If Lakota as a public education institution were viewed with the same standards as Microsoft, Apple, or the railroads of the 1890s, they would be guilty of anti-trust violations according to the Sherman Act. Lakota as all public education institutions backed by the federal government are monopolies, and the cost imposition that they inflict against communities is directly related to their anti-trust status. Using logic, Lakota should be judged by the same standards that private industry has been prosecuted under. CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SHERMAN ACT of 1890. Public schools are monopolies and they openly stand against competition which is why they cost so much in tax money. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to prosecute public schools under the Sherman Act or something like it so that competition could be implemented. Yet it would appear that all government entities under state control are exempt from The Sherman Act. This means that government can prosecute private business behaving in an anti-competitive fashion, but private industry cannot prosecute government for performing in a same manner.
In 1943, the Supreme Court first created the “state action” exemption to federal antitrust law in a case called Parker v. Brown. The California Agricultural Prorate Act of 1933 had established special marketing programs for agricultural commodities to restrict competition and raise prices for producers. Porter Brown, a raisin packer, sued W.B. Parker, the California Director of Agriculture, charging, among other things, that the California statute violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court disagreed: “We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. . . . The Sherman Act makes no mention of the state as such, and gives no hint that it was intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state.” States are thus exempt from federal antitrust law, even though California’s agricultural producers would certainly have been in violation had they made a private agreement to restrict production and increase prices.
The result of that 1943 Supreme Court case is that government has been allowed to monopolize as an anti-trust entity against the public without fear of ramifications. In the case of public schools, property owners have no choice but to pay for the public school that happens to be in their district, as designated by government—the state. The state created a monopoly status for these public education institutions to ensure their continued funding regardless of performance because there is little to no competition against them. This allows public schools like Lakota to continue to raise the prices of their service as no other competition exists to drive down their per pupil costs except for other public schools also set up with monopoly status and protected by the state under the “state action” exemption.
In a just world where the courts pursued “fairness” this practice would be highly illegal. But the courts are not intent on justice. They are intent on protecting such monopolies for their own preservation as even the courts are part of the monopoly process. They too are protected from cleaver lawyers by the “state action” exemption, and are free to provide support to the anti-trust practices of government—particularly public schools like Lakota. Lakota and their fellow public schools are every bit as guilty of anti-trust practices as the railroads of 1890 provoking the creation of the Sherman Act in the first place, as statism philosophy in government desired to control the capitalism being unleashed by the industry tycoons of the era.
For the protection of private business and residents who pay the taxes there needs to be a version of the Sherman Act introduced that protects society from the monopolies of public education. Personally, I don’t believe there should have ever been a Sherman Act—that the government overstepped it’s boundaries upon its creation. But as the current Supreme Court looks upon the case-law of the like–1943 Parker v. Brown case, they provide a way out for prosecuting their fellow public workers with anti-trust. Such excuses for statism need to be removed. If the government can prosecute industry for anti-trust violations than private interests should be able to prosecute the government with the same intention—to influence competitive options and supposedly keep costs down to the consumer.
The solitary reason that costs are out-of-control in public education institutions like Lakota is because they are monopolies. They are functioning anti-trusts protected by government to eliminate competition which drives up their costs against the communities they supposedly serve. For the protection of all tax payers, anti-trust legislation should be brought to fruition protecting all against the violations of monopoly status in public education. If the Sherman Act exists to prosecute businesses supposedly guilty of anti-trust, then a new act needs to be created so that future Supreme Courts do have the language to prosecute public sector interests that is operating as an anti-trust—such as public education.
Lakota in 2013 is seeking a new levy and they expect that nobody will question the merit of their tax demands. They can issue any financial information to the public they wish and we are stuck with the results because there is no competition. If a property owner has possession of a business or residence near the Lakota school system, they must pay taxes to the public school because of their monopoly status and lack of competition mandated by the school. When Lakota states that they have done everything they can to save money and in order to continue being a good school, they must have more money; they make those kinds of comments knowing that they have no competition to prove otherwise. Private schools and neighboring schools are not competition when they are not working to solicit the business of the same student base and when it comes to public education at Lakota it is not Lakota East against Lakota West regarding finances. One does not try to outperform the other in a race to perform the best service for the lowest cost. The reality is that Lakota as a district is under the control of a monopoly. Their costs are driven by a labor union and that group does not want ANY competition. Their mandates are created by politicians, not the free market. They are the worst kind of anti-trust there is, and it is criminal that they are allowed to exist as monopolies under different rules than what the private sector witnesses. If there were any justice, Lakota and all public schools would be prosecuted as monopolies by the federal government with the same fanfare that was shown against the railroads, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, or Microsoft. The trouble is the prosecutors would be the same people who built the current monopolies, the public workers who are the employees, lawyers and politicians who built the public education system. With the same vigor that the government proved in court that Rockefeller and the other “monopolists” who fell victim to the Sherman Act would not do the right thing and allow fairness in the marketplace, the public workers will not regulate themselves—so they must be made to do so with law—or some other method. To stand as an illegal entity with the backing of the federal government to impose their will against the tax payer as a monopoly is simply unconscionable.
For more on this issue read about it extensively at the links below:
According to Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network John Boehner is a “pinko, commmie, bed wetting, mambie pambie, hand wringing, crying, orange tinted, ‘I’ve gotta do whatever I can to save the children, the puppy dogs, and the rainbows,’ dirt bag in congress.” It should have been clear from the outset that John Boehner had been bitten by the progressive bug of statism when he took the gavel of House Speaker from Nancy Pelosi, then immediately started crying. Boehner was crying because he had gained enormous power the way he perceived it–3rd most in the entire world behind only the President and Vice President of The United States, and he was proud of himself for being elected into that position. He was proud that his peers had just voted him in congress the equivalent of the Homecoming King of a big high school football game. They had enough faith in him to protect their lobby interests on K-Street, to look the other way while they made millions off insider trading on Capitol Hill, but worse of all, did exactly what Doc and his producer Skip established during the following broadcast, use Cloward and Piven methods of overwhelming financial systems in order to create havoc allowing for massive changes in American philosophy through case-law to bring about “progressive changes.” This is what Congress led by John Boehner is guilty of doing by adopting methods of making illegal aliens legal so that they can vote in upcoming elections. Listen to that epic Doc Thompson broadcast from The Blaze Radio Network at the video below. (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE)
John Boehner recently sent Barack Obama a birthday present knowing full well that America is burning on several fronts, many inspired directly by those same Cloward and Piven strategies designed to invoke progressive changes. In the world of Capitol Hill the idiots there believe that they are royalty and actually rule over the population, and in order to stay in such power they must continuously find new ways to “game” the system in order to increase their voting blocs, and they do this by giving away the wealth of others, confiscated through government, and literally buying votes in elections based on their wealth redistribution. The Democrats have done this kind of thing for years, and now the GOP is doing the same once they suffered a stinging defeat after Barack Obama was elected for a second term.
The GOP lost the last election because they played by the rules against an opponent where anything goes. The GOP did not respond accordingly. Fewer voters participated in that election on their behalf than did in 2008 showing support for John McCain and the first possible woman vice-president Sarah Palin. Palin was publicly dismantled by attack through every branch of the media ruthlessly, even though she was a woman—because she was a conservative and had been a successful governor. McCain was simply too much of a “nice guy” to respond to any attacks from the left believing that he and his party were above such a fray. Republicans under McCain’s leadership routinely believed incorrectly that they were “above” such fisticuffs while Obama and his minions ruthlessly attacked all their political opponents with blood in their eyes and a knife behind their backs. The GOP has failed to respond to progressives in American government since Ronald Reagan was in office three decades ago. Instead, they have taken up the mantra, “if you can’t beat them—join them.”
This is how Republicans have invested so much of themselves in the new Gang of Ocho Bill that seeks to give amnesty to illegal aliens. While the budgets across the nation collapse under progressive strain, the GOP seeks to find voters for 2016 among the illegal aliens hoping to beat out the Democrats in giving away more stuff to earn those voters. Meanwhile they have surrendered ground to their old base of support assuming that they will always vote for the GOP instead of the lowly Democrats. But they have been wrong. Instead of holding their nose and voting or people like John McCain in 2008, then Mitt Romney in 2012, they just stayed home to watch sports, play video games, or went shopping. People have stopped being interested in politics because of all the crookedness that is going on in Washington, surrendering their voting rights to the illegal immigrants who mean well, but often come from statism controlled governments and see nothing wrong with taking all the free stuff the American government wants to give them to earn their votes.
This brings everything around to Doc’s statement about Boehner. Boehner was supposed to use his power to bring about justice, and enforce righteousness, yet he has refused choosing instead to defend government statism. Boehner has chosen to “get along” with a president who has openly been hostile to the American way of life. Obama is a devoted radical of the left and ran an administration that will go down in history as one of the most corrupt and secretive in the history of presidents. From the questionable origins of Obama’s birth and education background to the Benghazi scandal, to the IRS attacks against conservative groups the Executive Office has openly used Cloward and Piven methods to “progress” society to the left by yanking the Overton Window dramatically in that direction. John Boehner has stood by like a weeping child and let him do it believing incorrectly that Americans don’t want a fight in politics. He and all those who think the way he does are wrong.
