Tag: education funding

The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Controversy: Things that stink and things that don’t

I have never seen an episode of Duck Dynasty.  I have only seen interviews of the main characters on television interviews—so I have no way of knowing anything about the actual show they conduct.  My primary exposure to them comes from a table full of material they have at my local bookstore that I can’t help but notice during my weekly visit to purchase my supply of books.  From what I know about them, they appear to be like most of the people I know—so there is no drive for me to see how they live.  I’m already where they are—so there is nothing special going on.  If I had to put my finger onto why they have the top rated show on cable television it would be due to the fact that through progressive educations, everyone else is rediscovering their value system which has been socially suppressed through the Duck Dynasty.

A good friend of mine who sometimes opines here grew a long beard like the Duck Dynasty guys during an age when it was really unpopular.  He was only 25 years old at the time so he looked oddly out-of-place everywhere he went—which was fine with me.  I enjoyed his brand of rebellion, so the odd looks suited my entertainment.  We’d go out to eat at a Wendy’s or McDonald’s, I’d have my hat on, he’d have his long flowing beard and people thought we stepped out of the Appalachian mountains while other people our age were dressing in the latest campus fashions.  During the 90s nobody who lived near a city grew beards like that—only motorcycle riders, and mountain men.  That guy was a genius level personality who wanted desperately to be a mountain man—but too many social entanglements prevented it at the time.  So he grew a beard that would have made ZZ Top jealous.  But after a while, he moved through that phase and decided to shave it off and go clean shaven—so he cut the thing off and hung it on a wall in his bathroom, fully intact.  It was all woven together like someone had knitted it, and hung it in a mask like form on the wall next to his sink.  My daughters were scared of using the restroom at his home because of that beard.  They didn’t want to be in the same room with it.

So I have a little history with the type of people who are in the Duck Dynasty show.  There are quite a few of them who live from Appalachia to Utah.  They are quite common around Bristol, Tennessee, and can often be seen living in trailers in the middle of Idaho—living debt free and seeking no human entanglements.  If a person were to go to the Sturgis motorcycle rally in South Dakota, a lot of those beards would be seen.  They are as common as air in a place like that.  But in New York and Los Angeles they are an anomaly.  In those progressive cities, the European sensibilities have taken root from across both ponds, and people just don’t do those kinds of things.  Rugged individualism is a concept of wonder that they cannot grasp, which is why a progressive cable channel like A&E put the Robertson family on television to begin with—as a kind of eccentric fascination that the folks on Brand, and Wilshire Blvd could gawk at and feel good about themselves.  They had no idea they were tapping into a reservoir of unrepresented frustration experienced throughout the rest of the country. So I can see how they would be upset when A&E had to run up against the comments of Phil Robertson’s GQ interview about homosexual behavior—which represents most of the country’s opinion.  The LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transvestites) community represents around 3% of the total American population, but as a lobby force—since they have made themselves the squeaky wheels—they have captured the interests of major corporations terrified of activism lawsuits, if discrimination is shown toward gay oriented people.  So to prove corporations are open to all forms of living—so to avoid parasitic social shaping lawsuits, most corporations have come out in open acceptance of gay behavior—which was the reason for the aggressive action by the LGBT community regarding Phi Robertson.

Most corporate types lack any personal convictions—so they see no problem yielding to the LGBT community.  It is good business to show acceptance to all lifestyles.  Unfortunately for them, they are not very good at predicting content that the American people want—so they often happen across success by accident—which clearly was the case with the Duck Dynasty people.  They are used to celebrities who have found fame and fortune bending to their will to keep the money train humming along—and that includes yielding to special interest advocates like the LGBT community.  They are not used to celebrities like Phil Robertson who are functioning from an authenticity that is not for sale.  People like Phil Robertson are who they are whether or not they are being paid millions of dollars for it—and at the heart of the recent controversy where Phil Robertson made his feelings about gay sex quite clear—is the collision of progressive politics, and authenticity—the kind of honesty that has made the popular A&E television show so fashionable among a very hungry public.

