Category: Ann Becker

Harvey Weinstein’s Stupid Anti-NRA Film: Why ‘Expendables 3’ will destroy Meryl Streep

When Harvey Weinstein promised to make a movie with Meryl Streep going after the National Rifle Association, he declared war against middle America. His statements were a simple declaration that many already knew—that Hollywood is teeming with parasitic liberals hell-bent on a destructive progressive agenda.  For such a prominent producer and actress to make such a bold statement is to declare their alliance with collectivism and the breath of evil which has blown it along through the ages.  So I look forward to Meryl’s anti-gun movie—because I’ll make a bet with the liberal Hollywood elite—I bet as of January 2014 that the Sylvester Stallone film Expendables 3 will out gross Streep’s anti-NRA film by over $700 dollars per screen in every market outside of New York and Los Angeles.  I will also bet that Stallone’s film will top $300 million at the box office while Streep will be lucky to break $100 million. So go ahead Harvey—make your silly NRA movie and watch all the people who will go see Expendables 3 instead.  The bottom line in the movie world is that middle America decides if films are hits or successes—and in that region—they love their guns and they hate big government.  Expendables 3 will do more for the sale of guns than Weinstein’s picture will do against them—and the liberal Hollywood machine will be left scratching their heads.  Their premier actress Meryl Streep will be out grossed by a bunch of retired action stars from the 1980s—and they’ll do it spectacularly.  Critics will pan the film with negative reviews, entertainment web-sites and television broadcasts will declare the Expendables 3 has bad production values and glorifies guns and killing—but it won’t matter.  Expendables 3 will top $300 million at the box office when it hits theaters this upcoming August—place your bets now.  And Harvey’s film will barely make its money back from the production costs.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/01/21/harvey-weinsteins-anti-nra-movie-continues-hollywoods-gun-control-obsession

My son-in-law had been raving about how good Expendables 2 was, and even as he was declaring it—I had my doubts.  I enjoyed the first one, but certainly didn’t go out of my way to see the second one at theaters.  Growing up in the 80s I sort of take it for granted that movies like the Expendable films get made—as they used to come out every couple of months in America during the Reagan presidency.  I truly enjoyed seeing all those great action stars again in Jason Stratham, Jet Li, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all in the same movie kicking absolute ass during the entire duration of the plot.  I didn’t think I’d enjoy it as much as a film like 2013’s Man of Steel, Iron Man 3 or The Hobbit.  But he did convince me recently to watch the movie with him and I’m glad he did.

Expendables 2 was wonderfully testosterone filled without apology.  It was uncompromisingly manly—and for that I was grateful.  I have not laughed so hard genuinely in a long time as I did when Arnold Schwarzenegger ripped the door off a Smart Car that Bruce Willis was driving and declared that he has shoes bigger than the car—all while mowing down bad guys with machine guns.  It was a wonderfully fun movie and it was just pleasurable to see a movie with all those actors known for their tough guy rolls in the same movie.  It was a movie made for the core of America from the rural areas of Pennsylvania to the recluse mobile home dwellers in the Nevada Mountains.  Santa Monica, California might look down their nose at all these old action stars mindlessly killing thousands of people centering around a ridiculous mercenary plot—and New York career climbers would find all the activity repulsive—but everyone else in America loves it.  Expendables 2 is an American movie made for American men.  End of story.  It is a film meant to be watched by men while the women cook in the kitchen during Holiday events gossiping about other family members who aren’t present.  In such times men have very little to do—they usually watch football as grown men run into each other as hard as they can, or they watch movies like Expendables 2.  It is a fun movie that is not afraid to touch the heart of a testosterone driven entity.  Women might complain about that testosterone when its inconvenient to them—but in the bedroom they want it.  Expendables 2 is likely to improve the love lives of many women, so they shouldn’t complain.

As for Harvey Weinstein he’s built his career producing movies that exploit violence and guns—films like Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Grindhouse, Sin City, the Kill Bill movies, Rambo, Django Unchained along with many others.  He also has made several sexually exploitive films.  He had Madonna show her bare breasts in the 1991 film Truth or Dare, and had Nichole Kidman very; very naked in Cold Mountain, which likely ruined her career.  Once people saw her in such a nude fashion in that movie after the film Eyes Wide Shut,there was nothing left to desire in Nichole.  Everyone had seen everything and Nichole was officially old news after that.  Here is Harvey’s film resume:

Executive producer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein

Because of his Academy Awards he falsely believes that he’s a “serious” filmmaker.  But what he’s done is use action films exploiting massive amounts of violence—some of the most violent movies ever made—and turned those profits into progressive agenda films—like Silver Linings Playbook, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, and Chicago.  He is the opposite of someone like Walt Disney who took his profits from animated films to crusade for traditional values. Harvey exploited violence, sex, and over-the-top action to fund progressive films—which never make much money. So now, Harvey thinks he’s the king of Hollywood and that he can command Meryl Streep to make a film that will sink the NRA.  Well, good luck, Harvey.  Your Hollywood friends might like a film like that—but while the women are gabbing in the kitchen during Holidays cooking dinner as they are prone to do—the men won’t be popping in a DVD of your upcoming stupid anti-NRA film.  They’ll put in Expendables 2, and in the future Expendables 3, and if Stallone gets his way, Clint Eastwood will be in Expendables 4 taking the director’s chair and appearing in the film.  I’d pay damn good money to watch Clint Eastwood as an 86-year-old man blasting bad guys with a .500 magnum over one of Harvey’s pictures like Zack and Miri.

