Tag: Down the Rabbit Hole

Capitalism: The new political party of one

I am starting my own political party in America.  So far I am it’s only member and I really don’t care if one year from now, or 30 years from now, that the number remains at one, because if history has taught us anything, it’s that the masses are fools and it is individuals who always prevail, and there isn’t a greater signifier of individuality than the number “1.”  I have traditionally been a Republican most of my life, yet as a party they are not freedom oriented enough for me.  I sure as hell am not a Democrat as there isn’t one cell in my body that understands their socialist diatribes of collectivism.  And I enjoy freedom too much to be cast into an oven with Libertarians, Objectivists, or any other political philosophy associated with “group” behavior.  Yet America needs a political philosophy that is uniquely an invention of The United States Constitution, and it needs people who will not cower in fear to defend it.  All of the above have to some extent, with the exception of the Libertarians, and Objectivists who currently find their social identification cast into the quick sand of marijuana legalization by the other two established parties, are on the wrong path–completely.  My new party of which I am so far the only member is The Capitalism Party.  And when I speak of capitalism I’m talking specifically about laissez-nous faire capitalism.  The reason is that such a brand of capitalism is the only moral choice for the modern age, and is the absolute best way to defeat all pretenses of statism in all political parties across the world.  Tactically, since it is well-known at this present date that ideologically the world is well involved in World War III I see capitalism as the most effective component to winning that war not against other nationalities, but dangerous collective ideologies.  Capitalism disarms the enemies of freedom in a way nothing else can, so it is my determination that capitalism gets a political party dedicated to fighting not against any machine political rule, any lobby force in state and federal capitals, or the type of tribal chieftains who have destroyed every culture on the face of the Earth with their infantile notions of collective sacrifice—capitalism trumps them all in logic, moral value, and effectiveness and it is time to use it as a means to bring the human race true freedom once and for all.

Very few people know what is meant by laissez-faire capitalism.  The way political parties have established the meaning is in a connotation of greed, wealth, and distorted excess.  It has been ostracized not because it’s bad, but because capitalism is good.  The worst elements of human society have recognized that capitalism favors those with value and makes those without it easily recognized so their objections to capitalism are to prevent those revelations from being seen by the world at large.  Enemies of capitalism have sought to knock out the lights of capitalism just as they were turned on following the American Revolution.  The small period of near laissez fair capitalism emerging from 1780 to 1850 in America brought The United States most of the wealth it currently enjoys.  But it could do more, and many more people could have benefited if capitalism had not been abandoned in favor of socialism and big government fascism.  Laissez faire capitalism get’s its name from the French period of Louis XIV who was the archetypical despot of Europe.  He is certainly not alone in history as there are many Louis the XIV types currently in The United Nations, and current American White House.  There are wheel barrel loads of them on the current Capital Hill in the House and Senate.  There are even more in the court rooms of our free country who seek elected office at some point in their careers to assist in their legal business and establish themselves as advocates of statism by advancing “political pull” as their path to success.  Anyway, under Louis XIV there was the chief advisor by the name of Colbert who believed that government regulations created national prosperity, and that higher tax revenues created economic growth.  It is easy to see where Karl Marx and the theory of Keynesian economics derived their elementary ideas—from the rulers of Europe and early advocates of world statism.  Colbert was not stupid however; he understood that business was important to the country’s prosperity.  Often he would attempt to wine and dine fattening them on the opulence he had access to under Louis the XIV in hopes that they would become willing facilitators of collective success.  This reflects the type of behavior currently seen in American politics and then as in now, businessmen through tokens of appeasement in the direction of Colbert by way of bribes to keep the government off their backs as much as possible, sought to protect themselves from government interference.  Yet one businessman, a manufacturer named Legendre told Colbert that if he really wanted to help industry in France that the government would: “Laissez-nous fair!” meaning (let us alone!)

Those who advocate statism of any kind tend to be mentally lazy, and short on original ideas.  Their desire for statism is to leech off the efforts of the very few who do have original ideas so that they may show the world that they also have value.  However their only means of achieving that value is through collectivism, as they are not able to generate such value on their own.  This is why large masses of people find themselves seduced by socialism, fascism, and hard communism because it takes courage to stand at the front of an idea and to be successful.  Most people do not have that courage.  So like Colbert, they understand that they need the big ideas of those who start corporations so that jobs are provided, but like abusive husbands who fear a cheating wife, they prevent them from having unlimited freedom to disguise their own insecurities, thinking that the they will run away if they are given free choice.  Colbert sought partnership with business in much the same way, and the same holds true to this very day in America.  Government seeks a partnership with business to elevate their moral authority—to fill the empty vessels of their souls with value—not because they want to help advance liberty, or even make people safe.

I have studied history and political philosophy for many years, and all the systems are lacking the type of value I personally have, so I must reject them.  All current political parties can fall under one of the three primary influences known to the world today, socialism, fascism, and statism.  The definitions of these three forces need to be understood adequately.  First, socialism is a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc, for the community as a whole. When a school levy in America is attempting to appeal to the moral authority of their right to take tax money off private property they are functioning as socialists.  The value of the property is for the good of the “community”–the collective whole.  Their premise is that by spending money on children they are investing in the future of the community, but in reality, what is really happening is that public schools are tactically attacking private property by penalizing those who have it, and benefiting those who don’t—such as renters of apartments who have an equal vote, but do not pay an equal share of the taxes.  This is socialism.

Fascism is a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc).  This is what the EPA is doing, the ATF, the FDA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the IRS—just name the federal agency, and you will see the definition of fascism clear as day.  Then there is statism, which is the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.  When a school says they must teach a certain thing to students because “The State” has mandated it, they are indicating that they are committed to teaching statism to students and they expect tax payers to supply the costs of that statism with tax increases.

Obviously our modern society is a mixture of all three of those definitions, and none of those political theories are dedicated to individual freedom, quite the opposite.  Instead, they are 100% dedicated to the idea of “rule by consensus.”  Rule by consensus is the surrendering of the good to the bad so that the murky middle can rule all by fairness.  However, this is only fair to the bad that have little to contribute to society.  The only entities that make a sacrifice under such compromises are the good.  So the rule by consensus ideology that is so prevalent in our modern times is unfair to those who produce and have value, but is fair to those who are scandalous, tyrannical, and emotional despots.  Ironically, in any democracy there will always be more of those types of people, so they will perpetually vote in favor of statism—as they only can gain from such an arrangement.

This brings us back around to capitalism and why I am committing my political philosophy to it for now on.  The definition of capitalism as it needs to be rightly understood is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.  That sounds simple enough and it needs to be, but the idea of ownership permeates every level of society and virtually everything that is seen.  When someone owns property even if it’s just an idea, they tend to take care of it.  When they share the responsibility with others, they neglect the property—its human nature and is as old as time itself.  So to encourage the most value in society that brings the most benefit to the most people, capitalism needs to be the political philosophy most strongly advocated—world wide.

I understand that it will take a long time to make my case.  It may take several lifetimes to change the minds of mankind away from the idea of tribal sacrifice and embrace property ownership.  The planet Earth in 2013 is being ruled by tribal consensus.  Every continent except half the North American continent has a deep history of mystic faith and voodoo beliefs, and the political philosophies have forced their people to live in huts, cramped up housing, and sub par conditions because they have embraced either socialism, fascism, or statism in their tribal cultures from their inception.  Only the United States took a step toward capitalism and the benefits were obvious.  But under the rule of consensus, America has been made to feel guilty and has been expected to crawl on its knees begging for atonement—begging the lethargic buffoons of five continents to impose their beliefs on American success and that has to stop.

In our representative republic of America I do not have anyone who reflects my beliefs not because my beliefs are wrong, but because they lack the courage to defend them.  I will not crawl on my knees for anybody, especially Europe.  And if I’m the only one who thinks capitalism is the proper political philosophy for America, I am fine with that.  But I will continue to make the case for capitalism going forward because only it represents my personal values and does the most good for Earth and everyone on it.  For an example, see The Epcot Center in Disney World for proof and evidence.

There have been a few writers in history who have defended capitalism properly, but not nearly enough.  So I will endeavor to contribute in that area.  Already I have two books with separate characters in Rick Stevens from Tail of the Dragon and Fletcher Finnegan from The Symposium of Justice who can tell a story in mythic form why capitalism is the preferred political philosophy in America.  This is the best way to understand a complex concept.  It may take me the next 100 years to write more stories, and create more scenarios that articulate properly why capitalism is the proper political system that America should function under, but that task is one that’s appropriate to the type of odds I enjoy.  There are nearly 7 billion people living on Earth presently, and I would guess that nearly 98% of those people currently believe that the world’s political philosophy should either be socialism, fascism, or statism.  Yet they are all wrong—every one of them.  Since I do not accept rule by consensus, I am happy to take on each and every one of them in tandem to defend capitalism as the most moral means of political philosophy ever invented and to expose the holes in their corrupted theories in a battle that even though the numbers are dramatically against me, are in my favor by virtue of honesty.  So the time to make a commitment to capitalism is now.

I suppose I’ve always felt this way but what really sharpened my teeth on this idea was the school levy fights I’ve been in and how I had to watch good people whom I knew that were factory owners, developers, and other creators of jobs and ideas cower before the likes of people like Laura Sanders, a radical levy addict in my home school district. I had to learn why, and how. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.   Now that I understand the problem, it is time to do something about it. That is why I am starting my own political party that is not dedicated to holding elected office, but in the type of philosophy that built America in the first place, and one that will bring prosperity and freedom to every breathing soul in the entire world.  That is a task I find honorable, and one that deserves top priority and tenacious dedication even if the effort is solitary.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Doc Thompson at The Cincinnati Freedom Expo: A new age of radio at The Blaze

Doc Thompson’s speech at the Cincinnati Freedom Expo had for me a tinge of sadness even though it was electrifying in delivery.  It was sad because before he spoke two men had stood on the stage for a moment as giants in the radio business, at least locally within the Cincinnati area.  The man who introduced Doc Thompson was Brian Thomas of 55 KRC who is a wonderful person and has been with the liberty movement from day one.  He does a show from 6 AM to 9 AM every weekday morning that has done much to fan the flames of freedom over the years.   Doc Thompson just over a year ago worked with Thomas at Clear Channel Radio but as fate would have it is now part of a national show on The Blaze radio network that Glenn Beck has started which utilizes the Internet in ways that are innovative and pure from a moral standpoint.  My sadness came as I thought of all the battery operated radios I have had over the years where I would listen to AM radio at all hours of the day and night learning infinite amounts of information from minds communicating over vast distances to be received in the privacy of my own home.  Even as a young child of 8 years old as I turned on my radio to listen to WLW at 2 AM in the morning careful not to get caught by my parents for violating my sleep, I felt the privilege of being an American with access to such stores of knowledge passing over invisible airwaves.  As an adult I have participated in radio as a frequent guest and used the power of debate to articulate complicated arguments that are most successfully framed in such a fashion.  I love radio, and some of my best friends are radio people because we share the value of such thought freedom.  Unfortunately the reality of knowing too much is the result of such relationships, and this was the cause of my sadness as I watched Doc speak during the following clip.