I know a bit about what Phil is going through.  I know what’s it’s like to come across a progressive perception of things, and when told by the establishment to “apologize” and you don’t—but stick by your guns—which I will sum up at the end of this article.  The reason Robertson is in trouble is because of the kind of beliefs he has expressed below.  All of these issues are common observations from people in the flyover states, on the farms, the factories, and barber shops all across Middle America.  It is for that reason that they tune in to watch Duck Dynasty, because to them somebody finally put on a show that speaks to them—instead of some coastal crap about hippie free love, reckless religious conviction, and overly emotional despots.  The progressive establishment has worked hard to change the beliefs of people with an opposite message, which Phil Robertson exposed on episodes of their television show well before the recent gay remarks.

The below comments are excerpts from one of those insulted progressive types.  Check them out:

  • Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

 

  • Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus. “All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”

 

But more specifically, based on the GQ article, Phil said:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” he said. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/12/duck-dynasty-gay-gq-phil-robertson-homophobe-homosexual/

What’s wrong with that?  It’s an opinion based on years of experience?  Yet the LGBT community believes this kind of opinion should be attacked because it goes against their social agenda which is the erosion of traditional values.  However, for a guy like me—that is an insult—when they attack traditional relationships with traditional sexual practices they are attacking me.  Yet I don’t protest Madonna who was a major advocate of the LGBT community, or Hillary Clinton who does the same—even though they only represent a very small portion of the population.  When Phil Robertson speaks, he’s stating what a guy like me is already thinking.

When the film Broke Back Mountain came out and those two mainstream actors had anal sex in a tent far away from their wives, then fell in love with each other,  I tried to watch and accept the story because it was so critically appraised.  But the unrealistic nature of the whole thing was inescapable.  I’ve been on many camping trips and on those kinds of endeavors with other guys—those kinds of activities are not desirable.  My wife and I never pass gas in front of each other, there is no belching at the Hoffman dinner table, and there are never, and I mean never, “toot jokes” in my home, or around me.  Human gas is a part of the digestion process, but it is also disgusting.  It belongs with the rest of human feces, somewhere out of site so that intellectual pursuits can be established.  The sex engaged in during Broke Back Mountain is unrealistic.  That would have made such a mess that the filth afterwards would have made their back country trip unbearably uncomfortable.  Without a shower immediately afterwards the smell would be disgusting.  When Phil Robertson was talking about a vagina over an anus he’s talking about this kind of thing.  With a woman, you can make love on a beach, in the woods, on top of your house, and when you’re done you don’t have to take a shower or even change the sheets.  You can just go to sleep.  With anal sex, absolutely no way—somebody will be taking a shower as feces would be everywhere.  For a gay couple to do such a thing then  go to sleep afterwards it would be like having a dog that rolled in feces out in the yard jump in your bed in the middle of the night and leave behind all the yard waste into the sheets of slumber.  It would not be a good thing.  Human beings have perverted the sex act and used such an orifice with the assistance of modern lubricants that are very unnatural.  Without access to such things, anal sex would be impossible unlike with a woman where once the engine is running, it takes care of itself.

I don’t even like to use the restroom on camping trips because it makes me feel dirty.  Fecal matter is not an attractive attribute of human existence.  The appeal of it is contrived, not natural—and for more people to experiment with it, the LGBT community needs people to participate in such sex out of rebellion against the establishment.  What Phil Robertson did was expose what everyone else is already thinking—and when they heard it; it got them off the hook of guilt that the gay community tries to invoke in order to promote their life style.  Many years ago I worked with a sexual deviant who shared a story with the same friend whom I referred to who grew the beard.  We were salesman at a dealership and between sales there was a lot of time to talk.  This guy and his wife were very adventurous sexually, and he’d tell us all about his latest escapades.  (My friend will remember the guy—his name was Perry.)  One thing he had done the previous night was have is wife defecate onto a sheet of glass that he put over his face so he could watch it drop out and plop against the barrier between him and his wife.  I told him he was insanely disgusting and he’d laugh and say, “To each, his own.”  He had a twisted sense of erotic behavior.  For me the smell alone would have been it, let alone watching such a thing.  For a gay couple, they would have to accept that kind of odor, and the byproducts of engagement.  A small percentage of the population likely has their wires crossed like that guy and his wife—where like dogs, they like fecal matter.  They have a right to like what they want, but I don’t want to know about it.  It is their dysfunctional behavior, not mine—and that is my general feeling about the whole LGBT population.

