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.
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.
The back and forth of this case over the last couple of years did result in a win for Chris Young and attorney Christopher Finney as she was absolutely correct to challenge Superintendent Mark North when she arrived at a public meeting thinking it was a regular school board meeting to discuss survey results, then discovered that it was actually an unlisted “executive session” held at Mark North’s office to discuss the new school levy and teacher pay – according to North’s testimony. The judge dismissed the case during summary judgment which provoked attorney Christopher Finney to file the appeal seen below which did not go in favor of Lebanon schools.
Without getting into too many details, it can be reported that Lebanon seems willing to appeal the appellate courts decision, again seen below, which could lead the case to the State Supreme Court costing tax payers possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees for litigation. The school doesn’t care because the money isn’t theirs, its looted money from the Lebanon tax payers, so it’s no skin off their back to dig their heels deep in the sand even if legal precedent is against them. Their real objective in this case seems to be only to delay the results of this case long enough to pass their next planned levy. So long as the case is perpetually tied up in court, the public is typically unaware of the details. The nature of this case reminded me of an article by Tom Wicker in The New York Times on October 11, 1964 that I had read regarding “the mainstream of American thought,”
That mainstream is what political theorists have been projecting for years as “the national consensus”—what Walter Lippmann has aptly called “the vital center.”…Political moderation, almost by definition, is at the heart of the consensus. That is, the consensus generally sprawls over all acceptable political views—all ideas that are not totally repugnant to and do not directly threaten some major segment of the population. Therefore, acceptable ideas must take the views of others into account and that is what is meant by moderation.
The reason I thought of that article in relation to this court case is due to the fact that this is how all government operates, especially public schools. They believe that even when the law is against them, or they are guilty of violation of the law that because there is a consensus by the mass public—which they have helped to educate into place through mass public indoctrination—that they can ignore the law if there is a “consensus” in their favor. Lebanon clearly felt that they could violate the law to conceal information and they are willing to apply any measure needed to build consensus against those seeking justice. Like the perilous situation described by Tom Wicker, the intent of all government bodies in our modern age spanning these last 50 years, has been to not follow the law—but to build consensus regardless of what the law states. And if that still doesn’t work, then a case will be stalled perpetually causing all seekers of justice to spend themselves into oblivion in an attempt to enforce the law. The government entity can afford to play this game because they are operating with legally stolen money that is infinite. The taxpayer does not have the same infinite resources. So large government institutions such as what Lebanon schools are routinely ignore the law and focus on consensus building. The same strategy can be seen in virtually every public school in The United States. For instance, when Lakota just a few school districts to the west of Lebanon after three attempts could not win at the ballot box they did not attempt to go to the union with a 5% wage reduction deal to balance their budget. Instead, they spent $40K on Jeffery Stec to create the “Community Conversations” program to engage the public with private meetings in an attempt to build “consensus.” Whenever a public institution uses the word “consensus” in their dialogue, something is wrong with what they are saying. Chances are, with just a little digging, laws are being broken, but openly ignored, and a scandal is amiss.
That is certainly the case once again at Lebanon and Superintendent Mark North is at the heart of the issue. The purpose of public meetings is so that the tax payers can oversee the actions of their school management. Yet routinely, they are treated like children, not the authority figures they truly are. The tax payers are the ultimate authority—at least in the eyes of the court. The premise that Christopher Finney and Chris Young took this case to court was under the authority that the taxpayer is the ultimate management entity, and Lebanon elected to ignore that authority in an attempt to conceal information. The school clearly believes by their actions shown below that they wish to play the gray areas of the law to their advantage and instead focus on building a “consensus” of their innocence rather than deal with the literal interpretations of the law. Even if they lose at the Supreme Court level, they still win because they have managed to maintain their “consensus” with the public through secrecy, manipulation, political pull, and many other direct violations. All they seem to care about is sliding through yet another school levy hoping that the public at large has forgotten the last one which occurred only a couple of years ago—in a mismanaged attempt to throw more money at their teacher’s union. The focus is on “consensus” not justice.
The Jim Carrey satire against Charlton Heston, southern culture, and the Second Amendment titled Cold Dead Hands is a blessing in disguise for those of us on the more conservative side of politics. It is good to see the mind of opponents for what they truly are without the public relations facades that often conceal the true activist nature of the subject in question. The radical goof balls on the left expect conservatives to take it when they dish out character assassinations, but they don’t expect it in return. In Carrey’s case he took a shot at a majority of America and their love of freedom guaranteed by The Second Amendment. The public knows Carrey has made a living off violence in his films, namely his use of guns in the film The Mask and a film career that really got off the ground when he appeared as a drug addict in the fifth Dirty Harry film with Clint Eastwood titled The Dead Pool. Guns have been good to Carrey, and watching him turn against them speaks openly about the hypocrisy of the left and the current culture of progressive Hollywood and the types of things they believe. The left will never attack Carrey’s radicalism shown in his video or the disgraceful rendition of asserting that Charlton Heston is trapped in some eternal purgatory because he is still holding onto his guns. Even when progressive leftists attack members of the conservative right, the right is attacked even further when they express outrage.
Over the last couple of days I received two emails from people who frequently read my work here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom and took note of some of my recent articles where I expressed outrage of my own. In both cases, they feel that indignation on my part is misplaced—and uncivilized, and that I should just suppress my thoughts for the ridiculous common good. Here are those emails along with my response.
C’mon Rich,
Looked at a recent blog of yours and found this ——— As a reader here, and casual participant, you can trust that I will not disappear into a void of oblivion because I set out in this war to win it, not to come to a drawl, or shake hands and make a deal. I set out to destroy my enemy—those who openly exploit children for their own selfish progressive desires. ———- Why so violent?
And quit crying over the “Kroger survey” and stick with arguments that have some logic.
Maybe Kelly Kohls gets so much flack from friends of educators because she aligns herself with you. She loses me in her presentations as soon as she looks to you, manning the video camera, for backup facts.
