Isn’t it peculiar that the same political factions who support gun control are the same who advocate that Syrian refugees flock to American soil? Such a thought could breed countless conspiracy theories, but the bottom line is that dumb people proposed both contrary assertions. The ideological loons who want to believe that government is competent to actually interview possible terrorist suspects from a war-torn region want to disarm us all completely so that we can’t defend ourselves when they make mistakes—which history shows is often.
Guns however are as much a part of American culture as baseball, football, and two automobiles for every family. Guns are part of what makes America the type of place all these refugees want to flock to—for just a hope of freedom in their lives. Without question most of the Syrian refugees are good people—so the question begs to be asked, why do they flee to the United States? Is it to be away from guns—because in Syria, there are a lot of guns? But the United States has more guns per capita than anyplace in the world—so if guns were so dangerous, those Syrian people would be jumping out of the pot into the frying pan—and that wouldn’t be very smart.
The difference is that in America a bunch of losers would not be allowed to roam the American streets unmolested raping and pillaging everyone they meet—like what is happening right now in Iraq, because so many people are armed and would stop them. It isn’t impossible in America, except through means of deceit, to exert terror in the United States because so many people are armed. That is why people in America don’t have to worry about a pick-up truck full of ISIS supporters taking over their house, raping their women, cutting the heads off the men, and indoctrinating their children—because in America, those idiots would be dead in less than the time it takes to pull the trigger on a gun. Our American society needs more guns carried more openly more often in more places, not less. Because guns keep our capitalist society free of tyrants large and small.
That’s why I’m excessively proud of my state of Ohio for the following message sent to me by one of the best conservative lobby groups there is—and thank goodness they are out there—the NRA.
Ohio: Concealed Carry Expansion Legislation Passes in the House!
On November 17th, concealed carry expansion, Sub. House Bill 48, passed in the state House by a vote of 68-29. Sub. HB 48 will now go to the state Senate for consideration.
As previously reported, Sub. HB 48, sponsored by Representative Ron Maag (R-62), would expand where Ohio carry permit holders may lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense. This bill would also give college institutions discretion on whether to allow concealed carry on their campuses.
Moms Demand Action, a gun control group funded by billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg,is working hard to kill Sub. HB 48 and to restrict your rights in the state of Ohio by using fear tactics and spreading misinformation.
The importance of this legislation is underscored by the fact that since 1983, the number of Right-to-Carry “shall issue” licensing/permitting states has increased from 8 to 41. During this same period, the nation’s murder and total violent crime rates have decreased to 44-year lows, respectively.
Please take a moment to thank your state Representative if she or he voted in favor of this important legislation. Your NRA-ILA will update you on this critical legislation once it has been assigned to a committee.
What we are up against are liberal activists like Bloomberg who funds anti-gun sentiments which actually weakens the quality of American life. So they have to be stopped and the best way to do that is to provide them with the opposite results they had been seeking. Expanding the concealed carry law in Ohio is a path toward preserving that increased quality of life. It keeps the thugs at bay and prevents them from taking over hotels and homes with coercion, because somebody, somewhere—the bad guys never know who—might stop them. Concealed carry is the type of law that terrifies bad guys—because they cannot command the battlefield of terrorism with a one way directive. If they bring weapons to a fight—the other party likely is also armed. And that makes everyone safer and allows our economy to flourish without the kinds of fear other countries face often from extreme minorities of radicals.
The reason so many immigrants around the world want to flock to the United States isn’t just because there is money and jobs. It’s because there’s an inherit safety to our society because of guns—because we don’t rely exclusively on government workers to keep us safe. Guns are the safety net of incompetence—which is all too frequent in all government positions—where people get paid whether or not they do a quality job. Most of the time—they don’t—so if someone is asleep on the job, criminals don’t just have an easy time of harassing people—because those people could be armed. With the new expansion proposal of concealed carry, more people would have a chance to be armed in more places. And that would be a wonderful thing.
There was some backlash when Donald Trump said that the proper response to the Paris attacks meant that we should watch mosques in the United States. For some strange reason that caused consternation within the progressive community—as if saying such a thing was taboo. There was also further ridicule by the left and some on the right (politically) when Trump reminded everyone that Barack Obama still refused to identify the threat of Islamic terrorism by name. The point, a valid one, here was a president after all who told NASA that their priority was to instruct Muslims of ancient contributions to science instead of managing a space program—so obviously there was some emotional investment from Obama into Islamic faith that is—“abnormal.” When terrorist attacks come from that particular religion, it is natural to look twice at radicals within those institutional organizations and contemplate their intentions—just for public safety. But denying that there is a problem is actually dangerous, and reckless—which of course was Donald Trump’s point.
I was taking some people out for a bite to eat recently, the type of people who know very little about politics. All they know about Donald Trump is that he was on The Apprentice and that he had a lot of money. They have no idea who the current Secretary of State is, and probably don’t know who the governor of Ohio is, but they could tell you all about the latest Cincinnati Bengals football game—down to the last detail including the color of the jock strap of many of the players. Obviously the conversation while eating wasn’t very deep and was very non-political—which wasn’t very interesting to me. However, we were returning to our pre-dinner destinations and while driving down I-75 they saw that the parking lot to the West Chester Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati was bulging with participants. There wasn’t an open parking spot anywhere and this led to some grumbling among my passengers that the next terrorist threat might come from such a place and that somebody should watch them. Of course that particular center has condemned violence publicly as seen in the Journal News article below.
What Donald Trump was saying is what logical people everywhere are assuming—and it’s a dangerous path. Trump has stated that social networks connecting terrorists need to be shut down, their oil taken from them, and they should be chased down to the ends of the earth with vigilance. That sounds wonderful when we all agree who the enemy is, but if that same mentality was used against people like us—constitutionalists—then the same intrusiveness can be justified by the progressive left—just as it has been in regard to Lois Lerner and the IRS attack against conservative groups. Trump is talking about dangerous things in regard to border security and the Islamic faith in general. However, the aggression of ISIS terrorism forces everyone to come to terms with these quandaries. You either attack them by violating an American assumption of live and let live—or they attack first striking at the things we all value, our freedoms, our values, and our capitalist economy. Trump’s warnings remind me of the film Scarface with Al Pacino which has become a cult classic. Trump is right, correct thinking Americans know it. We are at war; the targets have to be identified. And decisive action must be enacted. Philosophy from that wreckage must follow with proper conduct in the aftermath. At some point you have to stop looking at the past for a guide-book of directions and instead learn what you can and apply those concepts to the future in ways not yet implemented. You have to take action, be decisive, but must also remain flexible so that you do not become a tyrannical state adhering to a constitutional republic.
At the beginning of the film Scarface were political refugees escaping the communism of Cuba. Tony Montana was a freedom fighter who fell out of line within the Casto regime in Cuba. Boat loads of immigrants fled to the United States flooding the immigration offices seeking freedom, for which Tony was one of them. Under Jimmy Carter, very similar to Barack Obama and the Syrian refugees, American arms were held open to those misplaced people. Tony tried to work a standard job in the states, but found he wanted more out of life so he became a drug lord. I always loved Scarface as a movie. As much as I despise drugs and its culture, I always did love Tony Montana for his sincere honesty and his explosive temper—and ultimately his desire to do the right thing even though he became a raging thug. One scene in Scarface was particularly powerful for me. Tony was solicited to assassinate an anti-drug speaker at the United Nations with a car bomb. But the man had his children in the car with him, so Tony killed his accomplice who was to detonate the bomb killing the target and all inside. Without getting into too many details, I understand that scene very well, and I loved it when Tony Montana shot the guy in the head saving the kids and doing the right thing in a brutally honest way. It was a wonderful scene that really captured the paradox of our current problems with Syrian refuges to America.
