Hillary Clinton has done nothing in her life but brown nose and hook herself to the stars of others as a second-hander  collecting titles along the way that she could pad a resume with. Yet all along, she never learned anything except to deceive and fluff her own pillow with perception instead of substance.

The very reason I hate Hillary Clinton is because she wishes to inject herself into my life, into my politics, and into my country’s reputation without offering anything substantive as far as a qualification than a parade of titles in her wake. And that doesn’t impress me. It’s good to hear smart women like Fiorina calling out stupid for a change. Just for that—I’d happily vote for Fiorina if she finds herself as one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination. I wouldn’t do so because she’s a woman either—I’d do it because she’s more qualified—and that’s the only criteria that matters.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Cliffhanger’s Morality on Capitalism” Elon Musk and Han Solo–the unseen value

A few years ago I spent a good part of a summer vacation on the balcony of a condominium reading the Ayn Rand books that my son-in-law had recently bought for me—particularly her collection of essays on capitalism. For as long as I had been alive capitalism was always portrayed as evil, which I never bought into. Yet nobody ever offered any competing theory. Even my favorite character from Star Wars, Han Solo was an unfettered capitalist without any apologies provided. George Lucas by the end of the original trilogy wanted to make Han into a more compassionate person who saw the errors of his ways—and thought about others more than himself—but I never personally bought into that theory. I’ve always seen capitalism as the way to making better things from nothing and had a far superior moral platform to project goodness than the altruistic sacrificial victim of yesteryear. After all if people are asked who they like more in Star Wars, Han Solo or Luke Skywalker who do you think they’ll pick? The results are well documented—just Google it.

I spent much of that summer thinking about those books as they provided a support that was found no place else in favor of capitalism. People like Milton Freeman were before my time, Walt Disney died when I was a little kid, and John Wayne was only fondly remembered in old movies. Reagan pretended to embrace capitalism as a continuation of his spokesman job he had at GE—but there really wasn’t anybody openly defending the morality of capitalism—and there needed to be. After all, from the world that I know people like Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and many others like them are doing far more for people than the person who sacrifices their time and energy at a soup kitchen helping the poor. While donating time is a nice thing to do for people down and out—the cause of why people are down and out in the first place is the real issue that needs to be explored—not the result. Capitalism has in it a morality which deserves a hero so that people can understand the value.

Even stories I really like, such as Robin Hood, and Zorro have in their underlying value a kind of socialism—the villains are the rich, the protagonists are the poor. Batman who is a direct evolutionary character of Zorro was like Don Diego a wealthy man who took his gained assets acquired through his family’s success and did good to fight crime.   But what always bothered me about Zorro and Batman is that they inherited their wealth; they didn’t do as Elon Musk did and make it from nothing into becoming one of the most influential people on planet earth. Without Elon Musk and Richard Branson where would the world really be? The wealth they create for the overall economy makes it even possible for people to donate their time to a soup kitchen for the poor. The inventions of the wealthy create spare time and resources so that something can be given back. Without that infusion of wealth, Harrison Ford wouldn’t be able to donate his time to left leaning causes.

Harrison Ford is my favorite actor—maybe just a bit ahead of Clint Eastwood. Ford made a lot of money as an actor because American capitalist culture had expendable income to go see his movies in a darkened theater. He has turned around and done a lot of great things with that money. Individually he became a private pilot most notably crash landing his crippled vintage craft into a golf course saving the craft, people and even himself in a way that defies the actions of most Hollywood actors. But Ford is also a very giving person to the poor, to environmental causes, and to virtually everyone in his life. He is a person who is easy to respect. But what would he be without George Lucas creating the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films? He would have been just another actor jumping from job to job. Lucas used capitalism to create wealth not just in monetary value, but in philosophy. Without the creation of capitalism all the good things that Ford does in his private life would go nowhere. If he didn’t have excess as a result of his success, he’d have nothing to give away to others by his own volition.