I do think you need to change the tenor of your rhetoric. You seem to begging for physical confrontation and the search for educational solutions needs to avoid that.
William Schmidt
————————————————————————————————————–
I told you I am done with public education. I see them as a threat to our next generations because of the left leaning tendency of what they teach. If there were more balanced world views, I’d feel differently. But that’s not the case. Profit based strategies need to be the future of education as it tends to root out the good from the bad.
Since people have the memory span of paper clips, I have to remind them of the Kroger Survey for context. You are likely to see and read it at least 100 to 200 more times in the months to come. That was my bench mark of the type of people who support public education where I realized who supported the education system as it is and why.
You seem to ignore the comments of Becki in the Kelly Kohls incident. You pick what you want and paint things up the way you wish them to be. I don’t like to see people pushed around, and I see that happening a lot in public education from employees who forget that the tax payers are their boss.
Kelly or anybody else has their choice whether to align themselves with me. Obviously you are used to dealing with other types of people, because I don’t have a shortage who wish to do so.
You can speculate on my aims, but you can bet that there is a reason for everything.
Thanks for writing and showing me your mind. There is a lot there; I can understand your frustration.
Have a nice Easter,
Rich
————————————————————————————————————–
Dear Rich Hoffman, (as written spelling errors and all)
I do empathize strongly with Gen X.
1.But you people claim to have manners whilst minimalising racism?
2.You claim to have class while bashing on LITERALLY ENTIRE GENERATIONS?
3. You claim that Gen Z is the end of humanity, based on what? Your interpretations of the potential of a bunch of >10 years-olds?
4. You mock science for modern warnings about global disaster, but you long for the days of the cold war when nuclear annihilation was imminent?
You’re a bunch of jackasses. For a guy who mocks younger generations for being weak, you seem to have some pretty strong “mommy” issues. Newsflash, your generation was neither the first, nor the last generation to have broken families in it. Pussy.
Jason Ibanez
———————————————————————————————————————-
Who me? I am what I eat. And you are a snot nosed punk.
Rich
There are a lot more of those types of emails, but they happen to have come through within a short time of each other the other day while I was thinking about the Jim Carrey video. They are derived from the same kind of culture where the progressive left steps up and punches the conservative right in the face then runs off not expecting to be hit back. In the case of those emails when I am called derogatory names, or a union representative uses the word “war” to describe their plight against the tax payer it makes me angry, and I direct the anger where appropriate.
The Carrey video and the video above where progressive analysis is given praising the anti gun message, the commentator is happy and dancing on the grave of Charlton Heston because Carrey represents the progressive beliefs of that particular pundit. So it is only fair that those of us with conservative beliefs do the same when necessary and beat on the war drums ourselves when provoked. In that regard it is healthy to give progressives back what they dish out and then some, to teach them that it is not appropriate to use force, or coercion of any kind to advance a political agenda, which is what progressives are adamantly committed to. However it is not my fault that the generations before me who happened to be conservative were as Jason Ibanez declared above, allowing progressive to punch them without getting it back. Those days are over.
When Hollywood attacks itself, as Carrey is doing against the recollection of Heston, the battle lines are clear. The difference is that now conservatives have learned that taking the abuse and mockery from the progressive left will not be tolerated. Carrey may not see the immediate impact of his actions against his next couple of films, but he has changed the way people see him. Before this incident I was a fan of his. I doubt I’ll ever watch another one of his films just as I haven’t seen a George Clooney film in about 10 years. I cannot watch those types of actors anymore knowing that they stand against the personal beliefs that I have, and when they remind me of it in such a glorious fashion, they dig their own grave—because I’m not alone. Many people think the way I do; they just don’t speak their thoughts. And if I didn’t know that, I wouldn’t even bother with this site.
The flyover states that Jim Carrey insulted in his video made him the star that he is today and those people will reject Carrey in the future. It will have an impact on his box office totals. Jim Carrey has successfully taken himself as an A List actor and put himself in the mind of America as an activist equivalent to Sean Penn, an actor that is impossible to watch without thinking of his communist oriented politics. For the same reason, Jane Fonda will always and forever be known as Hanoi Jane because of her support of communists in North Vietnam—no matter what she may have done in the rest of her life from playing in On Golden Pond with her father, to her workout tapes. In the history of her legacy, she will always be known as a communist, which most Americans reject when the word is not hidden behind the mask of progressivism. 70 percent of Americans have a genuine mistrust of government. About 20% of those people are willing to overlook that mistrust because government pays their paycheck—and pays them quite well to remain “comfortably numb.” Because the government cannot be trusted, The Second Amendment will always be needed in case the tragic worst case scenario should ever reoccur, which is another American Revolution. The Second Amendment is not for hunting, or target shooting, it is for warding off the government if government imposes itself too arrogantly upon the personal liberty and freedoms of the American people. It’s a unique concept in the world, and progressives in love with Europe find it appalling. In Hollywood where European culture is so revered and noticeably out of step with the rest of the country, Jim Carrey is just another activist showing off for his liberal friends so he can stay relevant. But in so doing he created his own legacy that he will come to regret. He won’t be known as the actor for the Truman Show, or even Ace Ventura. Rather, he’ll be known as the progressive stooge who danced on the grave of a Hollywood legend and took aim at the heart of America with a blind attempt to appease the extreme minority in Hollywood who holds the purse strings of the Hollywood money machine. In the end, Carrey will wish that he had said something as bold as Charlton Heston did, and that some future loser would attempt mock him in death with a song titled Cold Dead Hand, because when Carrey is no longer on earth, it will go as un-noticed as a fart lost in the wind of a career built of childish jokes and frail beliefs.