Likely within the groups of young men coming to America from war torn Syria, a country mismanaged from the start, empowered by a failed Obama administration that fed the fire of that insurrection either by accidental incompetence, or deliberate passive-aggressive desire to arm the rebels—who became ISIS—there are terrorists using the fleeing masses to bring ISIS ideology on a suicide mission to the states. There are probably several real-life Tony Montana types who are fleeing Syria for all the right reasons, but find there is nothing for them in the states but unholy infidels. All it would take is for them to make friends with some of the members of the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati at a backyard barbecue, or even a local bar and discover that some of those people have radical thoughts and would be susceptible to a charismatic leader from Syria who had been there and already seen the decadence of the West first-hand due to the Sykes-Picot agreement from a century before. Even though the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati’s leaders preach against terrorist violence, likely there are members who are sympathetic to the ISIS point of view if they spent time watching Al Jazeera America on cable television. All they need is a match to start a blaze and an ISIS sympathetic Syrian brought into the states with a feel-good intention to free those poor people from the mismanagement of the Obama administration might do something vile. All this is completely hypothetical of course. But it doesn’t take much to consider the possibilities.
Those guys who went out for a bite to eat with me had no skin in the game. They don’t attend Tea Party events, they aren’t overly religious, unless you consider football games a religion—and they are not even sure if they’ll vote for a president. But they knew enough to look at that center in West Chester and feel uneasy about its presence. In its current state, it is probably docile—its leaders seem to have a grip on their public actions, and their dealings center primarily on religion. However, a dangerous combination is a collective based religion combined with the type of communist anarchy that is well-known with the Occupy Wall Street crowd. That volatile mix could easily make an ISIS terrorist. And such young people fresh from Syria mingling with other young people who are having a hard time paying for their college debts, or finding a good job might be an attractive option to people not sure if they could even have a good life-like those of their parents who are obviously preaching peaceful Muslim faith. Take away the comfortable job, the nice home, the family structure, and a young radical no matter what their faith might easily become a social terror. And in this fashion, ISIS seems poised to infect the United States with just such a poison.
And for even suggesting it, Donald Trump was laughed at and mocked. Glenn Beck was treated in a similar way in 2011 when he proposed that the radicals in the Middle East were working to create a caliphate under Islamic rule. History has proven Beck right, and Donald Trump is sadly probably more correct than not, just like those football fans were weary of anything resembling Islamic faith—especially a large gathering of them in one place. There is a reason to be weary. Common sense dictates that awareness. What we do with that determines our humanity. But indecision is just another form of terrorism because it promises that aggressors will have victory. Peace loving people therefore must accept that to have peace, action must take place, and for that to happen, judgments against assaults must occur. Only then can the war against ISIS be fought. And not a moment until the words are spoken in public—ISIS is the enemy and they use Islam as their camouflage in society. To root them out, we must look everywhere—especially where they like to hide.
It really does come down to cowboys and Indians in relation to political ideology within America. Progressives identify with the Indian, a tribe of people collectively unified in worship of Mother Earth who have a top down hierarchical social structure. Progressives from both political parties see themselves as the tribal leader and by their nature they sacrifice their individual lives to the greater good of “their people.” Little known in America because history has not yet caught up to the facts, but the Indians as we know them, the Shawnee, the Lakota, the Adena, the Hopewell—were all following the Vico Cycle accurately. Advanced cultures had been in the Ohio Valley and the American Midwest for centuries—well ahead of Christopher Columbus’s arrival—but the societies broke down into regional tribes at war with each other as they regressed back into nomads from their city-state histories—moving from aristocracies, then democracy followed by anarchy, then starting all over again by the time Europeans came looking for relief from religious persecution in their native land. For evidence, just study the city of Cahokia, Illinois and many other examples that existed between 100 BC to about 1200 AD. Progressives have the same thing in mind for modern America—regressing from an advanced culture into a nature worshiping nomadic culture controlled by a hierarchy of political tribal leaders.
Then of course there is the American cowboy, which would tend to be politically conservative, embodying all the values of rugged individualism and self-reliance. In the conflict between the cowboy and the Indian the main difference between the two is along these primary lines. Frontiersman who evolved into the cowboy in American folk tales embodied the type of individualism that became the symbol of United States strength throughout the world and was the distinguishing characteristic behind the economic method of capitalism whereas the Indian would be most at home with socialism. Progressives prefer socialism whereas conservatives’ capitalism—it’s a very distinct comparison that literally cuts to the essential mythologies of America, the cowboy versus the Indian.
For many years I have been espousing the entertainment necessity of turning Allen Ekert’s novels starting with The Frontiersman into either a movie, or a mini-series because of the importance that those stories played in regard to the creation of America. They are fabulous novels that will change the way people view the Midwest of North America. If done correctly they could be some of the best films made and would answer for America a lot of questions. I think they would make a ton of money because they would appeal to the American masses that lean to the political right. Ekert was very fair in his novels toward the frontiersmen and the Indians. He seemed to regard them both not as villains in either case, but as participants on the battlefield of life, which is the most honest way to portray them. So I was pushed back into the seat a bit with excitement at the Cinebistro at Liberty Center’s premier movie theater when I saw a preview for the upcoming film, The Revenant. At first I thought Leonardo DiCaprio had discovered the Ekert books, but after a few minutes I realized that the character he was portraying wasn’t Daniel Boone nor Simeon Kenton, but someone else. My interest was retained, but my suspicions increased.
Development of the film began in August 2001 when Akiva Goldsman purchased Punke’s manuscript with the intent of producing the film. The film was originally set to be directed by Park Chan-wook with Samuel L. Jackson in mind to star, and later by John Hillcoat with Christian Bale in negotiations to star. Both directors left the project, and Iñárritu signed on to direct in August 2011. In April 2014, after several delays in production due to other projects, Iñárritu confirmed that he was beginning work on The Revenant and that DiCaprio would play the lead role. Principal photography began in October 2014 and ended in August 2015.
The film will have a limited theatrical release in the United States on December 25, 2015, followed by a wide release on January 8, 2016.
In 1823, fur trapperHugh Glass (DiCaprio) is brutally attacked and mauled by a bear while hunting in what will become the Dakota Territory. His companions, led by John Fitzgerald (Hardy), rob him and leave him to die, while Fitzgerald murders Glass’s young half-Native American son, but Glass survives and sets out on a 200-mile trek to seek out the men who betrayed him and exact revenge on Fitzgerald for killing his son.[2][3]
Glass’ survival odyssey has been recounted in numerous books. A monument to Glass now stands near the site of his mauling on the southern shore of Shadehill Reservoir at the forks of the Grand River.
The song “Six Weeks” by Of Monsters and Men is “inspired by the true tale of American frontiersman Hugh Glass, seemingly left for dead after killing a bear that attacked him.”[6]
The May 27, 2015 episode of Monument Guys, “Tesla and the Unbreakable Glass,” features the construction of a Hugh Glass Sculpture.[7]
The novel was republished in January 2015 in anticipation of the upcoming film release, but Punke’s role as an ambassador to the World Trade Organization prevented him from participating in pre-release publicity.[1] That appointment to the WTO was made by Barack Obama, which is the cause of my alarm regarding this story and the film. Most of the participants in the movie are known liberals and Sean Penn was the first choice as a character to play Hugh Glass. So that is alarming since Penn is a known communist advocate. But, the story looks to avoid politics and instead tell the story of frontier life and the struggles that are universally bold no matter what political ideology one happens to be. For that I am hopeful that The Revenant will be an epic story that will unleash perhaps more interest from even better stories—such as those by the great Allen Ekert. Because if The Revenant does well financially, there are a lot of opportunities for America to get to know itself again with similar films.
In the legend of Hugh Glass he had an Indian wife, and the previews reveal that he has a son. Thinking from the perspective of Hollywood, likely Fitzgerald will kill the boy as a form of discrimination. Fitzgerald would later become a member of the U.S. military in Nebraska Territory which plays into the themes that the progressive activists at the Academy of Arts and Sciences require to be a Best Picture nomination for 2015. There would have to be some subplot that attacks the American military and the people within it to qualify for an award. The filmmakers are clearly going for such appeal since they are in a limited release during Christmas of this present year. But as a western, I’ll take it. I will likely be able to overlook those bits of liberalism to enjoy a classic story set on the American frontier. There are a lot of stories that NEED to be told about that time period, and many of them favor the perspective of the cowboy. This film about Hugh Glass has the potential to be great. I hope it makes a lot of money to encourage investors to make more of these types of films.