So have at it Harvey—take my bet.  Your movie with Meryl Streep will be grossly out performed by Expendables 3 which will add to the cast mentioned above Harrison Ford, Antonia Banderias, and Mel Gibson.  In addition, ten years from now where men have the option to watch all the Expendables movies or the latest anti-gun film from the Weinstein Company what do you think they’ll pick. Even with all of Hollywood’s efforts to make women “equal” or enlightened, they’ll still be in the kitchen cooking dinners for their men and talking about those men’s mothers—and the men will be looking for violent entertainment that features guns—guns, and more GUNS!  And there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it. It’s the way God made all of us, and that is the way it will always be even 2000 years from now long after progressivism has fallen off the radar as a failure in social engineering long forgotten—like all of Harvey’s non-violent progressive films—such as Chicago and his upcoming film with Meryl Streep dead before it is ever made.

Doc Thompson Dismantles John Boehner: “Gotta do whatever I can to save the children, the puppy dogs, and the rainbows,’ dirt bag in congress.”

According to Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network John Boehner is a “pinko, commmie, bed wetting, mambie pambie, hand wringing, crying, orange tinted, ‘I’ve gotta do whatever I can to save the children, the puppy dogs, and the rainbows,’ dirt bag in congress.”  It should have been clear from the outset that John Boehner had been bitten by the progressive bug of statism when he took the gavel of House Speaker from Nancy Pelosi, then immediately started crying.  Boehner was crying because he had gained enormous power the way he perceived it–3rd most in the entire world behind only the President and Vice President of The United States, and he was proud of himself for being elected into that position.  He was proud that his peers had just voted him in congress the equivalent of the Homecoming King of a big high school football game.  They had enough faith in him to protect their lobby interests on K-Street, to look the other way while they made millions off insider trading on Capitol Hill,  but worse of all, did exactly what Doc and his producer Skip established during the following broadcast,  use Cloward and Piven methods of overwhelming financial systems in order to create havoc allowing for massive changes in American philosophy through case-law to bring about “progressive changes.”  This is what Congress led by John Boehner is guilty of doing by adopting methods of making illegal aliens legal so that they can vote in upcoming elections.   Listen to that epic Doc Thompson broadcast from The Blaze Radio Network at the video below.  (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE)

John Boehner recently sent Barack Obama a birthday present knowing full well that America is burning on several fronts, many inspired directly by those same Cloward and Piven strategies designed to invoke progressive changes.  In the world of Capitol Hill the idiots there believe that they are royalty and actually rule over the population, and in order to stay in such power they must continuously find new ways to “game” the system in order to increase their voting blocs, and they do this by giving away the wealth of others, confiscated through government, and literally buying votes in elections based on their wealth redistribution.  The Democrats have done this kind of thing for years, and now the GOP is doing the same once they suffered a stinging defeat after Barack Obama was elected for a second term.

The GOP lost the last election because they played by the rules against an opponent where anything goes.  The GOP did not respond accordingly.  Fewer voters participated in that election on their behalf than did in 2008 showing support for John McCain and the first possible woman vice-president Sarah Palin.   Palin was publicly dismantled by attack through every branch of the media ruthlessly, even though she was a woman—because she was a conservative and had been a successful governor.  McCain was simply too much of a “nice guy” to respond to any attacks from the left believing that he and his party were above such a fray.  Republicans under McCain’s leadership routinely believed incorrectly that they were “above” such fisticuffs while Obama and his minions ruthlessly attacked all their political opponents with blood in their eyes and a knife behind their backs.  The GOP has failed to respond to progressives in American government since Ronald Reagan was in office three decades ago.  Instead, they have taken up the mantra, “if you can’t beat them—join them.”

This is how Republicans have invested so much of themselves in the new Gang of Ocho Bill that seeks to give amnesty to illegal aliens.  While the budgets across the nation collapse under progressive strain, the GOP seeks to find voters for 2016 among the illegal aliens hoping to beat out the Democrats in giving away more stuff to earn those voters.  Meanwhile they have surrendered ground to their old base of support assuming that they will always vote for the GOP instead of the lowly Democrats.  But they have been wrong.  Instead of holding their nose and voting or people like John McCain in 2008, then Mitt Romney in 2012, they just stayed home to watch sports, play video games, or went shopping.  People have stopped being interested in politics because of all the crookedness that is going on in Washington, surrendering their voting rights to the illegal immigrants who mean well, but often come from statism controlled governments and see nothing wrong with taking all the free stuff the American government wants to give them to earn their votes.