That is the legacy of Jim Carrey, throw him a fish–he’ll perform. Rich Hoffman
“Do they not realize that this is war?” These are the kind of “pro-education” advocates that Ohio Education Association representative Becki Villamangna corresponds with on her Facebook account. Becki is the Communications/Political Action representative for the OEA and she has targeted my friend Kelly Kohls who is the school board president of Springboro for attack many times. Due to the success of that school district in driving down their labor costs without impacting the tax payers, Becki’s arm of the OEA has aggressively attacked Kohls with all the fury of any combat maneuver in war. CLICK HERE to read about one of Villamanga’s radical attempts to harass Kelly which I have covered here at the Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom before. The OEA is clearly frustrated that they have lost many of their battles in Southern Ohio, particularly at the Lakota, Mason, Springboro and West Clermont school districts. Kelly Kohls has become the focus of the massive Ohio public sector union because she has had the most success in doing what radical progressive educators fear most—management of their financial resources. However in Northern Ohio where there hasn’t been as much pushback against the unions as there has been in the south, schools around Cleveland are still using the extreme extortion tactics that the OEA are so famous for. (I say OEA because most teacher unions in the state of Ohio fall under the umbrella of the OEA.) To education professionals who are COMMITTED to progressive agenda items they are in education not for children, but because they are at WAR with the public who leans toward traditional values. Such Ohio Education Association tactics that have been attempted on a smaller scale against Kelly Kohls in Springboro are being done on a larger scale in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb as shown in the video below where teachers are on strike and retaliating against the substitute teachers the school has hired to keep the schools open for kids. Watch this!
The striking teachers feel so entitled to their jobs that they have been posting flyers to neighbors of those employees attempting to apply peer pressure by using the classic “SCAB” terminology against the replacement workers. The idea behind such a derogatory term is to use collectivism to impose a union will on individuals who simply want to make a living, so that labor leverage can be maintained by the striking employees. The OEA members who are striking are firmly committed to communism, and are caught in their belief of turning the capitalist society of America into a socialist state-run by the education elite. They of course don’t call their ideology “communism” by name, but their practice reveals their intentions.
I don’t ask you dear reader to take my word for these accusations. I simply ask you to look at the facts. For such proof, as the OEA is locked in their labor dispute in Cleveland trying to push replacement workers out of their jobs before the uselessness of their real teaching value is exposed as a fraud, Becki Villamagna was posting the below comments on her Facebook page during February of 2013. Becky had just returned from a training class with her members where she received some push back as she attempted to do on the microcosm what the OEA is attempting to do on the macrocosm of Cleveland. She openly complained about the resistance she was getting from her own members who found her Saul Alinsky strategies too “radical.” Becki knows what she is doing; she is attempting to apply peer pressure on her OEA members by letting them know about her disapproval seeking other like-minded opinions to build up a consensus against the dissidents. It’s a variation of The Delphi Technique done on a much smaller scale using Facebook as the Change Agent. Have a look at her exact dialogue and a couple of responses she obtained.
Recent Becki Villamagna Facebook posting
This morning I gave a training session on electing and working with school board members. Many of you will be shocked to hear that one participant didn’t like me because some of my suggestions were too subversive and were only “dirty tricks.” Share ·
February 4 at 12:55pm via mobile · 2 people like this.
Patty Ray do they not realize this is war? February 4 at 12:58pm
George Bozovich Some folks just don’t get it! February 4 at 1:05pm
Patty Ray’s response to Becki Villamagna’s posting says wonderfully what the OEA is all about and how education professionals truly think in their hearts. The OEA is at WAR with the rest of society which is why they are attacking replacement workers in Cleveland, and why they are attacking Kelly Kohls at virtually turn. They are at war with anyone who stands in the way of their social advancement of progressive causes and the proof is in the dialogue they use with each other when they think nobody else is looking. Of course you’ll find no newspapers that will cover this issue, because they are in on the deal.
Many, including teachers trained by Becki Villamagna are beginning to see that education is not about teaching kids with the OEA, but is about WAR. They are just now learning what I have known for many years now. That realization is the primary reason I named this site what I have…..Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom as opposed to something more conventional………more press friendly. We are at war with the OEA because they started that war against those of us who value traditional American principles, particularly in education. People like Becki Villamagna, Patty Ray and the nut cases harassing substitute employees in a Cleveland suburb are villains in that war to those of us who want to see goodness being taught to children, and social stability advocated by education institutions. It is a war by their own declaration, and actions. I have watched their behavior for many years and decided that if they wanted war, then they’d get war. They would be beaten intellectually, they would be beaten with radicalism—if need be, and if they wanted to get violent, they would receive it back twice for what they issued. I prefer the intellectual debate, but when they run out of emotional bullet points and they attempt to attack personal character and toy with violence as their method of coercion they have received it back in return.
Wars are not won with kind words and placation. The OEA members are some of the worst people I have ever had to deal with as to radical social behavior. They have the destruction of America in their minds and they are terrible people because their ideology makes them corrosive. They openly use children to execute their maniacal plans for social progressive changes at the expense of society, and this defines their essence. Wars are won by taking away from the other side the will to continue fighting. This is what the OEA does to people like Kelly Kohls and the poor substitute teachers in Cleveland. The OEA attacks them directly hoping to rob them of their will to stand opposed to the union’s progressive agenda. This is why Patty Ray said on Becki’s Facebook, “Don’t they realize this is war?” She says it because to the OEA radicals they are at war with the taxpayers. The answer to Patty is that some do know it, I know it, Kelly knows it and thousand upon thousands of other tax payers know it now, and we are willing to engage. The effects are already evident within Becki’s own organization. The teachers in her union are beginning to question her methods and are fighting back against her kind with polite resistance, as Villamagna complained about on her Facebook page. This dissension in their ranks will only widen over the coming years, and the strength of their movement will be shattered eventually.