The life of the cowboys and Indians were very different, they came from opposing viewpoints that are not compatible, just as modern liberals and conservatives aren’t reconcilable. Indians were unquestionably collectivists and all these modern western tales feel they must tell that story first from a racist point of view to earn the right to tell a good story about cowboys. Yet, if frontier stories are honest about their presentation, and The Revenant looks like an honest attempt to show the brutality of that life, then the Indians will have to be shown not as the docile tribes of earth worshipping collectivists that they were, but a regressive lineage that had their own problems of self-destruction and inclinations toward warfare—for which the political left chooses to ignore—like the Democratic Party presently is, in denial of their own foundations.
Indians—“Native Americas” were not rooted into the territory of the Americas—they were a declining culture from what was here before them. Like the modern progressive, they chose to regress socially into hunters and gathers from the advanced culture of their origins. History led by liberals has chosen to focus on only this portion of history and not the people who were trading with China, South America, Mexico and other places around the world as massive cities rivaling everything in Europe. Presently, and even by the time of the story of Hugh Glass, that world had washed away by the rivers and trees of earth’s progress to fight against mankind for the right to write history. Under the same fields of corn and wheat across Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and the Dakota’s are complex remains of cities long gone, and the cultures that made them forgotten except by Indian legend. The natural hatred between the cowboy and the Indian was not one based on different colors of skin, but that both had different intentions for the same land. The Indian wanted to worship the earth just as progressives do. The cowboy wanted to tame it, just as conservatives do. And that fight is as alive today as it was in the times of Hugh Glass. My hope is that if director Alejandro G. Iñárritu went to all the trouble of making the crew’s life miserable on-set with on location shoots that were torturous, all in an attempt to capture the real lighting of hard frontier life, then he’ll go the rest of the way to tell the story of real heroics that shaped America. And that story knows no political party. I can’t wait to see The Revenant.
Dear reader, if you go back to my arguments on the radio, in the newspapers, on television, and in public speeches about the state of education in 2010, then look around the colleges and public schools of our day now—you’ll understand what I was saying. It has come to fruition. And there is no going back. The tragedy will have to run its course. The situation was dire when I was talking about it then, but now that train has come and already left the station and the tracks that it’s on will take our country through one of its darkest periods. My children are members of this Millennial age that have had their minds nearly completely destroyed by progressive politics and public education. Only my children had the benefit of being home schooled for a time and had very traditional parents who helped them through the minefield of modern progressivism. All the things I write about on this site they’ve heard from me before in person. But most children weren’t so lucky, and it shows.
A lot has been said of this Millennial generation. I’m not a fan of them. I didn’t even like my own generation, or my parents generation. My favorite generation was that of my grandparents days, so I won’t rationalize my own generation or those of the idiot sixty’s flower children as being better than the present one. They weren’t, in fact they set the stage for the mess that the Millennials find themselves in. The parents of these poor children allowed themselves to be pulled into the lure of dual income homes leaving kids to raise themselves. The mothers allowed themselves to be emasculated into more of a male role within the home all in search for “equal rights,” which was a mistake. And the net result has been catastrophic. The Millennials are a self-entitled group who had to raise themselves by parents who felt guilty about what they’ve done to those poor children. The parents wanted to believe the government—that if they spent $50,000 to $100,000 on a college education that they could purchase success for their children—but it didn’t work. It only liberalized those kids into believing the platform of the Democratic Party. In just a few short years those kids will be voting and in charge of our nation—and they aren’t intellectually prepared for it.
And I will be there to tell everyone so. As the world walks toward that edge of social, economic, and intellectual destruction—I will not be with it. The current toward that destruction may be swift but I will continue to stand against it and will be there to rub everyone’s face in the dung of their own creation—just as I have for years against those who are openly making serious mistakes in their own families driven by social pressure. For instance, I had an aunt once who tried to emasculate my wife—since she was a stay-at-home mom who poured everything into raising our children—which I fully supported by working two full-time jobs and all the overtime I could get at them to make the money our family needed. Our social rejection of progressive engineering within the family structure made other family members uncomfortable with their own choices so some of the more radicalized feminists sought to undermine my wife behind my back—many times—with pressure lunches encouraging her to go build a life for herself outside of our home. Of course that angered me, but I always let my wife make her own decisions and eventually she always snapped into the right frame of mind without my input. I certainly gave my opinion, but I always let her make up her own mind—even if it personally cost me a great deal. Because if we weren’t both on the same page, it would flow over into our children—so I’d allow those types of manipulations knowing the intent hoping my wife would come to the same conclusion after our discussions. She always did and on that particular occasion that braless feminist angry at my wife for her life decisions threatened at the end of the meeting—uncharacteristically violent—“we women must stick together.” We haven’t spoken to that person in over a decade—only on the most polite of occasions, a death or some other unfortunate gathering. I never forget things like that, and neither does my wife, not for the sake of holding a grudge, but because it is people like that who have made this ridiculous generation of the Millennials.
Millennials are lazy, entitled, essentially neurotic spoiled brats. They take too many drugs, have too low of a pain threshold, and are messes politically. They pick government dependence over self-reliance because it gives them more game time on their Xboxs and social networks. They don’t make the connection between productivity and healthy living because nobody taught them anything about any of that. They are lost, weak, and intellectually soft. Their music is depressing, their world outlook shaped for them by public education is too liberalized, and they are going to make terrible parents because they don’t want to work at it. They want to buy a good child like a fast food hamburger. They make no connection between hard work and success—even though many of them will work hard to become proficient at Call of Duty. They certainly don’t work to keep a car nice, or to maintain a home, or a job. If they have they slightest little fever, the call off work and log onto Facebook. They figure the world will go on whether or not they show up for work and they take that attitude with them to everything in life.
I told the kids who interviewed me during the Lakota debates between 2010 and 2012 what was coming their way and they’d look at me like I was an out-dated old man warning them about it being too cold outside. Now just three years later many of them are in their early or late twenties and they are starting to see the writing on the wall. Rent is too high, jobs pay too little, relationships are too hard, and children soak up all their “me” time. Life is hard and they don’t know how to work on their own cars, they stay on their parent’s insurance plans too long, or they just get on government help having the honor of providing for themselves stolen before they ever get started in life, and their nation will soon be $20 trillion in debt with little to no hope in paying that money off with a declining GDP nationally, because those Millennials won’t fight to start a new business—it’s just too hard and regulations make it impossible for their short attention spans to muscle through. Government has loaded up opposition and they lack the will to fight back. So bad times are coming for their poor generation which has been excessively fortunate up to this point—but that will change rapidly in the years to come.
Unfortunately for everyone else, I am right most of the time. If I care enough about something to declare it in some sort of statement, then I know enough to give a warning. If people listened, they could save themselves a lot of trouble. But most of them don’t. I saw a fabulous looking young Millennial woman the other day. She had all the features of a top Victoria Secret model, and she couldn’t have been much older than 21. However, she had a nose piercing, tongue piercing, and an eye brow piercing–gauges in her ears and she had full body tattoos that were visible through her lace stockings and mid-section which was revealed to everyone as she stood confidently smoking on a lunch break. She was working retail selling perfume for a nice establishment and she looked far from a skank. Most of the men with me gave her that “I’d like to plow that” type of middle-aged stare, but I felt sorry for the girl. In just a few years those tattoos would start to look terrible. By the time she’s forty, they will be embarrassments on saggy skin. The holes she’s put in her body will never really heal, but will leave behind scar tissue. When she’s fifty she’ll look like she was a burn victim in a fire—her skin will stay stretched out in proportion for the rest of her life. And she’ll lose all her moral authority for her eventual children because her past will be on full display for them to see during those important impressionable first years.