The gay pride people are afraid of people coming to these logical conclusions because it will end their spread of the social relationships between a man and a woman in a traditional family which they seek to destroy.  They have the same level of deceit that public schools have over their funding issues, or government has over its spending.  Being typical Kant trained Keynesian economic theorists they believe that as long as they do not speak of evil, hear any evil, or participate in any evil through their own lack of recognition of any value judgment, that there is no evil.   The LGBT community has the same approach, they want vagina sex to be equal to anal sex—and they aren’t, one stinks, and one doesn’t.  But in order to propel that belief, they need society to remain suppressed, and stupid acting out of rebellion, instead of logic.  Logic says that the dudes in Broke Back Mountain would have had to clean off their dip sticks somewhere after the act.  They wouldn’t just be able to get on their horses and do a day’s worth of hard riding.   Only a gay writer from Santa Monica could even think this was possible as he has countless gels and lotions next to his bed to disguise the odor.  But in Broke Back Mountain, such things were not around, only human spittle—nothing else—and that is just gross.

The reason for the beard and the popularity of the Duck Dynasty is that the characters are speaking the language of a part of society that has been suppressed deeply.  The explosion of popularity seen by the A&E show is the untapped potential that Hollywood has been trying to avoid so to propel a progressive agenda.  Duck Dynasty is about authenticity, and little else.  And that traditional authentic behavior is something that America is very hungry for.  What happened after Phil Robertson made his comments was that the LGBT community saw a sleeping giant come to Phil’s defense, and that scares them.  A&E thought a token suspension until everything cooled off would suffice, but it didn’t.  The LGBT community tried to force the issue, Phil Robertson didn’t back down, and lines in the sand were drawn.  Forty years of public relations work likely went out the window in the period of one week as a majority of America found themselves supporting Robertson, and rejecting the arguments of the LGBT community.  What will be one of the most common Christmas presents in 2013?  Likely, Duck Dynasty material.  What will be the number one topic around Christmas dinner tables—likely the stand Phil Robertson took against the LGBT community.  Without question, many people who try that whole back-door approach with their spouses find the whole thing a lot less appealing than the vagina.  The LGBT community has sold the whole thing in such a way that it makes people want to try it—but the reality is disgusting.  Phil Robertson just gave people who feel that way a pass to not try it—and that is what the LGBT community is terrified of.  Their peer pressure has folded because the Duck Dynasty guys refused to back off their position against anal sex.  Like the act itself, the concept has more appeal than the reality.  In the end, everything comes out smelling bad—just like the movement by the LGBT community.  And Americans don’t like things that stink.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The “One Amigo”, John Kasich: Ohio’s actor expanding Medicaid and learning how real the game is

If there was a film that reminded me of the character of Governor Kasich of Ohio it would be the Three Amigos, the classic comedy done by Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short.  In that film three film actors were hired to be real life gunman by a desperate village hoping the Three Amigos would stand up to a group of tyrants.  Only the Three Amigos believe that the whole ordeal is only another film—they have no idea that the situation they’ve been hired for is actually real.  So they engage the bandits with bravado—the kind of valor displayed in their movie characters.  Of course, the bandits are real, and when the Three Amigos engage them, bad things happen.  When Steve Martin gets shot by a real bullet, the three movie friends have a nervous breakdown and cry before their enemies and beg for their lives.  In a lot of ways that is what happened to John Kasich in Ohio.  He was elected as a Tea Party governor by a village desperate for protection—and when he engaged the real life thugs—the labor unions—the special interest groups—the Obamanites—and poll numbers—he revealed himself to be only an actor who used to host on Fox News.  Kasich begged for his life, hat in hand. This was the metaphor I used on a recent Michigan radio broadcast on WAAM with Matt Clark.

