Tag: 10th Amendment

How to Stop Racism: Who cares what Eric Holder says?

Who cares what Eric Holder said about the George Zimmerman acquittal or Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law? Isn’t Holder a criminal? Isn’t he guilty of deaths from his own actions, and destruction of individual rights performed on a mass scale? If Holder were not the top cop of the United States Government wouldn’t he find himself in jail for the same types of crimes he accuses others of? Of course a criminal is going to wish that “Stand Your Ground” laws were obsolete, so that their crimes can be committed against others more easily. So his comments have no merit as he should be the one on trial, not George Zimmerman, who already had his day in court. But Holder’s foolish comments were not the most ridiculous comments that came forth in the wake of the Zimmerman murder trial in Sanford, Florida. The dumbest comments of all came from those crying for an end to racism in America upon the Zimmerman acquittal. Out of all the news outlets and commentators who make millions upon millions of dollars giving statements and providing opinions no one has delivered a way to rid America of racism when the accusations have been so extreme once Zimmerman was found not guilty. So I will provide the answer where others have failed.

The way to end racism is to stop using skin color as a weapon to advance collective causes and level the playing field for all individuals by allowing merit to determine all benefits in society. When any collective group demands “equality” they are asking for thuggish democracy to take away resources from someone and give to another so that all can have equal value. This allows people of low value to make themselves appear to have a higher value by lowering the value of others through legalized theft (income redistribution). People of low value may have such a status because they made bad decision in life—such as drinking too much, smoking marijuana so that they cannot hold good paying jobs that require drug tests, or having children where there is not a responsible male in a household to help provide family structure. People who do dumb things in their lives often seek the protection of social collectivism to hide their crimes and the only way vacant personalities can find value where they have squandered it away is to take it away from someone else.

Racism has given such collective groups the illusion of value. By seeking equality they really mean “wealth redistribution.” This is why such groups who advocate racial inequality always fail to identify the value of human beings as a criterion for equality. Rather the true meaning of equality is to allow all races, all sexes, all shapes, sizes, and backgrounds of all people to have equal access to success. Racial groups wish to stack the odds of success in their favor with democratic force through collectivism rather than individual merit. This is why racism advocates for more power and so-called “equality” do not support political candidates like Herman Cain, or Dr. Ben Carson. In the racism debate men who have achieved success based on individual merit no matter what their skin color are always overlooked, because the goal of the equal rights movement is not equal access to success, as men like Carson and Cain represent, but in the ability to level the economic playing field of society by cutting down the high spots and filling the low spots with displaced value.

To end racism tomorrow, all society would need to do would be to recognize the value of merit. Those who work to achieve good merit in their lives would all have equal access to value, while those who chose not to work in such a way would find themselves lacking. If the entire world functioned from a desire to be good ethically, morally, socially—good in every respect of the word, there would be no racism because there would be no advantage of one gang of thugs over another. No group would have dominance over any other, as they would all be irrelevant. After all, isn’t it the desire of the black groups to take power from the perceived, “white man” or the “white supremacists” to take power from the “one world order” or the women from the men, or the men from the women, or the children from their parents, or the public sector worker from the private—all the mentioned are aspects of society that are lacking individual merit and seek their value in the safety of collectivism. That is where the trouble begins and ends. The way to end racism is to judge others on individual merit, not by any group affiliation. When the incentive to gang rule is removed, the issue of racism will be put to rest.

In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, gangs took to the streets at all political levels to exploit the tragic death for their own social positions, using democratic imposition to force rules on society that is ultimately designed to rob value from once social sector to provide another what it’s missing. The behavior is as stupid as a village of hunters and gathers fighting over the watering hole of an animal both are hunting, or a bunch of foolish Europeans fighting over one version of religion over another. Collective groups are the source of the trouble because they seek to hide individual merit behind their social blanket allowing poor behavior and decisions to be supplemented by the value of others in their group. In every case, such as the would-be criminal Eric Holder, or the members of the Black Panthers, or any of the radical demonstrators who took to the streets to vandalize property like a bunch of malcontents when Zimmerman was found not guilty—the demand is not for justice of a slain kid, the demand is for an improvement in social status without the work of actually earning it. Behind the actions of the hoards who are declaring “equality” are drug addicts, womanizers, jobless buffoons, welfare recipients, child molesters, victims of the molested, and a whole host of characters who are lacking personal value for one reason or the other and find it is much easier to steal value from others to fill themselves than actually doing the work of being good people of good merit. That is what racism is all about, and why it will never go away so long as groups of any kind are given sway over other groups in a perpetual battle for value that is unearned.