The radio as it is today is dying.  It is being replaced with Internet radio, phone apps, and much more powerful and free means of communicating that stand to end the powerful rule of radio as controlled by the so-called public airwaves.  My sadness is that I like Brian Thomas at 55 KRC a lot, and I feel that within the decade his job at Clear Channel will be in peril as the kind of leap that Doc Thompson has made with Glenn Beck will change the world in a way that has not yet been foreseen.  Doc and his producer, long time friend Skip are truly on the cutting edge of technology with their all Internet radio show on the powerful Blaze Network.    Doc’s style of radio is traditional American with copious amounts of humor.  Doc like Glenn Beck likes to tackle stories that are very critical of the government, and it is the government who runs the FCC, Federal Communications Commission.  Under the First Amendment this should be no problem.  But radio people will testify privately that they have the same problems with the FCC as controversial figures often have with the IRS.  It is well-known that when controversial, small government types put a light on themselves, the risk of being audited by the IRS goes up dramatically.  The IRS is not shy about imposing themselves upon targets under the laws they helped shape to “inconvenience” the lives of the people they audit.  The threat of IRS audits is enough to change human behavior to stay away from any conduct the IRS might not approve of.  The same kind of performance goes on with the FCC.  If a radio station does not do enough “balanced” content a radio station is often audited by a FCC regulator and this can spell big trouble for a station trying to stay in business with ad sales and any revenue streams they can manage offering free content over the airwaves.  This is a hidden tyranny that few know about but those who are close to the business.  For instance, hypothetically speaking of course—perhaps a radio station provided too much content attacking public schools as incompetent and that the government took notice deciding they wanted to crack down on the station for “unfairly” targeting public education.  The concern is that public education is a shared government program, so the FCC activists seek to crack down on the violating station providing their government co-workers with a little help.  They audit the station’s programming and determine that the program director needs to provide more opinions from both sides of a political debate even though only one side represents the truth, and is accepted by the listening public.  Offering false progressive oriented information just to appear “balanced” has a negative impact on the listening audience whom the station seeks to appeal to in order to sell advertising space.  But failure to comply can mean the revocation of the FCC licenses for the station.  This is how the media has become so liberal over time is through this type of activism on behalf of the FCC.  The same content challenges come on television, and producers of content have had to learn to dance around the regulations to appease auditors.

The government grabbed this control with the Act of 1927 where the Commissioners had total power over the fate of professional broadcasters.  They did this in the fashion that they always do, by declaring that the airwaves where in the “public interest.”  From the outset public radio waves as quickly as they were discovered, or rather invented as a means for utilizing through technology, was taken over by government statists like President Herbert Hoover who declared in 1924, “radio communication is not to be considered as merely a business carried on for private gain, for private advertisement, or for entertainment of the curious.   It is a public concern impressed with the public trust and to be considered primarily from the standpoint of public interest in the same extent and upon the bases of the same general principles as our other public utilities.”  Hoover was of course wrong and was being influenced at the time by the global push for communism which had infected Europe.  To stave it off from the education institutions in America, Presidents like Hoover tossed sacrifices to the statist oriented big government progressive advocates in return for peace; much the way station directors do for FCC auditors in the present time.  The result has been a gradual erosion of the First Amendment from day one in radio and this is why I was sad watching Doc Thompson speak.  It wasn’t for Thompson that my heart went out, but for Brian Thomas and the station he works for that struggle with the FCC.  Doc Thompson who is now working for Glenn Beck is totally free of that FCC drivel which should have never been put in place to begin with.

The Internet is driving big government types insane with worry, which is why there are constant attempts to tax and regulate the Internet which in its current state is the perfect example of laissez-faire capitalism.  The government starting with Al Gore has tried to lay claim that it was he (government) who created the Internet so that they can hope to build in the minds of society the moral means to create some modern form of the Act of 1927 allowing the FCC to regulate Internet content and put a stop to all the free expression that goes on because of the unregulated content where competition crushes bad ideas, but encourages creativity.  It is because of the Internet that blog sites like this Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom site can thrive and bypass the regulated controls of newspapers and television.  It is because of the Internet that Doc Thompson now has the potential to reach listeners all over the world instead of the meager power of a radio station throwing information to the airwaves controlled by the government.

So far, the government has not been able to control the Internet with a moral argument that has duped the public, and it is driving them absolutely crazy.  As of this writing the CISP (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) passed the House of Representatives by a 288-127 vote, receiving support from 92 Democrats. It will move to the Senate and then to the president’s desk. That bill has been proposed in the same spirit as the Act of 1927 and is a gateway for the government to regulate Internet usage and information exchange.  The Internet powered by new media like blog sites, YouTube and Internet radio like The Blaze hosted by Doc Thompson has far more power than any FCC controlled business because good ideas will be accepted by the public, and bad ones will be flushed out the way capitalism is supposed to work under a laissez-faire system.  The FCC has harmed the flow of information in an attempt to control the behavior of on-air content in the same way that the government has destroyed the economy, through tampering, meddling, and coercion.  Because of the FCC Brian Thomas cannot say whatever he wants whenever he wants to, and put at risk his reputation to his listeners if he believes the risk is worth the reward.  For him, the decisions are already made.  He can discuss content in a certain way so that he does not violate the FCC license of the company he works for.  If he crosses the line, because of the license renewal process, management can reel him back under control, and this is the direct result of government intrusion into broadcasting.  CEO’s and other managers trying to keep their professional broadcasting companies operating, have learned to stray to the political left in order to keep auditors off their backs and keep advertisers secure.   To understand how serious this situation is watch this broadcast between Doc Thompson and Matt Clark on WAAM radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Doc Thompson now on the other hand only has to worry about Glenn Beck.  Doc is free to do and say what he pleases and the risks are completely on his shoulders.  For instance, when Doc shared the hallways of Clear Channel with Brian Thomas during the fall of 2011, Doc would wrap up his show each day with a five-minute segment “What have we learned today.”  It’s a fun segment that allows for a lot of humor, and is an aspect of his show that his audience enjoys.  On The Blaze network Doc and Skip do over 10 minutes of the segment and have a tremendous amount of fun doing it.  Most of the segment is deeply critical of modern government and the outrageous hypocrisy that is often associated with institutionalized sacrifice.  Doc’s show has only been active since January of 2013 and is quickly growing in numbers.  After listening to Doc now for a couple of months and noticing how it has evolved, the success of it is a foregone conclusion.  It is successful because it follows the rules of laissez-faire capitalism and will soon crush the kind of radio stations that I have grown up listening to because the FCC will not allow direct competition.  The government has declared itself owners of the airwaves and have put themselves out of the emerging market.  It is because of the FCC that the Internet is a thriving, vivacious place of anything and everything at any time a day, the way the American economy is supposed to be.  For instance, last week my Jacuzzi had a heating element that went out in it, so I took the removed part up to a pool specialty shop where they told me they couldn’t find a replacement.  Discouraged, my wife went to Ebay and looked up Jucuzzi heating elements.  She found a match for our tub that was $22, about $40 cheaper than I was expecting.  She ordered it, it arrived by UPS and I installed it within a few hours.  The tub was back up and operating again in no time at all while I was in attendance watching Doc Thompson’s speech.  Ebay is a dynamic market driven supplier whereas the carefully controlled regulated pool store could not help me get what I needed.  If not for Ebay, I may have had a really difficult time getting a new heating element.  The same kind of flexibility is what is happening to the First Amendment in public broadcasting.  The old radio business model is dying, whereas the new one represented by Doc Thompson is growing rapidly.

The sadness I felt at Doc’s speech wasn’t so much in that the old radios of my youth were becoming extinct.  It was more like witnessing a young child who was born and immediately had its legs cut off so that it could never run away too far from mother government and had just now been seen for its handicap.  Such a comparison was only noticed in a side by side analysis.    The FCC put the clamps down on free thought in a direct reaction to the great communist threat coming from across the pond, and what America ended up with was broadcasting which reflects the mixed economy of our present society—full of diversity, and content, but always possessing a subtle reminder that America could do better, have more, and reach much loftier heights.  It’s the thought one has who visits Disney World and sees that there are wheel chair ramps up the Swiss Family Robison House in Adventure Land which reminds viewers that the ADD had their input on the creative impulse of such capitalistic endeavors represented eloquently in amusement parks.  More and more listeners of radio programming are switching to Doc Thompson on The Blaze radio network from 6 AM to 9 AM Monday through Friday to hear the unregulated truth separated gleefully from the long arm, and nanny state FCC.  Shows like what Doc Thompson and Glenn Beck are producing on the Internet is what radio should have always been. But radio never had a chance, because of the government’s innate instinct to behave as European statists devoid of logic, encapsulated by a mask of goodness, only to discover the roots of tyranny were uttered in the well-intentioned words of Herbert Hoover which created the Great Depression prevailed.  The Internet is all about laissez-faire capitalism and this has never been truer than the wonderful work Doc Thompson produces each day in thought, humor, and news delivery.  His show can be heard anywhere in the world where the Internet can be received and is the future of America and the continuous pursuit of freedom.

Make The Blaze radio network your one stop source of streaming news and entertainment.  Click the link below to listen:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/themes/TheBlaze/blaze_radio/player/

Click here to see just how powerful, and how many people are listening.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/20/purported-aunt-of-boston-bombing-suspects-gets-into-fiery-exchange-with-theblazes-buck-sexton/

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Making of ‘Tail of the Dragon’ The Novel Part V: Morality beyond the limits of political law

Many people used to say that someday I would learn my place, and stop being so rambunctious.  They said that someday I would turn down the music and place my foot lighter on the accelerator.  They used to say that once I did some jail time, or paid enough fines that I would “settle down.”  That was nearly three decades ago, and those people if they are still alive themselves, have stopped tapping their foot waiting for it to happen.  They have had to accept that after all the many, many times that I have stood in front of judges, all the countless times I have had patrol car lights behind me, and even the times that I represented myself in court because my legal representation was incompetent and not able to defend my cases to my satisfaction, that their dreams of defeat would come.  People who have stood against me, or wished for me to fall in line with typical human acceptance of authority have had to give up on their dreams of my compliance.  What they never figured out was that I learned when I was very young that the American legal system was made up of social looters who were more interested in making money, than justice, and the intent behind law was not the protection of private property—as its supposed to be, but in the rule of a political class over the “common man,” and I have fought that tendency since I was a 5-year-old child with my Big Wheel.  And I haven’t kept my opinions to myself over the years.  Instead I have taught them to my kids which can be seen in the below video, which is Part 5 of the Making of series chronicling the creation of my latest novel Tail of the Dragon.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW PREVIOUS INSTALLMENTS.  In the video, my daughter and her husband accompanied my wife and I to the Indie Gathering Film Festival in Cleveland, Ohio to accept an award for a short film I had entered for competition titled The Overman, for the best experimental film category.

Because of my thoughts about speed, and the legal system I had no problem telling the operators of the film festival that I would arrive at 10 AM that morning from Cincinnati.  My daughter and her husband wanted to go with us, so we planned a motorcycle trip for the weekend up to Cleveland.  I wanted to take a break from the writing of Tail of the Dragon to accept the award, so we decided to leave on a Saturday morning, spend the night at the Holiday Inn at West Lake where the film festival was being held, then return on Sunday.  At 5 AM in the morning, we hit the road on my Boulevard motorcycle.  My son-in-law rode the GS750 that he bought from me the year before, and my daughter rode their Kawasaki Ninja.  However, my daughter had never ridden a motorcycle on her own.  Previously she had ridden on the back of the Ninja with my son-in-law, but that was the extent of her motorcycle riding experience.  So I promised her we’d take several breaks along the way.  Her only real concern at the time was that she only had a temp permit, and was concerned that she’d run into trouble with the law being so far away from home on just a learners permit.  This was the way I came up with the plot line in Tail of the Dragon where Rick Stevens gets pulled over by the police while on a learners permit in Tennessee.  My daughter was taking a big risk riding a very fast motorcycle as her first real riding experience, and over such a vast distance.  But as I’ve always taught her, without risk the rewards are often not very profitable, so she desired to take a risk in hope of rewards and push herself in a way she had never done before.  600 miles over a weekend on a motorcycle at over 80 to 90 MPH the entire time as a beginning rider with only a motorcycle temp license was challenging, and I was proud of her.

We stopped short of Columbus well before the sun came up to get a feel for how she was doing.  Early in the game, she was getting used to the bike and the speed, so we were able to move on up the highway making a few fuel stops and a traditional breakfast at the Cracker Barrel—which we tend to do when traveling as a family.  Much of the time we were traveling at over 90 MPH as the sun was coming up which was spectacular.  It’s the kind of experience that cannot be explained to people who have not participated in that kind of activity.  With me the speed is necessary.  I was scheduled to arrive in Cleveland at Lake Wood around 10 AM to get my booth set up and report for the screening of my film.  But I set such deadlines knowing the pace I typically travel at, which is faster than flight if TSA lines are accounted for.  I can often travel to far-flung cities quicker than an airplane can load passengers, takeoff, and land dispatching their customers.  So I often take full advantage of that ability.