John Kasich unlike the Three Amigos is all by himself—he is all those comedy characters rolled up into one person.  He has the statesmanship of the Steve Martin character, the naïveté of Martin Short, and the clumsy stupidity of Chevy Chase.  But the sum of his entire personality—and role as Ohio’s governor is that his is the One Amigo—friend to himself—and nobody else.  For a tough talking governor who declared that he would be willing to run one term and leave back to the private sector—that he only wanted to be governor to do good for Ohio—he has turned out to be a phony.  He is currently seeking a second term, and beyond that—is a presidential hopeful.  Just like everyone else before him—Kasich proved to be only an actor talking a good game, but in the end, he fell in love with the opulence, the respect, and glamour of being in charge of a state.

The final straw with Kasich is his intentional exploitation of the poor through Medicaid expansion to win votes and popularity.  He lost the unions through Senate Bill 5 and stood with the Tea Party.  He abandoned the Tea Party after that union loss.  He lost the cops, the teachers, and the firefighters—which he never really had, he lost the women, he lost the blacks, he lost the immigrants—so he is looking to repair those demographic numbers with Medicaid expansion even by-passing the state legislature in the process.  In his pursuit of a second term, he has become a tyrant—an actor looking for another gig.

Without question the Republican Party is behind some of Kasich’s plans.  They do not want to lose a Republican governor in an election—because in the game of politics, the winner is the side with the most “Rs” in office over “Ds.”  They don’t care how the “Rs” get into office—so long as they call themselves Republicans.  They don’t care if Kasich maintains conservative ideals, or stands for anything at all—because their goal is to win the political game with more people calling themselves Republican—even if deep in their hearts they are Democrats.

What politicians like Kasich learn too late is that the game he was playing is all too real.  The village really needed a gunman to defend them, and the bandits are actually sinister.  So like the Three Amigos who realized they were way over their head—sought the comfort of their mansions, and opulent lifestyles to shield their sensibilities from the aggression of the real world threats.  Kasich retreated from his values rather quickly, and has become a major disappointment.  He talks tough, but in the end he is like what I said to Matt during our interview—more reminiscent of a female sex organ—and what’s happening to the Republican Party—and the freedom movement reflects that submissive role.  Like a common whore happy to give out such submissive positions to more aggressive alpha Democrats, Kasich thinks he can play the game of politics in his favor by making deals—just like a slut makes deals with a pimp and hopes to hustle a few favors in the process.

If Kasich were a real hero, and not a fake like in the Three Amigos, he would stand for something—but this is where he is weak.  Now that he’s been discovered as a fraud, as only an actor and not a metaphorical “gunman” his political enemies know how to destroy him—which of course won’t be any benefit to the Republican Party anyway.  As it stands, Kasich is no different from Ted Strickland—his previous rival for office.  The only real difference is that Kasich knows how to act like he cut the state budget by simply shuffling money around and calling it a balanced budget.  It’s similar to the slut who pretends to perform sex acts on a drunken customer who has passed out.  They’ll never know if the prostitute actually did the things they were charged for—because they were passed out.  Kasich plans to do the same in the 2014 election.  He has the “R” next to his name, but he’s every bit a progressive as Ted Strickland was, or Senator Sherrod Brown is currently.  They are all big government people who play political games with stolen money and hide the behavior behind an acting job.  Kasich is simply the “One Amigo,” instead of three.

Because of Kasich the roots of Obamacare will spread deep into Ohio for years to come—and he will incentivize more poor people to stay poor, and become more dependent on the government.  It will always be Kasich’s mistakes as governor that will determine the future encroachment of Obama’s tyrannical wealth redistribution scheme.  Kasich took the bait from Obama, the way a whore takes the bait of a $100 dollar bill.  He thinks the garbage he gets in to will wash off after the act with a nice shower, but that is because he hasn’t considered that he might receive a sexually transmitted disease that will stay with him the rest of his life.  Obamacare to Ohio is like a sexually transmitted disease spread to everyone through Medicaid expansion—a deal that literally screws Ohio for decades in the future only for the purpose of John Kasich to exploit the poor and win re-election.