Rich Hoffman

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

‘Coolidge’ by Amity Shlaes: Government wanted Stalin, the Tea Party wants Calvin

So what is it that the Tea Party wants in a president, or for that matter in a government? Do we want a royal prince to fly all about the world to kiss the rings of kings, queens and ass clowns? No. Do we want a political class of acadmianuts to dictate to us a morality derived one half from unproven faith, and one half scientific scholarships based on incomplete analysis from intelligentsia? No. Do we want a government with no concept of growth, who can do nothing but over consume until they are bed-ridden mounds of flesh that cannot even get up to walk? No. But when in history was there ever a president who did not exhibit these traits? The answer of course is Calvin Coolidge who took office as vice-president in 1920 and became president in 1923 when Warren Harding died. Coolidge is one of the few presidents who left office in 1929 with a government smaller than when he came in. His time in the White House was quit and relatively uneventful. However, his handling of the economy led to a surge in laissez-faire capitalism after the over-reaching years of the Woodrow Wilson regime took American into the roaring twenties. My good friend Matt Clark interviewed Amity Shlaes who wrote a wonderful biography on Calvin Coolidge simply titled Coolidge. Watch the video of that interview here to learn more.

John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. (July 4, 1872 – January 5, 1933) was the 30th President of the United States (1923–1929). A Republican lawyer from Vermont, Coolidge worked his way up the ladder of Massachusetts state politics, eventually becoming governor of that state. His conduct during the Boston Police Strike of 1919 thrust him into the national spotlight and gave him a reputation as a man of decisive action. Elected in his own right in 1924, he gained a reputation as a small-government conservative, and also as a man who said very little.

Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor’s administration, and left office with considerable popularity.^[1] As a Coolidge biographer put it, “He embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength.”^[2] Some later criticized Coolidge as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government.^[3] His reputation underwent a renaissance during the Ronald Reagan Administration, but the ultimate assessment of his presidency is still divided between those who approve of his reduction of the size of government programs and those who believe the federal government should be more involved in regulating and controlling the economy.^[4]

Critics of the way Coolidge shrunk the federal government of course were in love with the severe micromanaging of the government that was being displayed by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Coolidge would get the blame for The Great Depression which began in the United States in 1929 after Coolidge’s presidency ended. However, the cause of the depression was the global fascination with socialism, and hard-core communism which extended to every corner of the world prior to World War II. In the United States, the period after Coolidge’s White House term was called The Red Decade, because of the spread of communist ideas into mainstream thought.

The Red Decade was a term coined by journalist and historian Eugene Lyons to describe a period in American history in the 1930s characterized by a widespread infatuation with communism in general and Stalinism in particular. Lyons believed this idolization of Joseph Stalin and exultation of Bolshevik achievements to have reached its high point in 1938, running deepest amongst liberals, intellectuals, and journalists and even some government and federal officials.

Lyons argues that American intellectuals gave the then-Stalinist Soviet Union (and by extension, Stalinism) a certain international goodwill and respectability that it did not deserve.

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

Much like the failure in modern America to identify the threat of radical Islamic government ambitions, the political left during the Coolidge years failed to identify the downside of communism which was not reported to the public in the newspapers they controlled, and radio broadcasts they voiced. Stalin represented the opposite form of government that Coolidge ran, which has delivered America to the doorstep of tyranny ever since the 1930s. Intellectuals training America’s youth in colleges all over the world had bought into the seduction of Joseph Stalin as they found Calvin Coolidge’s small-government ideas appalling to their statist desires.