Many people over the years have told me that my driving tendencies are reckless, but this is based on the perspective of “average” people who desire to be led around like cattle by a political class afraid of their own shadows.  Never-the-less, my attitude has put me into a lot of trouble with the law.  The goal of these legal altercations has not been justice on behalf of the safety of mankind.  The goal is to use the law, which has set speed limits unnecessarily low so that politicians can have the opportunity to have a tax increase against the public in the disguise of “justice.”  The point of my new novel was to illustrate this fact based on my many experiences in front of judges and police officers.  My editor at American Book at one point challenged one of the confrontations that Rick Stevens, (the protagonist of Tail of the Dragon) had with a police officer—as there were several—and didn’t believe that a cop would behave in the way I described in the novel.  I explained to her that I had been in nearly the same exact circumstance in real life which involved a gun, and that Rick Stevens story had its roots more in reality than in fiction.

We arrived in Cleveland  to meet the day ahead of the other contestants even though many of them were already staying at the hotel.  We were the first to arrive in the networking room, which is the way I like to perform my business.  We set up our table and did our work at the festival.  I shook hands, signed autographs, posed for pictures and received my awards.  When the other filmmakers went to a party at the hotel bar that night, my family was in our hotel room working on philosophy concepts and taking notes from the day.  My son-in-law does a lot of thinking of his own and had many thoughts to capture from his observations, and my daughter naturally does as well.  She often stays up late every night writing down ideas, editing pictures and doing research, so we don’t attend many parties.  We socialize in a festive fashion on VERY rare occasions.  I spent many hours after everyone went to bed working on a re-write of the completed Tail of the Dragon manuscript based on some of my observations from the previous day.

The next day, we awoke, had a nice breakfast and said goodbye to everyone in Cleveland.  We hit the road with the same fury for which we came.  At a fuel stop, my very fatigued daughter let the Ninja fall over as she was extremely tired from the hard riding the previous day and so far during our trip south.  The bike’s fall bent the shift shaft that went into the gearbox preventing the Ninja from shifting out of second gear.  This essentially halted our progress as it would be impossible to do any highway driving without the ability to shift out of second gear.  My son-in-law and I went to fix the bent shaft and get the bike operating again.  My daughter felt terrible.  She was tired, strained to her limit, and still nearly 200 miles from home.  She was caught between the tough spot of wanting to complete the journey and hoping that the motorcycle was broken beyond repair to relieve her of having to ride it back home.  For people not used to such long rides, a 90 MPH journey on a crotch rocket over 200 miles of highway is tough.  The wind beats at the body in terrible ways and there is no way to shift a seating position to become more comfortable.  She was tired, and her legs weren’t working very well from being deprived of movement which is why the bike fell over during a fuel stop.

But she toughed it out once we got the bike operating again.  We stopped just above Columbus for dinner after spending most of the afternoon fixing the bike in a parking lot.  Once we arrived above Columbus we were close enough to home that she knew she could do the last hour and a half on a full stomach.  She swore to me that she’d never ride that far again, and it took her a long time to get back on a motorcycle.  She was never so glad to arrive home as she was that day.  The first day had been fun, but tiring.  The second day had been too much.  It did occur to me on the way home to back off the gas, and drop down to 75 MPH or even 65 MPH.  But I was worried that if we yielded to the circumstances that my daughter would always feel that the situation had conquered her, instead of her conquering the situation.  As a father, I did worry about her blanking out from the strain and crashing all over the highway.  But I wanted her to know that I trusted her, and her desire to not let me down was a gift from me to her in delivering her to a conquest that she will know all her life as one she didn’t walk away from.

When my daughter was a little girl, a bully spit on her while she played with her sister and friends at the playground.  He had been showing off for his friends and was older by several years.  My kids were targeted because I had been known in our neighborhood as the most vicious advocate against marijuana sales anywhere in southern Ohio.  I caused such a ruckus over the sale of marijuana in my community that I knew all the cops by name as they came to my house so often.  After a while I gave up calling the cops because it was revealed to me that they were involved in the pot sales directly and passively.  In fact I had a next door neighbor who was a cop and he fought me viciously as he thought I was a NARC, and made sure everyone knew it, not only in the neighborhood but also on the police force.  I gave up on the legal system when it was realized that it was corrupt beyond repair, and my experiences thereafter became my novel The Symposium of Justice.  Once it became known that I would not yield to my neighbors who wanted to buy and use marijuana we went into a stalemate since the law was technically on my side.  So they sent their children after my children which is how the little boy spit on my little girl.  My daughter has always been a very confident person, full of life, and the look on her face when she came home with spittle on the front of her shirt was one of the moments that could have shattered her for the rest of her life.  The intention by the boys was to impose their will upon her with force and push her into social compliance.  They were bigger and meaner and the message to my kids was that they would have to submit to the thuggish authority of the neighborhood bullies or suffer the consequences.  So I packed my kids and their friends into our car and tracked down the bullies at their house where I “forcefully” made the guilty boy apologize to my daughter in front of his father—who had actually encouraged the behavior.  About a month later some much older boys, from 18 to 20 years old gathered in front of our house across the street in a mob of about 30 young people and harassed my 9 to 10-year-old children for riding their bicycles on the sidewalk.  My wife called me at work, so I rushed home and instantly engaged the boys in “aggressive confrontation.”  The police never came, the owner of the house stayed inside looking out their upstairs window hoping that the fight would go their way, but it didn’t.  The boys were forced to disperse in retreat.   The next morning there was a broken egg at the end of my driveway where some smartass thinking they were tough threw an egg from across the street to land on my driveway behind our family car during the night.  They were testing the waters to see if I would let it go.  That night when the sun went down, I bought two dozen eggs and lunched them at the home blasting the windows and doors with slimy yoke and broken shells.  The homeowners were in their living room watching TV, but never came to the window or even opened the door.  And they certainly didn’t call the police, not with the amount of pot they had in their house which nobody wanted to address.  The cop next door was friends with the owners of that home, and did not make a move either.  Watching all this activity my children learned about justice in life, and what sometimes has to be done to get it.  This is why my daughter exhausted from 600 plus miles of riding a motorcycle across the state of Ohio twice in two days struggled to keep the bike upright and conquer her exhaustion to arrive home save and sound.  The whole point of riding the bike herself and not just sitting on the back with my son-in-law was so that she could prove to herself that she could achieve the feat. And she did.  If I had interfered with her as an adult, I would have done her a disservice.  It was my job when she was a child to interfere and kick the crap out of some neighborhood kids that were harassing her because I was teaching her not to give up…….as a father.  But coming back from Cleveland, Ohio after a weekend film festival, she had to live up to what she had become as an adult.  It was hard, I was worried she might not make it, but I was more worried about what would happen if she didn’t fight through it and conquer a lingering fear.

These thoughts and history are what went into the fearless nature of Rick Stevens in my novel Tail of the Dragon.   When we arrived home, I again wrote pages and pages of dialogue and thoughts about what I had witnessed.  I was proud of my daughter, and everyone who had traveled those roads with me that weekend.  The climax for many would have been getting the award at the film festival.  But for me, it was only a footnote.  I like getting awards, and enjoy the company of people at those kinds of events.  But it was the journey I remembered most from that weekend which is why there isn’t more footage of the actual festival in my video.  For me, it was the boldness that my daughter tackled in her challenge of riding a motorcycle to Cleveland and back during a weekend on a learners permit at high-speed that mattered.  The experience would have been denied to us if we stayed within the parameters of the law, as concocted by politicians.  I have learned over the years such as in the situation with my neighbor and the many trips to court that I have personally endeavored in; that the law is more adequately used to restrict the lives of people more than it is dedicated to justice, or “fairness.”  So I typically consider law as a second-hand notion.  This attitude is reflected in my characters from Tail of the Dragon exceptionally well.  It also makes it a unique work of thought. Readers of Tail of the Dragon get the rare opportunity to climb into the mind of outlaws like Rick and his wife Renée Stevens to discover aspects of themselves that long ago yielded to the parameters of fear that has been imposed upon them tragically.  The idea of freedom is as foreign to them as the surface of Jupiter is to a villager in the Congo.  It makes me proud when my family goes on trips like the one to the film festival with me and overcomes a number of obstacles to enjoy a fine meal in utter exhaustion just north of Columbus on a hot Sunday afternoon an hour and a half away from home.

Some might read what I’ve said here and think that I am a bad parent for encouraging my daughter to break the speed limit, and drive under improper endorsements.  Those are the same type of people who spit on that same child and earned my wrath when the police had conspired with them to clear me from a neighborhood so that marijuana sales could flow without opposition.  And it is that type of utter hypocrisy which causes Rick Stevens in Tail of the Dragon to thumb his nose at the government of The United States and take his fight to the death under the mantra “live free or die.”  For Rick Stevens, he meant it.  And the way to make the words come to paper came from rides like the one to a Cleveland film festival with my daughter who was stepping into her adulthood with the fearless conquest of obstacles that most cower from in trepidation only to punch through the other side in a life of illumination that shines through in virtually every action of human endeavor.

It was never my intention to grow up in a typical fashion to become a nice compliant adult that does whatever a political class determines in their infantile wisdom to be sufficient to the human experience.  In that regard, I have always been on a quest for the “super human” experience.  I have taught my children nothing short of living their lives as “super humans” themselves.  And upon delivering my children into adulthood I am not done with parenting.  Only now, the students are not my biological children but the inquiring minds of those who know there is more to life than what they see before them, and lack the faculties to meet that life.  For such minds, being an average human will not be enough.  They must become more so.  For them, I present Rick Stevens and the greatest car chase in the history of the world in the novel Tail of the Dragon.

Rich Hoffman

CLICK HERE to see what my publisher had to say about my novel Tail of the Dragon.

Visit the Tail of the Dragon Store and meet Ron Johnson

 

“Like” Tail of the Dragon on Facebook by CLICKING HERE 

If the novel is SOLD OUT at Amazon.com try Barnes and Noble by CLICKING HERE.

 “If they attack first………..blast em’!” www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Labor Unions Should Be Prosecuted Under the Sherman Act: The largest coercive monopolies in the world go unpunished

To prove that the government is involved in a coercive monopoly with labor unions both private and public, examine the evidence, and the path of behavior which delivered us to the conditions of 2013 where much is made over the size and ambition of virtually any company or financial entity endeavoring to make money.  The landmark case of the government against private business establishing the terms of what “the government” considers a financial monopoly can be seen in the United States v. Alcoa case from 1945.

United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law. Judge Learned Hand‘s opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Justice Department charged Alcoa with illegal monopolization and demanded that the company be dissolved. Trial began on June 1, 1938. The trial judge dismissed the case four years later. The government appealed. Two years later in 1944, the Supreme Court announced that it could not assemble a quorum to hear the case so it referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the following year, Learned Hand wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit.

Alcoa argued that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies.

Learned Hand J held that he could consider only the percentage of the market in “virgin aluminum” for which Alcoa accounted. Alcoa had argued that it was in the position of having to compete with scrap. Even if the scrap was aluminum that Alcoa had manufactured in the first instance, it no longer controlled its marketing. But Hand defined the relevant market narrowly in accord with the prosecution’s theory. Hand applied a rule concerning practices that are illegal per se. It did not matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one. In Hand’s words,

“ It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.