I was proud when a politician from my area took the third most powerful position in the world in 2010. However, watching what he’s done with it, I am deeply ashamed of the man. If I saw him or a member of his family around my town, at the grocery, or other social event, I would not seek to shake his hand, or even acknowledge his existence. A year ago I was invited to a breakfast occasion with John Boehner which I turned down. Now I would be insulted if I even received such an invite. I wouldn’t simply refuse due to time constraints, but because it would be an assumption that the host considered me cut from the same cloth of such a weak-kneed, wussy, of diabolical character, soft will, and corruptible spirit. I would consider such an invite today in late August of 2013 to be equivalent to an invite to fight in a parking lot—because the invitation would be one of disrespect.
Doc was right to call John Boehner all the things he did because the guy has not only done a bad job as House Speaker, but has caved into the enemies of America as defined by logic. Capitol Hill is a land infested by peasants not of financial demeanor, but of moral aptitude. They are lacking minds capable of leading anybody anywhere, and to cover their deficiencies, they seek to redistribute wealth to maintain office. This is what John Boehner and his GOP supporters are after with their support of illegal aliens. In America foreign immigration is part of what made The United States great, and there is a process for earning the honor of citizenship. But that path does not involve free phone apps telling immigrants how to “game” the system with welfare abuse and parasitic living. Anyone who supports such methods deserves to be called everything that Doc called them, and much, much more.
Recently Dan Varney, the treasurer for No Lakota – accused Lakota officials of trying to manipulate voters by enticing them with $2.8 million of possible restorations of some budget cuts. “It’s how they play the game and they are trying to instill some passion in the school parents” to drum up votes for the proposed property tax increase,” Varney said.
According to school officials if the levy is passed, bus service will be reinstated for grades 2-6, for students who live farther than one mile from school. This is simply an attempt by Lakota schools to purchase votes in the next election using tax payer money to do it. Currently, bus service is issued only to students in those grades if they live farther than two miles from school. This school year, the district supposedly identified some routing efficiencies to provide bus service to all K-1 students at no additional cost. (Isn’t that amazing, just in time for a school levy attempt?)
“We value the community’s feedback that we heard in our Community Conversations last year,” said Mantia. “We heard this would be a tremendous help to our families, and will also help us regain lost instructional time.” Superintendent Mantia noted that the change would provide busing to an additional 2,200 students, helping minimize traffic congestion on some of the district’s busiest roads.
Also,
Students in grade 4-6 will be offered one additional day of art, music or physical education. Currently students take classes in art, music or P.E. one time per week.
Student participation in after-school clubs and extracurricular activities will be encouraged by increasing opportunities and reducing fees from $550 to $400 at high school and from $350 to $300 at junior high.
Students in grade 9 would be offered a seven-period class schedule, instead of six periods per day.
Part of the funding was allocated for advanced technologies and modernized coursework to further individualize learning, a focus area of the district’s current strategic planning work.
The school board voted June 24 to place a levy on the November ballot for the community’s consideration, and announced at that time that a major component of the levy would be for technology, including a $13.5 million multi-year upgrade to the district’s instructional technology infrastructure. School building security will also be bolstered across the district. The decisions made by the board Monday evening finalize the plans for how the levy funds would be allocated.
Of course all these things that Lakota is “giving” to the community are contingent on the passage of a tax increase. The arrogance displayed by these public workers is astonishing; they will give back to the community what is already theirs “IF” they vote to pay more taxes on their properties—which is simply amazing. So in that context what Dan Varney said in the paper was dead on, if all too polite. Lakota schools think that the votes are suckers, and stupid. Lakota has no respect for the average tax payer in the Lakota district, as their behavior displayed grotesquely in evidence. The definition of Lakota’s actions is pure extortion. They stated that if tax payers gave Lakota more money, they would restore services that were only lost because the school board did not manage their costs under the leadership of Superintendent Mantia. If a levy is not approved by the voting public, then those items listed above will not be granted. It is a low down dirty trick that belongs on one of those television commercials advertising products for $19.99. It’s a scam disguised as education. Its corruption disguised as community benefit. It’s wrong, detrimental, and socially corrosive.
In such a time when bandits rule our school system using our children as shields against justice, thank God there are people like Dan Varney of No Lakota Levy out there fighting the good fight defending those same children with honesty from the looters wishing to exploit them for personal gain. Without people like Varney the extortion scams advocated by public education institutions like Lakota would have no representation in the press, leaving the sinister schools to dance upon community innocence with immunity from righteousness. No Lakota Levy is an organized resistance that is all that stands between open extortion by public schools and the out-right looting of the “rich,” so-called “wealthy” property owners who will lose millions if the Lakota levy of 2013 passes.
For idiots, diabolical nut cases, open progressives and Obama voters, they enjoy the Lakota levy position of attacking the rich and giving to the poor, the silly, childish levy supporters who purchase half million dollar homes, pay over $5000 per year in property taxes still desiring more, then turn around and ask the rest of the community to give their children a “free” education at Lakota which is run by the kind of people shown above who openly believe that extortion is an acceptable campaign strategy. I’m glad there are people like Dan Varney who can hold their tongue in the face of such a travesty, but he does, and is a good man for the job. Every homeowner should be thankful that there is a group like No Lakota Levy out there defending them from higher taxes by government looters like Lakota’s administrators and their band of education thieves. In that group there are people like Dan Varney who stand as pillars of stone against the winds of chaos in a battle for the heart and soul of Lakota–the residents who pay the taxes versus those who wish to steal them.
Upon the announcement of the 2013 Lakota levy both sides of the issue began voicing their opinions, and one fellow that represented how the typical YES voter for tax increases thinks left a series of comments favoring the levy which can be seen below. The guy named AJ Malott isn’t a bad guy, just a person who sees public education as an entitlement similar to Social Security and Medicaid, and he believes that the older residents in Lakota should be willing to pay for his children’s education because he is paying for their senior oriented retirements. He also makes a point to mention No Lakota Levy, which is a group I played a large part in formulating so explanations are in order. First, let’s see what AJ thinks.
And another thing, isn’t it interesting that the so-called leader of the NoLakota levy group owns a contracting company? Is he expecting an influx of work when no one wants to buy/build/remodel in the community? People only want to invest in their homes if they feel connected to their home and community, and plan on staying.
I thought we were smart by moving into the Lakota district 4 years ago BECAUSE of the support and quality of the schools. So, yes, lets put that in jeopardy so other millennials whom are starting their families do not want to move here. And, then those who want to move because they don’t want to pay the taxes can experience declining home values. Then, it can be a lose-lose situation for all.
With the exception that they claim that the older generation doesn’t want to pay for schools for the younger generation. Well, doesn’t this whole system we have designed center around everyone paying their collective share. When one group decides they want to opt out (the seniors), it puts undue pressures on the other groups. So, if they can do it, I’m not sure why our generation can’t do the same thing. You pay for schools and I will continue to pay into benefits I’m sure I’ll never see any of.
You know, I am finding it really difficult to continue to pay that Social Security and Medicare tax out of my paycheck. I look forward to the next generation of politicians that feel the same way, and look to make cuts to those “entitlement” programs. If you don’t want to support my child’s future, why should we support yours.
In that article which the commenter referenced, Bob Hutsenpiller gave a statement representing No Lakota Levy’s position. He simply said any tax hike will be a tough sell to older residents in Liberty and West Chester Townships. This prompted AJ Malott to assume that he was in a position to offer critical review about Hutsenpiller. Bob went on to say “Lakota officials should continue its recent budget cutting while the seniors, retirees and residents of the district go through these rough economic times. Most of the seniors of the Lakota district are contemplating moving out of the district just to reduce their tax burden.” For saying that, Malott felt entitled to deliver a subtle attack in order to defend his child’s “right” to a free education. So before going into a dissemination of Malott’s comments which represent the average levy supporter in all public schools, I must put a book end into my involvement with No Lakota Levy prior to this upcoming campaign. To discuss that I have to refer back to a Middletown Journal article from the summer of 2011 where members of No Lakota Levy without my agreement attempted to make a deal with the Yes Vote group at Lakota. I was tipped off about the event by the reporter covering the story. The article can be seen below.
Members of the No Lakota group are in disagreement about whether they would support a levy if Lakota puts one on the ballot.
West Chester Twp. resident Mark Sennet spoke to the board of education Monday, saying the No Lakota group would support a “conservative” levy in 2012 if the board would bypass the election this November.
However, No Lakota member Rich Hoffman, who has typically spoken on behalf of the group, said no discussion had occurred at a meeting about supporting a levy, and he was holding fast to his stance on never supporting a levy.
Hoffman said there may be a split in the group, but he thinks the 50-and-older crowd will stand with him.
Sennet said Lakota officials have made “a valiant effort to try to work and control spending,” but people still need time to recover from the economic crisis. He said he and several developers would be on the board’s side if it waited for November 2012.
“We acknowledge that there were changes made,” he said. “The businesses had to make changes. The citizens had to make changes, and we were glad to see the union and teachers and board agreed to a pay freeze. But if the levy were to pass, then I guess that would be good for the community.”
Board member Ray Murray said he was pleased the business community is recognizing the district’s transparency and how it is listening to the community.
“There are going to be people who are not going to ever say yes to anything, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said. “We’ve got to generate more revenue. We can’t survive on a 2005 budget.”
