From left to right Pic 1: David Kelley, Joan Carter, Scott DeSapio, Harmon Kaslow, John Aglialoro From left to right Pic 2: Harmon Kaslow, John Aglialoro, David Kelley, Laurie Rice, Duncan Scott
People of little personal value are always asking for more money because they seek riches to prop up their failed personal essence, which is how they become prostitutes to their careers. When they enter into financial debates involving children they are not qualified to speak because the money they seek is not for the children but a meager attempt to bring value to their lives, whether it be in passing a school levy, building a new school, or hiring a new round of employees. The people involved in tax increases are almost always trying to fill a personal void in their lives with other people’s money, which makes them prostitutes to the education system. In this way, reporters behave like prostitutes because they put objective reporting on the shelf and simply offer themselves up as patsies dancing to the education industry–attempting to preserve a failed system with kind words and propaganda. Check it out for yourself and be sure to watch the video:
Before my relationship with that reporter I had been warned about him from other school reformers like Mark Sennett who was spokesman for No Lakota Levy before I entered into the picture, Arnie Engle in Fairfield and former school board member, Sharon Poe in Mason, Jennifer Miller who was also a school board member, and many, many others. They had all been screwed over by the antics of that reporter many times in the past and were concerned that I was too close. I assured them that I had a plan and that when the reporter came to collect, I would change the game in a way that he wasn’t prepared to deal with.
I always felt sorry for reporters who work for newspapers that have taken such a noticeable progressive stance, so for a time I genuinely liked them—even though I knew they were prostituting themselves. I thought of them similar to the way I might think of a stripper someplace working the poles in a swank gentlemen’s club trying to put herself through college off the tips she gets teasing men with lap dances. You respect the effort since she’s trying to make money, but you know that she will never be able to live down her actions once she has a family of her own, so you feel bad for her. Reporters writing for a paper where the school levy supporters only read the box scores to see if their child made the news are in a similar situation. The overzealous parent often cuts out such box scores and articles so they can build up a notebook portfolio in hopes of proving to college recruiters that their athletic children are worthy of a scholarship, which ends up saving the parent many thousands of dollars. Those same parents don’t care about education articles so they don’t read them. The only people who actually read the newspaper are the type of people who typically voted in favor of my positions—people who are 50 and over—mature–and have kids who have grown up and moved out of the house.
Newspapers today make huge mistakes not understanding their demographic base. When Lakota laid down the gauntlet with reporters as they did through their highly paid public relations staff—where tax money well into the six figures were allocated in attempts to overcome my levy fighting antics, reporters had to make a decision as all prostitutes do when they find themselves stuck between two customers. They had to choose between me, who only gave them small tips, or the school who basically paid their salary—but expected favors in return.
Readers of The Enquirer wanted to see a fight—one that I was providing to the benefit of The Enquirer. So the articles against me isolated their audience and the result has been terrible for The Enquirer. Just last week The Enquirer was forced to cut 1/3 of their workforce—not just because of the situation with myself, but because hundreds of bad decisions added up to a failed business model. Too many ads in the paper that nobody read, and nobody read because The Enquirer decided to do progressive articles in a conservative town, and it has cost them dearly. They were so arrogant that they ignored the desires of their subscribers who actually read their articles and instead catered to the idiots who pass school levies and cut the paper up in search of sports stats on their children.
My levy fighting network is larger than ever, so losing contact with The Enquirer has not hurt me at all. Instead it has freed me in many wonderful ways. Unfortunately betrayal is usually the result when dealing with those who prostitute themselves to a cause like reporters do in public education. But that doesn’t prevent me from feeling sorry for reporters whose small byline at the end of their articles look like a prostitute advertising themselves on Craigslist.
That speaks for itself; there is no shortage of people willing to use the efforts of prostitutes in any form. That leaves one only to laugh at the attempts since the other emotions are cast against a backdrop of shame. The sadness comes from the desire for real reporting, and a career that means something, instead of being whatever the customer wants when they want it. That is what reporters in newspapers are for public education, and the problem is epidemic. But that is also why newspapers are failing everywhere, and cutting their costs, because they have sided with the wrong portion of the public. They have allowed themselves to be used and abused and dumped on the side of the road with a few bucks in their pocket and the promise of returned business. But in the end, they have nothing but shameful deals, and scandalous practices to carry them from one moment to the next in a decline that points to the end of an era where new media will overtake the consolidated antics of reporters who are prostitutes to a system that is corrupt, and collapsing under the weight of sheer cynicism.
Within a short time reporting she would plead guilty to a voter fraud charge, Sister Marguerite Kloos resigned as Dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at the College of Mount Saint Joseph. Melowese Richardson, also admitted to Channel 9 WCPO in Cincinnati that she voted twice and submitted absentee ballots for several other people as well. If convicted, the prosecutor says she faces up to 12 years in prison. And Russell Glassop is charged with voting on behalf of his deceased wife. Sister Marguerite Kloos, faces up to 18 months in jail if convicted. She is accused of voting on behalf of another nun who had already died. She was indicted based on information from the prosecutor. Her attorney contacted the prosecutor and said she intends to plead guilty, so a grand jury indictment wasn’t necessary. What all these Hamilton County citizens have in common is that they all voted illegally on behalf of Barack Obama in the 2012 election and point to an alarming tendency—the militant behavior of their kind, and a complete disregard for the rules in favor of idealistic desire.
As of noon on the Friday after the 2012 election, with nearly all votes in, Obama won the popular vote, leading Mitt Romney by a count of 61,173,739 or 50.5% to 58,167,260 or 48.0%. Approximately 3 million more people voted for Obama than Mitt Romney which might sound like a lot, but if considered how much election fraud was rumored to take place, and how difficult it was to gather indictments on the three people in just Hamilton County, Ohio seen above it is possible that there was so much election fraud in the election of 2012 that the election could have swung 4 to 5 million votes from Barack Obama to Gary Johnston or Mitt Romney. It is unlikely even with a vigorous investigation that voter fraud would be discovered in any way with the Gary Johnston camp, or Mitt Romney supporters as the actions appear to derive from the type of activism specific to the Obama ground game—where rules and the truth are only interpretations to be glazed over by legalized maneuvers and strong-arm labor union tactics.