Joseph Stalin or Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин; born Ioseb Besarionis je J̌uḡašvili, Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი, pronounced [iɔsɛb bɛsariɔnis dze dʒuɣaʃvili]; 18 December 1878^[1] – 5 March 1953) was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. Among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who took part in the Russian Revolution of 1917, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the party’s Central Committee in 1922. He subsequently managed to consolidate power following the 1924 death of Vladimir Lenin through expanding the functions of his role, all the while eliminating any opposition. He held this nominal post until abolishing it in 1952, concurrently serving as the Premier of the Soviet Union after establishing the position in 1941.

Under Joseph Stalin’s rule, the concept of “socialism in one country” became a central tenet of Soviet society. He replaced the New Economic Policy introduced by Lenin in the early 1920s with a highly centralised command economy, launching a period of industrialization and collectivization that resulted in the rapid transformation of the USSR from an agrarian society into an industrial power.^[2] However, the economic changes coincided with the imprisonment of millions of people in Soviet correctional labour camps^[3] and the deportation of many others to remote areas.^[3] The initial upheaval in agriculture disrupted food production and contributed to the catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Later, in a period that lasted from 1936–39, Stalin instituted a campaign against alleged enemies of his regime called the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed. Major figures in the Communist Party, such as the old Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and several Red Army leaders were killed after being convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin.^[4]

In August 1939, Stalin entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany that divided their influence within Eastern Europe, but Germany later violated the agreement and launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Despite heavy human and territorial losses, Soviet forces managed to halt the Nazi incursion after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad. After defeating the Axis powers on the Eastern Front, the Red Army captured Berlin in May 1945, effectively ending the war in Europe for the Allies.^[5][6] The Soviet Union subsequently emerged as one of two recognized world superpowers, the other being the United States.^[7] The Yalta and Potsdam conferences established communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc countries as buffer states, which Stalin deemed necessary in case of another invasion. He also fostered close relations with Mao Zedong in China and Kim Il-sung in North Korea.

Stalin led the Soviet Union through its post-war reconstruction phase, which saw a significant rise in tension with the Western world that would later be known as the Cold War. During this period, the USSR became the second country in the world to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, as well as launching the Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature in response to another widespread famine and the Great Construction Projects of Communism. In the years following his death, Stalin and his regime have been condemned on numerous occasions, most notably in 1956 when his successor Nikita Khrushchev denounced his legacy and initiated a process of de-Stalinization. He remains a controversial figure today, with many regarding him as a tyrant;^[8] however, popular opinion within the Russian Federation is mixed.^[9][10][11]

Stalin, as head of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party that was justified as an attempt to expel “opportunists” and “counter-revolutionary infiltrators”.^[42][43] Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.^[42][44][45]

In the 1930s, Stalin apparently became increasingly worried about the growing popularity of the Leningrad party boss Sergei Kirov. At the 1934 Party Congress where the vote for the new Central Committee was held, Kirov received only three negative votes, the fewest of any candidate, while Stalin received at least over a hundred negative votes.^[46][47] After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev.^[48] The investigations and trials expanded.^[49] Stalin passed a new law on “terrorist organizations and terrorist acts” that were to be investigated for no more than ten days, with no prosecution, defense attorneys or appeals, followed by a sentence to be executed “quickly.”^[50]

Thereafter, several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. Article 58 of the legal code, which listed prohibited anti-Soviet activities as counterrevolutionary crime, was applied in the broadest manner.^[51] The flimsiest pretexts were often enough to brand someone an “enemy of the people“, starting the cycle of public persecution and abuse, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD –NKVD troika– with sentencing carried out within 24 hours.^[50] Stalin’s hand-picked executioner, Vasili Blokhin, was entrusted with carrying out some of the high-profile executions in this period.^[52]

Many military leaders were convicted of treason and a large-scale purge of Red Army officers followed.^[54] The repression of so many formerly high-ranking revolutionaries and party members led Leon Trotsky to claim that a “river of blood” separated Stalin’s regime from that of Lenin.^[55] In August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico, where he had lived in exile since January 1937; this eliminated the last of Stalin’s opponents among the former Party leadership.^[56]

With the exception of Vladimir Milyutin (who died in prison in 1937) and Joseph Stalin himself, all of the members of Lenin’s original cabinet who had not succumbed to death from natural causes before the purge were executed.