The Kasich governorship is a comedy act in the same way that the movie the Three Amigos was intended; only the implications are not just laughs, but long-term peril.  When the movie Three Amigos ends, the DVD can be removed and life continues on, but with Kasich, his blunders will stay with Ohio forever—because like an STD, the disease of liberalism will reside within the laws of the state perpetually.  The metaphors as bombastic as they may sound are appropriate, and good radio for Matt Clark’s show, but therapy for a state deeply frustrated by Kasich and his foolish antics.  His comedy act is appreciated by people like Obama, Sherrod Brown and other progressives—but for everyone else, it’s not funny.  For everyone else, we are like Steve Martin wounded from a bullet realizing too late that the danger is very real—and we’re not just play acting.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Liberalism is a Mental Illness: Why the media is so quiet about Karl Pierson–the “Socialist School Shooter”

If liberalism were classified as a mental disorder, we might have stopped many mass shootings; at least that was the reasoning Ann Coulter espoused during a recent episode with Sean Hannity.  That comment may sound inflammatory—but in all reality—there is more truth to it than rhetoric.  The proof is in the recent school shooting at Araphoe High School outside of Denver, Colorado which occurred on Friday December the 13th 2013 and was a dead story more or less by Monday, December 16th. On Friday the news coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and everywhere else was wall to wall—as usual.  But by Saturday morning, less than 12 hours after the shooting the coverage dried up.  By Monday on the Special Report by Brett Baier there wasn’t a single mention of the shooting during the entire program—a news station thought highly to be a conservative leaning network.  Oddly missing from the many news stations were the Hollywood elite with constant calls for gun control, the prayer vigils, the sorrow of the poor kids shot by the made gunman Karl Pierson foolishly, maliciously, and for no reason at all struck down.  It seemed as if the media in general wanted to move on to another story and forget about this school shooting even as the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Massacre had just occurred prompting schools all over the country to begin staffing armed patrol officers to stop such things from happening—Araphoe being one of them.  The reason…………..well, Pierson unlike the other mass shooters of recent memory who were rumored to be politically left, but not clearly—the Araphoe shooter was clearly, unequivocally—and boldly was a socialist.  Socialism is the political philosophy that most of the media had accepted in small doses, a concept that is taught in public schools—not by name of course, but by practice, and is the current philosophy of the current President of The United States—again, not by name, but in practice.

Karl Pierson’s attack at Arapahoe High School lasted just 80 seconds.  He rushed into the school Friday with a bandolier of ammunition strapped to his chest carrying a machete, three Molotov cocktails and the pump-action shotgun that authorities said he bought days before to avenge a grudge he had against his debate coach for kicking him off the team.  Pierson was such a radical socialist—such a maniacal collectivist, that when even his teacher tried to reel him in, he thought like most left-winged tyrants do—that he had a right and obligation to force others into his way of thinking—by force if necessary.

The teen apparently harbored a grudge against his debate couch Murphy after being disciplined by him in September. The discipline came after Pierson made a verbal threat against Murphy to a group of students. Law enforcement was made aware of that threat, and the response to it remained under investigation.

Pierson’s Facebook page, before it was taken down, was a window into the mind of the accused shooter. He wrote a lot about economics and politics, calling himself a “Keynesian” and jesting that neoclassic economic theory would not fix the economy.

He also used his Facebook to routinely mock Republicans as seen below:

The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ’em Die, Climate Change: Let ’em Die, Gun Violence: Let ’em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ’em Die, More War: Let ’em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?

One classmate described him as harmless but said he could get verbally aggressive and very heated when debating and discussing politics with teachers and students.  It is obvious that the left-winged radical was not harmless.  Pierson cared enough about socialism and Keynesian economics to go home, buy a gun, and kill his teacher for not being allowed to continue debating on the team—to have a platform to spread his message of collective endeavor through socialism.