As media outlets praised the re-election of Barack Obama making the entire presidential race a value of civil rights agenda items, and not showing any interest in economic policy with a reckless disregard for reality, Obama supporters showed in the election of 2012 that they didn’t care how they won, so long as they won. They didn’t care if they had to cheat, stuff ballots, destroy ballots, intimidate voters, suppress voters, or obtain votes in any manner possible to put their candidate over the top in an election. The three voters caught in Cincinnati appear to be only the tip of a gigantic mountain that is so large that nobody is willing to step back far enough to view the entirety for fear of what they might discover. The militant manner which voters for Barack Obama were willing to break the law and disregard reason in favor of a sitting President should be deeply alarming—and if absent from the election process, might have been an entirely different election. But we will never know, as it is obvious from the multiple precincts in large municipalities where Mitt Romney didn’t get a single vote—which is statistically, nearly impossible, that nobody cares.
The Election of 2012 was like playing a board game like Candyland or Monopoly with another player who refuses to play by the rules of the game. If the dice say move 4 spaces, they move 8. If the board says to go around the board in a regulated pattern, the cheaters in such games might be inclined to leap to the spots of the board that they wish to be on, so they can collect whatever bonuses await them there. It is impossible to play an honest game of anything with such players, and this is what dealing with the Obama administration has been like. A fair competition against such rivals is not possible, as they have shown clearly that they have no desire to play by any rules except the ones they make up as they go. That very same attitude was exhibited boldly by Melowese Richardson who saw no problem with voting twice and submitting absentee ballots for several other people.
I have worked in neighborhoods like the one Melowese Richardson lives in. I have worked extensively in Avondale, Lincoln Heights, Over-the-Rhine as well as Price Hill and the area around Fort Washington Way and I would bet that a majority of the residents in those areas are just as bold in their private beliefs as Melowese and show much of the same value system. I do not believe that Melowese was at all an isolated incident, but that her behavior was common on Election Day in every densely populated area across the entire country. And given those factors, Obama’s victory doesn’t seem nearly so well defined, and is certainly not a mandate to do as he pleases legally.
Republicans and other liberty leaning conservatives have the difficult task of admitting to themselves that there are laws that must be adhered to in order to have an elected President. But for the laws to be effective there must be a will to defend the law with action. In Hamilton Country, Melowese Richardson had such a disregard for the law that she went on a Channel 9 camera and admitted to election fraud assuming that nobody in their right mind would prosecute her. Obama in office shows the exact same arrogance. He has been caught in many lies, and he knows that nobody will come after him legally because he will simply hide his crimes behind Civil Rights bullet points. Obama supporters know that the public at large does not have the resolve, or conviction to stand behind the law, so they continue to break the rules at every opportunity.
Republicans are playing a game with the progressive Democrats equivalent to playing Monopoly with a cheater, where the unruly player ignores the dice in the game and simply moves their game pieces on the board where they wish and collect their $200 for passing Go as often as they please. Republicans instead of calling out the behavior are attempting to play fair and set a good example. They are reaching out to the Obama demographics that have been deliberately built to house bloc votes of stupidity, which is a futile task for the Republicans to win elections where the opposition will cheat in any manner possible anyway. A fair game against such people is not possible.
We get the government we deserve and right now because there are so many cowards afraid of their own shadow, and fear throwing rocks in the glass houses they all reside in, Obama supporters are expanding government at an alarming rate. President Obama is giving away entitlements like Santa Clause to the mob that supports him and will do anything to keep him in power so the gravy train keeps stopping at their station. Obama is a legalized looter who is stealing the wealth of America and redistributing it with a socialist ideology that believes it supersedes all the rules of all the games ever made. The crimes continue because good people sit by and do nothing—allowing themselves to be seduced by a smiling con artist that clearly says one thing to the face of his opponents and does entirely different things behind their backs. Such villainy is beyond the comprehension of most people, but its happening. The Book of Revelations seems to be entirely true to our own age. The Mark of the Beast is in our house.
If the election had been a fair one, and not had so much fraud of which the three people mentioned here were just a very small part, Obama would not be President today. That is not to say that Mitt Romney would have been all that much better, but a Republic that is built on such flimsy philosophy cannot last, and a society of Melowese Richardson types will destroy it with their lack of understanding. The issue is not one of color, because if it was, Melowese Richardson would have supported Presidential candidates like Herman Cain, and Alan Keys like I have, or Ohio politicians like Ken Blackwell. The real issue is the desire of a growing number of philosophically deficient human beings to yield their honor to government entitlements in trade for perpetual security. To have that security they will break the law, lie, cheat or steal in any fashion available to get what they think they have coming and place in the White House a legal looter who will break into the wealth of a nation and drop wheel barrels of goods at their feet for the cost of a vote…………..a practice that is highly illegal, and a direct attack on everything that America stands for. If left unchecked, why would Republicans ever think they can ever win an election by playing fair against opponents who so openly cheat?
This is why increasingly; the pirate flag I display at the end of my daily signatures is beginning to become a grudgingly accepted reality for many. The way to beat the other side is not with fairness, but a rigid almost pirate like morality for the law, where a swashbuckler’s disregard for the dangers of glass top dancing is regarded as a waste of time, and aggressive action is utilized. In a world of looters the pirates of our day are the law bidding, and the sad irony is that they must stand for the law through the new rebellion of good over the detrimental.