Former For Lakota levy chairwoman Sandy Wheatley said the board and district representatives have been mending fences with those in opposition since the last election.
Needles to say, the kind of “fence mending” Wheatley was talking about was an attempt by the levy supporters to split up our group. As she stated in her comments, there would always be people like me who would say NO to a tax increase, so the Lakota administration attempted to cut deals and split up our group so they wouldn’t have an opposition for the upcoming election in 2011, which of course didn’t work. Prior to forming No Lakota Levy Sennet contacted me about joining forces as in the previous levy I had been doing my own thing. He had been working from a group with a different name. When he asked me to join his group, we called it No Lakota Levy which went on to defeat the next two attempts. But before the second attempt under that name, Sennet had decided that the kitchen was too hot for him. The social pressure of not supporting a levy impacted him, which was what Wheatley was referring to. I witnessed some of the most open extortion I have ever seen through charity events, boycotts, and behind the scenes manipulation that was rancid with sinister intentions. By the second levy, many of the people in No Lakota Levy didn’t want to be seen at meetings with me because they were afraid that such associations would harm their businesses, even though No Lakota Levy was saving them tens of millions of dollars in taxes. In private meetings they liked my company, but they didn’t feel comfortable associating with me in public, for fear that the Levy Addicts would connect the dots and find out that they were members of No Lakota Levy. Bob Hutsenpiller was the exception.
Once Lakota hired Superintendent Mantia her mode of operation was to apply even more pressure on the business community “mending fences.” It didn’t work by the 2011 attempt in November so Mantia went to work with new strategies in the winter of 2012. After my events with Sennet at No Lakota Levy, I wasn’t sure I wanted to handcuff myself to playing such a front man while so many others stayed in hiding for fear of being associated with an anti-tax group. I played along for a while, but did not like the direction the rest of the group wanted to go. The emphasis on public image of No Lakota Levy was becoming much more important, and I didn’t like that, and I wanted out. I felt it would be better for No Lakota Levy if people like Hutsenpiller spoke on their own behalf, and we discussed it in meetings about future levy attempts by Lakota. But I was very good at my job, and so long as I was there, it allowed the people who were most effected by commercial real-estate taxes to use me as a shield, which was giving Lakota the illusion that their “fence mending” was working in their favor.
I meant it when I said that in the next election Lakota would have to deal with No Lakota Levy on one angle, and myself on the other. I don’t like to mend fences, because doing such a thing only benefits the people who build the fences to begin with, and those fences were built by Lakota politics. I don’t like deals, peer pressure and financial decisions made under coercion and I prefer to call a spade a spade. But I am glad to see Hutsenpiller speak reasonably representing his stance. The amount of money that Lakota is asking people like him to pay in additional taxes is bewildering. It is just a shame that others like him are so cold with their tongues. Without question, they will be NO Votes in the upcoming election, but they are careful what they say in public because they will have to see people like AJ Malott at social events frequently who have no idea how much money the tax increases cost a business, and can never hope to comprehend. Those phantom business owners don’t want the ramifications of being out of agreement with the “fence builders” like Lakota’s current superintendent, for fear that the lack of “cooperation” will have a dire cost against their livelihoods. Unlike their contemporaries in public education, the business owners cannot raise taxes to cover their costs. They have to actually nurture a customer base.
Every time there is a new Lakota levy there are new people like AJ Malott who come and go from the community. They move to Lakota for the nice green space, the shopping, and the schools, but they don’t know much about the character of the area. I grew up in Liberty Township and I know what kind of place it has always been. It was named after the American Revolution just as the City of Monroe to the North and Hamilton to the West were named after key members of the American rebellion. And most of the long term residents I know who have lived in the area most of their lives have that kind of blood deep in their veins no matter what their economic or social status proclaims now, Hutsenpiller is of that type. They are free spirits who resent “fence mending” as much as I do. They will do what they must for their businesses, but what they think in private is an entirely different matter. The people who support these school levies are typically young people who are newer parents, or people who came from progressive places like New England, or California so they don’t really understand the argument against school funding and public education in general.
For me, I want to argue against the entire premise of public education, not just the ridiculousness of the funding. I am encouraged to see other people rise to the occasion to make those points, which free me up to make the larger arguments. The Lakota Levy to me wouldn’t mean much in financial investment, it’s the essence of the implication that is the problem. I spend more on a typical dinner than the levy would cost my residence. But the real cost of the levy is against the business owner, people like Bob Hutsenpiller who cannot build enough buildings to possibly cover the tens of thousands of dollars his taxes will go up if the levy passes. Bob is not alone. There are dozens of people like him who will pay millions in additional taxes if the levy passes, and it is a shame they don’t do more to defend themselves, instead of getting stuck in the political trap set by people who want to “mend fences” when the entire cost of the materials for the fence come from the business owner.
The Fox News documentary special The Great Food Stamp Binge, hosted by Bret Baier was so good that I am going to include the complete text of their blog posting concerning that wonderful episode within the contents of this document. If you missed it, fret not. I have it below which can be seen in its entirety with six parts. I suggest you watch it and share it with as many people as you can. Everyone in America needs to see this documentary. It is a work which explores the treacherous extent of the welfare state in our current economy. There was a catch phrase during the documentary when Bret Baier stated, “when does the safety net become a hammock,” which I thought was particularly good because the information as provided was extraordinary and deeply revealing. It paints a picture that points to an astonishing danger that is going to hit every American in the wake of the Obama presidency that will be very painful to overcome. The welfare state and attack of the FDA with all other government agencies that are openly advocating more dependents upon the parental hand of statism are hard at work to remove from American culture the notion of independence leaving in the wake a society of moochers and disconnected serfs. Watch, learn and share the following:
Once upon a time this was called food stamps, but the modern world is all about branding and image, not accuracy or substance. Thus, a snappy new name was needed.
All this change is a direct result of the Obama administration’s surreptitious undermining of the law in the Stimulus Act in 2009 and the disingenuous gutting of President Clinton’s overwhelmingly successful Welfare Reform law. This was achieved by administrative fiat in 2010.
As I watched the rough cut with Fox Editor-at-Large Peter Boyer, I found myself at a loss for words.
I don’t know whether I was more saddened, or angered by the interview John Roberts did with an apparently healthy “surfer” who happily lives a life of leisure in Southern California subsidized by the taxpayer.
It was simply mindboggling to listen to this grown man explain the logic he uses to justify taking food aid — and thus free food — rather than working and paying for it himself.
This great government giveaway is being undertaken and I can’t help but believe those that truly need help are still going hungry.
As we continued to watch I began to see what was behind the SNAP program. It is about changing the mentality of the nation, of Americans.
Take this example, from “The Great Food Stamp Binge,” of what is nothing short of social engineering or reeducation. In North Carolina social workers actually got an award for breaking down the “Mountain Pride” that makes some from that state reluctant or unwilling to take handouts. They actively fought the tradition of tightening your belt and taking care of yourself when times get tough.
There is much more in this excellent program — it is a thought provoking, well told story and I urge you to watch it.
Certainly, there are many in this country, who need the help. The idea that Americans go to bed hungry or get sick due to malnutrition is one that should appall any morally sound man or woman. And that is what makes the SNAP initiative utterly foul.
After watching I realized why I was angered by those who take, but don’t need, and frustrated for those who are given, but don’t want. This great giveaway is being undertaken and I can’t help but believe that those that truly need help are still going hungry. Millions of tax dollars are going to people who aren’t our neediest, it is a disgrace.
Many of you have probably heard the Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The SNAP program is one big fish giveaway that leaves people reliant rather than reliable. The government is on a mission to sign people up – one in seven in this country already receive food stamps — and the taxpayer is footing the bill for, what I believe, is a tragically misguided plan.
The lawsuit against Apple by the Department of Justice is an astonishing maneuver made by an organization that is under criminal investigation itself. Yet even with all the scandals that it is currently being scrutinized for such as cover-ups, criminal deceit, and murder, the Department of Justice is engaged in an outright attack against the Apple Company for an e-book price-fixing anti-trust busting lawsuit. For a review on my thoughts about anti-trust cases created under the Sherman Act, please refer to the following link, where I break down the history and hypocrisy of these government cases revealing what is really behind them.
The federal government operates currently the largest monopoly on the face of the earth with their vast support of price-fixing through government labor unions. For examples of price-fixing that is much more destructive than anything Apple has done look no further than the local teacher at your government school, look at your friendly neighborhood IRS agent, or any bureaucrat working for the federal government in virtually any direct capacity. The government is not qualified to pass judgment against Apple for price-fixing. But in this case, as in most anti-trust cases, the intention is not to find justice for the “public” but to shake down the prosecuted for money through bribes, court settlements, or campaign donations to political parties. If the roots of this case were traced back to a cause, one of those three issues was the motivation. Because Apple did not grease the wheels of government “properly” they are now being prosecuted. It is that simple. For proof examine the statements below as reported by CNET regarding this anti-trust case, and read carefully the words used by Justice Department attorney Lawrence Buterman.
Apple shouldn’t “be rewarded” with the same sanctions as the e-book publishers that settled with the U.S. government, the Department of Justice argued ahead of a court hearing Friday. “Apple has been found to have orchestrated and facilitated a…price-fixing conspiracy — amongst these very publisher defendants,” Justice Department attorney Lawrence Buterman wrote in a letter dated Thursday but made available for viewing Friday. “Apple should not be rewarded with the same terms received by those that chose to settle to avoid the risks of litigation.”