”

Hand acknowledged the possibility that a monopoly might just happen, without anyone’s having planned for it. If it did, then there would be no wrong, no liability, and no need to remedy the result. But that acknowledgement has generally been seen as an empty one in the context of the rest of the opinion; because of course rivals in a market routinely plan to outdo one another, at the least by increasing efficiency and appealing more effectively to actual and potential customers. If one competitor succeeds through such plans to the extent of 90% of the market, that planning can be described given Hand’s reasoning as the successful and illegal monopolization of the market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

The basics of the case were that Judge Hand decided that Alcoa Aluminum was guilty of operating as a monopoly because their superior manufacturing techniques had deemed them so much better than their competition and they had to be stopped so that other companies could compete.  This case set up the history for which much of the modern business landscape has been established for the worse, and is the direct example of “the government” sticking its nose into the business of potential revenue generation to micromanage Alcoa into become less threatening to its competition so that other, less productive companies could gain a helping hand from the government to stay in business.  These days we would call this “wealth redistribution,” as wealth and potential profit were stolen from Alcoa through the court system and delivered to its business rivals.  Many today have long forgotten about these antitrust laws allowing the government to behave in such a fashion.  Most people assume that things have always been as they are now.    But the government intrusion attacking capitalism with Karl Marx inspired socialist tendencies began roughly 40 years after the Communist Manifesto was published for the world to read paving the way for that collective based philosophy.  In Russia, the communist movement came on the heels of World War I and through the seductive words of Lenin in 1917.  In The United States because of the independent nature of the average American, it came subtly through government regulation beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which was the measure used in the Alcoa case.

Sherman Antitrust Act, basic federal enactment regulating the operations of corporate trusts, passed by the U.S. Congress in July 1890, through the efforts of Senator John Sherman of Ohio. The act declared illegal “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Criminal penalties were provided for violators of the law, and aggrieved persons were entitled to recover three times the amount of losses suffered as a result of the violation. The Sherman Act has been amended and supplemented by several subsequent enactments. Most notable among these enactments was the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. See Monopoly; Trusts.[1]

A few years later with the rise of progressive politics in America following the aggressive behavior of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but never learned to make any real money of his own, progressives applied antitrust laws against “big business.” The Clayton Antitrust Act was passed in 1914.  Woodrow Wilson was president at the time and represented the most aggressive push in history where academic intellectuals attempted to gain power through regulation, as their theories could not compete head to head with the titans of industry.  So they used the government to perform coercive monopolies against any organization who thought they were too big to bow at the feet of the political class.  Wilson and the Roosevelts both Teddy and Franklin a few years later were deeply in love with European politics and were inspired by the works of Karl Marx and used progressive action by government to further strengthen the Sherman Act.

Clayton Antitrust Act, legislation passed by the Congress of the United States in 1914 to prohibit certain monopolistic practices that were then common in finance, industry, and trade (see Monopoly). Sponsored by Alabama congressman Henry De Lamar Clayton, the Clayton Antitrust Act was adopted as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Designed to deal with new monopolistic practices, the act contained provisions covering corporate activities, remedies for reform, and labor disputes. Unfavorable court interpretations weakened the act, however, and additional legislation was required finally to carry out its aims.[2]

Fair Trade Laws, in commerce, legislation permitting manufacturers to set minimum resale prices for their branded products sold by retailers to consumers. The proliferation of chain stores prompted attempts to introduce such legislation in the 1920s to prevent the price-cutting policies characteristic of the chains, but passage of regulatory state laws did not occur until California led the way in 1931. By the 1940s all but three states had enacted fair trade laws governing intrastate transactions. Although the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited all price-fixing agreements in or affecting interstate commerce, it was amended by the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937. This new act permitted resale price maintenance agreements on trademarked commodities sold in interstate commerce in states where contracts between manufacturers or wholesalers and retailers were sanctioned by state legislation. A 1951 Supreme Court ruling released all merchants who had not signed such contracts from the requirements of this act. The McGuire Act, passed by Congress in 1952 , reestablished the requirement that nonsigners abide by the same terms as signers of contracts. Although subsequent Supreme Court rulings upheld price fixing, the laws were challenged in state courts and enforcement became increasing difficult. In 1975 President Gerald Ford signed in law an act repealing the Miller-Tydings and McGuire acts, again making all resale price-fixing agreements affecting interstate commerce a violation of federal antitrust laws. Most states subsequently repealed their fair trade laws.[3]

This of course brings us to the modern age where companies terrified of being accused of a monopoly status must send lobbyists to Washington to pad the pockets of politicians with riches hoping to avoid the dreadful designations and court proceedings which can come out of an antitrust case.   Now, before anyone states that the events so far discussed are “ancient history” and not relevant to the modern age, let us examine the most recent example of government trust busting where it used The Justice Department to prosecute Microsoft for being too big using the Sherman Act to do so.

United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (2001) is a US antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states.Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor.

The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating systemsales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer(IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.

Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft’s position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

It can be argued that Microsoft has never been the same company since that case.  A few years later, Bill Gates retired to philanthropy to become a guilt ridden ex-capitalist attempting to further expand the government education empire of which he rejected as a youth to wash away the sins exposed by the government prosecuting him for his lack of business altruism.  Microsoft prior to that case did not effectively use lobbyists in Washington to pay off the trolls of legislation, which is something they remedied after that case and many companies followed.  The message to business in America was that if a company decided that it wanted to corner the market through competitive superiority, then they would be punished—unless however a company sent representatives to K-Street to grease the wheels of politics away from prying eyes.

The government established itself as a crusader for “the people” in an attempt to create a “fair” business environment, as defined by socialists, communists, progressives, and other Karl Marx fans.  Yet their attention only gazes in one direction—toward money making enterprises.  They ignore however the antitrust of the labor unions who hijack business labor, especially in the public sector with excessively aggressive examples of coercive monopoly.  Unions avoid the ridicule because the antitrust laws have been designated toward the bourgeoisie producers of products to use Karl Marx’s term and ignores the actions of labor which is inserted as a competitor within any organization dealing with labor unions.  This action is most evident in the public sector unions of education where their behavior prevents competition, deliberately drives up the wage rates outside of market parameters, and is the grossest modern example of a coercive monopoly.   As defined by the government in their cases against Alcoa back in 1945 and Microsoft in 1998, teacher unions and education institutions in general are the absolute worst forms of coercive monopoly in existence.   Based on their behavior, they may be the worst to ever exist in the history of the world.  Education unions steal tax money by striking, preventing competition through force, protest, and lobbying having a sole purpose of maintaining a labor monopoly by excluding entry into their markets with “force.”  In this way, modern unions are far, far worse than Alcoa ever was as a monopoly power, or Microsoft ever came to be, yet no politician thinks to attempt prosecution against the labor unions in a way that Senator John Sherman of Ohio did back in 1890 toward business or Henry De Lamar Clayton did in 1914.  But why?

We have seen in Ohio and Wisconsin what happens when legislators attempt to apply such rules to unions; the unions use their coercive monopoly to apply physical harm to legislators who attempt to designate their actions in such a fashion.  CLICK HERE FOR AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE BY THE SEIU IN OHIO.  Businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft didn’t act in such a fashion.  That is why they were picked on by the government.  Government like the labor unions of which both are products of socialism, achieve their goals trough coercive monopolies and they use their power, and desire to use force to extort from those too placid to fight back.  In the case of businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft, they were producers who have everything to lose; the government has nothing to lose since its sole function is to steal from others to fill itself.  In a conflict, this gives the government the upper hand.  This is the cause of the lobby influence in Washington to this day.  The goal of the lobbyists is to keep the government in their offices and away from prosecution using the Sherman Act to attack their companies with antitrust violations.  Yet the same doesn’t work the other way as it should.  Legislators fear applying the same antitrust terminology to a firefighter union, a police force, or any of the teacher unions even though they engage in exactly or worse antitrust violations than have ever occurred—anywhere, because the unions operate through fear, intimidation, and extortion.  Legislators instead of confronting them, attack people like Bill Gates, a computer geek who became wealthy inventing the computer industry from his garage as a college dropout.  No threat there.  Or they attack Alcoa for simply being too good at their business.

The hypocrisy is obvious, and demands serious analysis.  Labor unions in The United States are parasitic entities that only exist through coercive monopoly status.  They are the cause of continuous tax increases and unmanaged local budgets.  They don’t get paid based on the quality of their work, but from the fear they inspire into the political machine.  They, unlike Microsoft or Alcoa are not the best in their fields of endeavor, they are simply willing to use force to achieve their desires—and that means they should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law with the same gusto that The Sherman Act was created and for the same reasons.  The only reason they are not is because legislators are afraid to put such words into the public for fear that they will be examined by history for taking away the “rights” of such people.   What those politicians don’t know because they lack a study of history is that such rights do not exist—except in the mind of Karl Marx, where the labor unions were born using tactics that have built the worst coercive monopolies in the history of mankind—all on the backs of the American taxpayer, while the innocent are hung like thieves by the murderers of capitalism—labor unions and their government conspirators with their coercive monopoly which involves the legal system.

[1]Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © &  1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.

[2]Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © &  1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.

[3]Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © &  1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

The Lakota Levy Cheerleaders: Ignoring facts, spewing hate, and spreading lies all in the name of children

“Even with these cuts, Lakota schools are still worth “cheering” for.  We are not part of a losing team, but our children and grandchildren could lose out on future opportunities if there isn’t more financial support.  So, let’s drown out the Rich Hoffmans of our community by making the next levy a successful one.  If that happens, we all win.” 

“GO TEAM GO…….HURRAHHHH”

The above statement was written by Lakota Levy cheerleader Laura Sanders, who responded to my Letter to the Editor in the Today’s Pulse April 14th edition.  The letter she is responding to I have placed below for ease of review.  As to Laura’s fantasy that she will drown out the Rich Hoffmans of the community, I have very bad news for her.  I can swim longer than anybody she knows and I can shout louder—far louder than I have so far displayed.  So if that is the path she and her levy cheerleaders wish to follow, I am looking forward to it.  I have also placed below the letter she put in the paper for analysis.  I will answer her assertions following her text.

First the letter I submitted:

The Lakota Levy Cheerleaders

Combined with the Lakota Superintendent’s articles here in the Journal, the “Community Conversations” program, along with a few pro Levy speeches, and I can’t help but feel that I’m watching a football game where the home team is losing 45 to 0 yet the cheerleaders are still on the sideline with their pom poms in hand completely oblivious to the events happening on the field of play still reciting the “cheers” they learned in practice.

Much to their dismay, the “Levy Addicts” who are pounding the drums for another tax increase this year and are attempting to soften the resistance with new strategies, the score up on the board is not in their favor.  Lakota as a district is about to see an influx of income from the Liberty Way Development, the Carriage Hill Development, and the continued growth of the Union Center corridor.  All the tax revenue coming in from these activities will be more than the previous year.  Combine that trend with the 10 year projection of declining student enrollment due to the number of homes in Lakota without children increasing–balancing the budget without a tax increase should be easy.

The old mantra that education is for the “kids” is old and worn out.  Nobody believes it any more just like nobody believes the home team is going to win when the score is so lopsided yet the cheerleaders are still on the sideline saying the same mindless drivel that they have the entire game.  What the levy supporters want with tax increases is simply a glorified community babysitting service.  What I have learned about public education these last couple of years does not lend credence to any kind of education quality even for so-called great schools like Lakota.  For the 18,000 people who have turned down these levies over the years for multiple reasons, we have no choice but to support the product now, which is currently too expensive.  It is simply unfathomable to ask for more, especially when the score is so lopsided—in spite of the mindless cheers.

Rich Hoffman

Now, Laura Sander’s response:

Lakota Schools Still Worth ‘Cheering’ For

Here we go again:”……levy addict…glorified community baby-sitting service.”

Wasn’t Rich Hoffman already discredited by the media one year ago because of phrases like this and previous comments such as “…crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and assess to match…”

Maybe Mr. Hoffman thinks its clever using metaphors comparing levy supporters to mindless cheerleaders (another attack on women).  Unlike his approach, I prefer to use facts.

Mr. Hoffman claims that Lakota will “see an influx” of tax revenue after new developments are built.  That sounds great, but it’s not reality. Commercial property contributes very little to school funding and has not kept pace with residential growth.  Gov. John Kasich cut $1.8 billion from schools over the last two years and his current budget increases funding for charter schools and proposes additional vouchers on private schools, once again depriving public education of money.

Ohio’s charter schools received $775 million from the state last year.  That amount of money could fund numerous public school districts.

Lakota Treasurer Jenni Logan predicts the district will face a $1.8 million dollar budget deficit by 2014.  This is after $35 million in cuts over the last three years, which has resulted in minimal bus transportation; larger classes; fewer days for art, music and gym; no reading specialists; a dismantled gifted program, etc.