Common Core on the surface is supported by Bill Gates and his wife as part of their retirement philanthropy. I believe they genuinely desire to help children and are not directly part of a sinister plot created by The Department of Education in the early 1980s. Their involvement is indirect and is driven by “attributable charity.” Gates as often happens is highly sought after for his money, and it is in charity events and political schmoozing where the ideas generated to shape Common Core education practices in America were given to him over dinner parties and wine glasses. The desire to do good in the world for one of its richest men is a tempting prospect. This is how good people are recruited to do bad things which is explained in the two-hour lecture by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
Common Core unlike Adolf Hitler’s book burning rituals in the 1930s where a central dictator seeking dominion over the minds of his subjects to keep them from being intelligent enough to challenge their authority, is designed to destroy children’s minds in a slow regression. It is not designed to advance any society. Unlike the dictators of the past, the villain is not a central figure like Barack Obama, or Fidel Castro, but the idea of collectivism itself which manifests in a collective evil that his hard to comprehend. Common Core is designed to do precisely over a long period of time what the Soviet Union tried to do in the Great Purge of the 1920s. Common Core seeks to reduce individual ambition, intelligence, and self-reliance into collective identification. It is because of Common Core and the products of education so far that have caused me to no longer support public schools and encourage people with small children to home school as the only safe option. However, even homeschooling won’t protect your family from Common Core as it is set to become a state requirement for the entire United States. Homeschooled children will at least have the opportunity to learn traditional education methods alongside Common Core if the worst case scenario occurs—where all 50 states are forced into the federal program through The Department of Education. Now, before I get into greater detail about Common Core and The Lucifer Effect, more needs to be known about Charlotte Iserbyt which can be seen as follows from Wikipedia. The reference notes are active and can be traced back to their sources for ease of research. I am aware that much of this will sound far-fetched, but it is quite real, and can only be seen clearly by pulling far away from the mountain so that vision can take in the collective whole.
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is an American freelance writer and whistleblower who served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and staff employee of the US State Department (South Africa, Belgium, South Korea).[1][2][3] She was born in 1930[4] and attended Dana Hall preparatory school and Katharine Gibbs College in New York City, where she studied business.[4] Iserbyt’s father and grandfather were Yale University graduates and members of the Skull and Bones secret society.
She is known for writing the book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book claims that changes gradually brought into the American public education system attempt to eliminate the influences of a child’s parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future.[3] She alleges that these changes originated from plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education and Rockefeller General Education Board, and details what she says are the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes.[3]It should be known at this time that Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were both competitors in business against each other and committed many sins which they sought to reconcile through philanthropy, especially in Carnegie’s case. They shared with the modern-day Bill Gates the classic struggle of proving to the proletariat of the world defined by Karl Marx in such a way, that they are not greedy bourgeoisie—which provokes them into “situational forces” that inspire their “attributable charity.” Again, refer to The Lucifer Effect at the end of this article for much greater detail. Reading these claims made by her keep an open mind and take note of the world around us right now. A few years ago, she may have seemed crazy, but more and more, she appears to be 100% correct in everything she has said.
In an interview[2] concerning secret societies and the elite agenda she disclosed that in the early 1980s she had a chance to meet with Norman Dodd who had been the chief investigator for the United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations commonly known as the B. Carroll Reece Committee. In the video interview she claims that Dodd discussed a ‘network’ of individuals including Carnegie who planned to bring about world peace by means of rapid changes in society. These changes would be brought about by involving the populace in various wars and military conflicts. She further claimed that Dodd had discussions with Rowan Gaither, the president of the Ford Foundation in which he revealed that directives from the President of the United States compelled foundations related to the Ford Foundation to direct their funding into bringing about the merger of the USA with the Soviet Union.[5][unreliable source?][6][unreliable source?][7][unreliable source?]
Filmed interviews of Iserbyt have her detail her story that lead her from school board trustee/administrator to becoming a Ronald Reagan administration staff in the U.S. Department of Education, and discovering further to her complete disbelief how these policies of a socialist-collectivist nature originated all the way to President Reagan, Vice President George H. W. Bush, and their policy advisers.
Not listening to warnings provided to her in a book about Ronald Reagan (as California Governor, written by United Republicans of California (UROC)) given to her by a friend, Iserbyt dismissed the seemingly outrageous claims made in the book a short time prior to her accepting and leaving for the government position. In 1982 Reagan relieved her of her duties after leaking an important technology grant for computerized learning—Project BEST: “Better Education Skills through Technology”[10] brought about by the scholarly writings and a large study by an education specialist named Dr. John I. Goodlad at the Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington originally from British Columbia, Canada.[11] One book Iserbyt was critical of was “Schooling for a Global Age” edited by Charlotte C. Anderson, James M. Becker, Institute for Development of Educational Activities, New York 1979, that Iserbyt cited as having less to do with fostering learning and mainly to do with psychological manipulation of students possibly against the teaching of the child’s parents, for example, in arts classes.[12]
Through her father Charlotte Iserbyt was able to gain possession of the complete listings of the members, living and dead, of the Yale University Skull and Bones secret society, fashioned into a three-volume set: living members, deceased members, and complete listing of both[citation needed]. She cooperated in the writing of Dr. Antony C. Sutton’s book America’s Secret Establishment – The Order of Skull & Bones by providing the list of members obtained from her father.[14]
Fifteen Yale juniors are invited to join the Skulls each year in a process called “tapping.” A couple of thousand Yale graduates have been Skulls—WASP males from wealthy Northeastern families: Bush, Bundy, Cheney, Dodge, Ford, Goodyear, Harriman, Heinz, Kellogg, Phelps, Pillsbury, Rockefeller, Taft, Vanderbilt, Weyerhaeuser and Whitney were among its membership.
Iserbyt believes that the Bavarian Illuminati hid inside the Freemasons, and that the Skull and Bones Secret Society is derived from these Illuminati-degree Freemasons from Bavaria whose goals were documented in an original edition 1798 book Proofs of Conspiracy by John Robison in Iserbyt’s possession that she claimed was originally owned by the first president of the United States of America, Freemason, George Washington. The ideas of a ruling elite date back prior to Plato’s writings about the hierarchical plutocracy. Among the goals of the Order of the Illuminati were to destroy religions, and governments from within, merge the destroyed countries, and to bring about a one world government, a new world order, in their secret control.[15][16]
In the secret societies interview she states that virtually all of the Carnegie Foundation agreements with the Russian education system were still in place, as well as the U.S. Department of Education programs that Iserbyt claims brought about the downfall of American prosperity since the turn of the century, especially post World War II.[citation needed]
The reason Charlotte was able to walk away from her job and blow the whistle on this plot is because she had the rare ability to resist The Lucifer Effect. Few people have the ability to resist The Lucifer Effect even those like Bill Gates who believe that their actions are for the greater good. The way that people like Bill Gates get pulled into such schemes is through “attributable charity.” It is in the belief that through peer “behavior compliance” in the work of philanthropy that good work can be done by investing many millions of dollars into programs that no tax payer would fund through elected offices. The evil at work is not a single person, but the adherence to a system of belief that passes from one generation to another through “situational forces.” All those terms will be explained in greater detail in the video lecture below by Dr. Zimbardo.