The saddest thing of all is that she’s not alone—she’s actually quite common. She was prettier than most, but the results all lead to the same place. If her generation is detrimentally terrible, then her kids will be worse—because she will have proven herself to be a terrible role model and we now know that public schools and colleges are unable to complete the job of raising proper children. They ruin them. So her children will have no hope whatsoever of a happy and good life. I’m as sure of it as she was standing there. All of life is a math problem. You don’t put together a negative and a negative and get a positive. In fact, a positive and a negative lead to a negative. Only a string of positives can provide a net result toward desirable outcomes. If three negatives are introduced to a child’s life, then six positives are needed to overcome the quantitative effects toward a net gain. It’s not hard to figure these things out.
Now, as is evident in the videos above, it has started—and it will be a mess. The evidence is literally everywhere and its all coming unraveled much faster than anybody was prepared for. There will come a day when the kids of the kids of these Millennials will want to go back in time and fix everything. For them, I will write it all down so that they can have a playbook on how to get out of the quandary they inherited. I don’t blame the Millennials for being complete idiots. They were raised by my generation who listened to the generation before as those old hippies failed to maintain a proper national philosophy in favor of the family unit. But that is all water flowing under the bridge now. There is no stopping it, the damage is done. But once those waters recede, there will be a future who will want to rebuild, and for them I will proudly declare that I always stood on the right side of history, and will gladly show them how to live correctly toward the proper objectives that are best for themselves, and their society. Inwardly however, I will say proudly—“I told you so.”
I’ll have to admit that I was extremely disappointed with Ronda Rousey losing her UFC match with Holly Holm. Of course there was also the passive global response to the Paris terrorist attacks where a lot of tough talk came out sounding like two gay guys fighting over a pillow. Then I watched the Democratic debate on CBS primetime and it was clear that every one of those losers on stage was a bra burning socialist right out of a campfire song from Leningrad. I watched those idiots for as long as I could take it and went to bed realizing that it was no wonder that we are currently at an ideological civil war within the United States—and the globe in general. Even the mystique of Ronda Rousey was being consumed by a vortex of come latelys. The same forces that put her on a pedestal were the same pendulum swing masses that would throw their support behind Holly Holm and fling joyous gazes at another fallen hero. Nobody was perfect in this world of Democrats and to hide that reality they were most comfortable under the blanket of the masses voting in favor of government assistance, dishonorable lifestyles, and endearing sympathies that justified their short aims in life. Ronda had been pulled back down to earth with them, and most people secretly loved it.
But not me. I spent the next day shooting and it was very refreshing. After more than a decade of heavy use I have a new hat which I needed to get used to. This one is made of leather and it still had the strong smell associated with new products made with that durable material. After several hours of shooting about 300 rounds through a single action revolver, which takes some time, my temper had ebbed to the soothing smell of gunpowder mixed with leather—and all was right with the world once again.
My equipment from the Cowboy Fast Draw Association worked even better than I had previously praised, and for me that was a big deal. Out of all the broken promises that there are in life, out of all the things that fail to live up to their expectations, like the Ronda Rousey fight, sometimes a surprise presents itself at just the right time. I had recently had a nice night out with my kids to the local Cinebistro to see a good James Bond film, and had a rare day off to just shoot all day with my Vaquero and other Cowboy Fast Draw Association materials. I was able to turn on the football games and listen to them while I shot and it was just a heavenly experience.
My times were fast by traditional standards in Cowboy Fast Draw, as defined by movies, television and action stars from the 1950s. But not fast enough for the best that are out there, so I had a lot of work to do. I was shooting in the .650s of a second range and that time would have to be cut by more than half to be competitive in Cowboy Fast Draw. But that’s OK, its part of the fun and mental acuity that you have to go through while training. For me, it will be a long road, but at least I enjoy the elements of that path, gunsmoke and leather. The only other smells that might surpass those two is the aroma of a newly printed book.
For the rest of the day I had that great smell of gunpowder on my fingers. After every six shots in Cowboy Fast Draw you have to reload your equipment. First you apply a new wax bullet into your Colt .45 casings. I have a tool that pushes those bullets down to the proper depth that works wonderfully well—otherwise the constant reloading could be frustrating. Then you apply a 209 shotgun primer into a specially machined recess in your casing which propels the load. It’s all quite effective and soothing. The process of loading the ammunition is a special one that puts you in touch with the type of skills that built America to begin with. America wasn’t built by socialists, and liberal academics—they were the come-lately types. They arrived once everything was set and the land of a new world won by the heroics and bravery of frontiersman and their families. In Cowboy Fast Draw it was that America we celebrate–the one that won a new land for all to live freely in.
Liberals like the idiots on the primetime stage during November 14th 2015 hate the cowboy because they took land from the Indian whom they assume were the natives of the continent. But among those tribes were many land grabs and battles between each other. They fought and earned respect for one another like Ronda Rousey and Holly Holm in modern UFC fighting. What Holm had done was equivalent to Chief Pontiac cutting off the head of Tecumseh and mailing it back to the Shawnee to show their dominance—which if they could have—they would. But along came Simon Kenton, Daniel Boone and several other frontiersmen armed with muzzle loaders who beat the Shawnee and Ottawa then cultivated the land of their conquests. They won it fair and square, just as Holly Holm had done against Ronda Rousey. They were better equipped, and more adequately mentally prepared for the task. My hometown of Liberty Township was won in just such a way. The frontiersman who settled my home territory were direct descendents of this epic struggle. When I get excited about the new Liberty Center area I think of this massive transition of land use, from being a territory of Indian camps to a wilderness empire of frontiersman fleeing the religious oppression of Europe to live a life of risk in a New World. To what it’s become, an essentially Galt’s Gulch of productivity and industry—an epicenter of capitalism—glorious and as wonderful as it is in a raw form.
The liberals running for president of the United States would all be aghast at my shooting hobby, which I have set up inside my house with a perfectly safe range meant to suppress the sound of gunshots and prevent any danger to anybody. They favor the Indian in the conflict of the frontiersman whereas I favor Simon Kenton and Daniel Boone. We are a story of two Americas, liberals and their Indians, and conservatives and their cowboys.
As gunsmoke danced from my gun in the afternoon light and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers played football in Ramond James Stadium against the Dallas Cowboys I thought of Ronda Rousey’s defeat to Holly Holm as the surprise attack of Fort Pickawillany by French led Ottawa Indians who butchered everyone in the English trading settlement. I think of that battle often as it is just upstream from the very river I live on. Actually, I think of all the battles around the Cincinnati area as they paved the way west for mankind to step forward. If Indians had not been conquered the liberals of our modern age would still be in Europe and would be taking with them a land straight out of the Spanish Inquisition—back to the nomads and the huts of hunters and gathering people. The skills of Cowboy Fast Draw are a celebration of what made America great. It’s not the defeat of the Indian so much as freeing them as well from a cycle of destruction that was occurring on a different scale—only not measured by European eyes. These measurements are invisible to the fools of the Democratic Party. Ronda got caught looking, the celebrity of her success, the world eating out of her hand—it was Rocky III for her and she wasn’t prepared for what Holly Holms threw at her.
As I cleaned my gun and put it away for that session I thought about France and their role in the Pickawillany attack. As a country they were quite aggressive in their early days, but now they were dominated by liberals in politics that have turned them into a global laughing-stock. Now they are a clawless nation of pacifists and topless art—but little else. That is because they allowed themselves to be taken over as a nation by the same socialists that are trying to become president of the United States after eight years of Obama’s little “c” communism. If that’s allowed to happen—which obviously CBS television is hoping to help usher in, then America will follow France to being a laughing-stock nation. That’s not acceptable to me. Republican debates were shown on cable television, but the Democrats were put on the networks after only one previously boring diatribe of socialists, and communists wearing a mask of progressivism to take the edge off their presentation. But what stands in the way of those insurgents getting their way in America is in the gun. No wonder Democrats want to ban them. It was the gun which defeated the Indian during the frontier wars. And it was the gun that keeps the Democrats at bay now. It is the lack of guns that make France such an easy terrorist target—so what lesson do we have to learn here? Join Second Call Defense, clean your guns, and get some gun powder on your skin to keep your mind right. Because even superpowers can lose—just ask Ronda Rousey. Don’t take anything for granted.