This brings everything around to Doc’s statement about Boehner.  Boehner was supposed to use his power to bring about justice, and enforce righteousness, yet he has refused choosing instead to defend government statism.  Boehner has chosen to “get along” with a president who has openly been hostile to the American way of life.  Obama is a devoted radical of the left and ran an administration that will go down in history as one of the most corrupt and secretive in the history of presidents.  From the questionable origins of Obama’s birth and education background to the Benghazi scandal, to the IRS attacks against conservative groups the Executive Office has openly used Cloward and Piven methods to “progress” society to the left by yanking the Overton Window dramatically in that direction.  John Boehner has stood by like a weeping child and let him do it believing incorrectly that Americans don’t want a fight in politics.  He and all those who think the way he does are wrong.

I was proud when a politician from my area took the third most powerful position in the world in 2010.  However, watching what he’s done with it, I am deeply ashamed of the man.  If I saw him or a member of his family around my town, at the grocery, or other social event, I would not seek to shake his hand, or even acknowledge his existence.  A year ago I was invited to a breakfast occasion with John Boehner which I turned down.  Now I would be insulted if I even received such an invite.  I wouldn’t simply refuse due to time constraints, but because it would be an assumption that the host considered me cut from the same cloth of such a weak-kneed, wussy, of diabolical character, soft will, and corruptible spirit.  I would consider such an invite today in late August of 2013 to be equivalent to an invite to fight in a parking lot—because the invitation would be one of disrespect.

Doc was right to call John Boehner all the things he did because the guy has not only done a bad job as House Speaker, but has caved into the enemies of America as defined by logic.  Capitol Hill is a land infested by peasants not of financial demeanor, but of moral aptitude.   They are lacking minds capable of leading anybody anywhere, and to cover their deficiencies, they seek to redistribute wealth to maintain office.  This is what John Boehner and his GOP supporters are after with their support of illegal aliens.  In America foreign immigration is part of what made The United States great, and there is a process for earning the honor of citizenship.  But that path does not involve free phone apps telling immigrants how to “game” the system with welfare abuse and parasitic living.  Anyone who supports such methods deserves to be called everything that Doc called them, and much, much more.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Lakota Schools to Cut Employees: Declining enrollment means staff must be reduced

I have been laughing for the last couple of weeks intensely after the Cincinnati Enquirer report from my old buddy Michael Clark was caught reading from the public relations memo sent out by Lakota schools instead of doing any hard reporting.  The article was in reference to the declining enrollment at the Lakota school system, which I reported here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom over a year ago, CLICK TO REVIEW.  The Enquirer was a little late to the punch, by only about 14 months.  Basically Lakota has lost 9% of their student enrollment since 2010, which has been due to an aging population and expensive home prices that exclude parents with school aged children from being able to move into the community.  This projection is expected to continue for at least the next 8 years.  Yet Clark and the other government education advocates who gave statements of consensus in the article made the following comment, which was the source of my laughter.

“The trend adds to the nervousness of Southwest Ohio school officials and school parents who await the state budget’s unveiling later this month. Smaller enrollment often means less school funding in Ohio’s biennium budgets. And fewer state dollars mean districts often ask voters to pay higher school taxes.”

You can read the rest of that hilarious article at the following link.

http://westchesterbuzz.com/2013/06/18/shrinking-enrollment-causes-problems-for-suburban-schools/

The reason that article is so side-splitting funny is because all the participants from the reporter down to the public relations people proved that they have no idea how to balance a public school budget.  Smaller enrollment does not mean that schools have to go back to the tax payers.  Smaller enrollment means that the school will have to reduce their paid staff in order to meet the new demand by the student population.  Lakota indicated that they were nervous to see what kind of money the “state” would give them, when the issue is irrelevant.  Lakota will need to reduce their work force by at least 9% to account for the declining enrollment, thus saving the money they’d otherwise pay those employees.  Instead they have announced that they plan to go for another levy in November of 2013 to pay for employees they don’t need!  Click here for more detail.

As Lakota continues to decline in enrollment, it may well be possible that Lakota could reduce its staff and administrators by up to 50% by the time 2020 arrives from what it is now.  For the tax payers of the Lakota school district that is wonderful news.  For business owners looking to invest in the community, that is wonderful news as well, as tax increases should not be needed.  It’s also good news for the family of two who have lived in the Lakota district for twenty to thirty years and has been considering selling their home to avoid the property taxes by retiring to Florida.  Now those empty-nesters can remain in their homes as the tax burden at Lakota should not increase.

Yet the administration at Lakota did not see this good news.  Instead they somehow translated that information as meaning they would need a tax increase…………..and that is HILARIOUS!  Do they believe that the same staff level will be maintained when the student population drops down to 11,000 students, or even 10,000?  Are teachers going to be teaching in classrooms of only 5 to 10 kids?  Is that what they think?  Well, apparently………they do.  Such a statement about tax increases when enrollment decreases just goes to prove how terribly out-of-touch those types of government employees are, and what little management actually goes into making business decisions in public schools.

The right thing to do at Lakota would be to have a reduction in force every year that there is student enrollment decreases and make sure that the most highly paid employees are either forced to leave, or reduced in force to dynamically supply the student needs.  But public education is never interested in doing what’s right.  After all, they are “progressive” organizations.  They believe they exist to give away jobs like Santa Clause at Christmas time, and they actually entertain the idea that they might have to raise taxes to keep all their employees on staff.  That is what was suggested in the Enquirer article, which is absolutely preposterous.  Such thinking is the construct of idealism and has no basis in reality.