Without a doubt, for the casual reader running across this information for the first or even second time, these facts are inconvenient. They force the mind to accept things that it has long regulated as conspiracy crack-pot theories. However, the villain is in the collectivism which is shared across all spheres of influence mentioned in this article—no matter if it is the Bavarian Illuminati, the National Advisory Council of the American Veterans Committee, or the crazy radical Bill Ayers–they all share in common the seduction of their individual essences to The Lucifer Effect. The Common Core that all public schools are implementing so that they can obtain federal money for their shrinking budgets is driven by “behavior compliance,” provoked by labor unions into focusing “situational forces” to the door step of Bill Gates so he’ll throw money at Common Core and advance the program through “attributable charity” by-passing the politics of the American republic to fulfill strategic goals designed in 1979 as reported by the whistleblower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt.
No matter how bad things appear to be in modern politics, there are philosophical debates occurring that have never before been so accurately debated as they are currently, and John Aglialoro and his team of film makers working on the Atlas Shrugged films are at the heart of that push. While traditional media views box office results as the most important measure of success, many of them are oblivious as to why John Aglialoro after two box office failures of the Atlas films in Part I and now Part II, he is in script development on Part III which is scheduled for a summer 2014 release. In fact, his target date is the Fourth of July.
What many casual observers have failed to account for is that we are currently in an age of new media, where blogs and independent film have access to mass audiences through their computer screens. So while Hollywood attempts to hedge their products to the known markets carefully studied by studios run by mostly progressive investments injected into the studio system and filmgoers still show a willingness to spend $10 to $15 for a movie experience in a neighborhood multiplex, film makers like John Aglialoro are making his films for the new media market. While critics blasted the opening of Atlas Shrugged Part 2 in October of 2012 hoping to kill the film for its conservative messages, the DVD sales are sizzling in the spring of 2013 as audiences concerned with being seen in public viewing such a controversial film are more than willing to watch the movie in the privacy of their own home.
I think Aglialoro is at a similar place that George Lucas was at when he released his film THX-1138 to theaters in 1973. Nobody knew what to do with the film studios tried to cut the hell out of it. It took a long, long time for people to even accept THX-1138 which I believe was based closely on Ayn Rand’s novel Anthem, although I doubt he’d admit it in the light of day today—for fear of being lynched. Aglialoro is making an independent film in the Atlas pictures with a message that will upset a major portion of the American population, and he knows it—which is the point of the film. Art is not supposed to always be didactic stimulation of pleasurable emotions. Sometimes, it’s a mirror that we must look at which reflects the kind of society we are. This was the case in one of my all time favorite independent films that Francis Ford Coppola produced called Koyaanisqatsi (English pronunciation: /koʊjɑːnɪsˈkɑːtsiː/)[1] also known as Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance. It’s a 1982 film directed by Godfrey Reggio with music composed by Philip Glass and cinematography by Ron Fricke. Koyaanisqatsi is one of my favorite films; I love it so much I have the soundtrack on CD. But, it could be said that much of the “green movement” was launched because of such films as progressives took the message to radical extremes which we see in the modern age 20 to 30 years later. Koyaanisqatsi as a film released today would be lucky to make $1 million dollars at the box office because it is just too heavy, and obscure for the average viewer. But, because of VHS video tape, and now DVDs, Koyaanisqatsi has been able to build up a kind of cult following over the last 30 years, and Coppola and Godfrey Reggio understood this when they produced the film. The goal was not to make money, although there does need to be a financial model that recovers the cost of making the film, the point was to make a statement about a “life out of balance.”
The making of the Atlas films are not only an adaptation of the Ayn Rand classic 1957 novel, but a statement about our current society. “The president said in his State of the Union address something to the effect of how preserving our individual freedoms means we must have collective action,” Aglialoro said. “Well, that’s contradicting the terms of the Declaration of Independence, that individual liberty is what we’re all about. So, there’s a clear opposition between that and Ayn Rand’s principles, based around life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When most people are guilty of committing such contradictions, it is highly likely that they will not rush out to see a film that exploits their contradictions. However, because people are generally good, or at least want to do well, they do watch these movies on their own terms and take in the information slowly over time.
Aglialoro wanted very much to rush Atlas Shrugged Part II out prior to the election hoping that politicians would jump on the bandwagon of the messages articulated in his films. But even long time Ayn Rand supporters like Paul Ryan pulled a Judas trying to distance himself from his support of the novel Atlas Shrugged which he has given away to staff members for years as presents. When he joined up with Mitt Romney for a Presidential run they attempted to play it safe and move away from the perceived radicalism of supporting Ayn Rand—to their own demise. “It would have served the campaign well if he would have embraced the natural way to capitalism that Ayn Rand, and I think Romney and Ryan should have quoted [her] over and over and over again during the campaign, that it’s the producers who should be applauded and appreciated and not denigrated, that ‘rich’ is not a dirty, four-letter word. It’s a good, four-letter word.”
At a FreedomWorks event prior to the release of Part II Harmon Kaslow, one of the producers and right-hand man to John Aglialoro gave me a lapel pin molded in the symbol of the Atlas Shrugged production company. It was the same button he was wearing as he spoke to nearly 20,000 people at the Duke Energy Center in September of 2012. The lapel pin is one that I now wear just about everywhere I go because it symbolizes not a collective connection to the filmmakers, but the understanding that we are part of an exclusive club that “understands” the answer to our modern problems in America are not only addressed in films like Koyaanisqatsi. It is in the Atlas films that the real solutions are being explored, and the pill is hard to swallow for most people—because it requires them to think completely different about most everything in their life, and they are uncomfortable with that knowledge. The button that I wear is the official membership pin for Galt’s Gulch where people who think along the lines that I do spend their spare time in the same spirit that it was done in the novel—which will be explored extensively in Part III which is now in production.