I knew this would be the ultimate ending for the OEA union when they first came after me in the fall of 2010. My critics might call my anger and behavior the results of “thin skin” because they expected me to take their personal attacks with the maturity of a “civilized” “white man,” as defined by progressive strategists and their view of the typical conservative American. The hero of the OEA–Saul Alinsky described his plans in 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across America. The necessity of that project became his book Rules for Radicals which Vicki and the OEA unions certainly gobbled up nearly word for word in their activist practices. Alinsky believed that what PresidentRichard Nixon and Vice-PresidentSpiro Agnew called “The Silent Majority” was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and were ripe for a turn to radical social change. Alinsky desired to create social mechanisms to entice The Silent Majority into becoming politically active citizens. Even if Vicki Villamagna does not have Rules for Radicals on her book shelf, she has been taught the concepts instructed in that book under different names by her labor union—who widely adopted Alisnky as their prophet for radical change in America. This is what progressive labor unions have done in our public schools, and what their part in the “WAR” is all about. Saul Alinsky feared that the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint if progressives failed in their task, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” So thus, my strategy is now clear and its effects are beginning to be seen as the secret is no longer strategically necessary. I have read Rules for Radicals and studied Alinsky, so I know what Villamagna is up to when she protests my friend Kelly Kohls. I know how to beat those enemies of traditional America. They will be beaten because they were the ones who declared war against traditional America and deserve what is coming.
There is nothing that beats a progressive villain better than giving people the freedom of choice. Progressives HATE choice just like the socialist/communist hates capitalism. Choice destroys their order of tyranny. By supporting Workplace Freedom you allow the teachers who told Becki Villamagna her tactics were too subversive and were only “dirty tricks, the chance to leave Becki’s organization completely which will cut off the money that supports the WAR on the progressive side. This is how we can beat the evils of progressive advancement—simply by taking away the money they use to attack us. In the meantime, I will continue to be that guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. I will do it because I believe it. But I will also do it because it is the surest way to destroy the attack of the progressives into the roots of America from which they seek complete destruction. And I will enjoy every, single minute of it. Justice one way or another will be obtained—it will prevail as sure as these words are written. Yes we are at war and to answer the question of Patty Ray we do know it, and we are coming to claim the victory and enjoy the spoils of war—that was launched against us under a banner of peace.
I participate in this war because I want to be that guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday and I don’t take a dime from anybody to do it. I do it because it’s the right thing to do.
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.
On the day after the sequestration implemented from the federal government on March 2nd Darryl Parks from 700 WLW covered the events that transpired in the aftermath as government officials calculated that society might come to an end because of the cuts. Well, in his usual fashion Darryl brought some non-partisan, non emotional, non group affiliated analysis regarding the sequestration cuts to the light of reality. As many might be afraid of the rhetoric coming out of Washington Darryl put into the context the extent of the cuts in a fashion that everyone can understand. The ridiculous amounts that Darryl laid out in his broadcast, and that I break down below in written form are so small that they aren’t even worth discussing. Yet all the news broadcasts on television cried like infants for over three weeks along with virtually every politician, especially Barack Obama about the costs of these cuts to the social fabric of American society. So without further fanfare have a listen to Darryl’s broadcast as it was given on March 2nd at 9 AM in the morning.
Most people start to blank out when such large numbers are expressed so they cannot get their mind around such concepts. Looting politicians like Barack Obama know this, and have successfully hidden the extremity of these federal numbers behind relatable faces, like children, National Park employees, government janitorial staff and so on—so that tax payers will be inclined to vote in favor of more tax increases to help out their fellow Americans. The federal government essentially uses the same tactics that we have been fighting locally in the school levy debates—they clearly manipulate the numbers in hopes that nobody can wrap their mind around the truth. However, Darryl Parks did better than President Obama in showing the hypocrisy of the federal diatribes by putting into a context that everyone can understand the amount of the sequestration cuts that prove just how small they really are—and how much politicians in Washington and the doomsday press blew out of proportion the extent of the damage—which proves that none of them can be trusted.
Darryl did the hard math and discovered that it was much easier to understand the 44 billion in cuts coming from the sequestration reductions that went into effect on March 1st by proportionally breaking it down against something that virtually everyone can relate to, a McDonalds Big Mac extra value meal. Darryl took the known value of 1320 calories that are contained within a Big Mac extra value meal consisting of a Big Mac sandwich, a medium Coke and a large order of French fries that normally contain 87 individual fries within the container they come in and for sake of argument gave that value of 1320 an equal value to the federal budget. Now we know that 44 billion in cuts is only 1/80th of the total federal budget, so if we apply the same reduction to the Big Mac value meal, we discover that we will only lose 2 ½ French fries from our feast
Most people eating such a meal would not notice a 2 ½ fry reduction, and in the society at large, particularly the 130 million Americans who pay nearly all the federal tax, they won’t notice any reductions at the federal level. The only people who will notice the reductions are those who have built their careers in the flimsy existence of government and find themselves jobless in the sequestration cuts. It will be discovered that many of those reduced jobs were not necessary to begin with just as many of the local schools who have had to reduce their staffs have found that they can still operate with fewer employees as they work to meet their budgets. The impacted parties are those who work for government at wages that are too high for jobs that were created by government for government reasons.
Nobody in their right mind can argue that losing 2 ½ fries per Big Mac value meal will ever be noticed and will drive down the quality of the meal itself. Just like the sequestration cuts don’t even come close to bringing our federal government into the light of reality when it comes to fiscal spending of those poor 130 million tax payers who are covering the whole bill. Yet everyone who covered the sequestration in a negative way is guilty of openly misleading the American people with radical rhetoric that belongs in the basement of old hippie flower children engulfed in pot smoke as they watch reruns of Sesame Street and think themselves sophisticated contributors of society. In reality, much, much, much more needs to be cut from our extra value meals if we wish as a nation to lose any weight and take measures to truly get our budget under control. Taking away 2 ½ French fries out of 87 won’t do the job—and is not even worth the discussion which has transpired.