The Justice Department last week issued its proposals for ways “to halt Apple’s anticompetitive conduct, restore lost competition, and prevent a recurrence of the illegal activities.” The three big pieces of that proposal were that Apple would end its existing agreements with the five major publishers, let other e-book publishers’ link to their own bookstores in iOS apps, and staff an antitrust monitor to evaluate its business for five years. Apple fired back last week, calling the government’s proposals vague, overreaching, unwarranted, and even “draconian.”
In a filing Wednesday, the five major book publishers weighed in, arguing that one of those stipulations — ending the existing agreements — would completely eliminate a pricing model that’s become the industry standard. The publishers also said it would break agreements the Justice Department made with each of them when they settled.
Hachette, HarperCollins, Holtzbrinck (also known as Macmillan), Penguin, and Simon & Schuster filed an opposition to last week’s proposed remedies against Apple by the Justice Department, arguing that the plan would “effectively eliminate the use of the agency model” for e-book distribution for the next five years.
“…Under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the Settling Defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model,” the publishers wrote, adding that the move “directly conflicts” with the settlements the publishers reached with the Justice Department before the Apple case went to trial.
“Despite achieving their stated goal of returning price competition, Plaintiffs now seek to improperly impose additional, unwarranted restrictions on the Settling Defendants, thereby depriving each publisher of the benefit of its bargain with Plaintiffs,” it goes on to say.
The “agency” model is where publishers set e-book prices to retailers, while retailers get a commission. That’s as opposed to the “wholesale” model, where publishers set the list price and the retailers can sell it at whatever price they want. (Read CNET’s in-depth explainer here.)
Basically what all that means is that the Department of Justice wants to shake down Apple because they did not settle out-of-court as the five major publishers did so to avoid a damaging public court case. The DOJ is using this excuse to inject its authority into the company for five years to monitor Apple business practices. The DOJ also intends to use this case “to halt Apple’s anticompetitive conduct, restore lost competition, and prevent a recurrence of the illegal activities.” Those are amazing statements by a government entity that is itself a functioning monopoly excessively guilty of anti-trust violations of their own. They are even more amazing statements considering all the other criminal investigations that the DOJ is currently under itself, but cannot be prosecuted for because there is no higher law enforcement authority than the Department of Justice—who works directly for the President of the United States. (This is why it’s important what kind of president Americans elect).
There is only one motivation by the Department of Justice in this. They do not care about the pricing of e-books on the open market. They only care about entrenching themselves into the publishing business any way they can so that content can be “influenced” in subtle ways. The message to the five major publishers couldn’t be clearer. They took the settlement like most companies would, to take the path of least resistance. It didn’t mean they were guilty, just that they took the option with the least immediate cost to them. The real crime is that the Department of Justice injected itself into the capitalist marketplace with socialist standards of regulation that do not belong in America. If not for Apple and those five major publishers, there wouldn’t be an e-book market. The DOJ is functioning from a socialist economic model whereas the publishers and Apple are operating from capitalism. Apple is not guilty of anything but operating as a capitalist enterprise. The DOJ is operating as a socialist enterprise. The difference between the two is one of philosophy, not function. The Department of Justice view of itself might be more appropriate in China, or in Europe where socialism and communism are practiced much to the restriction of ideas and financial enterprise, but they have no place in America and never had since the concoction of the Sherman Act so many years ago. The anti-trust busting that has been so publicly advocated by the government is simply the actions of a gang of thugs who want to shake down the profit makers of a capitalist economy under the guise of “equality.”
Every American should be outraged by the attack of the Department of Justice against the Apple Company. If it can happen to Apple, it can happen to everyone. Microsoft as a company never recovered after their anti-trust case in the 1990s. And now Apple, without the leadership of Steve Jobs to pull them back out of the mud after this incident with the DOJ will find themselves overly, and needlessly cautious toward anti-trust accusations that will directly hinder their marketing strategies, and innovation for many years to come. The cost of this lawsuit against Apple by the DOJ will resonate for the next century in America not in lost competition, but in lost innovation by a company that is among the best that America currently has to offer. The government, as usual, is standing in the way of prosperity, hindering capitalism, and openly seeking to undercut technological growth through a thuggish strategy of short-sighted shakedowns against a good company to appease a blind and stupid mob who democratically elected criminals, scumbags, and despots to enforce laws that they make up as they go to serve only themselves and an ever-expanding government.
What is the strongest beacon for freedom in the world today? Is it Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, John Stossel, or any other modern commenter, publisher, or financier? I would say not. Is it the multitude of freedom oriented websites like FreedomWorks, or American Thinker? I would say not. Rather, I would say that it’s a new force to the entertainment world. Several years ago the former Fox News star Glenn Beck started his own news organization called The Blaze—which is changing the way the news is delivered. As an online publication that rivals traditional magazines like Time, Life, and People it also specializes in providing the latest scoop on news stories in the way that made the Drudge Report so important to the art of breaking news stories. But it’s not even The Blaze that I’m speaking about—not as a website based news source. In January of 2013 Glenn Beck created The Blaze Radio Network which is an all internet radio station that broadcasts online outside of FCC regulation. Normally these kinds of operations are fly-by-night and built with pure heart, but little money. Well, not anymore. Glenn Beck has invested a considerable amount of his personal fortune into the new Blaze Radio Network and brought in top talent like Doc Thompson and his partner Skip to provide 24 hour a day seven days a week news and entertainment radio that is unparalleled anywhere.
I was very disheartened to learn that my friend Doc Thompson was leaving Cincinnati. I have been a talk radio fan all my life. I used to lie in bed as a kid and listen to radio broadcasts from 700 WLW and WMOH till the pre-dawn hours while the rest of the world slept, literally and figuratively. During my working years, I would listen to talk radio through long hours of 2nd and 3rd shift hard labor. As I grew older and had started participating in talk radio actively I enjoyed being more than just a listener, especially on Doc Thompson’s Cincinnati show. I respect the art of being a talk show host. But Doc was a bit too freedom oriented for the sports talk stations of Cincinnati, and was too big of a name to put on a station that didn’t have a voice equaling his own booming enunciations. So it didn’t take long before Doc moved on to the Detroit market leaving a void in Cincinnati, and the freedom movement that was so strong here.
There are other voices, but on FCC controlled radio stations, they are somewhat handcuffed by their station managers, and the advertisers who essentially control the content. Doc has been a breath of fresh air wherever he has worked, but the stations he worked for never allowed him to utilize his full potential of talent consisting of humor, deep political analysis, and a tremendous range of topics that he can discuss. But more than anything, Doc is the opposite of the kind of radio host that Howard Stern has been—he has deep convictions and tries to be a good person. He wants to do good with his microphone, and that has hindered him during his long career………..until now. Glenn Beck hired Doc Thompson in January to start off his new Blaze Radio Network with the 6 AM to 9 AM morning show just ahead of Glenn Beck’s national show and the gloves have come off. For the benefit of my readers here I have placed two of Doc’s recent shows on the following video clips so that they can be listened to on demand in their entirety. I would suggest playing them and filling your day with their contents. There is a lot of comedy, loads of great information, and some deep sincerity from Doc and Skip which is typical of them in what I consider to be one of the best radio show in the history of talk radio that was only made possible because of Glenn Beck’s innovative, and bold investment in the enterprise.
The reason I consider The Blaze Radio Network to be the purest beacon available for the freedom movement is because it is free, and it is not under the regulation of the government in any way. This allows the programming on the Blaze Radio to be unusually unconcerned with regulators who can threaten to pull their license if at least a balanced approach to statist concepts isn’t adhered to. Every television, and radio station in America is typically concerned about these federal regulations, and it does water down the content, even on programs like Rush Limbaugh’s.
Doc and Skip are for the first times in their life completely free as talk show hosts, and they are making excellent use of that liberty. Before any organization can hope to be a beacon of freedom to the listeners they service, they must in fact be free themselves. Because of the commitment of Glenn Beck into The Blaze Radio Network, it is the most “free thinking” broadcasting anywhere in the world. It functions the way that The Constitution intended with the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, to use free speech not in a destructive way to boost ratings with sex, and deviant discussion, but with high quality content from people who care deeply about the topics they discuss. And for the first time, radio hosts who work for The Blaze have a boss in Glenn Beck who is just as committed to liberty as they are.
I know Doc Thompson personally. I have been to dinner with him where he and Skip would not stop doing research for their radio show even at 1 AM in the morning. Doc never turns off his engine. He never completely shuts down. Radio work and the matters of current events are his number one passion. He is constantly analyzing material for his shows, and he ruthlessly looks for fresh content. Doc is one of the hardest working people I know, and in entertainment/news, this is certainly the case.
Doc has been fighting for a chance to do what he is currently doing for more than 20 years of radio in cities all over the United States. In one of his darkest days of recent past, he never let up off the gas. I remember vividly when his wife Yuna Lee left her television job in Richmond, Virginia so she could finally marry Thompson after several years of a long distance relationship. Finally they were going to be together, living not only in the same house, but in the same city. Yuna boldly left her job to take a job at Channel 2 in Dayton where she works to this day. But the very moment the two were married, Doc lost his job in Cincinnati. He was always a bit too passionate, too “wholesome,” and too “Tea Party” for the Cincinnati stations, which left him jobless again looking for a home. Even in those moments when he was most tempted to change his style to fit the producers of radio shows, he didn’t. He held tight for a syndication deal because he knew he was that good and he needed someone to believe in him with financial backing.