To go one step beyond the lapel pin that Kaslow gave me, at the premier of Atlas II buttons in the sign of the dollar were handed out to viewers because those present understood that the film Aglialoro was making had within it the answers America needs. It is only a matter of time before the rest of the world comes to understand the lessons. The people with the button were those closest to that realization. It’s not to say that you must have a button or be a part of an exclusive club to understand the work of Ayn Rand. But in wearing the lapel pin it lets others know that they are not alone, and that everyone in the world is not a complete idiot. Objectivism is spreading as the work done by TheAyn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society are helping more and more people deal with the difficulties of understanding the philosophy of Objectivism being introduced to them in the films John Aglialoro is producing. I personally feel that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is but a first step in a new direction that America should have always been traveling down. Objectivism is not the end of the journey, but only the beginning. Ayn Rand does not have all the answers, but the ones she proposes are good first steps in the right direction. I find that the philosophy of Robert Pirsig takes Rand’s thoughts to another level with his work on the Metaphysics of Quality. In his two books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle and Lila Pirsig without intending to, he proved Ayn Rand’s theories, and therefore Aristotle’s original arguments over Plato correct with an actual science that breaks down “quality” into definitions that can be understood. The path of modern philosophy is on that course starting with Rand, being explored by Pirsig and then being further refined in modern and future philosophers. But the philosophies of Kant, and Marx with the modern Chomsky are going to be rejected over the next two hundred years—mark it on your calendar. The war we are currently in that Aglialoro is fighting with his Atlas films is one of crawling out from under the failed philosophies of Marx and advancing Rand. Therefore, Aglialoro’s efforts have been successful, and it is wonderful to see that he is able to produce his third installment after so much tribulation and social resistance. In the end will turn out to be a work of resurrection for the country of America.
Progressive feminist groups thought they had me on a hook for character assassination. They lashed out with a fury that can be seen at the end of this article in the comments that were sent to me during the media blitz, and in public protests as can be seen by CLICKING HERE. All of this behavior was expected, and the behavior calculated. I even had meetings with people a month before hand on how to stir up the “hornets nest” of the type of people who support school levies with mindless emotional dedication to progressive ideology. I had decided that traditional politics would no longer work because the other side did not fear anything from conservatives. My political enemies expected my conservative politics to yield in the face of name calling, so a new strategy was needed. For that strategy, I turned to a book I greatly treasure on my book shelf titled, A General History of the Pyrates (correct spelling) written controversially in 1724 by Daniel DaFoe, or Nathaniel Mist under the pseudonym Captain Charles Johnson. I realized that the progressive liberals, and progressive Republicans were both playing a game against everyone in the middle, and the trend had to stop—and that meant that a tactic that was more reminiscent of past victories against similar forces that had been successful needed to be utilized with “righteous outrage.” I found the examples I was looking for in that very wonderful book that I read often in harsh candlelight of dark nights to capture the spirit for which it was written. So I created my new strategy knowing that people I thought were friends would abandon me in favor of their love of political pull, and my enemies could be moved to reveal their hearts with “righteous outrage.” The political structure itself needed to be attacked. This resulted in the bait of blood that was thrown into the water which the “latte sipping prostitutes” converged on like piranhas in an Amazonian tributary.
I didn’t mind the criticism and enjoyed the jests until I heard the words calling me a sexist leveled in my direction. The term “sexist” is always directed at anyone who does not support the progressive version of women’s rights and even though I knew it was coming, it did piss me off in ways I will never forget or yield to. The hypocrisy of progressives in calling anyone who thinks differently than they do names without expecting to receive the same in return is truly baffling. But even more baffling are those who allow it to occur. I would argue that Mitt Romney should have attacked back with “righteous outrage” when he was referred to as “sexist” in his position regarding his hiring of women in his famous “folders” incident exposed in the 2012 Presidential debates. The progressive attack is the same with Romney that I experienced at the local level in the Cincinnati media which comes directly from the Saul Alinsky book of strategy called Rules for Radicals, which all progressives seem to use in virtually every confrontation. To beat this book that the left uses so effectively was the reason I turned to my good friend Captain Johnson in A General History of the Pyrates. A lot can be learned of the way that Blackbeard blockaded Charleston and turned the entire city into fearful servants to his cause. The characters and politics are virtually the same as today, and people behave with the same motivations——especially the dastardly progressive and their European sensibilities. The study of Blackbeard’s strategies while being immoral, are practical when discovering the various uses of “righteous outrage” to exploit the weaknesses of an enemy.
What surprised me was how few men wanted to publicly support my comments, especially on talk radio. In private everyone said they supported my opinions, but in public they said they couldn’t, because as they put it, “we want to get laid at least once a month.” That confession in its own right said a lot and it took me a couple of months to properly categorize the severity level of the problem this has caused in our political society, which has been documented extensively here. But for feminists to call me a sexist when I have so openly supported Ayn Rand is like calling a guy eating a big juicy hamburger a “vegan.” Ayn Rand it would seem should be embraced by feminists as she created in the novel Atlas Shrugged the strongest female hero ever for any fictional story in Dagny Taggert. Yet the same type of women I purposely called latte sipping prostitutes because of their lack of understanding about finances and their neurotic social behavior which desired to be subsidized by the Lakota tax payer, do not support Ayn Rand. In fact they are the kind of people who typically find any reference to Ayn Rand despicable.
The feminist movement has never been about rights for women—as it was sold. It is about the destruction of the American family, and it is about enslaving all women into collective ideology. Ayn Rand spoke about real independence. The progressive feminist movement is about dependency. Not dependency on a man, or her family, but on the collective plight of women. Knowing this, I wanted to expose it. And in doing so a light was put on just how ridiculous these radical progressive feminists truly are—who shape modern politics in such destructive ways. The answer for the progressive feminist is more government to make women equal, not actually making women equal or superior to men—as I’ve stated I believe should be the public attitude. Men should treat women as their betters—and this position frightens the kind of women I called out in Lakota and the type of women who attempt to advance progressive politics with government expansion. Of course not all women believe what the nutty feminist does; most women would like to live in the type of world that Ayn Rand created for Dagny Taggert. And most men would respect Dagny without even thinking of her as a woman. It is this trait alone that exposes the modern progressive feminist as a fraud. When they preach independence for women and equal pay, they really mean government dependence and just another form of modern slavery. When presented with two options, collective identification with other progressive women which can be seen on any episode of Opera or the independence of a woman like Dagny Taggert written about in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged the progressive picks the slavery and dooms the advocate of independence.