That is why capitalism needs a real hero—and unapologetic champion. I had started formulating that champion years ago in my own character of Cliffhanger. In my novel The Symposium of Justice it is eluded that the protagonist made all his wealth by winning a lottery ticket. However, this is a falsehood created by his political enemies who are protecting their old money political connections from the reality of what Cliffhanger represents—creation and justice. Most people who win the lottery are broke within a few years because they lack the internal value as people to support the sudden infusion of wealth. Unlike people like Elon Musk, most people lack the ability to create wealth, so they assume that it’s a finite resource open for equal distribution discussion. But they are dreadfully wrong. As the Cliffhanger series The Curse of Fort Seven Mile continues to evolve over the coming installments it becomes quite clear who and what Cliffhanger is and why people who can perform such creation are so important to society.

When I was in high school I was the only kid who actually wore a t-shirt featuring Howard Hughes on it. I’ve always liked Hughes and Harrison Ford’s recent plane crash reminded me a lot of a similar incident that Hughes had, in the same area years ago. Hughes was extremely rich, and did a lot of really good things with his money—particularly advancements in aviation that simply would not have happened without his actions. He was an eccentric whose mind ended up collapsing on itself, but the world is much better off because of his life than without it. Yet thousands, even millions of people flash upon the earth in a lifetime and disappear just the same and nobody notices. Is that fair? Aren’t they equal to Howard Hughes? The answer is no. The ability to create something from nothing is more important than equal distribution of fairness.

This brings us back to that summer in Florida with the Ayn Rand books. She was on to something and to my mind she broke through the first layer of an important revelation. In philosophy this is called the creation of Objectivism. I agree with most of the tenants of Objectivism. However Ayn Rand was a lot more socially liberal than I am. She was much more permissive on drugs and sex which hurts her position on capitalism. It allowed liberals to attack her as a product of excess greed and selfishness, which is an inaccurate assessment. The books of hers that I read were very valuable because what she was doing was on the cutting edge of a new way of thinking, so context is needed. Capitalism needed champions, and she officered them particularly in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Other than those characters there really aren’t any other champions of capitalism in novels or movies—with the rare exception of Harrison Ford’s film characters particularly Han Solo. In almost every other circumstance, most notably the man everyone loved to hate in the 80s television show Dallas—in JR, or Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard, rich people are evil and need to have something taken from them and given to people supposedly repressed and in need of equality.

The truth of the matter is that people who don’t have things are in that condition by choice most of the time. The big difference between people like Elon Musk and the typical volunteer at a local soup kitchen is that one creates wealth that enriches our entire culture and the other just does good deeds. Both are important, both may be good men, but only one makes something from nothing which leads to good options for everyone. The creation of Space X is more important than a local charity asking people to throw money into a hat for the needy. Space X creates expendable income to toss into the hat. Without it, there is nothing to donate to the needy.

The efforts of my new Cliffhanger installments are to further this exploration into the morality of capitalism in a way that has been utterly ignored. Ayn Rand started the process and did a lot of great work along that line of thought, but there is much, much more to do. This Cliffhanger project will likely go on for many years but already the stories feel like a continuation of the type of material I wanted to read more of after that summer vacation in Florida. After I ran out of those Ayn Rand books I wanted more, but since she died in the early 80s, there was nothing more to read. But there needed to be. So it is up to us in this new generation to expand on those arguments and further peel back the mysterious goodness of capitalism and to properly define why collectivism is a vile evil—even when its been told to us for centuries that it’s the only path to redemption. These are difficult subjects, but they need to be explored—and through Cliffhanger—they will be.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Run Liz Run: Mud, cigarettes, and short-haired braless skanks–the typical progressive

From my vantage point Hillary Clinton is so left of center she might as well be a communist. However, given her recent email scandals and the line of baggage she has from here to eternity behind her it is clear what a presidency liker hers would look like. She’s a Clinton and like her husband she will be covered in scandal from day one until the conclusion of her time. She plays too many games and breaks too many laws knowingly to avoid scandal, so if people want someone like that after eight years of Obama just because they want to put a “woman” in the White House then her email scandal is what a typical Hillary administration will look like day by day. It was for her husband, and it will certainly be for her as well.  The Clinton’s don’t know how to do it any other way. They are unethical skanks built on a philosophy of collectivism.