First of all, Spectre was essentially the epitome of what we all fear regarding the NSA program in the United States. Considering that James Bond is a British film franchise that has its largest market in America, it’s always interesting to see how the world views issues through James Bond stories intended for specifically American eyes. I have to point out that the reason that James Bond was successful as a “supers spy” is specifically because he is willing to break the rules all the time and do what he thinks is right as an individual. James Bond works because he acts as an individual who will violate the chain of his command structure to do what he thinks is right. That is why James Bond is one of the best overman characters in cinema and so long as the filmmakers know and accept that—James Bond films will be successful. James Bond films are not so good when he becomes a “duty first” sacrificial lamb working toward progressive causes. In those types of stories, James Bond falters. But in Spectre, James Bond is an overman—and he succeeds because of it—and so does the story.
In that fashion this latest film has been criticized as being a less “progressive” film and more of a throwback to the early Sean Connery films—which I thought was always the point of the Daniel Craig stories. Bond has little weaknesses, never appears to be unsure of himself, and always manages to get a situation under control. That’s wonderful—it’s why I go see James Bond movies as opposed to some of the more recent garbage where the main characters are all emotional about their parents, or their role in the universe. James Bond is sure of himself and likes the skin he lives in. That makes him a wonderful character.
English society loves rules and following them. They are some of the most proper people on the planet by their very nature. I enjoy them most of the time because at least they have wonderful values—as a nation. But, Bond works best when he disobeys orders, wither its direct commands from “M” or he’s harassing “Q” or stepping around the constructs of social well-being for the benefit of objectives only he can see. So it’s interesting that England has embraced James Bond with such open arms because he reveals about them the suppressed nature of their national consciousness. James Bond is the English version of an American cowboy—a rugged individualist functioning from their own blissful nature—without the confinement of social impositions. If he wants to make love to a woman, he does it. If he wants to save the world—he does it even if his superiors tell him to stand down. That’s a very important distinction.
Then you get into the other side of the European mindset, the constant references in the film to how government could never afford such a luxurious surveillance program as the character “C” is in charge of, that only the private sector can. Such a conversation occurred between “M” and a fellow bureaucrat as they discussed eliminating the 00 program of counter-intelligence for which James Bond works. The interesting aspect of all this is that 007, otherwise known as James Bond is a government worker and the personal identity of all the other government workers are only known by their employment positions—such as “M,” “Q,” or “C.” Their individual names are not relevant to their social context within the movie. So within all James Bond films is this strange dance between duty and national loyalty and individual free will as James Bond walks the very fine line between them.
An interesting transition occurred as James Bond was discovered at a secret society meeting of a group called Spectre and their plans for world domination through global surveillance programs—while in a car chase Bond was on the phone with Miss Moneypenny which is being recorded secretly by “C.” Bond has broken from his command by “M” to remain in London but is instead fleeing an aggressor in Rome. Moneypenny gives Bond the information he needs which allows for the adventure to continue, but later when “C” wants to slam “M” for not having control of his agents to justify the global surveillance program he is initiating with Spectre, it is brought up strategically to put justification for insurrection on the out-dated government organization which is made out in this case to be a heroic enterprise. “M” isn’t mad at Bond for disobeying him, it’s at “C” for using a big brother nanny state to take control of his “old school” 00 program, very interesting paradoxes there.
Of course I don’t mean to spoil the ending, but at the conclusion of the story obviously it involves Bond in an individual situation of value versus the greater good. He picks love for his own selfish reasons and the story concludes putting his needs before the needs of the state. He was literally on a bridge with his girlfriend on one end and his boss “M” at the other. He walked deliberately toward her and that was the parting shot of the film. Obviously the movie resonated with audiences and the picture made well over $100 million on its opening weekend. People agreed with James Bond’s decision. If he had walked toward “M” Bond would be a lot less cool. That’s something to note.
The formula with Bond as opposed to other franchises is that it gives people the surface values they feel in their society, love of country, loyalty to a cause, sacrifice, honor as assessed by collective opinion. But additionally it touches the subconscious of individual necessity and value. Bond is an individual that will disobey all the rules of society to do what’s right which only he can see. Ultimately in all Bond movies that are successful, this is the relationship Bond has with the institutions of his life, and it’s why people continue to cheer him to victory each time after over five decades of film telling essentially the same story over and over again with new actors, updated visuals, but essentially the same conflict on the screen—Bond against an ultimate villain, and Bond against the institution. At the conclusion of each film when Bond outsmarts both antagonists, the literal villain and the institutions of his life successfully while still fulfilling the mission parameters that always embody the greater good; we love the movies with successful box office earnings.
Personally, I loved the various metaphors of this latest Bond installment. There were a lot, and they were intelligent. The filmmakers obviously went the extra mile to deliver a film filled with a visual commentary on the condition of our modern era. As I’ve said previously, the opening scene was spectacular; the fight on the train was very classic—and suspenseful. The car chase and style of the secret society meeting which was very reminiscent of Eyes Wide Shut was done with great taste and cinematic skill. It was compelling to say the least given many of the concerns of our real political society these days. There may not be so much fiction in it as we would like to believe. All in all, Spectre was a great film, not because James Bond was a loyal agent to His Majesty’s Secret Service, but because he was an individual who literally pushed the world away in order to save it. Powerful stuff if it is understood literally and not just subconsciously. With that context in mind, listen to the words of the theme song—“Writing on the Wall” and you will hear a small work of genius into the plight of the individual against the collective.
Spectre is a movie well worth watching, and if you are lucky enough to live near the Cinebistro at Liberty Center—go see it there with a nice bottle of wine and a juicy self-indulged steak. Maybe even have a martini shaken, but not stirred for some good fun. It’s that kind of movie and one that you will leave with no regrets and maybe a few advanced thoughts about the condition of the human race and the paradoxes of our existence. The English know they are there, but they can’t seem to admit to them in the light of day—only in the magic of a darkened theater under the light of the silver screen.
Based on the Saturday Night Live skit, not the Fox Business Debate that took place on November 10, 2015, Donald Trump should be president. Of course I liked a little of what most of the candidates talked about during the debate—which was much, much better than the CNBC debate. (I’m still surprised that there is such a channel as CNBC.) But the real test of a modern president was not shown during the debates, it was on Saturday Night Live which I think was far bigger of an impact on the future of politics than anybody really has put forth in an analysis. If Bill Clinton had his saxophone moment to show he was a unique politician that launched him to victory in 1992, Donald Trump had his just a few days before the big Fox Business debate on SNL. The skit where America was a few years into the Trump presidency was bold, and powerful. Then for Trump to declare that all that was a mild forecast underplayed meant that America has to give the billionaire a chance at the big chair—if for anything else but to call his bluff. Trump is thinking big—really big, and that is exactly what we all need right now after 28 years of really small-mindedness coming from the Executive Branch.
As much as I like to deal straight with things to make objectives happen, most of the time I have to use every tool in an intellectual tool box to accomplish the intended task—whatever it is. Sometimes you have to be forceful, sometimes very diplomatic. Most of the time nobody understands what you are doing because they all have their own time frame of accomplishment built around their perspective—which is often limited. I find I have to do a lot of maneuvering around people to get anything done, and I take into account the weaknesses of the people I’m dealing with to accomplish it. I often view these occurrences like I would talk to someone who does not speak English as a primary language. I talk to them nice and slow almost like a child not to be demeaning, but because they can’t possibly understand what I’m thinking or my passion to accomplish the task. So you find that you have to talk to everyone in their language on their terms so that they can understand what it is you want to accomplish. Other groups of people watch this behavior and assume that you are catering to the wishes of others over what they want to do and conflicts often ensue. However, in the end, everyone eventually sees what I saw in the beginning, and everyone ends up living happily ever after. But not without a lot of back stabbing, squabbling, and social manipulation—and this is true within family structures as well as multi-million dollar business transactions. I never worry about the small stuff because it’s the big stuff that matters and by the time we get there, the small stuff naturally aligns with the overall strategy anyway. So getting stuck on the details will only stop the objective.