Glenn Beck was that guy, and the benefit to freedom is that finally Doc Thompson has NOTHING in his way to be a serious pain in the ass to statists, progressives, communists, union thugs, race baiters, education empires, and every parasitic entity hanging from the halls of government. For the first time in his professional life Doc Thompson is free to provide the kind of radio that hasn’t been conceived since the very early days of radio broadcasting before the FCC put its claws into the lives of every radio listener. Doc takes full advantage of this freedom, as evidence in the over 5 hours of broadcasting played above. I hope you took full advantage of those clips to let Doc’s voice bring the sounds of freedom to your ears. The Blaze Radio Network it has nearly replaced all my old news sources. I play it all the time, at home, in the garage, in my back yard, in my car, on my iPod—especially during flights, on vacation, in the middle of the mountains, and in the deepest valleys while camping. Because The Blaze is broadcast across the internet, and podcasting is always available on Soundcloud, every show Doc and Skip do can be listened to on demand. By loading his segments onto my iPod I can attend business engagements pausing his information, then resuming when my time frees up. When riding my motorcycle, I can broadcast Doc into my helmet through my iPod, which is a completely new technology. Years ago the only way to listen to a radio on a motorcycle was to have a bulky device attached to the handle bars. Now I can hear Doc anywhere at anytime of day and the information is free. CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO FIND DOC’S BROADCASTS ON SOUNDCLOUD:
For traditional radio talk show listeners, The Blaze Radio Network has a full staff that broadcasts out of New York the news at the top and bottom of every hour just like most other AM stations. They are doing much better work than Fox News is, and certainly leaps and bounds above CNN, MSNBC, or any other news source. The Blaze guys are on top of just about everything 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They are always there.
For these reasons listed above Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network is the best and most authentic example of a voice for the freedom movement that there is in the world. Doc works harder, plays harder, and has the tools in his tool box given to him by Glenn Beck to be a monstrous success, which he and Skip are well on their way to becoming. What they are doing is the wave of the future, and the most effective form of new media there is. I trust The Blaze in ways that I have never trusted any other news source. Their news is good even when they don’t agree with what the other side has to say. Such as in this example:
The Blaze is a game changer in the news business, and Doc Thompson working for the Blaze Radio Network is a game changer in the world of radio. The radio business will never be the same again, now that Doc Thompson is loose and able to communicate the truth where it lives most brilliantly, at The Blaze operated by Glenn Beck and managed by hundreds of wonderful people who deeply care about the state of America and it’s role to the rest of the world who look with longing eyes toward the freedoms that only we have. I would recommend dear reader that you tune in to this wonderful tool for freedom and support it with your attention which will be mutually beneficial for many years to come.
It is impossible to have any kind of republic which is the governing principle of The United States if the people who make up that republic are not intellectually engaged. There is no way to elect representatives to the republic if such disinterested manner is placed on elections. The fault of this social awareness of course falls on the education system which has failed to ignite in the minds of the youth any interest in such things, even though a passive interest in the affairs of the American Republic is more important than learning mathematics, English, or even general history. Instead, schools have allowed their teacher unions to lobby law makers into watering down the education curriculums into radicalism against American tradition to fulfill progressive strategies—the same kind of strategies that have destroyed Detroit in the present day. The public education system chose radicalism focused on social issues over republic representation of quality as a teaching method. The result is a society of lost minds who do not know what to do with the facts of our day. A vast majority of the American public is disconnected—and happy to proclaim it, because their public school institutions have taught them that such a social position was good.
I remember what it was like in public school and I hated every moment of it. In my entire 13 years of attending I can’t remember a single day that I enjoyed. At an early age I had the deep suspicion that the teachers wanted nothing to do with any truth. They were intent to reshape minds into a direction guided by some invisible hand that went by the name of “legislators.” The reason I didn’t enjoy school was because I liked my mind, and didn’t want it shaped by anybody but me. I remember feeling this way even in kindergarten. Naturally teachers didn’t know what to do with me because I wasn’t following the “formula.” So I was in trouble all the time and being much more stubborn than they were, I held out like an inmate in a prison for 13 years always looking for that graduation day where I’d be free of them once and for all.
I could tell many stories about my public school days, but the short of it was that I was always in trouble, my parents were constantly called with attempts to shove me in some direction which I continuously resisted. I was constantly grounded as a student at home because of my rebelliousness at school making the experience a miserable one for my young mind. And all along, I had a very keen understanding of what I was resisting. I was resisting the tendency to be a social buffoon. As I moved into high school the pressure escalated and I pushed back even harder and a lot of people were hurt. Once I was able to drive and have a job of my own, the groundings at home, the constant peer pressure at school to be a mind numb debacle for the human race began to subside a bit because that long desired goal of being free of the public school system was near. To let “them” know they had not beaten my mind into submission I routinely wore a sport coat to school with a tie to let the statist know that they had failed utterly in their breaking of me—and I relished the audacity. The constant detentions, the threats, the many, many trips to the principal’s office, the calls to my parents, the attempt to pit other kids in the school against me had all failed spectacularly and I enjoyed seeing the looks of disappointment on their faces.
Back then I had a USA Today newspaper delivered to my first period class which I carried around with me and read throughout the day. The newspaper was a window to the outside world. It was like a light through the window of a prison cell that was way too small for me, and I enjoyed reading about disruptions in the Middle East while the students around me were passing around love notes to each other declaring how drunk they wanted to get at the next Friday night football game. I had a few friends, and they thought like me for the most part—people brought together by common values. In some cases those friends were intellectually smarter than the rest of the administrative staff with genius level intellects, and in some ways other friends were physically superior to even the best athletes, and were heavily recruited to play sports for the school which were declined out of sheer rebelliousness. At the Friday night football games my friends and I would sell those same stupid kids cases of beer out of a car trunk saving them the disgrace of trying to buy beer from a convenient store only to be turned away by a clerk who carded them. I enjoyed this because it allowed me to punch back at society from two fronts, I was thumbing my nose at the laws politicians made for underage drinking, and I was violating the stupid policy of letting the school believe football games were anything but an excuse for the kids to get drunk. This would go on right in front of the school administration and the police both of whom had no idea what to do about the practice. I had learned at an early age the hypocrisy of statism and knew that there was nothing they could do to me. They had already punished me in every way possible for over a decade, and as a young high school kid I was making as much money as most of the kid’s parents between all my jobs. Earning money was my freedom from the statism of public education, and the first minute I could do it, I did. I mowed lawns, worked as a bus boy at an upscale restaurant for tips, and started dating girls who were in their mid-twenties when I was 15 and 16 who would then buy the beer I could sell to the high school kids. Around the time I was doing all this the Tom Cruise film Risky Business came out and when I went to see it, I realized that I was living that life, except more violently.
My motives were to use capitalism to escape statism, and as a kid who grew up in the 80s under President Ronald Reagan, that was at least possible. As I look around at kids today, having raised two of my own and meeting many of their friends, I don’t think they even have those same opportunities. Instead of reading a USA Today, kids at least have the internet on their phones to escape from the statist environment, but instead of reading about current events, they keep their minds on entertainment related topics. For me I was able to beat my captors by being smarter than they were. And when that didn’t work, I was more willing to resort to physical confrontation than they were. It was no secret then and it’s no secret now. I still live by those same rules—because they work. As I look at the public education system now, I am sure there are kids trapped there like I was, but even lack a president to admire. Most of them have been put on Retalin or some other drug to numb their active minds, as public schools have found that the way to beat students like me was to get them on mind numbing drugs so early that nobody knows what kind of genius they could become. They call this these days ADHD. I openly campaigned for Ronald Reagan in the 7th grade when the other students were busy contemplating which bands were good over others, but since him, there hasn’t been a president that young people could even get excited about.
For me the fight against statism has always been present. I fought it then as a captor stuck within the system. Upon my graduation traveling back from UD arena in Dayton I passed the future superintendent of Lakota schools on I-75 south, a man who tried to pin me down with every trick known to the book of school administrators. I slowed down to match his speed and look him in the face. My friend sitting in the passenger’s seat toasted him with a beer. Between him and me we were living the movie version of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. The future superintendent had tried to catch me time and time again for doing something wrong and often I would do things just to prove to him that I couldn’t be caught. On that day now that I was free of them, I slowed my car down behind his speed and dropped back about 200 yards. Then I gunned the engine to my Pontiac Firebird and flew past him on the highway at 110 MPH. I drove by him so closely that my passenger’s side mirror almost hit the mirror on his car. I maneuvered so closely to him because I wanted the air from my car to rattle his at that high-speed. Many reading this will wonder why I was so aggressive about this maneuver, and those that came before, and many that came after. Because I hated him, I hated the school, I hated the administrators, and I hated the system they all represented. For many, hate is a strong word, but for me, hate is the correct term. I hated him, and I wanted him to know it.