Even with these cuts, Lakota schools are still worth “cheering” for.  We are not part of a losing team, but our children and grandchildren could lose out on future opportunities if there isn’t more financial support.  So, let’s drown out the Rich Hoffmans of our community by making the next levy a successful one.  If that happens, we all win.

Laura Sanders

Now to address Laura’s points:

  1. I never said the cheerleaders were women or girls.  Isn’t it sexist and presumptuous of to assume that all cheerleaders are “women?”  Just because they are traditionally women does not mean that cheerleaders are not men too.  They have men sometimes, especially in college.  Whether there are men or women, cheerleaders have a job to do and that is to engage the audience with positive entertainment no matter what the actual conditions of the game.  That job is more difficult if the score is so bad that it is obvious the team they are cheering for is going to lose.  It helps the cheerleader’s task to not pay too much attention to the facts on the field and just repeat what they have been taught in practice, no matter what the reality on the field displays to them.  It is a proper metaphor for what is going on at Lakota with the cries for yet another levy.  Laura and a handful of others have behaved very similarly to the metaphor I used.  But I never said the cheerleaders were women.
  2. Laura’s plan might have been to discredit me in the media with her fellow cheerleaders but what she didn’t understand was that rules have changed. (TO READ WHAT LAURA SAID ABOUT ME IN THE ENQUIRE CLICK HERE) For instance dear reader, have you ever been in a classroom atmosphere where a question was asked, and you knew the answer, but you were afraid to raise your hand for fear that you’d answer incorrectly and look like a fool.  Then as you look around you discover that only one guy in the class was raising their hand.  The rest of the class felt just as you do, and kept their hands down.  Then that one guy is called on and answers the question and then you are angry with yourself because he said the same answer that you had in your mind.   If you had only had the guts to raise your hand, you would have been right.  Well, I’m that guy with his hand up, and when I say something I am saying the same thing that most of everyone else is already thinking.  Most people agree with me.  After I called levy supporters “latté sipping despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and assess to match” I was saying what most everyone else was thinking, but was afraid to speak it public.  (CLICK TO READ MORE)  I brought up the PTA moms because I knew of a few cases, especially one at Cherokee Elementary where boycotts were organized against businesses that did not support the school levy.  (That would be the J.D. Stackerz Bar and Grill situation between a high-ranking administrator  calling PTA members personally to organize a boycott in direct violation of Ohio Revised Code ORC 3315.07 (C) (1) and (C) (2) described below.)

(C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, no board of education shall use public funds to support or oppose the passage of a school levy or bond issue or to compensate any school district employee for time spent on any activity intended to influence the outcome of a school levy or bond issue election.

(2) A board of education may permit any of its employees to attend a public meeting during his regular working hours for the purpose of presenting information about school finances and activities and board actions, even if the purpose of the meeting is to discuss or debate the passage of a school levy or bond issue.

  • I sat on the story because the owner was terrified to come forward in fear of losing her business.  Well, guess what, she lost her business a few months later.  I took the story to The Enquirer—who didn’t cover it and I took the story right next door to the Pulse Journal who wouldn’t touch it.  With the kind of power the business owner felt was against her, she asked me to sit on the story, which I did.  Surely all the Levy Cheerleaders know all about it.  That kind of behavior is extortion, and is an attempt to win elections with coercion which if this wasn’t a government school would be considered criminal activity with jail time attached.  Because it’s a school with a tremendous public relations budget, no court would attempt to enforce Ohio Revised Code ORC 3315.07 (C) (1) and (C) (2).  I find stories like that one appalling, and made even worse because they are done behind the cover of children.  I consider anybody who would engage in that kind of activity to be morally bankrupt and a detriment to society.  You are lucky I held back my tongue on that comment because a lot more descriptive dialogue was on my mind.  Now, for the other case which I have document release, CLICK HERE to view. 
  • As to my being discredited let me shed some light on that little topic.  WLW was running dry, we covered education till we were blue in the face and it was starting to drag on the ratings.  They wanted to swing more toward sports talk radio; I wanted to take the rhetoric to a higher level because of the behavior by the school board after the third levy failure and the decision by Karen Mantia to not engage the teacher’s union with a pay reduction.  So we were going to part ways anyway, especially after Doc Thompson left.  Traditional newspapers like The Enquirer and The Pulse were stuck between pro levy people and me and they had to pick a side.  After Michael Clark’s behavior with the exclusive I gave him regarding Yes to Lakota Kids, I knew where he was going, in the direction where his wife was employed—in public education.  So traditional media did pull away, and I had been holding my tongue to keep them in my corner until I had a suitable network built that could sustain those loses when they occurred.  Once I had it secure, I let my tongue speak.  In addition apparently Laura missed this Channel 19 interview once it was announced that Lakota wouldn’t be seeking a levy in 2012.  CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF. So much for discredit.  

I.            I knew when Karen Mantia arrived in town that she would seek to attack No Lakota Levy diplomatically and split us from the inside.  That is after all what she did in Pickerington and the people from up there warned me ahead of time what her mode of operation was.  In a personal meeting I had with her I got a wonderful feel for how she was going to play her hand.  So I started to set up my operation independent of my partners in No Lakota Levy. If they stayed, great, if they broke, I could still proceed on as planned. They had showed signs of cracking earlier in the year, so I didn’t think they’d stay the course through a fourth attempt.  On the third levy, they handled the sign delivery around the community during the last two weeks of the campaign and little else.  I took care of all the media work, the blog postings, the debates and anything else that came up.  If I lost them politically for the fourth levy attempt, which I felt was Mantia’s strategy—based on our meeting, I would have to maintain my ability to continue.  In future levy attempts I would need the more radical members of the No Lakota Levy front to continue the fight.  Many of them were frustrated that I didn’t hit the school hard enough often enough.  My response was that a day would come when we would be able to hit as hard as they wanted.  But for now, in the early stage of these levy fights, we had to save the best tricks for later—which we have.  Most of the primary members of No Lakota Levy wanted to form Yes to Lakota Kids which I wasn’t crazy about, because they were tired of being called selfish businessmen—again by the PTA community.  The threats of boycotts and other harassing measures were unconscionable in my opinion, and I couldn’t get Michael Clark from The Enquirer to cover those stories either.  This left those members to strive for a public image campaign with Yes to Lakota Kids, which I felt was just feeding the monster.  The sports fees shouldn’t have been put in place and even though we were raising $10,000, it felt to me like a drop in the bucket.  So I wasn’t happy, but I represented their interests out of friendship.  In private, on my blog, and elsewhere I voiced my opinion.  Laura’s desire to make some of those comments one of sexism is a surrender on the pro levy position.  They know they cannot win based on their arguments, so they played the progressive “feminist” card in an attempt to remove me from the debate.  But, as predicted, there were a lot of silent handshakes and smirks about my comments from people who had been thinking the same thing.  I just gave them a vehicle to vent their frustrations.  A lot of the votes that the pro side wins from arm twisting, extortion, and other forms of coercion came back my way due to my controversial comments, which is what I needed to do on my side to prepare for the next try.  Voters were just waiting for someone to articulate what they were already feeling.

II.            Now as to facts………….I have delivered facts, upon facts, upon facts.  Laura’s statement that she is dealing with facts whereas I am not is typical of the pro education debate where they ignore all facts except the ones they wish to see.  It’s that cheerleader mentality again.  If they look up on the scoreboard they don’t want to see a 45 to 0 score.   They simply look at the clock to see what time it is.  They ignore the actual score because they have a show to perform, and can’t let the facts ruin their desired reality.  So here are the facts as she addressed them.

  1. Laura ignores in her statement that Lakota has a 10 year declining enrollment projection which means that student enrollment will be decreasing.  That means Lakota will have to lay off teachers, consolidate schools, and roll back their staff to accommodate the lower student levels.  With tax revenue staying the same, and enrollment going down, any idiot should be able to balance their budget.  That is unless they plan to give away the farm on the 2014 labor contract that is coming up with the LEA.
  2. Laura obviously doesn’t know anybody with commercial property who has to write a check on their property values at $1.5 to $5 million dollars.  Businesses are taxed at the same rate as residences, and there is a lot of business in the Lakota district.  To say that commercial business does not contribute much to school funding is like saying that the sun does not contribute to sun burn.  It’s a statement based on levy propaganda and a denial of the facts.
  3. Kasich did not take money away from Lakota in 2012 and the spending on school vouchers and charter schools is a very good thing which I support 100%.  Public schools need to become profit motivated and drive their costs down, not up.  I want to see a chart that shows the per pupil cost at Lakota going down each year, not trending up.  Education options are what drive down costs, and I am happy to see that Kasich put more money into charters.  To speak otherwise is to be a stooge for the labor unions who wish to maintain a monopoly status on public education.  If Kasich had thrown the $775 million dollars she discussed at Ohio’s public schools the unions would have gobbled it up like a black hole.  They’d be hungry for more money the very next year.  $775 million dollars does not go very far in public education.  Not when the budget just at Lakota is near $200 million with undeclared costs added of course.
  4. If Lakota is predicting a $1.8 million dollar deficit in 2014 it is because they have mismanaged the money the tax payers have already sent them.  The fact that Karen Mantia cut bus transportation, dismantled the gifted program, reading specialists, has fewer days for art, only says that she did exactly what she was taught in Levy University at the OSBA Conference in Columbus point for point.  If Lakota decided to cut those types of programs instead of doing what No Lakota Levy told the school board to do, and that was present a 5% reduction of wages to the union, they are guilty of mismanagement.  They have let the “tail wag the dog.”  They have failed to handle their labor contract, it’s that simple, and that failure is on her management style.  As a former teacher herself, Mantia aligned herself with the employees of Lakota and not the community who pays the bills.  That is her failure and if there is another levy, it will be due to her mismanagement of the finances provided, especially since student enrollment is on a sharp decline.

I spent a good part of this past Friday evening speaking to a reporter about virtually everything that I’ve said here.  We are living in a new age; traditional media doesn’t hold the same power that it once did so creativity and innovation favor those on the side of the truth.  The only thing that has held back others from jumping on the No Vote bandwagon was fear, because they have truth on their side, which is what I explained in a speech recently to a group I spoke to in Oxford.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.  My hope after the third levy attempt was that I could inspire more people to step forward so that it wasn’t always Rich Hoffman doing everything, because that can only go on for so long.  To have a healthy resistance, the formations have to constantly change, and new players have to be rotated in and out just like in a military engagement—because that is what we are fighting.  Public education is not a nice institution that is protecting children as it’s sold; it’s a government propaganda machine and a babysitting service for parents too busy to care for their own children.  I really don’t care if that makes people angry, because it’s true, and there are enough residents at Lakota who have grown children who know that it is.   In the next levy attempt it is my hope that there are 20 levy fighters doing what I was doing in the first three at Lakota.  I think that will be the case, and if it’s not, then I will pick up the slack……………..gladly.  I’m happy to be civil if the pro levy people are, but if they wish to be uncivil—like they usually are, I will respond—as I have.  Meanwhile, my advanced position on all public education is that it should be abolished as a tax payer funded entity off property tax.  If Laura Sanders wants certain things for her child to learn, then she can pay for it.  I’m tired of paying money for people like her to benefit, while they constantly complain that other people should pay more taxes.  CLICK TO REVIEW THE KIND OF THINGS KIDS ARE BEING TAUGHT ABOUT EDUCTION FROM THE LAST CAMPAIGN. That kind of thing makes me absolutely sick.  And when she states that commercial businesses do not contribute much in property taxes, she’s clearly not up to speed.

So go ahead and test me Lakota people.  Go ahead and think that people are going to fall for the same old emotional arguments of the past, the accusations of sexism, selfishness, and compassion, and see where it gets you.  I have saved a lot of people hundreds of thousands of dollars around Lakota and I purposely kept the budgets low in the previous three levy attempts so that the coffers would be there when I needed it.  So when Laura Sanders says as she did in the opening of her letter………….. “Here we go again” that’s right.  If they want to go again, they will see more fireworks than they’ve ever seen before……especially since my next campaign will be using new media, not traditional media.  I don’t have to worry about offending people in the next attempt, now that the resistance network is built with fresh faces.  For me this is a moral argument now, not just a financial one.