We have been taught in our education systems that the “devil is in the details,” and often he is. Small things can kill big things if allowed to manifest in such a way that they sicken the intention with stagnation. But often, that devil can be killed with sheer will and speed. Most of the time an intense approach to a problem will overcome those details quickly unifying everyone under a common cause—even though their viewpoints are radically different—it’s a bit of a trick that time and experience can teach. It’s not a good idea to get stuck on the details when the overall objective is the target. I think of the process comparable to target shooting. You don’t think about the detail of the bullet, or the workings of the gun. You just aim and shoot, and the best way is to do it quickly with muscle memory the way I have learned in bullwhip work—because most of the time there is no luxury of aiming and shooting to hit a target. The marketplace of life demands speed and accuracy. Not just one or the other. Life requires both to be successful.
Out of all the candidates on that stage at the Fox Business debate, only Trump understands the process of thinking big and getting people of many different backgrounds and political approaches to buy into his overall strategic objective. Here’s why, Trump was able to walk onto a very liberal show like Saturday Night Live and get a bunch of very liberal writers to put together a skit like the one shown above, which contextually showed a potential Trump presidency which answered all the questions that people have been asking about him. Trump as a big thinker doesn’t sweat the small stuff, so he can’t answer those questions in a way that people who worry about every little thing will be satisfied with. But in the context of a popular progressive show on NBC which is very mainstream, Trump was able to bend everyone to his will. That’s the kind of president he will be, and he essentially made a promise that put the burden on America to take him up on the challenge. It was an irresistible proposal.
No other person on the debate stage has that kind of power, or confidence. There really isn’t any other competition on the Republican side. You can pick the nice guy in Ben Carson, or the overachiever in Donald Trump. Everyone else is just more of those 28 years of lackluster executive office presence, and the United States likely won’t survive. It won’t hold four more years let alone another decade. The debt clock is ticking up to nearly $20 trillion and there is no way to recover from that. America has to give Donald Trump a chance or else. There is no more time for hopes, dreams and details. The next president will have to be a person of epic personality to pull all the radical elements together to achieve a strategic objective only they can see. Trump revealed what was in his head on Saturday Night Live and he connived the writers and producers to help him sell that vision.
I can only imagine how Trump would behave if he were in the White House and were wheeling and dealing with congressman, senators, foreign dignitaries, and business leaders every hour on the hour. I honestly think he’d be in heaven and the net result of his joy might just carry over into the results joked about in the Saturday Night Live skit. It’s a dare our country must take. All the issues of theory are now out the window. The Democrats only have socialists to offer and the typical conservatives only have more of the same that has allowed under their watch $19 trillion in debt and loss after loss on the global stage. At some point a leader within the Republican ranks has to be willing to call that behavior stupid and Trump is the only one really poised to do that without losing his ability to negotiate. If Trump can unite the entertainment community which is crazy leftist in their approach to all social problems, then he can do it with the world at large. I see no downside to a Trump as president. I only see positives.
I have never been a fan of Pink Floyd. First of all the name is ridiculously passive. Secondly, I associate them with the drug culture. But most of all, the music is just too depressing. It belongs in 1980s East Berlin or at the grave of Karl Marx as opposed to the vibrant white picket fences of Indiana, or Kentucky—the heart of the United States. While certain songs I understand, like “The Wall,” along with the music video from the movie—the front man for the group, Roger Waters, who is part of the British Invasion of that country’s contributions to American music—is a flaming socialist—by his own admission. So I have never liked them as a group. Actually, their music disgusts me, even when I was young and the music was popular. In a race between the suckest bands in history—to me the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd are engaged in a homosexual coupling at the finish line. In my car at the height of Pink Floyd’s popularity during the 80s there were two things completely off-limits to anyone who rode with me. First, nobody was allowed to smoke. I had very strict rules against smoking. Given that I had one of the nicest cars in my graduating class, people forgave me for it—because they wanted to ride in my car. It was a place to be seen, so people didn’t smoke in my car. Second, Pink Floyd music was not allowed. I was sometimes violently opposed to it because it was so anti-American to me. It did not have the optimism I expected from American culture and I flatly rejected it. In regard to Roger Waters, I despise him as an artist and a human being because he is the face of Pink Floyd.
In that regard I find myself strangely agreeing with Howard Stern whom is another pop culture personality that I’m not a fan of. Regarding Howard, I don’t like his moral position, I don’t like his on-air belching, and I don’t like his sophomoric perversions. But I did like his movie Private Parts and his persistence within the radio industry. Knowing friends in radio who have been through what he has, I can at least respect what he did as a capitalist. Howard Stern may be a lot of bad things, but he is pretty smart and is a product of American capitalism. He stuck to and fought through a lot, so I can at least admire parts of him. But he’s not someone I share many opinions with—except lately when it comes to Roger Waters.
Recently, Stern and Waters have had a very public feud between them over the United States relationship with Israel. Waters is mysteriously anti-Israel—Stern pro Israel—definitely going against the grain within the entertainment industry. If Waters is so angry at Israel and the Jews for living somewhere, then he should be angry at his own country of England for their structuring of the Sykes-Pikot agreement right after World War I. That is what caused all the current mess. The United States was a reluctant participant. Both Stern and Waters are wrong to compare the eradication of Indian populations with the Jews living in Israel against Palestinian will. Jews have to live someplace and they have been driven from every land they inhabited at sometime or another. The Indians were at least given the time of day after they were conquered. The reason for the conquest was out of necessity—but compassion was at least provided to them. They were invited to assimilate into American culture and given a seat at the table through cultural integration. You don’t see Southerners protesting the town of Cherokee, North Carolina because it is largely ran and operated by Indians. Tourists flock to the region and enjoy Indian culture. Nobody is trying to kill them just because they existed or still hold property in America. Americans and Indians worked out their differences and shared the wealth as much as possible, so its time to stop complaining. The two issues are not comparable, Jews and Indians.
The feud has gone on over the last several months largely through progressive publications. Readers here likely didn’t notice the remarks in Salon, or Rolling Stone as the two pop culture icons have fought it out over support of Israel within the left-leaning entertainment sources. Waters even went so far to send an open letter against Bon Jovi for performing in Israel recently—which is how radical his position is. Clearly to me when you understand Middle East politics beyond the Sykes-Pikot agreement the underlining issue to the political right and left regarding Israel is one of support of capitalism over socialism. The Palestinians and much of the radicalization of the Middle East from ISIS to Iran comes from the Iranian Revolution during the 70s where Russian-backed communists overtook the country. The American CIA and other forces tried to off-set the communists with dictators to fight them off and keep the region from forming a communist caliphate using oil to fund another global power directly connected to Russia. The fights in the Middle East were not about oil so much as it was about keeping oil out of communist hands to feed Russian aggression toward the United States during the Cold War. Out of all the areas of the Middle East, really, only Israel has embraced capitalism. Every other region is a dust pit of repressed people broken and poor because of the failures of Marxist philosophies that have been carefully hidden behind radicalized Islamic religion. That is precisely why those on the political left are anti-Israel and anti-American in regard to Middle East involvement. Here is how Rolling Stone reported this issue in a way that the masses can understand.
Roger Waters may not want to “waste a single precious breath on that asshole” after Howard Stern accused the Pink Floyd co-founder of wanting “Jews to go back to the concentration camp,” but on Stern’s radio show this week, the host made it clear he wasn’t going to lay off the subject. “I’m not the only asshole,” Stern said. “I’m just the only asshole brave enough to take him on. For some reason, it’s become very important to Roger to tell artists where to perform. There’s so many countries with histories of abuse and slavery, but he’s very focused on Israel. To me, he comes off like an anti-Semite.”