This is why I am considering buying the replica of Ayn Rand seen above. The artist did such a wonderful job in creating the features of Ayn Rand who deserves her place in history as one of the greatest literary figures ever known……….who happens to be a woman. If not just for her literary achievements, she worked out the issues of her Objectivism philosophy which is taking hold and shaping the current freedom movement. In some says Ayn Rand is the Sam Adams of our day. Her written work is changing minds and policy in similar ways that Adams did when the colonists where breaking away from England in 1771 to 1773. If I purchased the displayed bust of Ayn Rand I would exhibit it proudly in my living room under my gigantic banner for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers skull that hangs in my foyer so that visitors could see how important Ayn Rand is to my household. But more than anything Ayn Rand is a progressive killer, because if Ayn had been a man, the feminists might have been able to launch a successful argument against the current freedom movement. Being a woman however, exposes the feminist for their true intentions and gives people like me plenty of cannon balls to fire off in the direction of the progressive nut jobs whose very existence is a devious testament to slavery in the name of real independence.
When I said what I did which caused such a stir a year ago, I knew that it would be painful on the front end, but that slowly over the coming weeks and months, the hypocrisy would be seen by the public at large, which it has. I knew of the hypocrisy because of my yearly work celebrating the birthday of Annie Oakley with the Wild West rituals I share with my friends in the show business industry. And I knew about the hypocrisy from comparing Ayn Rand’s work to the bizarre political position of the modern progressive—and it had come time to expose them with some flash and fanfare. Even still, when I meet people in public my comments of one year ago are still fresh in people’s minds and it brings a smile to their faces. The smile is from acknowledging that they think the same thing that I do, only they were too timid to ever express such a thing in public—which has always been the strategic design behind Rules for Radicals—to expose the trustworthy nature of the neutral human being. (Yes, I have read the book and am turning the strategy against those who have used it against the good of us for years. The book is a work of evil and is dedicated to Lucifer, so I have NO problem attacking it with my own pirate tactics. It deserves to be attacked, believe me. And if you don’t, then read it yourself) The way to take America back from the progressive is to turn their strategies against them and when they call people like myself “greedy, selfish, heartless human beings” for standing against their desire for free government babysitting in public education then they deserve to be called worse by me in return—and I will continue to do so, until they get the message and stop asking for handouts. If they want respect, they will have to act like Dagny Taggert or a character from an Ayn Rand novel. If they want more ridicule then keep acting like Hillary Clinton or Betty Friedan. Independence does not mean more government assistance—it means independence in every fashion of the word. To date, such a definition has never been more clearly defined for women or men than in the work of Ayn Rand, which is why I admire the sculpture so much and would love to obtain one for my private collection. Her bust highlights the events of our day in a fashion that history will remember with clarity when it looks into her clay filled eyes with pride that only time will paint in the correct context.
Now enjoy reading below the mind of some Latte Sipping Prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match! These are just a sample of the kind of people who support school levies in the Lakota School District. Also to The Cincinnati Enquirer—specifically Michael Clark, who provoked these comments…………..enjoy the demise of your paper after the 97 layoffs you had this past week, 1/3rd of your entire workforce. You only have your reporting to blame. I told you in my back yard after you said I could trust you even though your wife worked for a local school system that I’d treat you fair until you tried to screw me over. Well, fairness is no longer on the table. I never forget. Don’t be surprised when I spend my free time looking to send the people involved in the below comments to Davy Jones locker (metaphorically speaking). To understand what comes next, I suggest reading A General History of the Pyrates. Much more “righteous outrage” can be expected:
Some of us “stupid” women were thinking ahead and copied every one of your controversial blog entries onto our computers before you had a chance to protect them. You’re going down.
Have to see what your corporate sponsors will say when the read your comments. It’s one thing to have an opinion and back it up with stats, but what you said was just angry ranting.
You can’t insult people the way you do and then get all testy when they comment back. I think you should be more concerened about being exposed as a righty-Beck/Rand wingnut. I’m just sayin’.
HA HA HA! LAKOTA DOESN’T WANT YOU…HA HA HA! Its a sign that you are a nobody when groups start running away from you.
ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Who in their right mind would want to increase taxes on themselves so that confused derelicts like those seen above will be happy? Only the type of people who adhere to progressive feminism while chastising women like Ayn Rand would think such a thing rational. It is for that reason alone that when I get the “bust” of Ayn Rand set up in my foyer, I will honor it every day as the most effective progressive deterrent known to mankind.
One of the reasons I have not been to a film festival since 2009 is because of my political stances. Due to the initiation of the school levy fights and other issues it has become difficult to have cordial relationships with other creative people attracted to the entertainment industry. When hard lines are taken like the ones I have, it makes friendly lunch meetings with industry professionals impossible, because small talk is out of the window. And I knew this ahead of time. The work here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom is a project of journeying down the rabbit hole of American philosophy where most everybody else is uncomfortable. The result is that I haven’t been to a film festival in a while because the film makers I most appreciate are not being featured. However, that does not mean that such independent efforts are not happening. Creative artistic expression is in fact thriving because of the freedom afforded by the internet—as calculated, and voices of Objectivism are making themselves heard in the infant stages of a new movement that will only grow over the next 30 years. Below are three summaries/scenes from the Ayn Rand classic Anthem which is a short book that can be read entirely over a long breakfast—but is infinitely powerful in it’s articulation of the present human condition. Please do enjoy these three films shown below, and watch them completely. If you have not read Anthem the films will be entertaining. If you have, you will instantly understand them. The visual presentation is the kind of things that are typically shown at film festivals, and thanks to YouTube, the need for film festivals has been reduced as projects like these Anthem tributes can now be shared without the usual network controls. A few years ago, there was simply no way the public would have a chance to see films like these, because no festival and no network of any kind would show them, particularly the IFC, or Sundance Channels on cable television. So film makers didn’t go to the trouble of making these kinds of short films. But thanks to new media, filmmakers are beginning to attempt these types of projects, which make our culture much “richer” for it.