The decline in enrollment has nothing to do with the three defeated school levies which took place from 2010 to 2012.  It may have in a small way prevented the very rare type of real estate purchaser who would be attracted to the Four Bridges type of housing developments, the affluent latte sippers who buy half million dollar homes then expect the community to give their children a free baby sitting service complete with an education.  But what has been lost in real estate sales from those types has been gained in retained businesses that have not had to flee the community due to high taxes, and proved conducive to affluent home owners who enjoy living in a community where the children do not run the entire town.  Rather the decline in enrollment is part of a natural process, and is the byproduct of a society that does not value the building of families but instead promotes the value of single status lifestyles which last well into young adults thirty something years.  If every home in the Lakota district had a mom and a dad, (which most do) yet only produce 1.7 children per home, then the population not just of Lakota as a district will decline, but the nation as well.

That is why big government loves to build Section 8 homes in communities where such population reductions are occurring.  This is also one of the secret desires for providing amnesty to illegal immigrants.  Poor families tend to have more children because the government pays them to give birth.  Affluent homes tend to have fewer children because those types of people take responsibility for their life and pay for their own kids.  Affluent types won’t put up with associating with the other type who do not share in their values.  Look at the situation that is bringing harm to Tri-County Mall.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.

Because the district of Lakota is considered affluent, and there are barriers to entry, not quite as excessive as there is in Indian Hill, but is moving in that direction, this means that fewer families can qualify to send their kids to the Lakota school system.  Those that can have probably already raised their families and are looking for the kinds of social offerings that come with developments like Carriage Hill Homes, or the upcoming Liberty Center shopping complex.  The face and nature of the community are changing, and that change does not center around the neurosis of a local school system, but on quality, and affluence by people who can see through the tantrums of Lakota schools and the bottomless pit of tax increases they wish to impose hiding their lack of management skills, and gross negligence of proper head-count maintenance.

It was funny while it lasted, not its just sad………………………………..

Rich Hoffman

“Justice Comes with the Crack of a Whip’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Hilarious ‘Man of Steel’ Review by The Washington Post: The exact reason that American society is failing

One of the reasons I like movies so much, especially ones like Man of Steel is that they challenge social beliefs and the standards of our day.  Prior to the release of Man of Steel, progressive statist lovers who relish themselves in the entertainment industry like maggots on spoiled food had written poor reviews about the new Superman movie basically saying that Kal-El, as he was portrayed in the film, was too good to be believable.  This is a remarkable statement and if one takes the time to let it sink in just a bit, is it any wonder that our society is so broken, so crime ridden, so morally and financially bankrupt?  In spite of the critics, Man of Steel has soared to extraordinary box office success which for me is a social vote against the attempt of progressives to steer our society into more statist philosophy.  When as many people show up to see a movie like Man of Steel in such a short period of time, it is a flat our rejection of the kind of statist culture that is being offered by modern-day intelligentsia.   But the king of negative reviews that I found absolutely intriguing is the one below from Alexandra Petri from The Washington Post.  Apparently the Man of Steel hit a really raw nerve with her, which is good because it shows what these types of people really believe in their hearts.  If I had to guess based on the review by Alexandra, I would say she came from a broken home, found herself passed out and drunk at a party more than once not able to find her cloths, and is having a hard time maintaining a stable relationship with a man.  She is a product of the progressive era, and the public schools that raise millions of children to believe in the same types of diabolical behavior patterns.  Because she thinks in such a way is why the Washington Post hired her to begin with, as she can write articles in a way that the masses can understand—or at least thinks they understand until something like Man of Steel comes along and shows society how far they have fallen from the tree of goodness.  For some, they yearn to take steps in their life to be closer to the ideal of Superman.  For others like Alexandra Petri, they find the idea of Superman to be utterly perplexing, out-dated, and an image that fills them with guilt, instead of hope.  Read her article for yourself.  I put the whole article up with a link at the end.

 

Man of Steel — have we outgrown Superman?

By Alexandra Petri, Published: June 20, 2013 The Washington Post

I dislike Superman.

Let me rephrase that.

I don’t like Superman.

I understand that he is America, or Jesus, or both at the same time, with Maximum Levels of Allegory and slightly better hair.

But who is he? A concatenation of catchphrases with perfect teeth and rippling muscles.

He’s perfect, and like anything perfect, he’s bland.

And here I thought it was just Brandon Routh that was the problem.

No, even in the gritty reboot “Man of Steel” currently In Theaters near you, he’s a problem. I saw the movie feeling a sense of obligation. It’s Superman. We love Superman. Of course we’re seeing Man of Steel.

But he feels dated. Everyone else these days is custom — flawed, just like you and me. Superman is one-size-fits-all perfection.

It’s not that he possesses so many virtues. As W. H. Auden said, “A vice in common can be the ground of a friendship but not a virtue in common. X and Y may be friends because they are both drunkards or womanizers but, if they are both sober and chaste, they are friends for some other reason.”