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

The Great Depression was caused by communism and the over-tampering of economies by left-leaning governments. Stalin was the exact opposite of Calvin Coolidge who presided over one of the best periods of economy the United States ever experienced even handcuffed with the Prohibition policies created during the Wilson Progressive Era. Stalin and his influence throughout the world articulated by seduced journalists created the Great Depression during the Red Decade in America as the statist architects of government wanted to carry America as far away from Calvin Coolidge as possible.

The political left and even many on the political right have found themselves shaped in 2013 intellectually, philosophically, morally, and even ideologically by the events mentioned above. America never recovered from this period of the The Red Decade, because immediately after was World War II, then a brief period of economic boom built off post war economics in the 1950s. Then the communists were back at it with more statist plans coming again through American colleges during the 1960s. The rest is history and indicate a very gradual slide toward complete statism exulted by Joseph Stalin who many intellectuals are glad to support the death, destruction and economic depressions so to witness the equality given to all by communism.

Calvin Coolidge was the shining example of what America could produce in a manager in the Executive Branch. He wasn’t a glory seeker, nor did he in any way desire to be viewed as a king. He simply wanted to work hard on behalf of the country and leave his office better than he found it—and smaller. If history tells any kind of coherent story it is that no matter how good a president is, or no matter how efficient the government, there will always be those threats to individual liberty who will gladly trade tyranny for some measure of security. There is safety in collectivism that is appealing to the weak heart and mind, and there will always be these types of people in a democracy who will vote for more statism through perpetually bigger government. And when things go wrong with their plans, even if they occur in an entirely different decade, they will blame somebody else. In our modern-day it is the incompetent manager in Barack Obama who still five years after taking office is blaming George W. Bush for his failing economy that is cause by his socialist tampering. And so too has history as it was written by liberals, college professors and social scum bags portrayed Joseph Stalin as a saint in spite of the millions of deaths caused by communism, and placed the blame of The Great Depression on the doorstep of Silent Cal, the American president who knew to stay as far away from government tampering as possible to give the economy a chance to grow, which it did.

It is important to know history, and those in the Tea Party are learning. It is for that reason that they find Calvin Coolidge so appealing, and the model for how government should be run going into the 21^st Century. Without the methods of a future Calvin Coolidge type as President of the United States, all projected government activity in America is destined to bankrupt themselves because of their roots in socialism that began as far back as The Red Decade—a period of time created by the political left to answer the prosperity of Calvin Coolidge, one of the greatest presidents that America never knew about—which is how it’s supposed to be.

You can find Amity Shlaes book Coolidge at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Coolidge-Amity-Shlaes/dp/0061967556

Rich Hoffman

https://twitter.com/petridishes

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:

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’!”

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/we-will-no-longer-accept-the-lies-becks-prepared-remarks-for-washington-d-c-rally/

Jason Easley’s Progressive Dream: “There was no Tea Party in Washington………….”

As the actions are self-evident, and crises are unfolding, to avoid repeating myself over and over again, I wasn’t going to speak much on the topic of the large rally held in Washington D.C where Tea Party Patriots from across the country joined together to protest the IRS. But the hilarious analysis of Jason Easley from a very left-winged progressive publication deserves exploration. Little does young Jason know or bother to discover, but the protests were not just in Washington on that pleasant June afternoon, but all across the nation. One rally, smaller than the one in Washington was at the office of John Boehner led by my friend Ann Becker president of the Cincinnati Tea Party, as seen in the video below, where many who couldn’t make the trip to Washington due to time constraints gathered to achieve the same intent—to get the attention of politicians who work as our public servants.

Before explaining the significance of the rally in Washington, and West Chester, have a look at what left-leaning dreamer Jason Easley had to say:

DC Tea Party Rally Bombs as Crowd For ‘Epic’ IRS Protest Rally Is Just 5,000-10,000

By: Jason Easley Jun. 19th, 2013

Moments before a tea party rally that is loaded with right-wing heroes like Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Michele Bachmann was about to begin the crowd was estimated at just 5,000-10,000.