Obama’s argument for increasing the debt ceiling is that “America pays its debts.” The trouble is the President won’t stop spending money, which forces America to pay for things it can’t afford. America cannot afford to be a nanny state, it cannot afford to take care of more than 50% of the nation who doesn’t work, or pay taxes. It cannot take care of senior citizens who retire at 65 and live till age 90 on the government dime as there are fewer children being born than ever before who will have fewer jobs to work in as adults so that they can continue to pay into Social Security.
The government cannot afford to give insurance to every American. It cannot afford to build the political party of one left leaning side with entitlement spending—which is what has been happening. Democrats and progressives know that their political base cannot support a voting base with their ideas, but only with what they can give away to purchase votes from the most ignorant among the American population. They like the guy in the video above when he’s told that he cannot have the money instantly states that without raising the debt limit, his wife will leave him, because if he cannot spend money to keep his wife happy, their marriage will fall apart.
So too will the marriage between young people and progressive Democrats erode away to nothing when the money runs out. When there are no free things to gain like welfare, free insurance, free education, easy government jobs that pay 40% more than private sector jobs, etc., voters will reject the party of handouts, the Democrats. Obama knows this, which is why he played the scare game over sequestration only to back pedal when he realized that Republicans like the banker above had reached their limit.
For me, that limit was a long, long time ago. I reached my limit during 2005 in the Bush years. People I know best started reading Atlas Shrugged between 2005 and 2007 and were ready to throw George Bush out of office for creating the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and other massive government programs. There were already murmurings of starting a Tea Party like organization even back then when I fought the first Lakota levy in Butler County where that government school showed a never-ending tendency to spend more money than they ever take in, just like the guy in the video above. Once Obama was elected, and the Lakota teachers showed in 2008 what national teachers all across America were really up to, many in the Liberty Movement had already reached their boiling point. By 2009 and 2010, coordinated measures to expose spending addicts like the guy in the video above were being implemented to render publicly so that voters would come to understand the unsustainable path that America was on. Unfortunately, half the country presently is just like the guy in the video above. They are like heroin addicts—in denial of their addiction to spending and they are on a self-destructive path to always spend more than they take in and they are electing politicians into office who will provide them that fix. What these politicians have in common with these spending addicts is that they too have the same problem—they can’t control themselves.
The very small cuts that Obama is bellyaching over are just as foolish as the silly amount discussed above. 2.5% is hardly worth even mentioning. I wouldn’t be happy until more than 50% of the current budget is slashed. I don’t want the government to do much of anything except build up a military, run a bit of a post office, help NASA along, maintain roadways, and that’s about it. The private sector could and would take care of virtually everything else. The people who would be left behind in such an economy are those who refuse to participate even when politicians like Obama steal from others and place the goods at the feet of the malcontent—who even then hardly picks up the food to place in their mouths. All of society should not be destroyed because the addicts of spending like Obama and his Capitol Hill thugs cannot regulate themselves, and have no understanding of what makes a human being rise in the morning to meet a day’s challenges.
Like the banker we should run Obama out of our offices and take away his credit cards. We should not feel bad about it either, because it is him who has mismanaged his own life, and built a party around debt and theft. So the fault of a failing economy falsely propped up by government expansion will be his alone. The loss of jobs created not by demand, but by whim are the fault of Obama for not measuring need against desire. The fault of the days to come will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders and Republicans would do well to close the door and let Obama and his party fall completely into disarray by their own recklessness. Because the current debt is abysmal—I personally support nothing that contributes to those debts. I do not care about government pensions. I don’t have one, and I never will—so I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s pension. I don’t care about public schools. I’d rather pay for private tutors and instruction. I don’t care about Social Security. I have no plans to ever collect a Social Security check and would consider the money dirty if I did. I have no need of Medicaid, or Medicare. I manage my own health and well-being under my own funds, and I have no sympathy for those who cannot, or refuse to. I pay roughly $20K a year in personal taxes when I add up all the little things, and I get very little in return for that money. Nearly 1/5th of that number goes to public schools alone which I think is a complete waste of money. I may use $2,000 of that $20K, and it’s been that way for over 15 years, and that is not a good ROI. When congress messed up the Social Security tax this year, I notice immediately that I was paying $80 more a month in just Social Security tax from December 31st 2012 to January 1st 2013. Congress allowed those taxes to fly in under the radar while everyone else was looking at the fiscal cliff negotiations. I don’t get a damn thing for the $80 lost dollars—nothing. It’s just more looted money lost in the pit of a government being run by money addicts that are just as in denial of their social imposition as any rampant drug user.
More than ever I want to push the government out of the finance office for their unreasonable requests that are every bit as foolish, and animated as the idiot who wants to raise his personal debt ceiling in the video above. It is astonishing that politicians like Obama can even stand in front of people and ask for more money when $80 dollars here and $80 dollars there fly from our pockets like pennies on a roller coaster. The arrogant politician has no concept of what they ask, and are just as ridiculous in their demands as displayed in the above metaphor. And it has to stop. It has to stop right here, and right now. The money addicts have to be driven from office and their parties destroyed for the good of America. Nothing less is acceptable.
I wanted the opportunity to vote for Herman Cain in the 2012 election, so what I am about to say has nothing to do with Civil Rights advances, or even politics. The game that is being played is clear in a society that ridiculed Herman Cain ruthlessly, yet celebrated Barack Obama even though they are both African-Americans. The performance of President Obama during the last week of February 2013 before the sequester deadline, which was set by his administration two years prior, proves what many have all along feared about Obama, and I am convinced that history will remember the current presidency as not just an appalling failure, but a horrendous blip on the radar of American prosperity. It will be revealed that all along, Obama was a domestic terrorist at war with The American Constitution with an aim at radical destruction of prosperity in The United States to redistribute the wealth of America to the rest of the world, only to destroy the global economy in the process. There is no other explanation for the reckless campaigning Obama engaged in trying to evoke fear in federal workers ahead of the sequester deadline. What he has failed to report in his campaigning to federal workers is that even with the sequester cuts The United States is still spending more this year than it did last year pushing our national debt on a path toward $17 trillion. Obama is either a complete idiot, which is possible—or he is a domestic terrorist intentionally attempting to wreck the American economy forever. There really isn’t any other option, and that makes the situation in Washington a perilous one that may be the greatest threat to our Republic since the War of 1812.