I hated that system then and I hate it now because it produces the kind of people who can watch a city like Detroit die of progressive philosophy without feeling an urge to defend the city from the parasites. There is no fire in the minds of the people Matt called on the air, because that fire was put out by their public schools, and that is why I hate them. I like to see fire behind the eyes of human beings. I like to see energy, passion, and imagination, and too often those elements are destroyed in children before they get out of their first year of kindergarten. Some manage to retain some of those traits and not be destroyed completely, but virtually all lose massive amounts of their future potential in those first two years of public school. I didn’t know in the early days why I fought, but just knew that I should. I am proud now that I have a grandchild to say that I have never yielded to statism, and I never will. But it always makes me sad to see so many lights out in the minds of mankind. And Detroit, as Matt proved, is bankrupt and morally lost not just because they ran out of other people’s money to give away, but because the light is out in the minds of the residents—a light that was put out during their years in public education.
In the video below Rush Limbaugh breaks down the mentality of the typical liberal nicely. By his use, the word liberal covers everything from moderate Democrats to radical communists. Between those book ends are socialist, progressives, race baiters, feminists, public school advocates, and statists of every kind, some of which have the term Republican next to their names. Limbaugh’s conclusion is one that I have been beating the war drums to for many months now as I have discovered and reported on these pages what he is saying. Liberals cannot in any kind of debate rely on facts to win their arguments. The only way they can win anything is by applying emotion so that they can create an anti-concept for which logic can be distorted and manipulated to their liking. In this way, liberals have re-shaped the world into the mess many of us have observed and felt regulated to shaking our heads at in hopelessness. Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s very good summation of a liberal here:
I have been arguing for a while now that these liberal types must be treated as enemies against traditional America. It has become fashionable to treat them with respect, honor, and civility because conservatives tend to be kind, religious, and never-the-less willing to display public humility to prove that they are not all the nasty things that liberals say about them. In the school levy arguments around Cincinnati I have argued every level of logic there is. In the winter of 2012 as I watched my district of Lakota proceed with cuts to their offered programs after three failed levies and a whole lot of charts produced, public arguments made, and meetings attended I saw firsthand the festering threat that the liberal represents, a parasitic existence that uses sentiments of kindness as a military maneuver against righteousness. I learned that under no circumstances would liberals ever look at the facts that logic presented to them because solving problems is not what they are after, and it has never been. The number one objective of the liberal is to destroy traditional America, the type of America that could be coined exceptional. Liberals wish to destroy America by undoing its philosophy of self-reliance and reacquainting it with the philosophy of dependence known for centuries in Europe. For the liberal the Revolutionary War never ended. They are still trying to connect North America permanently to the European Union and they will stop at nothing to get there.
In my levy fights, as others all over Ohio have now done, I proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the tax increase requests for public schools was 100% caused by unreasonable and unsustainable wages for the government employees. At Lakota I told them as a representative of the 18,000 people who voted against the tax increases that they needed to take a 5% cut in wages to meet the standards of budget that the community approved at the ballot box. Instead of complying, the government school collectively like an ant colony of mindless insects went on a public relations campaign that contained not one single fact about what caused them to run a budget deficit. For anyone who stood in their way, they attacked without a care in the world for reputations, participated in friendship severances, boycotts, and any vile form of manipulation they could gather under their wings. But they did not deal with a single fact even when pressed to the extreme. This is because of what Rush Limbaugh stated in his broadcast—because they can’t. They never can, and they never will.
This is why it is important to stop viewing liberals as equals on the battlefield of ideas. To be equal, they would have to produce ideas—and they don’t. All they ever advocate is collective re-distribution of wealth that someone else creates. They are typically lazy specimens who do not like the act of creation, so they want what others create by proclaiming fairness. In the case of my public school example, the teachers and administrators at the school have convinced themselves that they are an important social role to the construct of America even though what they teach children is mindless drivel and social collectivism setting students at an emotional deficit at an early stage of their adulthood of which many will never escape. When it all comes down to it, those employees fear actual productive existences which is why they work for a government school. They fear getting up in the morning and creating something at their job. They just use the government to extract wealth from those who do all the creating and offer back emotional reasons for their lack of productivity.
There is no fair fight with a liberal. They do not participate in the battlefield of ideas, because they can’t. Their only strategy is to move every debate away from facts and logic and to replace them with emotional pleas. It is time to end this practice in America. It is time to view these strategies for what they are, maneuvers against traditional America for the purpose of destruction of our way of life. It is time to treat the liberal as an enemy for the sake of self-preservation as a free nation. Limbaugh is 100% correct, liberals are not for freedom. They may in the short run advocate public nudity, open sex in every direction, drunkenness, mind altering drugs, godlessness, and the absolute destruction of the American family, but they are not for freedom. They are only for the destruction of human values because they are too mentally and physically lazy to measure up.
Liberals do not want peace in that a deal could be struck with them to “live and let live.” It is time that traditional America took the advice of the old Paul McCartney song, “Live and Let Die” and come to grips that the liberal can never be reasoned with, they can never be appeased, they can never be treated on fair terms because they are not about any of those things. They simply want to destroy America as it was constitutionally built, and remake it into the land of Europe, the slums of Paris, the box houses of England, and the dinky housing shacks of Spain. They want nothing else but destruction. This is why the liberal must be seen as the enemy in a second revolution. A distinct difference is needed to disassociate those types with the minds of reason before any problems can ever be solved and before that can happen it must be realized that the liberal has nothing to offer but more destruction and emotional chaos to camouflage their parasitic nature as a social organism more akin to termites than anything else.
‘’American Exceptionalism tends to set off tempers from the type of people who have been taught their entire lives that America should follow the trends of the rest of the World and not proudly proclaim the wonderful attributes that have come out of the freest country in the world-such as capitalism, human rights, individual freedom, and quality of life that is unmatched anywhere.’’ Did Rich or El Rushbo write this? Funny I was a Rush baby, some of us grow up and actually learn history, economics, free-markets, and real Conservative, ex. Russel Kirk, TS Elliot, Edmund Burke, and M.E. Bradford (who was originally appointed by Reagan for national endowment position, but sidelined by Bill Krystol for neocon Bill Bennett (Lincoln lover)).
The listener’s name is Ben Cowan and he is attempting to display that he has the superior argument by stating he has grown up and away from the way of thinking of Rush Limbaugh. People who use such arguments with a direct attack like that try to gain supremacy through insult instead of the quality of their statement. Cowan then proceeds to establish that he has a vast knowledge of history to draw upon as if I do not. He has obviously not read the more than 2 million words here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, so if he starts now he may be qualified to make such statements in about 6 months. But until then he is functioning from ignorance. I enjoy the work of T.S. Elliot particularly “The Wasteland.” The point of his statement is to say that Cowan has evolved intellectually into thinking beyond Rush Limbaugh which is supposed to qualify everything that follows as fact, and everything he says about me as inferior to his arguments. This is a trick Cowan learned from the progressive intellectuals which he reveals further in the next section.
Notice how weak Rich’s arguments are that he portrays anyone who gets frustrated with Decepticons aka neocons using the term American Exceptionalism as someone who supports Obama or his ideology. As to Rich’s Bill Maher clip, I actually agree with some of Bill’s sediments in this clip. This is probably the only time that I have agreed with Bill Maher, but our solutions and reasons are much different. Did you notice how I separated the two complaint/Solutions without emotionally driven comments like Rich uses?
Prof. Kevin Gutzman liked this part of the main article ‘’Under the American Constitution, slavery was abolished- a move happened nowhere else in the world.’’ If the point is that slavery wasn’t abolished under the US Constitution outside the US, well duh. Slavery was abolished in Haiti, Cuba, Brazil, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Barbados, Bahamas, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad, and Nevis. –Response by Prof. Kevin Gutzman (Author of Who Killed the Constitution).
Cowan attacks my arguments as weak without identifying the argument which is an anti-concept trick that was perfected by the political strategist Saul Alinsky. It is used, copied and heavily studied by radical groups to this day. People like Cowan pick up the behavior through observation and interacting with people who use the method. The premise of his attack is that my statement about Obama and his ideology is weak because it points to American Exceptionalism as strong, and that such a broad brush is not appropriate under the terms Cowan established in his anti-concept. By my definition of American Exceptionalism I am stating the concept “America is good.” The reason this angers people like Cowan, who believes that he is an evolved conservative to some degree, or just defining himself as some degree of libertarian, is that he has accepted that the concept of American Exceptionalism is a myth at some point in his past and he is defending his foundation beliefs from the concept of goodness. He then uses Bill Maher as validation to support his theory in the same fashion that he uses Kevin Gutzman as a crutch the way most academics use quotes and references to support collectively their own thoughts and beliefs. The implication of their need for reference crutches is their insecurity to their own thoughts. They attempt to build a public consensus by pointing at others and what they say as if to justify their own thoughts. The truth about slavery is that The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first Americanabolition society. It was founded April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by Anthony Benezet and others, and held four meetings.[1] Seventeen of the 24 men who attended initial meetings of the Society were Quakers, or members of the Religious Society of Friends. Thomas Paine was also among the Society’s founders. It was reorganized in 1784[2] as the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage,[3] (better known as the Pennsylvania Abolition Society) and was incorporated in 1789. At some point after 1785, Benjamin Franklin was elected as the organization’s president. The society asked him to bring the matter of slavery to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He petitioned the U.S Congress in 1790 to ban slavery.[4]
During this time there were similar movements happening all over the world as many were questioning the practice. But the big driver in changing the culture of slavery was The United States in their fight for independence. Once that revolution was won other countries looked at their own situations and made adjustments. Smaller countries like Haiti, Cuba, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Barbados, Bahamas and so on were able to abolish their slaves more quickly than larger countries with more bureaucracy. My example of American Excepetionalism is that if America had failed in their revolution then other countries would have stepped back from such a task. It took America to lead by example. Cowan would then point out that many of those movements took place at the turn of the 1700s into the early 1800s. Yet they were using America as their example as many of the discussions taking place in the colonies from those Philadelphia meetings were exported all over the world through commerce. When America defeated the British, many countries became more embolden in their pursuit of individual freedom and passed anti slavery mandates. Sadly, many of those same countries Cowan mentions would submit to socialism just a few years later falling back into social slavery of a different type.