Here are several articles covering the story as it unfolded:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/15/dad-says-daughter-critically-wounded-during-arapahoe-high-school-shooting-is-not-doing-well/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/13/sheriff-at-least-two-people-injured-in-colorado-shooting/

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24724553/arapahoe-high-school-shooting-sheriffs-office-interview-hundreds

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/12/karl-pierson-arapahoe-high-school-shooter-colorado/

When progressive types run into any issue such as gun violence, their very first reaction is more regulation, more government intervention, less personal freedom, and stronger public school presence, yet these things keep happening in schools where many perceive such places to be safe—even though it is far more likely that their children would be involved in a school shooting than to be involved in an airplane accident.  There is still a fear of flying where there is not a fear of public schools.  Liberals often proclaim that these school shooters are mentally ill, and must be detected by the government schools and treated before they ever bring harm to anyone.  Yet it is never considered what made the shooters ill to begin with—it is never considered that the illness came from institutional failure and no other contributing factor—and that more government intervention will indirectly lead to more mass shootings, and more people who think the way Karl Pierson did.

Does anybody think that Pierson learned to be a socialist from his home environment?  Likely, he learned it from school.  Most children learn about liberalism in public schools by their teachers and college professors.  They vote for Democrats for the first 15 years of their adult lives, then once they maintain jobs for a while have kids of their own, purchase property and live responsibly—they grow out of liberalism and slowly become conservative.  By the time they reach their 50s and 60s they become those stuffy Republicans they used to rant about.  It’s a bit of a cycle of life that we needlessly endure because we allow the government to teach our kids with left-leaning methods that are destructive to their minds.  For people like Pierson—who was probably a bit different from most children from the start—after his debate teachers told him to watch shows like MSNBC and CNN’s Pierce Morgan—and other “recommended” viewing, so that the kid could become a better debater—his young mind became tainted as he observed the socialism of his school, the socialism of his President, the socialism of the news—and he put his finger to the wind and decided that he would become a liberal because he saw that the masses endorsed those views—from his perspective at the public school.  The teachers ripped on Republicans—so if he wanted good grades—he could do the same and get better grades—and maybe even become the next Michael Moore.  After playing at this game for a while, he began to believe that Keynesian economics was the salvation of the world—instead of its destroyer, and that socialism was a benefit to equality—instead of the great slayer of it.

The silence from the news came in the wake of the shooting because most of the people covering the story realized that they had contributed just a small bit to the violence because of their endorsements of soft socialism hidden behind mixed economies so prevalent in The United States.  Karl Pierson was a product of public education—and like most Frankenstein experiments—he became a monster that nobody wanted to acknowledge.  The political theory, the economic theory, and social justice that Karl Pierson learned in his public school became a monster that went on to bring great harm to the other collective occupants of Araphoe High School.  Pierson took what he learned further than the school intended and they tried to pull him out of it too late—they had let his mind go too far to the left—so much so that Pierson become dangerous.  Instead of growing up to become the next Al Gore, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Barack Obama, they had created a Frankenstein monster that got loose and wanted to destroy its maker—his teacher.

Liberalism by default of the frequent actions by many mass killers should be designated a mental illness—so that future people like Karl Pierson can be avoided.  But to admit that would require most people in the mainstream media, and political structure to admit that they are also suffering from the mental illness of liberalism—just not to the same degree Pierson was.  The great fear is that it might not take much for them to become as crazy as Karl Pierson—because they too support concepts of Keynesian economics, they too support socialism, and believe that liberalism is a benefit to society—instead of a detriment.  If anybody were really serious about stopping school shootings, they would not look to laws, guns, or more pansy teachings in public school, but would eliminate liberalism from the American consciousness.  By eliminating liberal instruction, education would not feed the mental illness that tends to occur in mass collectivists who believe that socialism should be the spine of all national economies.  In Karl Pierson’s case, he believed in liberalism so intently that he was willing to kill for it.  There really isn’t any other way to stop such a person once they get loose from a teacher’s control, and that is what scares so many media outlets.  Because they have helped put in motion large doses of the liberalism mental illness—and there will be more Karl Pierson types created by them for the destruction of mankind.  When they show themselves, the responsibility for their actions will fall on the shoulders of those most silent—the national media.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Galactic Starfighter Strategies: New ways of dealing with old problems on the liberty front