Already there is discontent however and many liberals are pulling away from Hillary and looking to Elizabeth Warren as their preferred pick. And “Liz” is even worse than Hillary as far as her political beliefs. When the politics of the two are compared Hillary looks to be as conservative as Calvin Coolidge compared to the excessively liberal Elizabeth Warren. How liberal? Well, listen to this 60s style folk song to get the gist of what an Elizabeth Warren presidency would look like and what kind of knuckle-dragging slugs would vote for her.

We are clearly not one nation. I find it hard to believe that so many people actually are attracted to the kind of positions that Elizabeth Warren represents—her basic platform is attacking the rich with the typical socialist re-distribution plans so common with Democrats. Stealing other people’s money is an attractive concept for the perpetually lazy, but Elizabeth Warren supporters don’t even feel bad about it.

When I was a little kid I had picked up a pack of gum that I asked my mom to buy. She said yes, but I never put it in the shopping cart. When it came time to pay I was holding it while she paid the attendant and nobody noticed that I had it. I was so young I had no idea that nobody would ring it up if it wasn’t on the check-out counter. My mom paid for all our groceries and we went out to the car as I opened the gum to chew. That’s when my mom realized that we hadn’t paid for that pack of gum and she pretty much flipped out. I felt so bad and dishonest that I had taken something without earning it. We immediately went back into the grocery to pay for the pack of gum which was all of .35 cents I think. It bothered me that I had technically stolen something even if I didn’t realize it at the time. In my house such a thing was very serious. There was no excuse.

When Elizabeth Warren and other progressives like her attack “the rich” they are essentially saying that they want to steal from those who earn money. They demonize Wall Street as the generator of greed as they advocate mass collectivism and hippie values of equality—which is impossible. Not everyone is equal, some people work hard and some people are lazy. The difference progressives highlight are men against women, white against black, young against old—but in essence in America no matter who or what you are, if you are will are willing to work hard you can overcome any barrier and become wealthy. The big differential against equality for all is work ethic. Some people are just lazy, and some people work hard. So long as there are hard workers who have money and a bunch of slugs who are lazy want to be equal to their efforts without the work, you will always have Elizabeth Warren supporters.

The campaign song for Warren titled “Run Liz Run” is disturbing because it insinuates that we should vote for the Senator because she’s a woman, and because the system is rigged in favor of “big business.” The folksy tone of the song congers up marijuana smoke, long smelly hair and the muddy ground of an outdoor music festival where the grass has been trampled bare after a heavy night rain and everyone have thrown burnt cigarettes into the saturated soil which squeezes up between the toes of shoeless despots. At such a place a young Elizabeth Warren might even be topless to show that women can take their shirt off just as a man can—and because she’s such a rabid feminist nobody would even look at her and think its attractive. It’s just one big mental image of yuck.

America is split, there is an us and them—and we are not all equal. We may be born that way, but through decisions, some people migrate to the lazy column and end up voting for people like Elizabeth Warren. Others make money and become rich, or are on a path toward that destination—they work and create as the others take what is earned by conservatives. Overwhelmingly most in the media support Warren which says a lot about them. I have known, and still know a lot of people in the media and I generally enjoy those people because I like show business. I like cameras, studios and the kind of creativity that goes on to make any kind of production whether it’s just the news or a cooking show. But politically, once those people open their mouths, I think of spit, vomit, and dirty braless short-haired marijuana smoking hippies who walk with bare feet in that festival soil sloshing about in the mud like a pig—cigarettes and all. Their kind of America is not my kind of America—and we are not all equal, or see things even remotely close to the same way.