At the height of his fame, Glenn Beck drew 87,000 to DC for his Rally to Restore Honor in April 2010. The Tea Party Patriots promised that this would be the biggest tea party rally since 2009-2010, “At noon tomorrow, we are going to tell the world about how the IRS tried to crush the Tea Party movement,” organizers with the Tea Party Patriots organization said in an email to supporters, “…Thousands of volunteers will rally in the largest demonstration of Tea Party support since 2010.”

They aren’t going to even get close to Glenn Beck’s biggest crowd. The livestream host for the rally, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, estimated the crowd to be at 5,000-10,000. I would say that may be on the high-end of things, but it could be a potentially realistic estimate for the overall crowd by the time it is all said and done.

It is a major failure for a rally that has been hyped so hard across conservative media to draw such a small crowd. For the sake of comparison, Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity in 2010 drew 250,000 to DC.

Unless there are about 90,000 people stuck in traffic, it looks like this rally won’t be the biggest tea party event since 2010.

It is rather pathetic that an event featuring Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Michele Bachmann can’t draw a bigger conservative crowd. Once again, the power of the tea party has been greatly exaggerated. The rally only runs from 12-2 PM, so it is not looking good for a huge turnout. The people speaking at and attending this rally won’t believe it, but the IRS scandal has already been debunked.

You can read more at the link below:

https://www.teapartypatriots.org/2013/06/wishful-thinking-dc-tea-party-rally-bombs/

The first problem with the leftist article by young Jason is of an attendance number that is not in dispute. Progressives are notorious for attempting to alter reality to their own liking, as their belief system is not rooted in facts, but feeling. With that said, 87,000 people were just in the front row at the Glenn Beck rally mentioned in the text. The real number in attendance was a quarter million people. Progressives needing a response to the overwhelming conservative outcry responded one month later with the John Stewart rally also mentioned which did have decent numbers from bused in union members to make the crowd look as big as Glenn Beck’s rally. But this report of the event should come as no surprise as the mode of operation for all progressives is evident in the article—pretend that something doesn’t exist which is unpleasant or a threat to their illusion of reality, then carry on as if their version of reality determined through consensus–fact.

The June 2013 Tea Party rally in Washington was able to drum up around 10,000 people in the middle of the week during the summer months. Additional rallies occurred all across the country, yet the young progressive writer wished to ignore the impact of the rally and instead compared it to the very large and organized rallies of 2010 using that benchmark as the reference point for judgment. He did such a thing as those combinations of facts fit the reality he was trying to build up in his mind.

Progressives are able to re-write their recollection of events at will because they practice a philosophy of anti-concepts, meaning they strip meaning away from everything so that no value can be attached to anything. So long as the world functions in this fashion, progressivism can be advocated. However, the world comes crashing down upon progressives when value is attached to even small things. In the face of such value progressives lose the argument 100% of the time. In reporting about the Tea Party rallies all across America, Jason Easley wrote what he wished to be true, not what was actually true. This is why progressives are parasites to the human condition, and are especially untrustworthy, because they do not deal with facts of reality, but only slinky emotions based on desire.

The facts of the matter are that after three to four years of activity the Tea Party can still organize to stand against the government even after suffering through two years of IRS harassment, and an attempt by the media to completely suppress the movement. The Tea Party is still able to show up on a whim at the Capital building lawn in the tens of thousands and protest their government while doing the same elsewhere in the country. And the most frightening aspect of these actions are that the Tea Party, unlike the government employees who work for labor unions, such as what the IRS functions under, are not paid to be there.

The Tea Party does not pay their protestors like the progressive rallies do. During the John Stewart rally mentioned above compared to the Glenn Beck rally, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and many teacher unions bused in their members who were actually paid to be present. For the Glenn Beck rally, the participants paid for the whole event out of their own pocket. That is the big difference, and that is what terrifies the progressives. They see vigilant activity still coming from the Tea Party after many attempts have been made to suppress them, yet they still are showing up, and they are angrier than ever. In the face of such facts, Jason Easley could only count heads and attempt to compare apples to grapes hoping that he could alter reality just by believing that his thoughts can change reality—but they can’t.