A lot of the things I am usually concerned with politically and professionally are current disappointments.  Just this past week I learned that conservative groups could not agree on a candidate to challenge John Boehner’s seat confirming that many people talk tough until it really counts—but in the end they wimp out—and will get the government they deserve as a result.  There appears to be a challenger to John Kasich’s seat, but that will be an uphill battle with major opposition rolling large stones down to stop the progress, so that is hardly a success story at this point.  President Obama is proving to be a crook more and more as the follies of Obamacare are setting up 2014 to be a disastrous year for many financially.  And my public school of Lakota got their tax money with a levy approval.  I am personally making arrangements in financing to ensure that I don’t pay the extra $36 dollars in taxes per month—but the monopoly hold the institution has on the press, the political structure and the  young minds of America’s youth remains strong—at least on the surface.  Professionally, I am busier than I have ever been in my life.  There is no shortage of need for problem solvers in spite of my attempt to be ostentatious to lower the line down to only those most serious–so free time is short—and at a severe premium.  It is in times like these that one must have good constructive hobbies—and I do.  I have shared with my readers here my long history and love of strategy games—particularly combat oriented war games where I can apply methods learned in The Art of War and The Book of Five Rings to theoretical situations—which I then apply to my real life needs by washing out strategic theories against real life opponents. Currently my two favorite games of this type are X Wing Miniatures, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW, and the squeaky new online computer game Galactic Starfighter—which is my topic of discussion today.

Galactic Starfighter has been a very pleasant surprise.  As a space flight simulator featuring aerial combat that I have been looking forward to for a long time—it has delivered spectacularly.  I have a favorite video game called X-Wing from way back in the early 90s that I used to love—the graphics were not what they are today, but the game play was infinitely interesting.  The enemies were NPCs (Non Playable Characters) and would require tight combat engagements with a variety of craft to fly and fight against.  Huge capital ships would come into the scenario and would often hyper jump into a hot zone and start dispatching enemy fighters leaving a player frantic to shoot down as many as they could in a short time and attempt to take out the large vessels by knocking out their shields then destroying their bridge where the command structure was usually housed.  I played that game with a nephew of mine for many hours—and he still talks about it 20 years later as if it were one of the most fun times of his life.  Galactic Starfighter came out only as recently as December 3, 2013 and it didn’t take me long to discover what the design team at LucasArts, BioWare, and Electronic Arts were up to.  They essentially made a game with the basic concept of the old X-Wing game and dusted it off with a slick new paint job which modern programming allows.  The flight mechanics, the ability to shove power to shields, or engines depending on need is there, directional shields, targeting reticules, telemetry data streams—it’s all there.  Only Galactic Starfighter is better.

The old X-Wing game had NPCs programmed to go after a target along fixed parameters.  Once a pilot learned the basics of these standards, the NPCs could be dominated—so the learning curve was not terribly steep once the basics of concept and flight control were mastered.  With Galactic Starfighter the entire game is PVP (player versus player) meaning the people you fly against are all live pilots.  It reminds me of a very slick version of the old X-Box game Crimson Skies and how that game played on X-Box Live.  I have now played hundreds of matches, earned over a million credits, countless ACE awards, medals, and ship requisition allowing me to purchase upgrades for my small fleet of ships—and I’m nowhere near finished with it. If anything I am more eager to play it with each match queued up.  It is that good.

But what’s even better is that my wife—who is not a typical dog fighting advocate has found she can play it with me at the same time as we have very large specially built computers designed to exclusively play Star Wars: The Old Republic which Galactic Starfighter is a part.  That is a new development for me to have a combat simulator this powerful and dynamic which can link up to another player in real-time to fly coordinated maneuvers toward separate targets.  My wife does not love speed the way I do.  It is not something she enjoys.  I love to zip in and around obstacles forcing my opponents into a mistake running themselves into a fix object with close quarter fighting.  My wife is more of a defender type who takes her time and is good at holding down the fort after I’ve taken it—which is ironically the object of the game in Galactic Starfighter—which is essentially a fancy capture the flag game.