Run Liz Run, like the song says, but not for office, but to a country that is openly communist, like North Korea, China or the stifling socialism of the European Union. Those are places better suited for Elizabeth Warren’s politics, and her run for president of something besides the most powerful economy on earth.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Mercedes-Benz F015: A critical step in transportation

I know that before I can have my flying car technology will have to prove it can handle itself without the decision-making tampering of a human being. There is no other way that such a thing could work; ordinary citizens are not able to pilot a vehicle that transports itself through the air as a collective mass. It would have to be a mobile living space that takes the fear of flight completely out of the hands of the consumer. Such technology currently exists, but for the psychological emergence of it, the machinery would have to display itself in a form that is currently understood and accepted—the automobile. Cars would first have to display how they can navigate themselves into mobile living centers instead of driver induced vehicles moving from point A to B. Once driverless cars become common, then the same technology could move into personal skycars which take off from a driveway and land wherever intended. I dream of the day where I can get into such a vehicle from my driveway and fly directly to Disney World in Orlando Florida in the same morning, sleeping reading or writing the entire way. Such a trip might occur at 6 AM only to arrive at the point of destination before noon and without the travel fatigue typically involved. To my eyes, the bridge to get to such a technological breakthrough is the new Mercedes-Benz F015.

It is hard for me to see the driver beginning to be irrelevant in the automobile. I love driving—I’m extremely good at it, and I love the independence of the American car the way it has emerged in culture within the United States. It should be obvious from my novel The Tail of the Dragon how much I love cars, hot rods, and racing in general. I have a feeling my reverence for cowboys and westerns will soon find with it the American car driver as something to remember fondly. For many years I have enjoyed driving cars excessively fast. I remember a day when fixing up a car and cruising around on a Friday night just to show it off was something people did—and I loved it. But it’s not lost to me that it’s a dying trend and I can see the benefits of a car that drives itself.

Consider the possibility of the new Mercedes-Benz F015. Say I wanted to make that same trip to Disney World from Cincinnati with my family. To travel to such a place I would need three of them—so say I did and we were all vacationing together as we tend to do—and while in transit we wanted to play video games together or just have conversations instead of waiting until the next rest stop. We could activate the interior panels inside the car and speak to one another with all the mobile adaptability of Face Time so popular with the Apple devices. The door panels inside the car are simply giant touch screens where the interior could come alive in conversations with people in the other cars of your party, or device gaming to pass the time. The inside of the Mercedes F015 wouldn’t be any different from a living room in a home; all the niceties would be there without the concern or responsibility of driving.

On such a long trip most of my speed comes from wanting to arrive at my destination, I usually try to cruise at or above 80 MPH. If I didn’t have the responsibility to stay up all night to drive so everyone else could sleep, I could avoid that lag period after such a trip where it takes a day to recover. I’ve driven all night to Florida on many occasions and it is always hard. We chose to leave around 10 PM so that we can arrive around 3 PM the next day and still have time to do something once we arrive. But it usually takes a few days to recover from the trip—for everyone. In the Mercedes F015 we could just sleep through a good portion of the trip. One thing that I’ve learned about such trips is that sometimes faster is slower. Even though a self-driving car would irritatingly obey all the traffic laws, it would not be prone to rubber necking along the highway. Most of the traffic issues on a highway are do to curious drivers looking at something in dense patterns starting a chain reaction of brake lights that slows down the entire highway. This is particularly obvious in Atlanta, Georgia. If a large percentage of cars on a highway were self-driving rubber necking would be a thing of the past actually speeding up the overall average speed of travel. If I drive really fast to Orlando, Florida I might be able to shave an hour and a half off the 15 hour trip. That is a lot of time but I would gladly trade it if I could do other useful things while in transit. I could read a book or play a video game instead of driving.

Even better would be a commute to work each day. I would gladly trade driving to a job with the ability to read and watch the news while easing into my day without the responsibility of navigation. It would actually increase the productive use of a day to gain that time allowing a person of responsibly to begin their work day the moment they left their driveway. It would be possible then to leave later for work and come home earlier since irritating aspects of a business day are often reading and answering emails. In the Mercedes F015 much of that work could be done during the commute which would save tremendous amounts of time per day in which personal time could be gained without the expense of lost productivity.

Driving is wonderful, I’ll probably always do a little of it, but I would gladly welcome the ability to extend my living space to a mobile transport which allowed me to do other things that are more valuable to me. Driving and reacting to other drivers is a puzzle that might be challenging, but it does bring a level of stress to our lives that we typically just ignore because of the lack of options. A Mercedes F015 would change all that—and I’d welcome it.