I would say this to Lakota.  I am happy to do as I promised at the beginning of the deal in 2012 when it was agreed to not put a levy on the ballot.  I am happy to leave Lakota alone in my crusade against public education if Lakota keeps its head down and out of the voting booth.  Take the declined enrollment and ride off into the sunset, because if Lakota puts itself on my radar, it will be their own fault.  That is a bit of friendly advice.  Or, Lakota can listen to the winds of war from the pom poms of Lakota’s Levy Cheerleaders and see who can swim the longest and shout the loudest.  And I know where the Vegas odds makers will put their money—and it isn’t on Lakota.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

George Lang on 55 KRC with Brian Thomas: Success in West Chester, Ohio and why

It shouldn’t be astonishing to hear, but Brian Thomas of 55 KRC had difficulty hiding his surprise during an interview with George Lang, who is a trustee from West Chester, Ohio.  Lang was fresh off a vote where he stood against the other two trustees on the board who wanted to file for a federal grant to build a new sidewalk in the community he represents.  During the interview Lang explained to Thomas that building sidewalks was not a part of the core competency of local government and was irresponsible.  Brian Thomas has a history of advocating such small government positions and was noticeably impressed by Lang in a conversation that should be the standard for every politician in America.  Hear it for yourself at the clip below.

One of the most remarkable aspects of Lang’s comments is that he didn’t attempt to do as almost every politician has done for decades and take credit for the success of West Chester as a township due to his political leadership.  Instead George Lang made it known that the success of West Chester is not because of any policies of government.  The success of West Chester is not because of any law that was created by the trustees.  The success of West Chester is because politicians like Lang have managed to create an environment where businesses can make money, which brings jobs to the township, creates tax revenue, and feeds the economic life blood of the community.  Without jobs, there isn’t any money for anybody to spend on restaurants, shopping complexes, or on any form of charity.  George Lang understands that the secret to success in any community is to keep government off businesses backs as much as possible so that a friendly commerce environment is conducive to growth.

It is very tempting for a typical politician to declare that the success of a community like West Chester is due to the construction of sidewalks, or the quality of the schools.  But the truth is that communities are not built by government in any fashion, they are established for good or bad by the quality of the residents who live there.  In the case of West Chester, where there is a pro business environment, investment makes sense to entrepreneurs.  They come to West Chester to make money, not to serve some altruistic purpose.  The only reason that a business would endeavor to set up a place of exchange where they offer goods or services is for the benefit of profit.  The byproduct of that profit is in jobs provided to the community, and money to spend on other businesses.  Without business, a community is a failure.  There cannot be success if there is no business.  If there are no jobs, there is no money for other businesses, and there are no taxes for the government to loot from.  In essence, there is nothing without business.

Brian Thomas was surprised that George Lang understood this very basic economic principle, since it would appear that most of society at large has failed to come to grips with such an elementary idea.  The school system Lakota in West Chester is one of the largest in all of Ohio, and they are proud of their Excellence with Distinction awards obtained for over a decade of consecutive years.  The government workers at the school wish to believe that the cause of their excellence is in their wonderful skills as employees.  But they are wrong.  The cause is that the children who come to their schools and attend their classes are better than children from other classes in other schools.  With government schools, one teacher is not better than another since they are all trained the same way and are motivated by the same profit structure.  Collective bargaining in union contracts means that bad teachers get paid the same as good teachers so every school has good and bad teachers proportionately no matter what the school or the pay rates as pay is primarily dictated by years of service and not performance.  This means that the elements that make one school better than another is the quality of the children who attend, and that quality starts in the home.  In West Chester there are an above average number of homes with two parents, most of which have traditional families.  Unemployment is low with government dependence on welfare being nearly non-existent.  The children who show up at Lakota come from families that value private property and respect responsible behavior, and have parents who participate in children’s lives.  As I have said many times, all the employees of Lakota could be eliminated with a RIF and replaced with employees fresh out of college from every position, and Lakota would still be ranked Excellent with Distinction.  The children would perform the same, because the parents tend to care about their kids, and those parents tend to work in jobs in and around West Chester.

The quality of a community begins with the number of businesses in it, and the amount of money they can make.  For proof look at any community anywhere in the world where government has stuck its nose into the affairs of entrepreneurs and it will quickly be noticed that these places have empty buildings with signs in them looking for suckers to lease them.  But nobody in their right mind would sign a lease in a community that has a looting government that wishes to stick them on a cross to suck out their life in service to the altruistic aims of a pathetic name-plate addicted politician.  Most of the time politicians attempt to do as all government does, especially schools–they take credit for the success and efforts of others with collective ownership.  These types of politicians are like those football fans who leave a stadium after the quarterback of their favorite team throws a last second touchdown to win the game.  Upon leaving these fans declare, “WE WON.”  They are mistaken.  The quarterback won with his individual effort.  The fans simply sucked off his success to share in the glory of victory.  Government schools do this all the time, and politicians are notorious for performing such social looting.  They wish to believe that just because a business posts a profit after four quarters of activity that they had some input into that success because they built a sidewalk, or created some foolish zoning ordinance regulating signs and other forms of advertising.  But the politician is actually worthless.  All they can really do for their communities is fulfill their core competency obligations which is to protect private property.  Anything more than that is theft and looting of other people’s effort.

George Lang is only one of three trustees in West Chester.  One is a registered Democrat who is no different from the typical fan at a football game.  They proclaim “they” win but the reality is that they only sit on their ass and watch others do important things.  The other one is a registered Republican, but behaves like an extreme socialist from Greece.  That particular politician is the kind of football fan that watches the game at home and falls asleep in their chair with a bag of nachos lying across their bloated belly and wakes up four hours after the game is over and declares, “WE WON.”  Meanwhile the warriors on the field of battle who actually played the game have long showered and are at home playing video games on their Xbox unites.  With only one trustee of any real worth understanding that creating a pro business friendly environment is the key to economic growth and community prosperity West Chester has thrived.  If those other two trustees could be replaced with other politicians like George Lang the success West Chester could experience would be explosive.  But any community could have success if they thought like George Lang.  It is because they don’t that Brian Thomas was so surprised by an elected politician who actually understood that the key to success in politics is to sit down, shut up, and let the players on the field play the game.  Stay out-of-the-way of business, and politicians will bring wealth to their communities.  The more they tamper, the worse their economies will be.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Barack Obama’s ‘The Road We’ve Traveled’ : Support given to Fabian Socialism’s “Free Enterprise into ‘X’”

How dangerous, and to what extent is Barack Obama a threat to The United States?  Well, if you happen to be a Fabian Socialist, he is a dream come true.  But if you happen to be constitutionally minded traditionalist who takes great pride in the history of America, Obama might as well be Satan.  Barack Obama appears to be so in love with Fabian Socialism that he named his Hollywood produced campaign video shown below after the famous book by socialist Stuart Chase, titled The Road We Are Traveling.  Obama called his video The Road We’ve Traveled, hosted by none other than Tom Hanks.  The comparison is more than a coincidence; it’s an insider’s nod to the kind of economic theory by Chase who helped give FDR’s New Deal its name – an act that Barack Obama reveres greatly.

The biggest difference between a Fabian Socialist and a regular socialist is that the Fabian believed in a long gradual, patient change to society rather than one brought about by revolution such as the method used in the U.S.S.R. to deliver that country to communism.  Fabianists rather took the slow route which was the preferred method of Stuart Chase.

 

Fa·bi·an (fâ¹bê-en) adjective

1.    a. Of or relating to the caution and avoidance of direct confrontation typical of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus. b. Cautious or dilatory, as in taking action.

2.    Of, relating to, or being a member of the Fabian Society, which was committed to gradual rather than revolutionary means for spreading socialist principles.
[Latin Fabiânus, after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus.]

— Fa¹bi·an noun

— Fa¹bi·an·ism noun

— Fa¹bi·an·ist noun[1]

Fabian Society, British socialist educational organization that advocates social change through democratic reforms. It was founded in London in 1884 by a group of intellectuals who rejected the Marxist theory of class struggle but wished to promote equality through collective ownership and democratic control of the nation’s resources. Devoted primarily to education and social research, the Fabians never constituted themselves as a political party. However, in 1900 they participated in founding the Labour Representation Committee, now the Labour Party.[2]

Stuart Chase (March 8, 1888, Somersworth, New Hampshire – November 16, 1985) was an American economist and engineer trained at MIT.[1] His writings covered topics as diverse as general semantics and physical economy. Chase’s thought was shaped by Henry George, Thorstein Veblen and Fabian socialism.[2] Chase spent his early political career supporting “a wide range of reform causes: the single tax, women’s suffrage, birth control and socialism.” [2] Chase’s early books The Tragedy of Waste (1925) and Your Money’s Worth (1928) were notable for their criticism of corporate advertising and their advocacy of consumer protection.[3]

Chase was among the dozen or more prominent members of the temporary committee which conducted the affairs of the Technical Alliance which later formed into Technocracy Incorporated, (Technocracy movement).[4][5]

Although not a Marxist, Chase admired the planned economy of the Soviet Union, being impressed with it after a 1927 visit. Chase stated that “The Russians, in a time of peace, have answered the question of what an economic system is for”.[2]

It has been suggested that he was the originator of the expression a New Deal, which became identified with the economic programs of American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He wrote a cover story in The New Republic entitled “A New Deal for America”, during the week that Roosevelt gave his 1932 presidential acceptance speech promising a new deal, but whether Roosevelt’s speechwriter Samuel Rosenman saw the magazine is not clear.

His 1938 book The Tyranny of Words was an early (perhaps the earliest, predating Hayakawa) and influential popularization of Alfred Korzybski‘s general semantics.

Chase supported the isolationist movement and was against US entry in World War II, advocating this position in his 1939 book The New Western Front.[1]

In the 1960s, Chase lent his support to the Johnson administration’s Great Society policies.[1]

Chase is famous for the quote at the end of his book A New Deal, “Why should Russians have all the fun remaking a world?” — a reference to the “socialist experiment” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).[6]

He is quoted in S. I. Hayakawa‘s Language in Thought and Action as having said, “Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat.”

On pages 95 and 96 of The Road We Are Traveling, under the heading of “Free Enterprise into ‘X'”, Chase listed 18 characteristics of political economy that he had observed among[8] Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913[9] and 1942. Chase labeled this phenomenon “… something called ‘X'”.[7] Characteristics include the following:

  1. A strong, centralized government.
  2. An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
  3. The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
  4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
  5. The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
  6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
  7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
  8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
  9. The control of foreign trade by the government.
  10. The control of natural resources.
  11. The control of energy sources.
  12. The control of transportation.
  13. The control of agricultural production.
  14. The control of labor organizations.
  15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
  16. Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
  17. Control of industry without ownership.
  18. State control of communications and propaganda.

Source Wikipedia

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

It is clear that after watching Barack Obama for nearly five years as of this writing, he is attempting to bring to America the implementation of all 18 items on Stuart Chase’s list.  For political insiders, who Obama’s title for his campaign video was a wink and a nod to their real intentions as most Americans had no idea what a Fabian Socialist was, the intentions are extraordinarily clear.  Most people don’t even understand what the history of the Labour Party in England was, which was the party of Tony Blair who got along so very well with George W. Bush, so they won’t understand the subtle messages Barack Obama’s team used to communicate their intentions to the Fabian loyalists who currently make up so much of the current federal government in modern America.  The American people have been sideswiped by a modern president that is clearly working from the playbook of Fabian Socialists like Stuart Chase.  But the goal of the Fabians is not only as deep as Obama, but go back to the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnston.  It is the Fabian Socialists who put their mark on The New Deal ushering in the era of “Social Security” and the “Great Society” which gave us Medicaid and Medicare.  Those programs are now off the table of discussion as most Americans have found themselves using those socialist government concepts in some fashion, and as they will all say – “Of course I’m going to use the program.  I paid into it, so I’m going to get out of it what I can.”  Thus…………you can see the work of the Fabian Socialist—patient, calculating, manipulative, smug—knowing that once they made America addicted to socialism, voters would never turn it away.  The same mentality has been at work behind Obamacare.  The goal is not affordable health care, or even helping the poor.  The goal is gaining federal control of 1/5th of the American economy so that the government can dictate what we eat, where we go, what kind of jobs we perform, and what type of relationships we conduct ourselves with.  The recent endeavors of Mayor Bloomberg in New York City are just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to what the Fabian Socialists wish to do with the government of our American Republic.  In the video below, Glenn Beck provides video research into more aspects of Fabian Socialist, Stuart Chase, and their connection to modern-day President Obama.