“Defending Israel isn’t fashionable, I know,” Stern said. “It is a tremendous distraction for Arab leaders to say, ‘Let’s get the Jews, let’s get Israel, it’s all their fault.’ As long as their poor people are focused on Israel they don’t wake up and realize who is stealing their money. Their lives aren’t getting any better from all this crap, so don’t be fooled by Roger and his statements.” Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/howard-stern-on-roger-waters-he-comes-off-like-an-anti-semite-20151105#ixzz3qznpVfDz
If you doubt dear reader what I’ve said about Roger Water’s open support of socialism keep in mind that he currently supports Bernie Sanders for president and he has said so glowingly in that same Rolling Stone magazine, only in a different article. You can read that in the section below along with a link to the source. This is what the front man for Pink Floyd is all about. This is the person you have supported all these years by listening to Pink Floyd music. Isn’t that nice to know?
I just think the term “socialist” freaks a lot of people out.
Socialism is a good thing! What is wrong with socialism? You are the only country that I’ve ever heard of that buses its kids to school in the morning. What is that if not socialist? I am serious! I know nowhere else in the world. Then you go, “What the hell is that about?” “Well, we don’t want our kids to walk through dangerous neighborhoods to get to school, so we send a bus to pick them up at their front door and take them home afterwards.” And you go, “Wow, great.” That is pure socialism, and it is correct.
If you had socialized medicine as well, then we could really start calling you a socialist country. At least you have a better medical system now, thanks to Barack Obama, thanks to the executive branch of this administration that we are now seeing draw to a close. But it’s nothing like the healthcare you get in any of the other 30 major civilized countries in the world. Your healthcare is great if you are very, very, very rich and you have some rare form of cancer. You have the best brain surgeons or whatever in the world, but they service a tiny, tiny proportion of people. But by and large, your healthcare is dreadful, and the cost of it is almost double anywhere else in the world, and you get half the service for it. You know why?
Why? Because it goes to the fucking insurance companies and to the profits of the drug lords and drug companies. It has skimmed off its profit, and it shouldn’t be! Medicine should be provided to all the people, all of the time, for a moderate cost. Of course the drug companies should make moderate profits and of course insurance companies should make moderate profits, but they don’t. They are like loan sharks. They are ripping the heart out of everyone, and they are gouging as hard and fast as they can. That is the world we live in.
That should do it, Roger. Thanks for doing this. You know what you need, don’t you?
Could the situation be clearer? Here is a person who has made vast amounts of money selling the same damn album for thirty years to millions of drug induced idiots then he takes that money and the platform provided to him through capitalism and advocates socialism—which is currently crippling Europe economically.
It is because of Roger Waters that I have always hated Pink Floyd—as it was always the product of his radicalism. I hated the movie The Wall—it was not a work of genius the way kids used to think it was—it was a loser’s opinion on a life out-of-control largely because the artist was a victim of socialism and used capitalism to launch his opinion to the world. By the way, Roger Waters is terrified that Donald Trump will become president of the United States—which he talked about in that same interview. That is even more of a reason that I so adamantly support Donald Trump for president—because if he does nothing else, he will make Roger Waters angry—and terrified. An upset member of Pink Floyd is a wonderful thing. They may have legions of fans that grossly outnumber conservatives on this issue, but one million insects really isn’t much of a fight against one large conservative foot.
Listen, America has endured constant attacks by thousands of people like Roger Waters over the years and capitalism has held up, as well as the United States, under really intense scrutiny. Waters is right about school buses picking up kids and taking them to school. Parents should drive their own kids, and parents should have the ability to pick the best school for their kids with open competition. I won’t argue with Waters that our education system is corrupted beyond repair with socialism—vast amounts of it. I’m ready to end it all and rebuild it completely with free market alternatives. But its time for America to stop apologizing to idiots like Roger Waters and his radical leftist friends who need you to smoke a lot of dope to think their music is brilliant, and to advocate the things you like without guilt—such as support for Israel and guns—a very armed public loaded to the teeth with guns, guns and more guns. Because the socialists are out there in just about every mode of entertainment and industry, and they want the fruits of your labor. And they are more open about it now than ever before. It’s time to show them the results of that approach and what it does for them. It’s nice to see Howard Stern doing the right thing. In the case of speaking out against Roger Waters, I am a Howard Stern fan.
It’s been about five days and I think my temper has calmed down enough to talk about this activist liberal at the Lady of Lourdes elementary school in Cincinnati, Ohio. Claiming to have a zero policy toward violence, imitated or otherwise, principal Joe Crachiolo over reacted to a 6-year-old pretending to be a Power Ranger at recess with a pretend bow and arrow shooting another kid during play. The suspension lasted three days and is in effect as of this writing. The parents, obviously better than the average public school participant because they cared enough about their school to send their child to something other than a public school—which is far worse than Lady of Lourdes—took an active role in defending their child from the progressive activism of Crachiolo.
Now, I know Crachiolo has a cat named Snowball, so he’s seen that animal as a kitten play with yarn—or mock hunt a piece of paper from a gift wrap. Hunting and defending oneself is part of every living things most primal instinct. What the young Miele boy was doing was perfectly normal and should be encouraged. Yet Crachiolo decided to accept the modern passive stance in favor of collectivism and radically impose on a first grade child something he obviously knows nothing about. Crachiolo’s concept of a valiant human being is one embodying passivism that does what they are told. The young boy from the Miele family wants to be a hero, where the individual helps society from the benefit of personal decisions and aggressive action. That’s what such young children are pretending to be when they play aggressively from the vantage point of a hero.
I share in common with Crachiolo a love of Disney World. For a time he taught 7th and 8th grade religion and social studies at Mother Teresa Catholic Elementary in West Chester—so he can’t be all bad. He grew up in Loveland and graduated from St. Columban. He also went to Moeller and studied at U.C. and Northern Kentucky University. Apparently he and his wife only have a cat in their family named Snowball, as they have not had the opportunity to test themselves as parents actually raising a child through the furnace of reality. Joe instead had done the next best thing after receiving a lifetime of progressive education in primarily religious institutions—he has taught young people. But at the end of the day, unlike the parents of the Miele boy, he goes home to his wife and his cat with his hands clean of the actual responsibility of raising a child.
Abusing his power as a principal at Lady of Lourdes elementary school hoping to cash in on some brownie points as a defender of violence so prevalent these days in schools of all kinds—as society has lost it’s values and is turning toward death and destruction as a by-product of mismanaged lives—Joe is trying to destroy in children their innate need to defend themselves. What Joe is attempting to do to the Miele child is equivalent to de-clawing his cat Snowball after raising it from a baby to be fed every day in the luxury of their home then suddenly dropping it off in the woods to fend for itself from other cats, raccoons, and coyotes and expecting that cat to live through the night. These modern educators at virtually every level have been taught incorrectly how to prepare children for a world they know nothing about. They live in a bubble of academia that has been shaped by progressive sentiment, and they are destroying entire generations of young Americans in just this very way.
In spite of educator’s efforts to “manage” society away from violence through either religion, or institutions of learning, all they have achieved is the weakening of valor among our otherwise gifted youth leaving them like that example of Snowball de-clawed and helpless in the woods at night to hunt for itself in a world wanting to eat it. Snowball wouldn’t last two hours in a hostile environment, unable to hunt for its own food because it had no claws, or defend itself from other predators. Joe and similar educators are attempting to do that same thing to our youth by taking away the weapons of their minds and altering them to be nice pets that do what they are told by a society who manages their lives.