More than anything driverless cars with the sleek appearance of the new Mercedes are what we expect for 2015. Our world should be transforming into the products of our inventions instead of new renditions of the latest 1970s car company when the Big Three in America dominated the global market. The new Chrysler mini vans look like a shoe box and the various models of sport vehicles just don’t go far enough into the kind of transports a future driven by exciting new technology should deliver. The Mercedes F015 is much more along the lines of what I thought this particular point in history should have always looked than the stuffy safety of inside the box thinking that we have been seeing out of car companies over the last two decades.

Of course the next step for the automated car is to take to the air. Once society accepts that cars can drive themselves, perhaps then they’ll accept the same technology in the sky instead of trying up roads on the ground. Roads will always have some importance for point to point delivery of products and services. But, the air is where it’s at as far as transporting ourselves from one place to another. It would be extremely useful to me to be able to fly to Chicago or Cleveland from my driveway and arrive at a parking garage within the city in 45 minutes to an hour eating my breakfast along the way and conducting preliminary business in route.

Such technology is already present; the only restriction is our own human insecurities. There is no reason to hang on to the old when the new has so much to offer. There are better things for a mind to spend its time on than looking at some car in front of you packed in traffic. Let a computer waste its time on that activity—because our brains need to be free to pursue other interests. The Mercedes-Benz F015 is exciting, but to my mind it’s a decade too late. Its time to see the future we should have had all along, and for transportation, the new Mercedes is the benchmark of all things to come. And I welcome it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Best Argument Against Drugs: Robert D. Collins, 39, of Alliance, Ohio

I do not agree with Libertarians or Democrats in any way about drug use. I am to the right of the political right regarding drugs—even alcohol. I enjoy an occasional beer or wine, but nothing excessive, ever. I can understand a beverage with potent abilities not abused. I have at times drank whiskey to mend a wound, or to drown out a cold so to thin my blood, break a fever, or dump the results of a battered body recovering from a sickness. But smoking, sniffing, or injecting some intoxicant into a body is just something that makes no sense to me in any way. I would argue that cultures like those of India, the Native American and every shamanic culture in existence who use marijuana or other chemical means to achieve some measure of visionary enchantment are cultures so stoned that they are easy to conquer and have no choice but to be a culture of pacifists. There is a reason that peace-loving hippies and counter-culture losers advocated marijuana use along with their peace signs—it’s because they don’t want anybody to kick the shit out of them while they are intoxicated. Substance abuse is no way for a culture to achieve any measure of success in any fashion.

In Ohio there is a push to legalize marijuana which of course I’m 1000% against. The reason is that dope makes people stupid; it functions best to turn off their brains. To that effect, an excellent example of what drugs do to people can be seen by the antics of Robert D. Collins seen in the following video.

Robert D. Collins, 39, of Alliance, Ohio, was recently arrested and charged with misuse of the 911 system as well as possession of drug paraphernalia, a police report states.

According to the Alliance Police Department, Collins posted bond and appeared in court on March 6 for his arraignment. Court officials said Collins retained a public defender.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/03/10/911-call-man-reports-wife-stole-cocaine

Collins in a fit of rage after his “old lady” stole his cocaine actually called 911 to tell on her. I first heard this story while listening to Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network and at first I thought it was a skit he and his partner Skip were performing on air. But it was in fact a true story. Collins was just that stupid, obviously mentally impaired by years of drug abuse—everything from casual marijuana use to cocaine. He may be the extreme example of what drugs can do to people who use and abuse them, but he represents an increasingly consistent percentage of the population who aspire to the intellectual aptitude of this mighty example of grey matter impaired by years of bad habits.

When Ohio attempts to make marijuana legal, the voters need to remember Robert D. Collins and his “old lady” in Alliance, Ohio as an example of what drug use can and will do to the minds they impair. There is no excuse for deliberately destroying a brain or any thinking activity. Yet the drug culture is all about such destruction and is the primary reason I will never support drugs in any shape or form.

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.