If Obama proves in historical context, once the emotions of the day have quelled, to have been the later of the feared motivations, it would not have been the first time such a thing occurred. In Biblical history, Obama’s current path might most parallel the actions of Jeroboam who advanced his rule over Israel by means of perpetuating the division of the southern Kingdom of Judah. Obama like Jeroboam has spent his reign doing nothing but perpetuating war so that in the division would defeat his enemies so they could not rise up against him directly. Obama has no interest in controlling costs or leaving America better of a country than when he found it, and he seeks to destroy all opposition to him through the kind of antics that history has seen time and time again. But these mechanisms are invisible to the modern television viewer who believes that Obama’s presidency is about proving America has overcome its follies in a post Civil War America. But the strategic intent is much, much more sinister.
So who was Jeroboam? Here is what Wikipedia offers:
While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the “burnden”, i.e. the bands of forced laborers.[5]
Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39), he began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he remained under the protection of pharaoh Shishak until the death of Solomon.[6] On the death of Solomon, Rehoboam assumed the throne. However, the ten northern tribes revolted against his rule and invited Jeroboam to become their king. The conduct of Rehoboam favored the designs of Jeroboam, and he was accordingly proclaimed “king of Israel”.[7]
He rebuilt and fortified Shechem as the capital of his kingdom. He at once adopted means to perpetuate the division with the southern Kingdom of Judah. He erected at Dan and Bethel, the two extremities of his kingdom, “golden calves,” which he set up as symbols of God, enjoining the people not any more to go up to worship at Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, but to bring their offerings to the shrines he had erected.
Thus he became distinguished as the man “who made Israel to sin.” This policy was followed by all the succeeding kings of Israel.
According to 1 Kings 13:1-6, while Jeroboam was engaged in offering incense at Bethel, a “man of God” warned him that “a son named Josiah will be born to the house of David” who would destroy the altar (referring to King Josiah of Judah who would rule approximately three hundred years later). Attempting to arrest the prophet for his bold words of defiance, Jeroboam’s hand was “dried up,” and the altar before which he stood was rent asunder. At his urgent entreaty his “hand was restored him again” (1 Kings 13:1-6, compare 2 Kings 23:13-16); but the miracle made no abiding impression on him. This “man of God” who warned Jeroboam has been equated with a seer named Iddo.[8]
He was in constant “war with the house of Judah”. While the southern kingdom made no serious effort to militarily regain power over the north, there was a long-lasting boundary dispute, fighting over which lasted during the reigns of several kings on both sides before being finally settled.
In the eighteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign, Abijah, Rehoboam’s son, became king of Judah.[9] During his short reign of three years, Abijah went to considerable lengths to bring the Kingdom of Israel back under his control. He waged a major battle against Jeroboam in the mountains of Ephraim. Biblical sources credit Abijah with having a force of 400,000 and Jeroboam having 800,000.[10] The Biblical sources mention that Abijah addressed the armies of Israel, urging them to submit and to let the Kingdom of Israel be whole again,[11] but his plea fell on deaf ears. Abijah then rallied his own troops with a phrase which has since become famous: “Jehovah (God) himself is with us for a captain (commander of the army).” As per the Bible His elite warriors fended off a pincer movement to rout Jeroboam’s troops — killing 500,000 of them.[12]
Jeroboam was crippled by this severe defeat to Abijah and posed little threat to the Kingdom of Judah for the rest of his reign.[13] He also lost the towns of Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephron, with their surrounding villages.[14] Bethel was an important centre for Jeroboam’s Golden Calf cult (which used non-Levites as priests),[15] located on Israel’s southern border, which had been allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin by Joshua, as was Ephron, which is believed to be the Ophrah that was allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin by Joshua.[16]
Jeroboam died soon after Abijam.
Bill O’Reilly as a journalist is someone I respect tremendously. He attempts to call things as straight as he can, which is why he is one of the most trusted news sources around today. I don’t always agree with him, but he really works to get to the truth of an issue. O’Reilly recently tackled the view that history might take upon gazing at Obama’s Presidency, and it was very good. O’Reilly covered the topic on one of his Talking Points Memos heard during the same week of Obama’s campaigning during February. O’Reilly uses less colorful language than I do, but his essence is much the same and is worth reading for just the statistics alone.
How will history view President Obama:
By Bill O’Reilly
In just a few days automatic federal spending cuts might kick in. That is known as “the sequester”, a word we don’t like here at The Factor because it’s a word few understand and it’s largely meaningless.
The issue is very, very simple. President Obama does not want to cut federal spending without another tax increase. Republicans say no way, they are not going to continue to feed the federal spending colossus as can be seen clearly by the following quotes:
OBAMA: Most Americans — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE IN BUDGET HEARINGS: I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: So it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU: I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which, by the way, is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News.
O’REILLY: Senator Landrieu and others are simply wrong. The federal spending is certainly out of control. The debt is approaching $17 trillion.
Here is how bad it is. In 2003 the U.S. spent just above $2 trillion. This year, the estimated spending will be $3.6 trillion, a 75 percent rise in spending in a 10-year period with no inflation.
And what do we have to show for all that spending? The economy is not much better. The poverty rate is about the same as it was 50 years ago. And salaries for working people are going down.
So why are we spending all the money? For what reason? I’ll tell you why. Take a look at this chart put out by the Pew Research Center. It says 48 percent of Americans want smaller government and fewer services. But among Hispanics, only 19 percent want smaller government and fewer services. A whopping 75 percent of Latinos surveyed approve of bigger government and more entitlements. That’s why President Obama is spending the money because he knows that a coalition of African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, organized labor, and committed liberals will overwhelm the Republican Party.