Here is the whole rally in case you missed it:

Rich Hoffman

How Public Schools Cause Alcholics and Drug Addicts: The need for healthy epistemology

Many of the failures experienced in modern society are the improper understanding of how to create a proper epistemology for the philosophy of their lives. By epistemology it is meant to know what sort of things we can know and how we know it. Most people these days are so uncertain of themselves, lacking self-confidence that they are unable to properly think and this is due to the notion that they have been taught by their public education institutions that nobody can know anything unless a professional tells them first what to think and how to think it. This is why government schools are so terrible for our present society. It is because they are providing generations of people an epistemology that is wrong, deliberately not teaching people how to think, but instead regulating their thought to “professionals” who can provide those epistemologies for the masses as centralized leaders of collective sacrifice.

This is a big problem. Human beings in the year of 2013 seek with mind numbing tenacity to continue a destructive practice of mental evasion. For instance, when it is asked what a particular person is going to do over the weekend, and the person responds, “I’m going to get ‘shit-faced’ drunk,” the person is really saying that not thinking is more preferred over a “thinking” exercise. They wish to get drunk so that they can escape the process of thought. This mentality was given to them by public education laying a foundation of philosophic epistemology that dictates surrendering thought to government employees who know better. The conflict in the individual who wishes to get drunk comes from the persistent thoughts which come to their mind telling them that the world is different from the one they are living. So for them, to get “drunk” so that they can be eased of the burden of thinking it is a vacation from their conflict which is highly desired.

Identifying this failure in epistemology can than explain why so many teenagers drink so heavily as part of their assimilation to the adult population. It is expected that young people will between the ages of 15 to 22 drink themselves into mindless bliss, and this is a direct result of the public education system providing a philosophic epistemology that states thinking should be done by “the experts” and not individual citizens. The result is that culturally, society must develop a method to turn off their minds to escape thought—because their minds tell them that what they are learning is wrong. So drunkenness is their only escape.

Public schools do not preach drunkenness, but it is the result of their failed epistemology which creates the problem in the same way that public schools do not preach sexual deviance, but it is the direct result of their teaching as the epistemology is created by a curriculum designed to place no responsibility on individual behavior. Such a system was designed by statist governments to advance programs for the working poor, welfare recipients, and down-trodden who are secretly desired to remain in such a state forever, for the benefit of the state. In a state-run school, a public education curriculum cannot make the people it wishes to target for state supplied services feel bad for their bad decisions in life, so the goal of school curriculums is to make all right thinking people think like the bad ones and preach that sex has no consequences, and is not the responsibility of the participants. The epistemology that is taught is a kind of Kantian remoteness, which sex just happens biologically without the thinking participants having any say. The epistemology that is given to the students in public school then has the unintended consequences of sexual promiscuity that lasts their entire lives. The teachers did not teach children to have reckless sex in their teenage years, but were socially unable to condemn the behavior that is conducted routinely in poor communities so that food stamp qualifications can be enhanced. So the teachers instruct an epistemology that destroys the lives of all students in every community because their instruction does not teach that personal responsibility is the key to life success, planned families, and a healthy existence.

A proper epistemology is the key to living a successful life and if the education system creates an improper philosophy, then failure is imminent. Government workers, political theorist–particularly those who wish to believe that communism is viable to the human mind, believe that any kind of politics can work so long as a society believes something. This is simply not true. That “something” must be good, and goodness is determined by a proper epistemology. If the epistemology is bad, then the philosophy of a person and thus the society will also be bad. There is no way to avoid the catastrophe of a bad epistemology. In this way, public education institutions are bad for the human race not because their intentions are not good—they often are, but the epistemology of what they teach is terribly insufficient which makes them detriments to the human condition. Methods of philosophy cannot be changed in and out of a person’s life like socks on the feet of a human being each morning before they are placed in one’s shoes. A personal philosophy is the most important part of anyone’s life, for if one does not believe in anything, they will fall for everything. But due to the catastrophe of a thinking mind being in drastic contrast to the types of epistemology that have been taught to it by institutions of modern learning, drunkenness is pursued to escape from the duality of the thinking mind being required to not think in order to survive the political stresses of the day which inform the world of an epistemology that is faulty.