The strategies of Stuart Chase were not the intentions of The American Revolution, our Declaration of Independence, or our state and federal Constitutions.  Rather, Fabian Socialists have sought a legal way to supersede our traditional governments with scams designed to erode away our sovereignty slowly over a long period of time.  The success in America that built the skyline of present day New York City, or virtually any business in The United States from “old money” came from the laissez-faire capitalism tendencies during the period directly after the Civil War.  What the Fabian Socialists originating from London, England did with their version of socialism has been far more destructive than their direct attempts to destroy America in either The Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.  Through the progressive era just ahead of Stuart Chase’s time, they have managed with patience to put the brakes on American economic development by saddling our politics with gradual elements of socialism aimed at specific demographic voting blocs.  The aims of the 18 items listed by Stuart Chase are being actively pursued through the American education system, nearly every government office, and nearly every business in America who must deal with federal audits and inspectors to whatever degree.  Fabian Socialism is in the life of virtually every American in every corner of the country, and they were put there with the Trojan Horse of kindness, compassion, and manipulative schemes.  They have been furthered in recent times with videos like the one produced by the Obama White House delivered with the pleasant voice of Tom Hanks and presented in a way that any logical viewer would conclude to be reasonable, and even beneficial.  But what the nice voice of Tom Hanks does not tell you with Obama’s subtle nod to one of his economic mentors in Stuart Chase was that David Axelrod, and the others who appeared in the video are the modern equivalents of the traditional Fabian Socialists.  They don’t call themselves such things by name for fear that the American public would reject them, but they believe in the kind of government Stuart Chase discussed in his book, The Road We Are Traveling.  So now dear reader, you know as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story when you see propaganda films done about Barack Obama titled, The Road We’ve Traveled.  Obama intends to say that the road mentioned in Chase’s book has already happened.  In Stuart’s day America was traveling down that road, but under Barack Obama, Stuart’s goals have been obtained.  That is why Obama’s public relation handlers changed the title from “we are” to “we’ve.”  So observe what the enemy of capitalism is all about and their weapons which are in those 18 points.  They are already here, and will stay unless they are defeated and vanquished.  That is the reality of the Obama Presidency and the hidden intentions of its administration.

[1]Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[2]Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © &  1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Cincinnati Freedom Expo: A showcase of liberty minded patriots reporting from the front

If you are a member of Socialist International, a labor union supporter, a left leaning school teacher, a government bureaucrat, a worthless administrator, a greenie weenie activist, a vegan, a member of the mainstream press, a member of Communist Party U.S.A, a member of NAMBLA, a supporter of the Cincinnati Streetcar, a Obama supporter, a fan of The Daily Show, think Bill Maher is intelligent, are living off government assistance, want Obamacare, think Hillary Clinton is honest, sleep past 9 AM, vote for school levies, give to charities for fear of social ridicule, are a latte sipping prostitute, think Agenda 21 is good, support The United Nations, support gun restrictions, support the NDAA Act, think $17 trillion in national debt is not bad, are a diabolical liar, a scum bag, an apathetic loser, and believe that money falls from the sky like rain, you might want to skip the fantastic event that is coming to the Northern Kentucky Convention Center at 5:30 PM on Friday April 19th, The Cincinnati Freedom Expo.  For everyone else who is normal, Constitution supporting Americans you can sign up to get your tickets at the link below.   The tickets are free, but do need to be registered prior to arrival.  The floor space is large, but we can’t pack the room infinitely, so tickets will be issued.  The event is free because some fantastic sponsors covered the cost and can also be seen at the link.

http://cincinnatifreedomexpo.com/

I wouldn’t miss the event as Ann Becker who is President of the West Chester Tea Party and also President of the Cincinnati Tea Party is one of the key organizers.  If Ann is involved, it will be successful.  So the event should be a lot of fun.  Brian Thomas of 55 KRC is the Master of Ceremonies which will feature a long list of speakers reporting back directly from the trenches of the freedom movement.

K Carl Smith is also a featured speaker this year at the Freedom Expo 2013.  He is a leader in the inspirational Fredrick Douglass Republicans.  Learn more about this great group here – http://frederickdouglassrepublican.com/

A father and grandfather, K Carl is an unyielding defender of the constitution and liberty. Inspired by the guiding principles of the Founding Fathers and holding fast to the oath taken during his service to our country, he launched The Conservative MESSENGER™  in 2009.

Captivating Messenger- A “grassroots” initiative, The Conservative MESSENGER’s mission has been to: Enlighten, Educate, Empower and Equip its members based on the Frederick Douglass Republican™ Methodology—a unique and powerfully effective strategy to: (1) Re-Ignite America’s Passion for Liberty; (2) Help the Republican Party recapture its political distinction; (3) Save the souls of the politically lost; (4) Promote racial unity; (5) Create an atmosphere for political dialogue without the accusation of racism or Uncle Tomism; (6) Trump the race card.

A Frederick Douglass Republican™- K Carl has taken what began as a mantra or rallying call and has spearheaded a movement that has climbed into the thousands. In 2011, The Conservative MESSENGER evolved into what is now the Frederick Douglass Republican™ Movement.

Political Motivator-K Carl captivates and inspires audiences with infectious energy, compassion and satire. He brings his expertise and provides down-to-earth solutions on how the conservative movement can broaden its base. K Carl leaves audiences ready to take action-action which could change the political landscape of America. Tea Party Groups, GOP organizations, collegiate institutions, and faith-based groups alike secure the services of K Carl for his stimulating and enrapturing LIFE-EMPOWERING message. His presentations serve as a “beacon of hope” for those who hold Liberty in high-esteem. As a result, K Carl recently authored Frederick Douglass Republicans: The Movement to Reignite America’s Passion for Liberty.

Servant/ Leader- K Carl hold to his credit, successful completion of both the Airborne and Air-Assault programs while on active duty in the U. S. Army. He is the former district leader (AL-7) ofAmericans for Fair Taxation. In 2009, he was appointed to the Amistad Commission by former Alabama Governor, Bob Riley. He was reappointed to that commission, where he currently serves. Additionally, he was recently appointed to the Affordable Homeowner’s Insurance Commission (AHIC) by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley.

Political Agitator- K Carl appeared on The 700 Club and FOXNews’ Huckabee Show. He was recently interviewed by Ginni Thomas for The Daily Caller and participated in a soon-to-be released documentary produced by Rev. C.L. Bryant, The Runaway Slave. K Carl has been featured in a myriad of publications to which he has been “greatly humbled”.

The son of Colonel (retired)  Earnest C. and Bessie Smith, Sr., KCarl is a native of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was reared in Huntsville, Alabama. He is graduate of Alabama A&M University and makes his home in Trussville, Alabama. K Carl is the proud father of three children and five grandchildren.

Congressman Thomas Massie from the Fourth District of Kentucky will also be a speaker at Freedom Expo!

 U.S. Representative Thomas Massie entered Congress in November 2012 after serving as Lewis County Judge Executive. He represents Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District which stretches across Northern Kentucky and 280 miles of the Ohio River.

U.S. Representative Massie attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. During school, he invented a technology that enabled people to interact with computers using their sense of touch, and leveraged that technology to found SensAble Technologies, Inc., which raised over $32 million of venture capital, created 70 jobs, and obtained 24 patents. The hardware and software he developed is now used to design automobiles, jewelry, shoes, dental prosthetics, and even reconstructive implants for wounded soldiers.

In Congress, Thomas serves on three committees: the House Committee of Transportation & Infrastructure, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

The House Committee of Transportation & Infrastructure  has jurisdiction over roads, bridges, mass transit, railroads, aviation, maritime and waterborne transit. Thomas’s selection to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee puts him in a position to hold the federal government accountable to taxpayers. Further, Rep. Massie’s background from MIT and the high-tech business world makes him uniquely qualified to serve his state and country on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Thomas lives on a cattle farm in Kentucky with his wife and high school sweetheart, Rhonda, and their four children.

These are just a few of the speakers who are confirmed to speak; many more will also be taking the stage throughout the evening to celebrate freedom in all its glory.  There will also be booths with venders and authors available to sign their books.  Matt Mayer will have his own booth where he will be signing copies of his Taxpayers Don’t Stand A Chance.  This event will certainly be one of the biggest of the year.  And for those who read here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom regularly and have been trying to peg me down for time, I will be there with my cowboy hat on.  So if you’d like to meet me or talk with me in person, this will be your opportunity.  This Freedom Expo is just what it sounds like, an evening to be around like-minded people away from the parasites of big government and slow-witted progressives.  I can’t think of a better way to spend a Friday evening, so I hope to see many of you there.  The price is right, the activity will be vigorous, and the company will be spectacular.  So make your plans for the April 19th today.

See you there!

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Making of ‘Tail of the Dragon’: The philosophy of an Übermensch from the back of a motorcycle

When I was writing Tail of the Dragon I envisioned that I was working on a populist oriented novel that would be a throw-back to the kind of films I enjoyed as a youth like Smokey and the Bandit and Hooper complete with wild antics, car chases galore, and nonstop action.  I can proudly report that those elements were successful.  Yet while I was writing Tail of the Dragon the thought did cross my mind I was doing something unique that wasn’t quite so populist resulting in early reviews comparing my work to that of Ayn Rand which prompted me to go and read her novels to understand why.  It was my publisher that made those first comparisons and informed me that my title wouldn’t be listed under general fiction, but philosophy due to the nature of the story.  In hindsight I understand what they were getting at.  Tail of the Dragon essentially does with car chases what a book I greatly admire did as a work of philosophy called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance did as a travel story—it explores concepts of philosophy in the context of events occurring on the back of a motorcycle.  In Zen, the author Robert Pirsig traveled with his son on a cross-country motorcycle trip to discover aspects of himself that were otherwise obscured by day-to-day reality.  In my Tail of the Dragon Rick and Renee Stevens do something similar except they find themselves locked in a liberianesque type battle for their very lives at speeds of over 200 miles an hour in the greatest car chase ever told.  I suppose that if I had just wrote a story in a populist fashion that my results might have been as intended—a modern homage to The Dukes of Hazzard or virtually any Burt Reynolds film.  But I did extensive research in writing the novel putting my wife and I on several long distance road trips to scout out the locations I would write about in telling the story of Rick and Renee Stevens and their super human struggle to live their lives authentically against a rules based society locked in sacrifice to the many systems of existence.  For the many readers who have read Tail of the Dragon and wondered how many of the locations mentioned in the novel were real, I invite at this time for you to ride on the back of a motorcycle as we did the research for the book and see for yourself how Rick and Renee Stevens came to life by watching the short documentary style video below.  Part I is a series of videos retracing the steps that put life into the Tail of the Dragon novel and made it a story more akin to Ayn Rand’s Übermensch novels than Burt Reynolds classic action/comedy, which turned out to be a natural byproduct of motorcycle riding in harsh weather conditions.

Rick and Renee began their journey as a middle-aged couple with a grown child and an intense desire to do some of the things they had suppressed for many years.  The novel essentially starts at the hotel Park Vista in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.  In the sequences leading up to their arrival at the hotel, the descriptions of them arriving at the hotel in the pouring rain can be seen for their origin.  When my wife and I visited this site looking for a plausible way to get the main characters into the action of the story with proper motive, it rained on us the entire time.  In the video the unique features of the Park Vista can be seen clearly—and the views out every window are extremely dramatic, each complete with their own balcony.