So in essence, the President is putting party politics above the good of the nation. History will record that and a few years from now when President Obama’s administration is evaluated historians will not care about his charisma, his co-opting of the press or his demeanor in general. No. History will look at the facts. And the facts are that the USA is on the road to bankruptcy. And when that happens, if it does, President Obama will be blamed.
Previous presidents like Van Buren, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all got hammered because of perceived bad economic policies. The fact is that right now Barack Obama is in that historical category. And that’s a fact.
And that’s “The Memo.”
– You can catch Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com.
Obama’s forgetfulness of his sequestration deadline, which was set by The White House, reminds me most of the Popeye the Sailor character of Wimpy, who was famous for saying, “I’ll pay your Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Well, Tuesday is here, and Obama doesn’t want to pay for his hamburgers. Instead, he wants another loan for more hamburgers to be paid on many future Tuesdays, and it is hard to believe that anybody could be so stupid, unless they have deliberate intentions of collapsing the American economy.
Historically speaking, it appears that Obama will be viewed equally as Jeroboam, an intention divider of The United States for aims of power and wealth redistribution using Saul Alinsky tactics to execute the aims of Cloward and Piven. Unlike the times of Jeroboam, armies are not on hand to fight in hand to hand combat as factions meet on the battlefield to keep people like Jeroboam in power. These days’ armies are congregated in board rooms and banks. The new arrows of combat are check books and debt. The intent of battle and war in general is to force an opponent into concessions through violence, sanctions, or political manipulation. Obama is not even trying to work with Republicans, instead, he is attacking, and attacking, and attacking at every opportunity while running up a tremendous debt with the recklessness of Wimpy, except he never seems to have a desire to even pay on Tuesday. The intent appears to be complete fiscal collapse and that would be considered domestic terrorism which is something all Americans should guard against. Trying to invoke fear into political opponents and the masses behind them can be termed in no other way, and in this case exceeds the parameters of normal political theater. The level that Obama is attempting to carry the divisiveness of modern politics appears to have the same aim as Jeroboam, and will be remembered as such. The evidence is clear, and cannot be ascertained in any other fashion, unless of course Obama is just a complete fool that is as reckless in his designs as an intoxicated gambler on a Saturday night. Either way, history will not be kind to Barack Obama. The only question is whether America survives such a parasite as sixteen years of progressive rule on top of another eight that have severed half the nation from the values they had always held before the election of 1992. It is easy to see the demise in historical context over decades. But not so easy to see in the immediacy of the moment, which is the strategy of war played in modern politics, and seems to be the motivation of Barack Obama, the modern version of Jeroboam. The severed tribes of Obama are Hispanics, women, African-Americans, union leaders, the poor, the un-ambitious, and the government worker being paid extraordinary sums for a job the tax payer does for nearly half the same market value money. It is war that Obama is conducting and in order to continue that war, he needs more irresponsible spending and a government that will grow by another 100% in the coming years till America is no better than Europe economically. The slate of the world will then be wiped clean for Socialist International to step in and rule us all through the United Nations. That appears to be the intentions of America’s modern version of Jeroboam.
Many enemies work behind a cloak of good intentions, but most of them have other ideas concealed deep in their social plots. Evil is sometimes a point of view, and what might be evil for America might provoke sainthood among the advocates of global government. A rival team might be considered evil if they score a touchdown beating the hometown favorite—but the actions behind Obama are much worse than these kinds of trivial competitions. He is attacking every single American for seemingly ideological reasons, either through reckless stupidity or deliberate sabotage. But History will grade Obama a failure either way and a menace to all of civilization as they attempt to dig out from underneath the years of Obama with more than shovels. History will place Obama with the terrorists Jeroboam and the worst of the Roman Emperors. Such a legacy will outlast the political whims of the modern age, and will forever be viewed with the same kind of sinister sentiment as our current times view Stalin, Mao, and every tyrant who has so far breathed and walked the Earth. Obama will forever be just another brick in the road to tyranny that threatened the freedoms of every individual in the entire world with soul crushing debt recklessly applied to achieve a military victory long ago hatched in the living room of college Marxist professors in the glory days of being a “community organizer,” where the weak hearts of the great American enemy was discussed over mixed drinks and cigarettes to great effect and long-term strategy.
The question that arises from Libertarians is how can government control what goes on in the bedroom of citizens, or dictate what an individual puts into their bodies? For me, government can’t, and shouldn’t be in the business of social behavioral regulation. That type of thing would normally be regulated to the spiritual pursuits of an individual which would create the goals people strive to live within. This would work fine if people shared similar values, such as a majority of the population wished to live by Christen values or Buddhist ideas, but in the absence of such social conviction there is a kind of free-for-all mentality that causes some to impose their freedoms on others who don’t share their values. So a law is necessary under those conditions, and a penalty for that law must be swift so it is respected by the public as a shared value.
For instance, if I’m in line at Kings Island, a popular amusement park in Southern Ohio and there is a guy in front of me smoking a marijuana cigarette, he is making a decision based on his personal liberty to impose upon me the expelled air from his lungs that contain within it chemicals I do not want in my body. Currently the law protects him from me, because I cannot just go up and knock his face into another dimension as he imposed upon me the marijuana smoke from his lungs. Because using drugs in public is illegal, the conflict is averted, where it wouldn’t be if marijuana use in public were legalized. There is nothing more disgusting than such public displays where the careless use of intoxicants can be seen coming out of the mouth of an individual and the only way you can prevent yourself from ingesting it yourself is to hold your breath. Such a thing is nearly as disgusting as seeing discarded cigarettes on the ground of a parking lot, or walkway that has been saturated with rain and are smashed flat. When in a public place I am always cautious to avoid stepping on them because I don’t want to drag that trash into my car, or my home as the old cigarette might become lodged into the tread of my shoes to fall out within my property littering it. I am just as cautious about looking for places in public that people have spit on the ground. I do not want to step in the spittle of some other person and drag their chemical intoxicants into the carpet of my vehicle on the way home. The rights of liberty from the person who spit on the sidewalk do not supersede my rights to maintain my property free of their discarded saliva, or cigarettes.