Joe Biden’s Delusions: Dealing with a Presidential idiot

Apparently Joe Biden was upset with the March 9th letter that forty-seven Republican Senators sent to the Islamic Republic of Iran explaining how the American Constitution works in the United States. The concern is that President Obama is in nuclear negotiations with Iran which anybody with just a few coherent thoughts knows is trouble. Obama has been proven incompetent—so there is no trust in someone like him negotiating anything with one of the biggest sponsors of terror in the world. That’s like asking a 2-year-old child to beat the heavyweight champion in the world in a fight to the death. Hey, anything can happen—but likely, the child will lose the fight. Obama can’t be trusted to organize how much to tip the pizza guy, let alone arms negotiations with Iran, so the GOP had to remind Iran that no matter what they came up with the President, that it would require Congressional approval to make it valid. American presidents are not kings and cannot do anything without the backing of the larger Republic—and for good reason. Past American presidents have overstepped their boundaries, Woodrow Wilson for one and his Treaty of Versailles involvement, along with a host of others who followed who clearly were behaving like part of a monarchy instead of a Constitutional Republic, are guilty of trying to prop themselves up as kings in America. In the past Presidents were given a bit of a pass out of respect to the Oval Office, but with Obama, that respect has been destroyed by his own actions. He didn’t give any respect to Congress or members of the GOP, so he’s not getting any free passes for the sake of the office he holds. He’s clearly an idiot, so it’s important that Iran understand that everyone in America isn’t as stupid as President Obama.

Yet Vice-President Biden knowing full well the mistakes of the administration that he’s a part of came to the defense of his President saying, “this letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.” Well, the VP is wrong. The White House’s defense on this matter is to basically say, “but other presidents overstepped their authority, so we should be allowed also.” That type of behavior has made the United States weaker, so any action that pulls these renegade presidents back under control of the Constitution needs to be implemented to build again the strength of the American Republic.

Biden continued, “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary—that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our commander-in-chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.” Well, the reason is that at no point in those thirty-six years was there an American president as bad and incompetent as Obama is. The guy went from a community organizer with a questionable background who spent his personal and professional time with open terrorists, and America is supposed to sit back and let him negotiate with a country with known terrorist support against the West. Obama was elected because of the color of his skin, and he lied about a lot of things to get into office. Once there, he changed his positions and covered his tracks at every juncture, and this is the person Biden thinks should have unfettered ability to strike a treaty with a terrorist loving nation wanting nuclear technology? Sorry, that’s not how logic works.

Too many people enjoy the pageantry of monarchs. It’s one of those ridiculous European fantasies where kings and queens ruled with absolute authority. But that’s not how it was ever to be in the United States. Over time, our roots to Europe have pulled our society back into the ritual of tabloid worship of leaders and royalty, but that doesn’t change the fact that those assumptions are incorrect. America doesn’t have a king or a queen and if the Constitution is followed, it never will. Many presidents have pushed their Constitutional limits, particularly the progressive Republican in disguise Teddy Roosevelt when he attacked the railroads with his anti-trust busting antics and built the Panama Canal with deals that clearly violated the Constitution. In the end, the masses supported those endeavors so it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and Presidents have been openly violating the Constitution ever since. American Presidents with the exception of Calvin Coolidge and maybe a few others have pushed the limit more and more expecting the other houses of government to just sit back and let them do anything they wanted—as a global statesman on par with kingship. Finally, the radical activist lawyer and community organizer Obama has went too far, and the Senate is doing their job of pulling him back to reality.

The fact that Biden stated in all his vast history of government work that he’s never seen such a thing take place only speaks to how long the Senate has not done their jobs properly in checking the power of a White House President—no matter who they are. Pleading ignorance is not a viable strategy to eliciting treaties from foreign rivals like Iran, and essentially Biden is fighting to maintain the right of a fool to do massive destruction to American foreign policy just to maintain the façade of kingship at the White House. Sorry, Joe. With all your years in government, you should know that’s not how things are supposed to work. And given how stupid the VP’s statements are, I’d at least trust him to tip the pizza guy. But as to the president, absolutely not—I don’t care how stylish it is to have a man of color in the White House—I can think of a lot of dark-skinned Americans who I’d vote for as president in less than a second. But Obama is not one of them, because—he’s an idiot.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.