Superman lacks vices. At a critical moment in this summer’s “Man of Steel,” trying to sap his fighting spirit, someone yells, “OH YEAH? Well, you have a MORAL COMPASS and I DON’T!” As taunts go, this is only marginally more menacing than yelling, “OH YEAH? WELL, YOU HAVE REALLY NICE TEETH!” There’s nothing to insult.

Superman is your friend with a truck.

You cultivate his acquaintance in case you ever need help moving or a ride to a wine tasting in the country or defense against alien attack. But you wouldn’t want to sit next to him at dinner. You invite him to your wedding on the off-chance he will turn some of the water into wine. But what do you say to him?

Superman is genetically gifted to the point that he has never actually been required to make conversation. Late in the film, he whips a drone out of the sky, and an officer smiles blandly at him. “He’s kinda hot,” she says. What else can you say?

Let me insert the caveat that I am a fair-weather comics fan. I am the sunshine patriot and summer filmgoer. I didn’t grow up reading the issues or even watching Smallville; maybe there is an iteration of the hero that answers these questions satisfactorily.

At least in the film, his back story is depressing because it turns out he’s not just special for Earth — he’s special for his home planet Krypton, too. “The first natural birth in centuries!” his Space Dad, Russell Crowe, proclaims. Apparently he contains the lives of all future Kryptonians encoded in his body somewhere. It is a pity they forgot to include any personality with that.

But what personality could you fit?

Personality is something you are forced to develop to make people like you in spite of your inherent deficiencies. This is why when people say, “He has a wonderful personality,” it is usually shorthand for “He resembles a fat stoat.” If you are attractive and flawless, like Superman, what personality do you need? This is why Cyrano de Bergerac, with his giant hideous nose, has a rapier wit and is the life of the party, and Christian de Neuvillette, so handsome that people fall in love with him spontaneously across rooms, cannot complete a sentence to save his life. Adversity builds character. If you’re a diamond living among pumice, good luck being shaped into anything. No wonder Superman’s bland. When he gets bullied as a kid, his greatest struggle is not melting the bullies with his eyes. Forget first-world problems; he’s in a category by himself.

Of course, being in a category by yourself is its own kind of pain. He is the last of a species, alone, isolated, orphaned — but we don’t see that in the movie, except in brief flashbacks. If anything, he has too many living family members to be a high-functioning superhero. There’s nothing to latch onto in this Clark Kent, just a flying grin and a lot of explosions.

My understanding of myth structure, from Joseph Campbell, is that the essence of most hero stories is as follows: the hero Goes To The Father To Seek The Boon (getting help from a variety of archetypal figures and overcoming a variety of obstacles on the way), the hero obtains the boon, the hero returns and uses the boon to Save the People.

The trouble with Superman is that he already has the boon. He’s faster than a speeding bullet, capable of — yadda, yadda, yadda. As a consequence, the movie consists of numerous people delivering inspirational speeches to Superman about his unique capacity to save the world, and then he goes and does it. He doesn’t have to struggle to get where he is. But hey, there are a lot of explosions.

Still, is that enough?

What do we need from our myths?

Superman has always been a decently heavy-handed allegory: somebody’s only son sent to dedicate his life to save the human race? Gee. Who might this be?

Everyone else these days is so flawed. Iron Man has something resembling PTSD. Poor Captain America has come unstuck in time. Batman — don’t get me started on Batman. “Hey guys,” Superman says, sitting down at the bar next to them. “Rough day. I’m completely invulnerable to all earth substances, but also, I can fly!”

“Please leave,” Bruce Banner says, turning a little green.

The other superheroes filling our screens this summer have had a process of becoming. Superman doesn’t become. He just lands. He’s just super. He’s all the fun of playing Make Believe with a 6-year-old who keeps changing the rules on you so that he’s invulnerable and always wins.

Superman is the hero we don’t deserve but need right now. Here he comes now with that truck of his, just in time to help.

But that doesn’t mean I have to like him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/06/20/man-of-steel-have-we-outgrown-superman/

You can see more about her on Twitter at the following link:

https://twitter.com/petridishes

It is because of people like Alexandra Petri that we have Barack Obama as president, more scandals in Washington in just a couple of years than all of them combined during the last century, and the moral compass of America that is faltering under rudderless leadership by beta men who eat out of the hand of alpha women, who secretly are always on the lookout for the alpha male—who using Petri’s metaphor–is always the guy with the truck.  It not that she’s a bad person, or even a devious progressive.  In her article, she was honest, so I won’t rip her to shreds over what she wrote.  But she represents a great sickness that is destroying entire generations and is what people like me see as philosophically worse than catching the bubonic plague.

Of course people like Alexandra Petri have to live in their bodies and the minds that have molded them, so they have no other point of reference but to look at a film like Man of Steel and find reasons to make fun of it, because she can’t relate.  It isn’t her opinion that is the problem, but the fact that she cannot relate to a person who does not have vices, or rather that she believes that vices are what built relationships in the first place.  Her statements are as ridiculous as two businessmen who are nurturing a deal, who go out drinking to become intoxicated so both can see weaknesses in each other so that trust between the two can be shared with a common secret.  Any relationship built upon such foundations is doomed to fail, just as a society built on vices, and personal failures will collapse on itself.