Capitalism is great and the best system in which people can move up and down mobile in a free society. Capitalism predates the Union of States and American Exceptionalism. Did it occur to Rich that Britain lead the 1st industrial Revolution, followed by Meiji Restoration in Japan, and the 2nd industrial revolution was led by the United States.
Yes, it did occur to me, yet Britain failed in their economy falling to socialism as they allowed Keynesian economics to ruin their capitalism, and Japan of course could not leave their feudal social functions once they submitted themselves to an emperor. To this very day many large countries make the mistake of attempting to emulate Japan for their manufacturing standards believing them to be of higher quality than American standards. The failure in this thinking is that the Japanese place themselves before their individuality in nearly every case. Their programs of lean manufacturing work well as their people do not question the methods. Their service to their country and business come before their own desires. American strength in manufacturing has always come from their ability to think outside-the-box as individuals, not blind compliance to a greater good such as country, company, or even community. America adopted foreign lean manufacturing methods as a direct assault against the American labor unions which infected manufacturing from the Red Decade with communist philosophy. It was the only way that companies could force the unions to not destroy their businesses with non-productive effort. Because the unions put a lock on productive output, American companies were forced to use foreign collectivist methods perfected abroad to keep the unions from destroying their companies that were legally allowed to organize against industry for the collective gain of the many. Even with these severe handicaps most new ideas still come out of The United States. Most literature, films, music, art and technical innovation are generated by free people with the prospect of profit blowing wind into their sails. Even with all the best lean manufacturing techniques produced for collective motivation of work forces, creativity is what makes American Excptionalism. Creativity is what is missing from all other countries that have stepped away from capitalism, and to this day seek alliances with others to disguise the fact that they are nations of suppressed thought praying to their religions for inspiration. In America, innovation is invented because the mind is free—that is the backbone of American Excepetionalism.
‘’Americans have been taught by their gov’t that the United States gained everything it achieved by consuming too many resources and stepping on the rights of others across the world.’’ -This is what would be taught at a progressive college, that so called conservatives send their kids to and help support and perpetuate. Many fake conservative send their kids to progressive colleges so Johnny and Suzie can watch people run into other people on Saturday afternoon and ‘’what’s the score of the game mindless thinking.’’ Again, Rich is using the absurd progressive logic to lump real Conservatives like myself into, to push ‘’American Exceptionalism’’, which is the progressive rights term invented by a Frenchmen, and used to spread democracy by force to any country whether they want it or not.
Not sure that I disagree with Cowan here. He uses my name in a way that implicates that my statement is wrong, but then he agrees with it, because I had just said the same thing. Americans have been taught such things as I stated and most colleges are infected with progressive thought. If Cowan doesn’t believe such a thing I’m not sure what planet he’s living on.
I enjoyed Rich’s definition of a neocon! How terrible of the social freedom of the people in the 60’s. Was Steve Jobs one of those people?? A neocon or decepticon is someone who left the Democrat Party to join the Republican Party in which they brought their FDR progressive foreign policy with them. They also brought the mentality that morals should be controlled through the Fed gov’t. They were Nationalist that the great founders feared, and why some didn’t sign the Constitution fearing the Union would end up like as it is now.
Steve Jobs had a good idea and left his indoctrination education to invent his own way. He used capitalism to bring a great product to market, so not all people who smoked dope, and listened to the garbage music of the 60s was a diabolical hippie menace. I would say that George Lucas was cast of the same mold as Jobs, and I’m sure that George loved the 60’s although he was more of a loner than his friend Francis was at their first studio set up in San Francisco where hippie mania was rampant. Somewhere in that drug induced haze Star Wars was born which I love. But these guys are rare examples that managed to rise to the top even as statism was increasing to put shackles on the mind of mankind by suppressing capitalism. The second part of Cowan’s statement I agree with for the most part, even though it’s pretty general. The real situation is more complicated, but Cowan is learning so I’ll give him a gold star on his paper for at least thinking.
The founding fathers wanted to be immortalized for their writings and their accomplishments ‘’Fame of our Fathers’’, they however were very humble; they had humility which Rich doesn’t seem to grasp! Jefferson studied Scottish philosopher David Hume, Switzerland’s decentralized country, the Indians free trade, and the ancient Greeks who prior to Alexander the Great were successful for centuries with their small [r]epublics in which Math, Science, Art, Philosophy, architecture, and sport was mastered in small [r]epublics of people. Jefferson wasn’t arrogant as to say he created our ‘’written gov’t’’ on his own without researching other countries and philosophers. Rich’s progressive right term “American Exceptionalism’’, he points to ‘’American Experience’’ of 1776, which I noted to Matt Clark in my response.
‘’The benefits of capitalism and the American Experience produced a unique type of person that had only been contemplated by philosopher fantasies prior to the declaration.’’ Again the arrogance of Rich’s comments, Madison and Jefferson both used Adam Smith’s a Scottish Philosopher book ‘’Wealth of Nations’’ as a guide to preventing a National Bank and advocating the market to work!
As to Cowan’s point, there is nothing “progressive” about my term other than such an identification about American Exceptionalism is needed to defend what’s good about The United States against the progressives. Other than that, Cowan is indulging himself in wishful thinking to believe that I adhere to something because of some progressive invention that has not been carefully considered from all angles. In this paragraph the real weakness of Cowan begins to emerge, his real gripe with me. As a victim of a mixed economy he believes certain things. As a flawed human being who probably has events from his past that he regrets, he chooses to maintain a view of the world that supports notions that flaws make humans, “human.” Many people wish to believe such things because it would be hard for them to get up every morning and put on their shoes. But I am very aware of the origins of Jefferson’s belief and studies of Scottish Common Sense, which I have written about elsewhere, CLICK FOR REVIEW. I have said on many occasions that the work of John Locke was inspired by the pirate Henry Morgan, which then also showed the colonies how to shake off a nation the way that Morgan took on Spain nearly single-handedly with their presence in the Caribbean. But the fact remains that these elements came together not in Scotland, England, Spain, or France where they were talked about. It was only in America where the dialogue was able to move away from dinner tables, congregations, and card games to become part of the governing philosophy of a country on the rise.
Now to deal with the “arrogance” portion of this debate–being humble is a taught theory by statist oriented groups, be it religion or government to force compliance of the masses to the desires of institutionalism. Grace in victory and humbleness are often confused to be the same thing by people like Cowan, but they are not. It is often perceived that confidence is “arrogant” by those who lack it which is to say that such a declaration is just another anti-concept. By calling me arrogant Cowan hopes to dismiss everything I have said and place himself in high esteem with a reader who identifies their internal value with humbleness, which is sheer nonsense. The concept of serving God with humbleness may be what the majority of human beings believe, but that belief was created during the Dark Ages of Europe and should be confined to the corners of one’s own home. Humility and “duty” to something greater than oneself is a statist concept that was created by the churches of Europe to maintain political control over their flocks. Under the rules of engagement for people like Cowan he is quick to associate humility with arrogance so that he doesn’t have to deal with the root cause of the word. It is the tendency toward humility that Eric Holder continues to lie directly to the American people, it allows Barack Obama to lie about the impact of the scandals he’s at the center of, it allows scum bags like Anthony Wiener to lie, lie, and lie again to anybody and everyone about his sexual lust for other women making his wife look like a buffoon who will forgive anything just so she can be married to someone in a powerful public office—like her mentor Hillary Clinton. These predators all have in common a desire to use the humility of civilization to hide their true intentions. Humility is not a good human trait, kindness is, intelligence is, even compassion, but not humility. Yielding to ones faults, which humility implies, is a sin against the individual soul of every human being and people everywhere will continue to live in bondage to social parasites so long as they believe in the kinds of things that Ben Cowan believes, that humility has value, and equals arrogance. More on this in a bit because it’s not the only time Cowan uses the term. But as far as how to behave when you win, the following videos are from the bullwhip competitions that I was at when Ben started this little fuss through Matt. Notice my behavior when I win. I expect the same from every American. You don’t rub people’s face in it, but you don’t cower away from it either. When you have something to be proud of, be proud of it.
‘’Life in virtually every facet is better in America because of the philosophy of personal independence that is much larger than the ‘’American Experience.’’ This is so obnoxious, that is the American Experience, limited gov’t. The founders referred to their states as countries, they didn’t speak in homogenized tongue like Rich! The South traded throughout the world (off the backs of slaves) and the Northern States were protectionalist!