Leaving the Park Vista for the actual Tail of the Dragon which is over 70 miles away by road, but less than 30 miles as a crow flies, it is impossible to arrive at the mouth of The Dragon in North Carolina without climbing the mountains nearly a mile above sea level putting us easily in the clouds.  This is essentially the same route that Rick and his wife took in the novel their first time to the Tail of the Dragon which is a mystical road located on the western frontier of the Great Smoky Mountains.  The road and terrain changes from Gatlinburg, Tennessee where the Park Vista resides to the Cherokee reservation town in North Carolina are some of the most extreme on planet Earth.  In a very short distance particularly on the back of a motorcycle in the pouring rain like we experienced it, the plant life and atmospheric changes were extreme.  As seen in the video once we crossed through the mountains and arrived in Cherokee we were able to pull off at a rest area and cross a unique suspension bridge that extended across a small river that runs through town.  We sought shelter from the rain for a bit in a gift shop before resuming our journey just a bit more to the south then directly west for our destination.

The Crossroads of Time is a motorcycle resort residing at the corner of what has become known as the Moonshine 28 and the Tail of the Dragon respectably RT 129 and RT 28.  This is where Rick Stevens has the race with the Lamborghini and makes the bet with Killboy to make a speedy run up the dangerous and winding road known world-wide.  By the time my wife and I arrived at The Cross Roads of Time we had been on our motorcycle for many hours in the pouring spring rain and were freezing from the chilly air of late April.  In the video my wife could be seen drying out and eating chicken strips at the bar and grill located at the Crossroads.  It was from that seat where the first elements of the novel began to come together in my mind as I scribbled notes on my hands since all the paper I brought with me was soaking wet.  Later back at the hotel I would more formalize my observations after the hard day of riding around the entire national park of The Great Smokey Mountains ending our long journey much later from the Crossroads at a wax museum at the very start of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.  Since the rain was so intense I kept my camera packed away and didn’t get much footage while riding the motorcycle, a situation that I was able to correct in my Part II video coming up in the next article.

Motorcycle riding in the Smoky Mountains is a uniquely American thing to do especially under adverse conditions.  In my novel Tail of the Dragon, it was the perfect backdrop for my story of two people who decide that they are going to rebel against a system of living that has threatened to crush them mentally their entire lives—and dare to break away from the invisible chains that bind us all day by day slowly from cradle to grave.  I did not intend to move away from the populist plot I had worked out in my head, but when on a motorcycle pushing your own limits and stepping out of all personal safety zones, stories begin to tell themselves and as an author the task becomes in plucking such events from the air and capturing them in a bottle for others to enjoy—or learn from.  Thankfully, many have which is all I ever wanted.  Every time I get the reports from my publisher of the book sales I enjoy knowing that readers are sharing in that captured magic residing in that bottle discovered on trips like the one seen above.  I am happy to share a little bit about how the book came to life in reality with footage collected during the research phase of the novel, and provide nourishment to the inquisitive minds of the book’s growing fan base.  In Part II, I will get into a bit more footage as my daughter and son-in-law were able to join me which provided the opportunity to capture some rather spectacular footage on the back of a motorcycle and show how the words that ended up in my novel Tail of the Dragon came to be the work of the Übermensch (overman). 

CLICK HERE to see what my publisher had to say about my novel Tail of the Dragon and look for Part II on April 3rd.

Visit the website for the novel at:  www.tailofthedragonbook.com

“Like” Tail of the Dragon on Facebook by CLICKING HERE 

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

 

The ‘Cold Dead Hand’ Video From Lost Thoughtless Brains: Hypocritical ideas from those “comfortably numb”

The Jim Carrey satire against Charlton Heston, southern culture, and the Second Amendment titled Cold Dead Hands is a blessing in disguise for those of us on the more conservative side of politics.  It is good to see the mind of opponents for what they truly are without the public relations facades that often conceal the true activist nature of the subject in question.  The radical goof balls on the left expect conservatives to take it when they dish out character assassinations, but they don’t expect it in return.  In Carrey’s case he took a shot at a majority of America and their love of freedom guaranteed by The Second Amendment.  The public knows Carrey has made a living off violence in his films, namely his use of guns in the film The Mask and a film career that really got off the ground when he appeared as a drug addict in the fifth Dirty Harry film with Clint Eastwood titled The Dead Pool.  Guns have been good to Carrey, and watching him turn against them speaks openly about the hypocrisy of the left and the current culture of progressive Hollywood and the types of things they believe.  The left will never attack Carrey’s radicalism shown in his video or the disgraceful rendition of asserting that Charlton Heston is trapped in some eternal purgatory because he is still holding onto his guns.  Even when progressive leftists attack members of the conservative right, the right is attacked even further when they express outrage.

Over the last couple of days I received two emails from people who frequently read my work here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom and took note of some of my recent articles where I expressed outrage of my own.  In both cases, they feel that indignation on my part is misplaced—and uncivilized, and that I should just suppress my thoughts for the ridiculous common good.  Here are those emails along with my response.

C’mon Rich,

Looked at a recent blog of yours and found this
———
As a reader here, and casual participant, you can trust that I will not disappear into a void of oblivion because I set out in this war to win it, not to come to a drawl, or shake hands and make a deal.  I set out to destroy my enemy—those who openly exploit children for their own selfish progressive desires.
———-
Why so violent?

And quit crying over the “Kroger survey” and stick with arguments that have some logic.

Maybe Kelly Kohls gets so much flack from friends of educators because she aligns herself with you.  She loses me in her presentations as soon as she looks to you, manning the video camera, for backup facts.

I do think you need  to change the tenor of your rhetoric.  You seem to begging for physical confrontation and the search for educational solutions needs to avoid that.

William Schmidt

————————————————————————————————————–

I told you I am done with public education.  I see them as a threat to our next generations because of the left leaning tendency of what they teach.  If there were more balanced world views, I’d feel differently.  But that’s not the case.  Profit based strategies need to be the future of education as it tends to root out the good from the bad.

Since people have the memory span of paper clips, I have to remind them of the Kroger Survey for context.  You are likely to see and read it at least 100 to 200 more times in the months to come.  That was my bench mark of the type of people who support public education where I realized who supported the education system as it is and why.

You seem to ignore the comments of Becki in the Kelly Kohls incident.  You pick what you want and paint things up the way you wish them to be.  I don’t like to see people pushed around, and I see that happening a lot in public education from employees who forget that the tax payers are their boss.

Kelly or anybody else has their choice whether to align themselves with me.  Obviously you are used to dealing with other types of people, because I don’t have a shortage who wish to do so.

You can speculate on my aims, but you can bet that there is a reason for everything.

Thanks for writing and showing me your mind.  There is a lot there; I can understand your frustration.

Have a nice Easter,

Rich

————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Rich Hoffman, (as written spelling errors and all)

I do empathize strongly with Gen X.

1.But you people claim to have manners whilst minimalising racism?

2.You claim to have class while bashing on LITERALLY ENTIRE GENERATIONS?

3. You claim that Gen Z is the end of humanity, based on what? Your interpretations of the potential of a bunch of >10 years-olds?

4. You mock science for modern warnings about global disaster, but you long for the days of the cold war when nuclear annihilation was imminent?

You’re a bunch of jackasses.  For a guy who mocks younger generations for being weak, you seem to have some pretty strong “mommy” issues. Newsflash, your generation was neither the first, nor the last generation to have broken families in it. Pussy.

  • Jason Ibanez

———————————————————————————————————————-

Who me? I am what I eat.  And you are a snot nosed punk.

Rich

There are a lot more of those types of emails, but they happen to have come through within a short time of each other the other day while I was thinking about the Jim Carrey video.  They are derived from the same kind of culture where the progressive left steps up and punches the conservative right in the face then runs off not expecting to be hit back.  In the case of those emails when I am called derogatory names, or a union representative uses the word “war” to describe their plight against the tax payer it makes me angry, and I direct the anger where appropriate.

The Carrey video and the video above where progressive analysis is given praising the anti gun message, the commentator is happy and dancing on the grave of Charlton Heston because Carrey represents the progressive beliefs of that particular pundit.  So it is only fair that those of us with conservative beliefs do the same when necessary and beat on the war drums ourselves when provoked.  In that regard it is healthy to give progressives back what they dish out and then some, to teach them that it is not appropriate to use force, or coercion of any kind to advance a political agenda, which is what progressives are adamantly committed to.  However it is not my fault that the generations before me who happened to be conservative were as Jason Ibanez declared above, allowing progressive to punch them without getting it back.  Those days are over.

Jim Carrey probably does believe what he says about The Second Amendment.  He does not connect the dots of his career with the rights of the First Amendment to play characters that speak out of his butt (literally) and to use guns like he did in The Mask to boost his career.    The Hollywood culture which has been consumed by progressive Democrats, just as Ayn Rand warned about with Walt Disney and many others (CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF) is awash in hypocrisy in much the same way that public education believes they are on the moral side of goodness by teaching forced collectivism and anti-private property instruction against community tax payers.  Most of the time the activists like the two email writers above, or Jim Carrey in his attack against the image of Charlton Heston fail to see how their actions in the microcosm are shaped by events in the macrocosm.  They only look at their small piece of the pie and expect all of society to adhere to their viewpoint even if the cost is a loss of personal freedom, Constitutional revision, or the destruction of a movie legend’s memory.

When Hollywood attacks itself, as Carrey is doing against the recollection of Heston, the battle lines are clear.  The difference is that now conservatives have learned that taking the abuse and mockery from the progressive left will not be tolerated.  Carrey may not see the immediate impact of his actions against his next couple of films, but he has changed the way people see him.  Before this incident I was a fan of his.  I doubt I’ll ever watch another one of his films just as I haven’t seen a George Clooney film in about 10 years.  I cannot watch those types of actors anymore knowing that they stand against the personal beliefs that I have, and when they remind me of it in such a glorious fashion, they dig their own grave—because I’m not alone.  Many people think the way I do; they just don’t speak their thoughts.  And if I didn’t know that, I wouldn’t even bother with this site.

The flyover states that Jim Carrey insulted in his video made him the star that he is today and those people will reject Carrey in the future.  It will have an impact on his box office totals.  Jim Carrey has successfully taken himself as an A List actor and put himself in the mind of America as an activist equivalent to Sean Penn, an actor that is impossible to watch without thinking of his communist oriented politics.  For the same reason, Jane Fonda will always and forever be known as Hanoi Jane because of her support of communists in North Vietnam—no matter what she may have done in the rest of her life from playing in On Golden Pond with her father, to her workout tapes.   In the history of her legacy, she will always be known as a communist, which most Americans reject when the word is not hidden behind the mask of progressivism.  70 percent of Americans have a genuine mistrust of government.  About 20% of those people are willing to overlook that mistrust because government pays their paycheck—and pays them quite well to remain “comfortably numb.”  Because the government cannot be trusted, The Second Amendment will always be needed in case the tragic worst case scenario should ever reoccur, which is another American Revolution.  The Second Amendment is not for hunting, or target shooting, it is for warding off the government if government imposes itself too arrogantly upon the personal liberty and freedoms of the American people.  It’s a unique concept in the world, and progressives in love with Europe find it appalling.  In Hollywood where European culture is so revered and noticeably out of step with the rest of the country, Jim Carrey is just another activist showing off for his liberal friends so he can stay relevant.  But in so doing he created his own legacy that he will come to regret.  He won’t be known as the actor for the Truman Show, or even Ace Ventura.  Rather, he’ll be known as the progressive stooge who danced on the grave of a Hollywood legend and took aim at the heart of America with a blind attempt to appease the extreme minority in Hollywood who holds the purse strings of the Hollywood money machine.   In the end, Carrey will wish that he had said something as bold as Charlton Heston did, and that some future loser would attempt mock him in death with a song titled Cold Dead Hand, because when Carrey is no longer on earth, it will go as un-noticed as a fart lost in the wind of a career built of childish jokes and frail beliefs.


That is the legacy of Jim Carrey, throw him a fish–he’ll perform.
Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com