I blame the creation of people like Alexandra Petri not on a disagreement over social philosophy, but of the origin of her thoughts to begin with, to the parents who obviously instructed her wrong, to the life situations that shaped her mind to believe that virtue is inferior to vice.  To each and every teacher in her public school that helped mold her mind to believe that having a “moral compass” is an out-dated ideal, and that it is appropriate to be nice to someone just so you can use them to help deliver something with their truck.

Alexandra Petri from The Washington Post represents the common demographic of 20 to 35 year olds in 2013 America—a lost generation that is hopelessly misplaced, and teetering on the precipice of disaster.  The only thing that keeps these rudderless beings afloat is the socialist mechanisms of the previous generation who gave them the New Deal and the Great Society, which are not sustainable financially.   Alexandra Petri is a child of those two progressive concepts and for her Superman is not about hope, but an unrealized ideal of what mankind is supposed to be.  Man is not supposed to be perfect, they are to be flawed, scandalous, and judged not by the merit of their work or quality of life, but by their vices.

Ironically lost to Alexandra is the metaphor that the type of qualities she found important and lacking in Kal-El, are the kind of values that General Zod proposed in the film.  An America led by people like Alexandra Petri are doomed to live out in real life what the fictional fate of Krypton turned out to be.  Yet she didn’t see that parallel.  She just saw her anxiety over the kind of perfection that was presented by Superman with a concept that was so foreign to her that the magic was lost.  For her, she needs people with fault to feel they have a personality, and she is far from alone.  If I had to put a number on the amount of people in society who think the same way she does, I’d say that it’s as high as 85%.  Many of them most likely left the Man of Steel movie feeling the same way, like they know they are supposed to like Superman, in the same way that people are supposed to like church—with a rebellious reverence to the idea of goodness that can be pushed back against with rejection, even though their bodies go through the motions of attending.

Alexandra Petri is allowed to think whatever she wants.  But she is forbidden to make decisions on my behalf, and that includes burdening me with goof-ball presidents like Barack Obama, unmanaged public education costs, government scandals, NSA spying, and more socialism in our current government with more entitlement programs.  Because she can vote, and does, and supports a democratic mode of government, then Alexandra’s bad ideas are in direct competition with my ideas, and those thoughts about reality are not compatible.  When she complains that she wants to see a flawed Superman, she speaks to a desire to create a flawed society—and she votes accordingly.  I on the other hand expect Superman to be flawless, and I live my life in a way to represent that idea.  When Alexandra Petri makes fun of the virtuous perfection that Superman represents, she is stating that my expectations human beings should strive to be all that they can be, and still push for more is too difficult, and unrealistic since such people lack personality, which is more important than value.

When it is wondered why the world is so screwed up, just read the article above and imagine millions of people like Alexandra Petri living their lives looking to hire, befriend, and interact socially not with the best that the human race has to offer, but the worst, because vices, imperfection, and perilous human weaknesses are endearing personality traits that people like Alexandra can relate to—which makes them good.    It should come as no surprise then when our society fails, because it is led in a mob-like democracy by people like Alexandra Petri who have been taught that all the things that are valuable are the things that make human beings the most disgusting.

Read my review of the same movie here to see how completely different kinds of thinking people can see the same thing and come away with opposite opinion.  CLICK HERE.

Rich Hoffman

“Justice Comes with the Crack of a Whip’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Government is TOO Big: Tea Party Protest in downtown Cincinnati at the IRS building

Before it was all said and done there were around 500 people who joined the crowd protesting the gross intrusion of the IRS into the lives of Tea Party Patriots.

CINCINNATI – The furor over the IRS’s improper targeting of conservative groups went on full display in downtown Cincinnati on Tuesday.

More than 200 people turned out for a noon rally sponsored by local tea party groups, according to 9 On Your Side’s Scott Wegener. Some carried signs that read “Audit the IRS,” “Internal Revenge Service, Stop” and “Stop the Abuse of Power.” Some chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the IRS has gotta go.”

“I think we need to do something about the abuses of government,” said Dennis Hogan of Maineville.

After gathering on Fountain Square, protesters marched two blocks to the IRS office at the federal building at 550 Main St. That where IRS workers improperly targeted conservative groups in their applications for tax-exempt status over the last few years, a Treasury Department inspector general’s report states.

Lined up along the sidewalk, protesters chanted, “You work for us. You work for us,” while Homeland Security officers stood nearby.

Tea_party_rally_at_IRS_office_20130521143833_320_240“It’s ungodly, it’s un-American and it’s just plain wrong to target Americans because of what they say about the government,” said Paul Johnson of the Grassroots tea party of Boone County.

“We want them to cease and desist harassing us conservatives,” said Andrew Pappas of the Anderson tea party.

To that end, protesters signed a large placard and Ann Becker, president of the Cincinnati tea party, gave it to officers to deliver to the IRS.

“This isn’t about party. It’s about individual freedom,” Becker said.

Becker has called for the immediate resignation of all involved in the targeting scandal.

“There shouldn’t be a political attack based on our beliefs, and we believe that’s what the IRS has done,” Becker said.