I first grappled with this tendency several years ago well before I ever read an Ayn Rand novel. Two literary achievements started my mind down this rabbit hole of destruction. The first was the Robert Jordan series titled The Wheel of Time. That series of books is massive, each book consisting of more than 700 pages and there are 14 books in the whole body of work. At first I thought I was reading a kind of Lord of the Rings type of achievement because the characters are using magic and riding around on horses. It takes a long time to get from one village to another and people live in a society where there isn’t even plumbing. So I imagined that the society depicted in The Wheel of Time books was one that took place in something like a 13th century European setting—like Lord of the Rings. However, as the story becomes more advanced it is learned that the relics of an ancient civilization begin to be uncovered and studied. That ancient civilization turns out to be our own time in the distant future where technologies that have not yet been invented are present—but somehow knowledge to that society had been completely lost.
When Robert Jordan wrote his Wheel of Time series, the society in the story has recently went full circle—it had risen to a technological height then fallen back into the realm of a primitive and his protagonists are struggling to re-emerge to an age of intellectualism and invention. In Ayn Rand’s Anthem the hero takes the girl of his choice to the mountains to re-invent society again from the collapse of the previous one that occurred so slowly that nobody even noticed the regression, because the regression took place over a period of hundreds of years. To measure that regression just examine American history where in the year 1776 there was a declaration for the human race to be free of collectivism so typical in Europe. The early Americans functioned for a few hundred years without the direct influence of a king, yet had the values they learned from an educated society and for the first time in history produced people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who could function without fear of being beheaded for flying a kite with a key tied to it. But it didn’t last long. Europeans continued to move to America and settle on the East Coast bringing little bits of Europe with them, and the regression began. Now just over 200 years later, the regression of our society is measurable—it can be seen easily that the wisest among our current society can’t hold a candle to the wisest of early American society. Another two hundred years of such a regression could easily produce a society that is seen in the film clips above—without question.
At the last film festival I attended in 2009 I was beginning to grapple with this problem of “academic collectivism” which was very present in film, especially independent films. Many of the themes discussed dealt with lower chakra topics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra) of the primary animal instincts, sex, food, and making money—and I had lost interest. It hit me like a ton of bricks while dining at a Lakewood restaurant. My resolution after that meeting, and last film festival was to start this site so to stop the trend toward human destruction through “academic collectivism.” On my way down the rabbit hole, it started with school funding to prove the tendency of “academic collectivism” then to challenge the public acceptance of that trend so to prevent a society like the one seen in Anthem. “Academic collectivism” was already in the process of suppressing Ayn Rand after her work had achieved so much in the 40s, 50s and 60s, only to be gradually squeezed out of American culture slowly by the 70s and 80s, and modern art through the same methods had been hard at work focusing mankind on the lower centers of thought and selling it as if it were a revelation. But the reality is that we are all on a Wheel of Time where all this has happened before, and will happen again if the trend downward is not stopped. That is the fight of our day, and if addressing that trend causes blacklisting—then so be it. Yet even with the blacklisting that goes on, we must be thankful that like 1776 the human race is currently undergoing a second revolution of freedom provided by the internet, where communication can bypass all control mechanisms of the old guard dedicated to academic collectivism. As a recent article of mine recently explored, the statues of Easter Island were just discovered to have had full bodies under the ground, and for years academics had traveled to different conclusions falsely. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Because of the internet, the story broke, and academics are being forced to amend their previous conclusions about the origin of Easter Island which appears to be much more advanced than a bunch of cannibals living on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Like the characters of Anthem, the cultures of the Pacific Ocean who were moving giant rocks with mysterious methods and building roads on the bottom of the ocean hint at a world that was more advanced than our present one, but has long been suppressed by academic collectivism by a few minds who dare question that reality. In that context, it is not so extraordinary to comprehend that the main character of Anthem had an extraordinary journey in the book all because he re-discovered the light bulb—something we take for granted today and see happening every day on the nightly news.
Due to much of the confusion that exsists about the economic nature of capitalism–as the progressive types have so rigorously attacked it, many do not understand what it even is. So for those who do not understand capitalism, and for those who think they understand capitalism, yet still find themselves destructive agents of human doom I would like the present Guillermo Pineda who spoke at the Atlas Summit in 2012 in Washington D.C. — We hear all the time that “capitalism is the system that has shaped our world.” However, the fact that capitalism is a social system that has never existed in its full, perfect, and unregulated form is never mentioned. As Ayn Rand clearly stated, the only time in history in which we came close to a laissez-faire capitalist society was in the 19th century. The seminar explores the history of capitalism in the last 250 years. How did capitalism function in the past? Does it still exist today? What hope is there for the future? Part 2 looks at the assault against capitalism in the 20th century and considers where we find ourselves today.
Guillermo Pineda is a double degree MA global studies candidate at Leipzig University and Roskilde University. He founded the Center for the Study of Capitalism in Guatemala and has studied and promoted Objectivist philosophy for several years. Now, grab a snack and enjoy listening to Pineda’s 2 part lesson on capitalism.
Progressives are vile despicable creatures in that they wish to change America from its traditional roots of Excepetionalism and convert us all over into dependents of collectivism. For clarification all one needs to do is watch The Ed Show from the big labor progressive advocate on MSNBC whose motto is “Lean Forward” which was also seen in President Obama’s last presidential campaign and even school levy attempts by government schools. I would say the easiest way to understand what progressives mean by “lean forward” is to direct America away from the kind of country that Jimmy Stewart talked about in the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—which is one of my favorite movies of all time. I like it almost as much as Jimmy Stewart’s It’s a Wonderful Life. When I ask myself why Hollywood doesn’t make movies like those anymore, I already know the answer—it’s because of progressives like what can be seen on The Ed Show who have ripped America so far to the political left with their radicalism leaving traditional Americans wondering where their country went. Rand Paul obviously shares with me a love for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—he named his book, The Tea Party Goes To Washington—and performed a wonderfully articulate 13 hour filibuster similar to what Jimmy Stewart did in that classic film, the magic that most people on both sides of the political spectrum felt was fathomable. It terrified progressives to varying degrees from both parties who rose to the surface quickly in the wake to attack Paul in the usual manner. Watch, listen and take notes.