When one considers what makes a person become an alcoholic, or a drug abuser this duality is always at the core. A weak mind is the first step to not surviving the duality of an improper epistemology that is in conflict with one the thinking mind wishes to live by. The weaker the mind, the easier it is to surrender mental evasion to alcoholism and other forms of intoxication. This is the product of our modern institutions and why many consider drunkenness to be a vacation worthy of pursuit in their leisure time, because they wish to be free of the epistemological conflict given to them by a society which seeks to impose on the mind a system of thought that is not productive to individual welfare.

Solving the problem of individual epistemology is the key to solving many of the social ills our society currently suffers from. Identifying a proper epistemology is the first step to solving all social problems. Problems do not happen to people’s lives like some mystical voodoo card of chance happening. Everything starts from a source and like simple addition and subtraction, one thought leads to another, then another. If a person has a bad life, if they are poor, if they are jobless, if they are alcoholics, drug abusers, bad parents, bad people, the failure comes from their poor epistemology. The fault is theirs for not living their lives with values that their minds agree with. Surrendering their thoughts to others who create their epistemology for them will not improve their life. “Getting drunk” will only exasperate the situation further and cause failures in life instead of giving the relief a mind in conflict with itself has from an epistemology that is imposed upon it from sources that are not from one’s own mind. Until individual people realize that the source of their failures are their trend to not take responsibility for their own thoughts, then misery will continue to riddle their life with duality. No individual can make the society happy with their collective desire, and yet make themselves happy. When the decision to make society happy supersedes the individual then a crushed, suppressed and miserable life ensues. And to date, it is public schools that most create the epistemology of the greatest number of people, and for that, they are in drastic fault.

Rich Hoffman

RUSH LIMBAUGH: There’s A Coup D’etat Taking Place In The United States, Being Done By The Obama Administration

Reflecting on the administration’s recently-discovered massive domestic surveillance programs, Rush Limbaugh argued on his radio show that there is a “coup” taking place to subvert the kind of country the United States has always been. Listen for yourself.

Welcome to the party Rush. Many have been right where you are now for a long time. But there is room on the bench for new faces who are just now coming to understand how sinister the Obama administration truly has been all along. Pass along to a friend.

Rich Hoffman

Why Gun Clips Should Be Unlimited: The true intentions behind gun control

Below is the first of several public service announcements MB Studio Productions is producing to demonstrate who gun laws really affect and why they don’t work. The video is well made, and accurate. It creates a scenario where two scum bags decide to raid a random home because it looked like a viable target. The home owner detects the threat, and opens fire once the first assailant enters the home. I have been on both sides of that type of scenario and can confirm that it is very close to the re-creation. Every pin-headed politician who does not understand why a home owner needs a gun with multiple round clips, or firearms that are military designations in their performance, they are naively foolish in not understanding the kind of evil that pushes the behavior of criminal activity. I know evil very well and the scene produced by MB Studio reminds me of several friends I’ve had in the past who fear nothing, have no care for the lives they wreck and a completely absent sense of right and wrong. It is from those kinds of people who the Second Amendment is designed to protect our property from the forced confiscation of wealth and dignity.

Learn more at http://www.MBStudioProductions.tv and support the cause at http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sho…

Progressives in their war against goodness have decided that a fully government managed society is the only one they desire. They do not care if individual lives are wrecked by criminal behavior because they regard the individual as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good of society. They see such home invasion robberies shown in the dramatization as “collateral damage” to their progressive cause. Progressives do not like private property, so they certainly don’t support a Second Amendment to protect it. Rather, they support the type of managed society that calls the police and the meat wagons to clean up the dead bodies. Progressives only care when they find themselves the victims of crime, but calculate the odds of such a thing happening are as frequent as being struck by lightning. So they are happy to “sacrifice” the Second Amendment for their version of the “greater good”.