Like most educators Joe Crachiolo gets to live through other people’s children. The parents of the kids he teaches take all the responsibility for actually raising the children. Joe just sits on an intellectual pedestal untested in reality like his cat Snowball and pretends to be an authority on what’s best. By teaching he gets to give himself the illusion of shaping the minds of young people, but without the burden of having the responsibility of actually doing it. People like Joe—who list their cats as actual family members—have very little understanding of what it takes to raise a child outside of an education institution. Within that world of religion and intellectual Starbucks philosophizing—he may be a hero for attempting to de-claw a child from pretending to be a hero at recess—but in the world outside of institutionalism—he is just another vile activist destroying our American children.
I’m proud of the Miele parents for standing up for their son in the face of so much national attention. It is embarrassing that such a thing is actually happening in Cincinnati. You might expect it in liberal cesspools such as San Francisco and New York, but not in Cincinnati. But the mood of instruction most taught these days to our youth is this de-clawing method of breaking down children into a kind of mush for public consumption—wealth-redistribution, social justice, and all the trappings of the Pharisees who prosecuted the defenseless Jesus Christ. Turn society into the weak and meek so that they can give people like Joe and his cat Snowball a seat at the table of valor—without having a cell in their body behold the value. When we allow overly educated activists to destroy the values our children need to have to live in a capitalist society, then we have crippled those young minds for no reason but to bridge over the insecurities of intelligentsia. The real motive has always been to de-claw children starting with their minds with the hope that our capitalist society would fail leaving nobody able to act aggressively against anyone else. But what they’ve done in the process is destroy the essence of what it means to be a human being.
The world needs more heroes not less of them. I commend the young six-year-old in playing Power Rangers. He’d fit in well around my house where I openly play shoot em’ up with my grandson quite a lot. Good luck in stopping that—a lot of people have tried. Activists know what happens when they sneak around my house looking for ill intentions of submission and blind compliance. They don’t get close to what they came for—quite the opposite. I think every child in the world should be required to play cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, or Power Rangers, whatever invokes in them the spark of learning self-defense so when they are confronted at some future time with actual violence, they know what to do.
Further people like Joe Crachiolo should be required to carry a gun otherwise they would be unqualified to manage a large contingent of youth gathered under his care. If a bad guy came into that school, it would be his job to eliminate that threat, not sitting in his office planning his next Disney vacation. Anyone who loves Disney World, especially the Frontierland understands that Uncle Walt fully intended that Americans not forget about their past in fighting for their freedom. In Frontierland, playing with guns is something the place naturally invokes. Modern progressive management at Disney World may think as Joe does, that violence needs to be eradicated from our society with a gradual emphasis away from such tasks and on to more intellectual pursuits. But they’d be wrong—of course. All they are really doing is de-clawing children needlessly and to their own future demise. Just ask Joe’s cat Snowball. I doubt that poor animal could hold its own against a wild raccoon. And in the future, neither will the children taught under Joe’s care. When they fail, it will be his fault and many people like him.
The night before I watched the very exciting Battle of Ohio at Paul Brown Stadium where the Bengals continued to have an impressive season. It was Thursday Night Football and the nation was watching. The night was long and the crowd was rowdy, but it was enchanting to watch the game from the Club section with the same demographic type of people who will enjoy the new Liberty Center. However, once the game was over, I shared with tens of thousands of other people a strong desire to get back to our cars and get on the road—which clogged up I-75 all the way back to West Chester. The highway really didn’t begin to move until we moved north passed the I-275 bridge. We were all going home from the Bengal game to the same place. It was well passed midnight and we just wanted to get to our beds. That was a persistent thought that I had all evening during the football game. Take away the Bengals, the Reds, the museum and an occasional theater play and there isn’t much that downtown Cincinnati has to offer. Sure they have nice dinner options, but downtown is such a pain in the neck to travel around. For the people who can afford it, such as the people in the Club section at the Bengal game, once the fun was over, they wanted to get back to their homes—north of Cincinnati in the suburbs of West Chester, Liberty Township and Mason.
For years I have enjoyed going downtown for the exotic experiences that you can have there, but have more than once been dismayed at how trashy it was. For instance, when you’re walking around with your date in front of Fountain Square with the Westin Hotel in the background, you want to enjoy the luxury and options of the setting, but then some dude walks by with his pants half down cursing up a storm looking like he just crawled out of the gutter—which most of the time he has, it tends to alter an otherwise good mood. You may have just spent $400 at Ruby’s Steakhouse and had an otherwise nice time until something like that happens. Cincinnati, because of the environment they’ve allowed to percolate just wasted your money on the experience you were trying to have. At the Bengal game, money flowed better so long as there was a set-up that allowed people who wanted to enjoy the game without a lot of ruckus to do so with a pretty decent guarantee that the exchange would be worth it. Those same people didn’t want to spend much time not getting to their car and were eager to get back to friendlier territory as soon as the drama of the game was done. So much of the imagery shown on the television of the downtown cityscape was an illusion, it wasn’t real. Downtown was dead because the people best able to support it wanted to get as far away as possible once it came down to putting money on the table for a nice evening. Snobby, sure it is and there is nothing wrong with that. People of value enjoy association with other people of value. If other people don’t share those values, then there will be tension, and in this day and age where political correctness is choking off our opinions, people vote with their wallets.
That brings us back to the wonderful Liberty Center downtown that is privately managed by the Steiner group which essentially gives people the Club option of shopping and dining. It has the same appeal as going to an NFL game in the Club and Box seats—it puts everything on a pedestal, keeps the riff raff at bay, and ensures that the money you spend will be worth as much as possible. And so far, I have discovered that the Rodizio is the best value of all those elements. It’s just a top class place—it reminds me of the type of place you’d find in South America without the language barriers, the sweaty hotels with half working air conditioning units, and the modern socialism that is crippling their current economy. When I walk into Rodizio each time, I think of the ancient cultures which seeded planet earth well before any established religion laid claim to history. There is an ancient truth to the place that first appealed to me. Now I find it sustaining to attend their salad bar which is only $12.99 for lunch including all the hot dishes, and pick from some very healthy selections of food prepared by a kitchen staff that really cares. But for lunch at only $19.99 you can have the whole Rodizio experience which is a business lunch bargain. So I had to try it out with those thoughts of the Bengal game fresh on my mind.
Yes Captain Hook was there and he personally cared for our table. We were very happy and the management at the Rodizio made it a very memorable experience. Our waitress, Crystal was exceptionally professional and poured a lot of passion into our experience. I had stated previously that I considered Rodizio a great business lunch option and it has certainly lived up to that assessment. This wasn’t a VIP evening, this was an actual business day in what I consider paradise—a well managed downtown where I don’t have to worry about my car, or nasty people ruining my investment dollars with degradation. To say anything less would be dishonest just for the stylishness of being politically correct. Thus far, I don’t have to worry about wasting money at Liberty Center or Rodizio. If you are taking clients or associates out to lunch to impress them, you need the whole experience, the food, the atmosphere, the people—everything that your senses perceive. It all has to work or really you are just wasting your money.
The Rodizio crew understands that investment which is why I am so glowingly supportive of them. If Liberty Center were the kind of shopping destination that John Galt would have built from the novel Atlas Shrugged, then Rodizio is one of the unique places that would belong on the pages of that classic story for all the right reasons within it. It’s better than reality, which is what I feel each time I visit the Rodizio Grill. They do a good job of caring for their customers with an experience that is better than the reality of the outside world—the world beyond the parking lot of Liberty Center.
It’s not being snobby to enjoy nice things. For me it’s all about the Metaphysics of Quality. I love a quality experience and when variables create mundane results, I often resent whatever investment I’ve put into the endeavor—whether that may by time, money, or emotion. I don’t like to waste resources—so if I do something, I like to see a return on that investment in a quality experience. When I get that I do enjoying talking about it. There is nothing wrong with setting the bar high for yourself. There is nothing wrong with playing above your head, because it can make you a better person. And there is nothing wrong with eating the best food that you can for the best price in the best place. At Rodizio Grill at Liberty Center, quality is what the experience is all about. And with that, I’m pleased to report that they are the real deal, not just a flash in the pan. If you are looking for a good place to grab lunch, they should be at the top of your list.