This is the kind of thing that caused Cowan to start this dialogue off with an anti-concept attack instead of fact based thought. He does not understand the American Experience in spite of all his supposed education and conservative thought. He doesn’t understand it as a graduate of Rush Limbaugh thought so he finds my statement, “obnoxious.” He lacks perspective to see the world through common sense instead of memorized standards which is why he surrendered his statement to some implications of racism and isolationism—both agreed upon violations of universal understanding. The American Experience is being born in a free country with no hooks into the soul of the child. Many believe that the World Bank owns us all, but at least philosophically, in The United States there is at least the assumption of personal freedom that is held in high regard. In America one does not have to social climb to be successful. That is a European trait. One does not have to marry someone else to become powerful. That is a European, and Asian trait. One does not have to become a member of the political class to gain wealth. That is a European trait. In America one can be just about anything they want to be and they can be it anytime they want to. Just as a byproduct of American culture, which is a direct result of the American Experience, look just at Comic Con in San Diego. America is dedicated to the products of the mind, and no place else in the world is there anything like Comic Con. There are other countries that attempt to host such events such as the recent Star Wars Celebration in Germany, but the products displayed there are not developed in other countries, it is in the United States that they were created. Or consider the British Invasion of music that came out of England during the 60’s, a period that Cowan seems to enjoy. They came to America to be superstars as England had too small of a stage to gain such fame. That is the American Experience. Cowan because of his very weak position again took a page out of the progressive notebook of anti-concepts and attempted to use racism and isolationism to gain control of victory in the debate without having any facts to cover his emotional lack of understanding about the American Experience.
Walt Disney should be honored as a great entrepreneur that used determination, creativity, and thrift which is missing in today’s culture. People don’t know what thrift is, these days!
Rudolf Diesel a German inventor invented the diesel engine, which we use very much in the Union today. I could see German’s going around saying this is German Exceptionalism. I have never heard German’s speak in that tongue, but I detest our countrymen arrogantly beating their chest say we are the Awesomest of the Awesome! People don’t like pompous people, they are attracted by humility, what you don’t have Rich.
This is where I get really angry, and why I took a few days to cool off before answering Cowan directly. Let me start on a positive, which I agree with Cowan on the thrift issue. I would like to see a return to that type of mental exercise. And the German’s would have every right to proclaim German Exceptionalism. It was they who produced some of the finest engineering feats in the world during the 20th century and even as members of the European Union, they manage to be so productive that the rest of their European neighbors continually want to borrow their money. German BMW and Mercedes automobiles are fabulously engineered earning them the right to beat on their chest about that particular field. But here is where people like Ben Cowan are deeply flawed human beings bringing in the front door the tyrants of our modern age because they fail to project the proper mentality to combat attacks from villains who prey on humility.
When making a point that most of society will reject people who do not display humility he is right, but wrong. Being “liked,” being “popular,” or having people think you’re “awesome,” is the furthest thing from my mind. I don’t have humility because I don’t want it Cowan. I do not conceal from hangers in my closet skeletons of shame, I do not fear violence by my attackers, or need to be liked in any fashion. I do have people who like me, who share my values, but I have no desire to be liked by people who do not share my values, which is very few. If I had such a thought I wouldn’t say half the things that needed to be said in this day and age. Even people who read here every day get angry with the things I say. But it doesn’t change my stance and it never will. When you start caring what people think of you, you are finished in the philosophy business. When you desire to be loved, you are prone to be corrupt, to be bought, to allow enemies to gain emotional leverage over you. People should like you because they share your values or respect you, not because you pander to their own weaknesses. It is that process that has turned our entire society into a nation of fools led by idiots, and I would guess that many of them think just like Cowan.
Cowan believes he stands on high moral ground backed by historical fact, but all he stands upon is a pile of his own metaphorical feces created by years of such thinking. It is because of this weakness in him personally that he attempts to skirt around the edges pretending to be a sophisticated conservative that is beyond refute. But in reality he is a child of the mixed economy that has bought into some of the statism that is rampant in American culture, much of it culminating in the 1960s a period Cowan appears to enjoy.
A defeated person uses an emphasis on humility, weakness, or accusations of pompousness to justify their lackluster existences. It is easy to be an armchair philosopher, a casual listener of a radio broadcast, and a Facebook junkie that comments on things other people do. It is quite something else to be the leading edge of an ice breaker, to crash through all opposition knowing that the pain will never ever go away so long as there is ice to smash through. To the broken ice, the ice breaker is a villain, a un-compassionate destroyer, an uncompromising force of sheer will and something to be feared. To me the value is in the ice breaker who can smash through the progressive ice even if people like Ben Cowan have built cities upon the ice believing that the surface was sturdy underneath. They believe such things until they see the ice breaker coming and to cover their fear of seeing for the first time the waters under the ice, they attempt to direct the ice breaker somewhere else so that it doesn’t violate the cities of thought they have built upon progressive corruption. That is the motive behind their diatribes of humility, arrogance, and pompousness. Notice in the events shown in these clips that I was competing in as Cowan sent me his half-baked diatribes, that I don’t rub anything in when I win events. But I don’t show modesty either. If you are good, you are good and should not be ashamed of it. People like Cowan mistake pride, confidence, and determination for evil vices created in the courts of Europe for the determined strategy of controlling the masses to limited thinking and self imprisonment by social shackles.
Instead of comparing us to China, India, Spain, and Russia, how about you compare us to Switzerland, Estonia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Chile. We are the 10th freest country in the world now! Using the left/right paradigm gets old. It is now Nationalism vs. Federalism, Limited gov’t vs. Central planning. Obviously you want the Fed Gov’t to plan social cultural norms. Steve Jobs was a capitalist; he listened to the Grateful Dead and was an advocate of LSD. I don’t own any apple products, but luckily he was never jailed for 20 years with your authoritarian leaning positions. How many jobs did Steve Jobs create Rich?
I didn’t try and put Matt on the defensive. ‘’American Exceptionalism’’ comes off as arrogant to the average person and turns them away from limited decentralized gov’t that the good founders embraced! It also gives the average person the mentality that we need to export our awesomeness to other nations, which is the opposite of the founders. ‘’American Exceptionalism, is a term that Hitler would have embraced if he were American, getting people to believe in the good of the state. He detested divided gov’t and decentralization. He wanted to instill Nationalism in the German people, and he commended Lincoln in his book Mein Kampf for Nationalizing the US and trampling the states. No critical thinking allowed in their worlds, similar to Rich’s.
And here is why I find Cowan such a repulsive parasite that is more dangerous than the average progressive, because at least those threats are easy to identify. Cowan sells himself as a logical conservative, but since his value system was threatened by my statements he has retreated to comparing me to Adolf Hitler! Cowan, America needs to export its awesomeness to other nations! You bet your ass! I’ll say it again. “AMERICA NEEDS TO EXPORT ITS AWESOMNESS TO OTHER NATIONS!” Other countries would be much, much, MUCH better off if they adopted American ideals of independence, economic freedom, and creative enterprise.
As for celebrating in sports, I don’t watch those main stream sports! I play sports that are gentlemen’s games, where you can call a penalty on yourself because the people who play have virtue! Humility and lack of explaining in a story of how the Union came about and how the founders studied other countries to help craft written documents such as the ‘’Declaration of Independence’’, ‘’Articles of Confederation’’, and ‘’The Constitution’’ is what is missing today. Broad rhetoric and arrogant phrases ‘’American Exceptionalism’’ detour people from discovering our founding generation’s great works!
Just as the definition of Welfare 250 years ago, ‘’it was a deliverance from evil’’, which now means gov’t assistance. The American Experience is the correct term in which to use! I have served my country and I am a small business owner and it makes me upset when people use terms that confuse people into thinking the person is bragging about America or is trying to invade another country and impose its Exceptionalism on them! So let’s teach kids limited gov’t and to promote trade with countries we don’t see eye to eye with. Encourage kids to read about the great risk takers and inventors of our country and the rest of the world!
Finally what Ben Cowan is really about; he considers himself a gentleman, something of a Victorian gentleman at that. Well, dude, it was considered against the “gentleman code” to attack during bad weather or other adverse conditions, but George Washington attacked the Hessians at Trenton anyway against every kind of “gentlemanly” code of conduct there was, early in the morning, right after a holiday, and during bad weather. Then again at the fall of Yorktown, Cornwallis attempted to send his surrendered sword by Deputy General Charles O’Hara to give to General Rochambeau. When Rochambeau rejected the offer O’Hara had to give the sword to Benjamin Lincoln because Washington refused to allow Cornwallis to avoid acknowledging the American General as his superior in combat. Cornwallis was a gentleman. Washington was gracious in victory, but demanded respect—which is a lesson we should all be embracing! I can only imagine what kind of “gentlemanly games” Cowan is talking about, Croquet, basket weaving, coin collecting? I hang around knife throwers, gun marksman, and bullwhip artists. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. The “gentleman code” is just another anti-concept. There is a difference between being respectful of other people, and then pawing off inaction, indecision, and just plain being a pussy to behaving like a “gentleman.” Cowan, you be a gentleman all you want. I’ll take the win, I’ll take the American Excepetionalism, and I’ll take the freedom that comes with it. You keep the European terminology and keep calling me arrogant. It lets me know I’m doing the right things.