With liberty comes responsibility and if the social trends of the day leaned in the direction of social valor, then I might embrace the Libertarian designation a bit more amiably. I have no desire to visit the city of Amsterdam because of their loose drug laws, and now that Colorado has passed legislation legalizing pot, I may never visit that state in the years to come. The very idea of a body of people who collectively wish to participate in detrimental drug use is disgusting, and changes the way I view the entire state. I find the tendency to use drugs even for bi-polar disorders to be deplorable. I would like to see the human spirit overcome shortcomings and illnesses in the most self-reliant fashion possible—and I don’t see the Libertarian political movement going in that direction. Instead, it appears to be a happy middle place between what the Republicans once stood for, and what the hippie liberals promote actively–human weakness.
I hate more laws, and encourage breaking unjust laws as the situations dictate. The ultimate question is who decides what good and proper social behavior is—is it the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians? The answer is in none of them. Before the kind of freedom that Libertarians are striving for can ever occur the human race has to have a desire to behave with quality. They have to want to live quality lives and to respect the quality of other peoples’ lives. Without a firm definition of quality and what makes one thing better than another one persons freedom becomes another person’s hell. Without a spiritual bonding agent that is shared between one group of people and another, freedoms will collide and impose on unwarranted victims the pursuits of less stable personalities and their flaws.
Greenon Local Schools placed on the ballot for November 6 2012 a combined 6 mill bond issue and 0.75 percent earned income tax for voter approval. Passage of this issue would have provided the matching funds required by the Ohio School Facilities Commission to leverage $22.5 million in state money to build two new schools and provide long-term operating dollars. The ballot issue was defeated by a vote of 3,000 “for” vs. 3,689 “against” votes. In the wake of that defeat of which Debra Mauer engaged in a rather colorful levy campaign against the only NO voter campaign in the area, who happen to have lived across the street from Mauer, superintendent Dan Bennett is seeking to place on the May ballot of 2013 another levy following the same pattern that most schools do after a levy defeat, and that is to come back with a smaller request and hope the numbers fall in their favor. This next attempt will be a 4.95 mills levy which is a bit less than the November attempt.
While Debra Mauer’s antics as a fiscal officer in an elected position may seem bizarre and corrupt beyond measure, her employer Dan Bennett at Greenon has had a track record that is less than stellar. Bennett moved to Greenon to take a job that superintendents understand internally as equivalent to being sent to Russia’s Siberia. It’s his last chance at success as he was the former superintendent at Little Miami where voters turned down eight consecutive levies before Bennett had to leave the district in a fiscal emergency to take the Greenon job. The stories left in his wake lends credibility as to how Debra Mauer in the tiny district of Greenon could have conducted her alleged crimes without detection as school employees placed their focus on passing levies and gaining more tax money rather than managing their employees properly and controlling their costs. You can read more about Bennett at the link below.
The Debra Mauer case points to the tip of an ice berg which resides just below the surface of the small Wright Patterson Air Force community of workers with a total student population that is less than what Lakota schools will lose each year for the next 10 years in declining enrollment. The community is small and everyone knows each other, but to show the emotional remoteness of Greenon Local Schools where most of their community is in fear of the sequestration cuts coming from Congress, the announcement of another tax increase from Bennett without any consideration to the community’s ability to pay even $12 more dollars a month in taxes, has not stopped the school’s arrogant agenda. They, like their employee Debra Mauer do not care about those around them as can be easily affirmed by their actions. They only want to prove that they can pass a levy which is all superintendents are really tasked with under the guidelines established by the OSBA (Ohio School Board Association.) If a superintendent cannot pass a levy for their district, they will be passed around from job to job until they can, or be forced into early retirement.
The only people in the community of Greenon who opposed the last levy, watched the antics of Debra Mauer from across the street. When police cars came to take away Mauer for her accused crimes after spending most of the previous fall looking at the campaign propaganda coming from the pro levy home on Harrison Street, it wasn’t much of a surprise. After dealing with the Greenon administrators for some time and asking many questions the reality gradually fell on the founders of Vote No on Greenon School Levies that they were dealing with people whose actions belong in the back of a police car, instead of tampering with the lives of children. Greenon School employees like Debra Mauer seemed to capitalize off voter naiveté at every turn and every opportunity for their own selfish gain.
You can visit the Vote No for Greenon Facebook page at the link below to provide them with assistance and wisdom. They have a heck of a fight on their hands because they dared to question more of the iceberg than what everyone could see. Unfortunately for children attending Greenon, by the time a teacher like Debra Mauer is arrested and processed by the court system, it’s often too late. Without people like Chris Finney at Kings Local or the couple at the Facebook site below, there is no defense for the children, because school employees and the legal system in general work in favor of modern public education and have shown where their passion is, and it isn’t in children. Their actions speak for themselves, and can be found in virtually every school district–especially ones in small towns, where the superintendents are spill over’s from larger districts. Public schools then reflect more accurately a crime syndicate than an institution of learning that places before the children the highest priority of moral stewardship over the personal failures of teachers like Amanda Kitcho and Debra Mauer. Like the mob, the harm that comes to those who stand in the way of the school making money off tax increases will not be tolerated, and harassment of every kind is on the table. If one wishes to stand in their way of a new levy, then destruction of those barriers will be pursued with every measure the law and the cohorts of organized crime can muster for the perceived greater good of failed superintendents or alleged embezzlers like Debra Mauer—former advocate of Issue 21 and teacher of children in the school district of Greenon.
The Overmanwarrior 