It is because of the vile, statist progressive that home invasion laws favor the criminal to begin with. In the case of the video shown, the home owner fired first, which would have caused him trouble in court later as aggressive county prosecutors looking to make names for themselves justifying eight years of college attempt to prosecute home owners to advance their government sector jobs with progressive ass-kissing—which makes great headlines in progressively owned newspapers—who love government schools, large police departments, massive fire departments, and more government bureaucracy on every city block. Anything that advances big government ideas are supported by the progressive even if the man defending his family with a firearm by blasting criminals who enter his home goes to jail for murder. Progressives do not care if the father is thrown in jail as the children can be raised by their government schools and the wife can be placed on government assistance. If she cannot afford to keep the home provided by her marriage to her husband, then she can move to government housing, as all statists know that under Agenda 21, that is the eventual goal anyway. For the woman who loses her husband to years in jail for defending their home, she will simply see those days sooner than later—as all members of society will join her under progressive plans. In this way, the tax payer supported prosecutor sides with the criminals and is the enemy of the homeowner.

Progressives see all property as everyone elses, so the laws which have been shaped in our modern society reflect this trend. A home invader cannot be simply shot on site as they may not be armed. They may only want food and water and these things are entitled to all human beings under the version of reality that the progressive functions under. The progressive thinks in essentially the same fashion that the communists of the Soviet Union once believed, or the people of current China. The greater good is more important than individual life—this is how progressives can support abortion causes and the occasional death of home invasion victims, because they know that reckless sex makes more women desire government assistance and crime expands a community’s desire for more police—all of which are activities that grow government workers. If individual lives are ruined in the process, the progressive does not care.

The way the world should work is that such bandits as shown in the video above should be eliminated before they ever enter the property parameters. The laws the way they are currently written protect criminals from the homeowner so they care nothing to knock on a door at any hour of the day and demand to use a phone, or seek shelter for some emergency. Once a bad guy is on the front porch, conflict favors him and the homeowner is at a disadvantage. The home owner should have the right to eliminate a threat just for being on their property—which would discourage bad guys from even making the attempt. For those who have never known pure evil, they can claim ignorance—which is the way the progressive functions with everything in their life. They intentionally strive to be stupid so they can have plausible deniability. This method doesn’t just work with President Obama and his IRS—who are massive progressive government advocates, but with just little details in everyday life, like who is going to pick up the child from soccer practice, and what day is trash night—as one spouse may not enjoy the tasks and seek evasion to keep them out of the activity. If one does not wish to take out the trash, they can simply say they forgot which day it was, because they had plausible deniability beforehand. If a progressive wants to end private property, individual rights, and expand government support of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the local police, then they will attack the Second Amendment so that citizens need government for safety. Their supposed intentions toward justice are simple plausible deniability schemes to expand government.

The greatest fault of the progressive is in their commitment to intelligentsia for solving all social problems with a version of civilization that is built upon evasive ignorance. As society is “bigger” than any one individual the society gets the attention and any number of individuals are to be sacrificed for the “greater good.” In this way the progressive feels they are nearly a religious cult against the individual whims of gun owners who desire to selfishly protect their properties which have no value to the progressive. The progressive believes that they can manage all aspects of human life from food supply, sex, and intellectual stimulation—and that once they are in every part of a human life, then all human beings can be “managed.” Progressives believe the criminal in the video above is equal to the homeowner, so they do not pick sides, and do not care who kills who in the grand scheme of things. But they will side with the criminal by restricting the home owner with laws so that the crime can advance their progressive causes for more police, more government dependence, and the ever-present fear of the unknown. In the grand reality of our modern-day, the criminal is more valuable to the progressive than the responsible home owner because the criminal advances progressive politics, where the homeowner does not. The gun takes away the fear that progressives need to advance their statist government philosophies.

Progressives are just as dangerous as the criminals in the video. They both wish to impose themselves upon individual lives. The criminal is simply the foot soldier of the progressive politician—allowing the politician to have deniability while the dirty deeds are done by the criminal. The progressive hopes to have a certain percentage of the population that is hooked on drugs, or working for the criminal element, because it gives government something to do, and a reason to expand. If there is peace, and if the home owner can simply end all threats to their home and families with a gun, then the progressive is at a loss, which is what they fear most.

Rich Hoffman

Map of the New World Order: What does tomorrow look like as it stands today?

What does the New World Order look like once all the forces at play today have their way tomorrow? Have a look at the map Glenn Beck assembled with a couple of his guests as they put together the pieces of a world few are willing to acknowledge is a possibility.

Video Two:

Video Three:

Rich Hoffman