Then there was 9/11 and a rapid expansion of government under President Bush Jr. as a reaction to the terrorist attack, massive national debt, and a sitting president who stated, “I’ve Abandoned Free Market Principles To Save The Free Market System.” Then we gained Obama as a president, a guy who mysteriously attempted to suppress his past, made a big deal about his birth certificate, was educated as a child in Jakarta, had communist grandparents who raised him, strange ties to the terrorist organization The Weather Underground, had a strange affection to the known communist Frank Marshell Davis, and seemed willing to mislead the public at every turn like a car salesman trying to sell a car without an engine to a little old lady’s old fashioned gullibility. Obama is presently on course to run up the national debt to 20 trillion dollars and now stories about the collapse of the American dollar which floated out of conspiracy theory in the 1990s suddenly don’t sound so crazy—because it’s happening.
So should it come as any surprise that fringe groups in America are on the rise? Absolutely not, American people have seen that they have been lied to and they no longer know who to trust and they are rather pissed off about it. It turns out that people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are the types of politicians who created the present conditions of economic doom and like their progressive allies shown typically on The Ed Show, they are in a tizzy over Rand Paul and the kind of people who are moving toward Paul’s form of conservativism because that is very bad for progressive politics. Sadly what John McCain does not understand is that people like me, and obviously Rand Paul are not happy with just the party of Ronald Reagan. Reagan at one point attempted to join the Communist Party and he loved and adored FDR as a young man. Reagan was a good actor who was able to bring some old-fashioned flair from the kind of movies that Hollywood produced during the days of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, but his personal politics were too liberal for me. To progressives, Ronald Reagan was the example of radical right winged politics and to John McCain he was the bench mark of conservativism. Yet to me, Reagan was an actor who attempted to be a card-carrying communist and was only a shadow of what remained of Hollywood during the era of the Jimmy Stewart films, which he was able to utilize to get America to believe in itself again after the Jimmy Carter years. The hard stuff like keeping the defense budget trimmed down during a Cold War, and eliminating the Department of Education during his first years in office like he promised to do went unanswered, as those types of management decisions fell outside of Ronald Reagan’s charm and acting ability.
To progressives it’s a “radical” idea to expect government to balance their budgets, stand for personal values, and exhibit a lack of intrusion into the personal lives of American citizens. For having those expectations advocates like Rand Paul appears to support are called radicals, nut-jobs, and “fringe extremists” by those who are the real extremists—whose social designs intend for American to lean forward to a progressive tomorrow away from the sturdy foundations of tradition that used to view Ronald Reagan as a liberal. To John McCain’s point progressives have succeeded in moving America so far to the political left that Reagan is now considered a fringe right-winged lunatic—but for an increasing number of Americans who are supporting politicians like Rand Paul, there is a growing desire to turn away from both political parties and return to the love of America that Jimmy Stewart yearned for. And to date, only Rand Paul seems to understand that yearning—and has enough passion for to speak for 13 hours straight on one subject—and do it well. Most people can’t speak for 13 hours straight on everything they have in their brains.
Progressives are vile because they have been caught calling the “good” bad, and a “lie” the “truth” as can be seen in any school district in America that is run by government. They are sinister because they want more of the same, and wish to destroy with increasing frequency everything that traditional Americans value. They are the apologizers for mass killing, and coercion by force. Progressives are the same group of people who will seek to use children’s lives to pass school levies or gun control legislation after tragedies but support aborting thousands of babies in government sanctioned murders. They are a vile, corrupt group of people who are worthless parasites to the human race and they have the NERVE to call anyone who desires honesty, responsibility, and accountability–radicals! Increasingly, the offerings of modern politics have fallen short, and the manipulations of old are no longer working. Americans are beginning to demand better–better than John McCain, better than Barack Obama, better than Lindsey Graham, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or any of the other power-hungry progressive parasites. Americans increasingly want someone who is more real than Ronald Reagan and who will make that actor look like a radical leftist in comparison to their conservative politics. In modern politics, there are few politicians who exhibit these traits……………………………..except one…………………….the politician who seems most to exhibit the traits of Jimmy Stewart’s desire for goodness to shine in Washington D.C., who conducted a filibuster, and saved the nation from its own demise with his bold sincerity. Not since Jimmy Stewart has a politician emerged in real life like Rand Paul. Paul’s recent filibuster will resonate for many years to come as it has invoked in America a sleeping desire that has long been suppressed by progressives for a way of life in Washington that will be so foreign to its modern inhabitants that the routine guests on The Ed Show might as well broadcast their show from a New Guinea head hunting village in the future. The America of tomorrow will be that foreign to them, and it has to be. There isn’t any other option at this point. The fear that such an idea congers up in the progressive is only hinted at by their reaction to Rand Paul’s filibuster. Little do they know that this is only the beginning. If they think things are radical now, wait to they see what comes next. All the politicians have failed us, both Republican and Democrat, and that failure is not tolerable.
Growing up I loved Ronald Reagan, and I still think he was the best president in well over 100 years, since perhaps Abraham Lincoln. But Reagan in my eyes was a bleeding heart liberal who was too far to the political left for my liking. My idea of a president isn’t even on the political stage. I voted for Ross Perot in both 1992 and 1996, over George Bush and Bob Dole. I don’t want the stuffy old puppets of the GOP and I certainly don’t want some domestic terrorist who couldn’t even manage a McDonalds sitting in The White House. Letting progressives set the goal posts of extreme right-winged thought where Ronald Reagan is the border just isn’t realistic, and not on the table of discussion. The best way for America to advance into tomorrow is to embrace the concepts of its past, before the influence of the vile progressive took hold, and start over with new goal posts where Reagan isn’t the goal post of the radical right, but of the radical left. That is when we can start solving problems and moving America once again into 200 more years of prosperity. Until then, nothing else is worthy of debate.
The 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.
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.
In 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. 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. It 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!
Latte-drinking Mama March 13, 2012 at 
Concerned Parent
parent