“That it turned out to be going on in the Cincinnati office is fairly ironic considering the strong tea party presence in this area,” said George Brunemann. “I’d say there’s about 20,000 members in Hamilton, Butler, Warren and Clermont (counties).”

Brunemann said he and his wife were audited and his wife’s business was audited after they started the SouthWest Cincinnati tea party. He doesn’t believe the IRS officials who claim low-level Cincinnati IRS workers came up with the idea to target conservative groups.

“The IRS agent who told us we were being audited said it was directly because of our involvement with the tea party. She was almost apologetic,” Brunemann said.

He said he knows a small business owner who was audited by the IRS and investigated by OSHA after joining.

“To me, that’s what screams that this is not lower-lever IRS workers. This goes all the way up the food chain. The president might not be personally involved, but his people are,” Brunemann said.

Some tea party groups are planning lawsuits in connection with the investigation.

Five present or former Cincinnati IRS workers were called to Washington to give transcribed interviews in advance of a House committee hearing on Wednesday.

The scandal has already led to at least three congressional hearings.

You can read the Treasury inspector general’s report at http://goo.gl/o5mCN.

Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/tea-party-groups-head-to-downtown-cincinnati-to-protest-irs-scandal#ixzz2Tyubk5h1

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Institutional Slavery to the IRS: Darryl Parks 700 WLW broadcast from Saturday May 18th 2013

It’s always the cover-up that brings to light institutional failure because the participants will stoop to no low to protect the organization of which they’re a part.  With the same denials seen during the Penn State child molestation case where thousands of individuals protected Jerry Sandusky because of his legendary contributions to the football team’s defense, employees of the IRS are willing to do the same to keep their jobs and protect the institution. The IRS employs over 100,000 employees all across the nation, 4000 of which work in Cincinnati alone.  It is a giant monster of a bureaucracy and no reform is possible due to the billions of dollars that are stolen out of the treasury to pay for all those employees—which are largely unmanaged positions with payroll values as ridiculously high as public school teachers teeming with incompetence for the same reasons.  The IRS is the judge, jury and executioner of their own crime syndicate and every human being that works for them places their individual judgment into the back of their minds serving blindly an institution created by government to perpetually grow uncontrolled of service to itself and nothing else.  This issue was particularly well articulated by Darryl Parks during his midday radio show on 700 WLW during May 18, 2013.

Darryl was right; there isn’t a politician in the Ohio region who will take on the IRS scandal any further than the Ways and Means hearings because they cannot in all consciousness go against the government institution for which they serve.  People who think in such ways have lost their individual judgment, or their value assessment for other individuals because they are in service to an institution—and their primary task at that point becomes to protect that institution with any sacrifice necessary to further its continuation.  That means lying under oath is on the table of possibility because most individuals who serve like slaves to the government and all its divisions have lost touch with their individuality not fearing even eternity in hell if the preservation of the institution can be preserved.

Local Republican politicians have known about this IRS scandal for over two years.  I know personally because I have been intimately involved with the Liberty Township IRS harassment case.  John Boehner knew all about it.  Rob Portman knew all about it.  Mitch McConnell knew all about it, yet nobody did anything about it because they all primarily serve the institution of the federal government.  They do not serve the interests of the individuals who elect them.  This is the fault of our social commitment to altruism which informs these institutional soldiers that individuals should always sacrifice themselves to the “greater good” and that individual judgment should be suspended for collective causes.  Republicans willingly play their roll in preserving institutions at the expense of the individual—even at a cost to themselves.

If I had a quarter for every kitchen I stood in where the children disrespected their parents and the women looked wistfully toward every horizon for some great lover to sweep them off their feet in a passionate romance even though their families all live well in large houses with perpetual financial security, I would have already amassed all the world’s wealth in my possession.  I can speak that in Cincinnati I have been on 90% of the roads of the city covering approximately 150 square miles.  And at one point in time I have stood in the kitchen of at least one house in every neighborhood in all those communities and always the stories are the same, especially when one or both parents work for the federal government.  There is a soulless look on the faces of such bureaucrats that is the direct result of such lack of individuality.  The children of these households are attracted to any presence which might contain some sense of individual structure and they flow toward these personalities like water seeking a glass to hold some semblance of their personal identities.   These children do not respect their parents because their parents do not serve the family, they serve their employer—the government first and foremost which is hidden to nobody.  The women in such relationships if they are still young and attractive have affairs with any man with tattoos, long hair and some external exhibition of individual merit.  Later, when they’ve become shells of their younger physical bodies and such men are no longer attracted to them, they fill up the nail salons’ getting manicures and pedicures so that they can have some sense of individual pampering trying to rekindle their individual identities which has been consumed by the institutions they serve.  The effort is to feel individually special, since their jobs do not offer such entitlement—as they are in service to an institution.  The men fare far worse in such arrangements.  They drink to evade their social realities, they have affairs to feel young so to hide from themselves what they’ve become, and they all end up the same way.  By the time they hit 40 they are physical wrecks often overweight with skin problems, eyesight deficiencies, and heart illnesses.  Their broken hearts are more mental than physical, but the muscle of the heart reflects the broken dreams of every bright-eyed little boy who wishes to save the world with heroics, only to discover that they are middle-aged sell outs afraid of their own shadows.   They become empty husks as the institutions they serve drain them of all their worth feeding off them like a parasite till their deaths.

The commitment to institutions over individual need is the leading cause of misery in American culture and the IRS is filled with these types of people.  Most of them are suffering from the same ailments shown above, even though they have new cars, nice homes, and comfortable retirement packages.  The 4000 employees who work in the Cincinnati IRS fit the above profile by nearly 95%.  They are willing to trade their lives away for the security the IRS provides as an employer because the pay and benefits are good—better than they’d get at a comparable job elsewhere.  They do not care that the value they reap as institutional employees is stolen from millions of tax payers with looted money in a system that mimics slavery in every definition of the word.

This is why the IRS is allowed to attempt ruining the lives of individuals no matter how severe the imposition.  This is also why the IRS has so many supporters who are willing to lie on its behalf.  This makes the testimony provided to the Ways and Means committee on May 17, 2013 that much more potent because if the IRS employees are willing to admit to their specific targeting of individuals in the Tea Party case, then what deeper imposition are they actually protecting?  The IRS didn’t just decide to release a statement that it knew would anger millions of Tea Party protestors like a match thrown on piles of dry paper sprinkled with gasoline.  The IRS itself as an employee of the much larger federal government is seeking to protect the institution of statist government from something the same way that individuals protect the IRS from institutional scandal.  The answer to what that scandal is defines the real scoop of the current problem.  For my money, I would bet on Benghazi.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

The Cincinnati Tea Party Defends “Fiscal Reponsibility”: Republicans attempt to become “compassionate conservatives” by copying Obama

Kasichcare16-300x225The Cincinnati Tea Party took the hard stand of protesting Governor Kasich’s open acceptance of Obamacare by expanding Medicaid with heavy hearts, but wild ambition.  Many traditional political pundits and strategists are not sure what to make of such an aggressive stand against what many thought was a Tea Party Governor.  It was the Tea Party that put Kasich over the top of Ted Strickland in 2010 yet within just two years Kasich has shown a desire to take yet more government handouts from the federal government which erodes away state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, and openly ignores the Healthcare Freedom Amendment that was passed in Ohio protecting all state residents from Obamacare.  Republicans who many believe are behind the Tea Party movement are rather baffled to see Tea Party members treating them with the same aggressive vigor as they have progressive Democratic candidates.  Yet when the Tea Party says it demands fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government, they mean it no matter who the perpetrator is or what political affiliation is next to their name.Kasichcare21-300x225

To understand why and how the game is played between the federal government and state governments view this video done by members of The Cincinnati Tea Party.  The basic essence behind Kasich’s expansion of Medicaid can be explained in the video.

Below is the link to the article from The Cincinnati Tea Party website where pictures of the event can be seen.

http://cincinnatiteaparty.org/stop-kasichcare-rally-pictures/#more-221

Kasichcare13-300x225In a video from Channel 5 seen at one of the links below the camera ended on the face of Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW who at one time considered himself a “libertarian,” even a “conservative,” but nearly single-handedly undermined his friend John Kasich in the famous Senate Bill 5 election.  Cunningham learned then what Kasich is learning now, that they are both the kinds of politicians and media personalities who have taken the country to the brink of fiscal collapse.Kasichcare20-225x300  It is people like them who give Obama power, and federal influence over a state like Ohio.  When Cunningham said on the day after this rally on his radio show, “who wouldn’t take federal money if it helped to balance the budget.”  Well the answer is, Tea Party supporters wouldn’t, which is why they were protesting outside when the real culprits were inside patting themselves on the back.  If Kasich wants to be “compassionate” then let him give all his money to the poor, but don’t demand that everybody else has to throw some of their money in the pot of Ohio.  That is no different from what Obama does—and they are both wrong.

Under the new definitions of politics that The Cincinnati Tea Party is beginning to define it is not “compassionate” to steal other people’s money to redistribute to others, which is what Medicaid does and what the expansion of it will achieve.  John Kasich is not a “compassionate conservative” because he’s reaching out to the poor, and downtrodden.  It simply makes him a thief who sought a way to circumnavigate the Health Care Freedom Amendment with the expansion of a giant federal program with socialist tendencies in Medicaid.  The Tea Party does not exist to run for office or control a political party.  Kasichcare23-300x225It exists for one reason, to maintain fiscal responsibility, demand limited government, and maintain free markets in America.  Everything else is the workings of politicians who wish to make their marks on history by stealing from others so that they can buy votes with other people’s effort. As can be seen easily, the John Kasich seen at the video below and the Kasich seen at any of the links following the video are different people. Go ahead…………look for yourself.

And a side note to Ann………………I’m proud of you!  Nice job!

Channel 5 – http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/WLWT-sits-down-with-Gov-Kasich-to-discuss-health-care/-/13549970/19276792/-/format/rsss_2.0/item/0/-/12gsl7u/-/index.html

Channel 19 – http://www.fox19.com/story/21579050/cincy-tea-party-protests-kasichs-medicaid-expansion-plan

Enquirer – http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/11/tea-party-to-protest-gov-john-kasich-speech/

Business Journal – http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/03/11/cincinnati-tea-party-to-protest-kasich.html

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com