My wife uses a gunship—which is slow, but heavily armored to hold areas that I capture with my strike fighter, and she has gotten so good at using her 15,000mm rail gun to strike down approaching enemies from a comfortable distance while I engage them up close and personal—that it has led to a devastating series of losses for the other players on the opposite team.  And she is having a blast with it.  I don’t have to coax her into playing; she is the one wanting to continue playing new rounds.  Last night it was a quarter till one in the morning and we were both trying to find a good reason to play one more match—because it is so fun—and addicting.  It has all the mechanics from X-Wing which were best I’ve ever seen even after playing Crimson Skies, all the Microsoft Flight Simulators, and even Star Wars: Battlefront—yet Galactic Starfighter goes to a new level that is unprecedented. It has a Wing Commander feel to it and is simply a combination of all the great war games beloved for years wrapped up into one very cool package.

Using that rail gun, my wife may actually have more kills than I do which should say a lot to new players not confident with their piloting skills.  In Galactic Starfighter the gunships are slow—but powerful and very deadly.  The strike fighters and scout ships are the ones that have to fly all over the battlezone engaging in dogfights with other players.  The gunships sit back like snipers and zap their enemies from a comfortable distance—and using my wife and my strategy, I engage the enemy to keep them busy while she zaps away from a distance.  So long as they are engaged with me, they don’t notice her, which then makes all the kills.  Good stuff.

I get most of my creative strategic ideas for things in the real world by playing games like the ones mentioned.  On the liberty front, there are some valiant efforts, but not enough horsepower to pull things across the finish line—and it basically comes down to a lack of will power.  People talk a good game, but when they find themselves in the cross-hairs—just as they do in Galactic Starfighter, they panic and run into something killing themselves.  If I had a quarter for each time I applied a missile lock onto an enemy and when they hear their sensor alarms go off in their ship warning them of my approaching missile, they panic and run into the side of a mountain, or a floating asteroid, I’d be able to solve world hunger by making millionaires out of each of them.  The same thing has been happening in real life—people behave as they do when they play games like this—even worse because in real life they take even less chances because it matters there.  There is no reset button in the real world.  In a game like Galactic Starfighter at least if a mistake is made, the player can start over—and hopefully learn from their error.  Because of the value of such games it is a privilege to live in a time where they can be played relatively effortlessly.  My wife and I have a very expensive set-up basically just to play this game.  We have thousands of dollars invested.  But for a casual player, they could probably get by with only a laptop.  However, when she and I are both playing vigorously, our computers with their big processors put out enough heat to warm up a good-sized room on a very cold night.  We have six cool down fans on each of our computers to keep them cool during intense graphic interfaces enduring millions of calculations per second which makes playing Galactic Starfigher even possible.  Our set-up is unusual, and it is unlikely that many of the thousands of players on the game with us at any given time have such system capability—yet they can still play and enjoy it.  Since these kinds of things are so important to us, and we do so much of it, we take the extra measures to ensure a positive experience.

New strategies are needed when the old ones are not producing the results desired.  The first step in such a process is to recognize the issue, and correct it.  The way I do that is by playing these kinds of games.  Not falling in love with a set of engagement rules is the key to discovering the best way to take out an opponent, and in the real life world of politics, business, and human relationships—there are many enemies that must be taken down—simply because their intentions dictate such a position.  For me, the best way to do that is through strategy games—and currently the X-Wing Miniatures game is at the very top of my list—but this Galactic Starfighter is right there with it.  I’m telling you all this dear reader because during the Holiday Season, there are often moments of downtime—and abilities to play these kinds of games present themselves often.  Take advantage of the opportunity, because in 2014, a lot of tough topics are on the table—and fresh minds will be required to tackle them.  One way to obtain that freshness is in the new game Galactic Starfighter.  For you people out there who have a problem with me but the law won’t let us settle things properly in a parking lot somewhere, or in a duel of some kind—look me up on Galactic Starfighter.  I’m on the Jedi Covenant server flying by the name of Cliff-hanger.  You can’t miss me, I’m the one sending craft out of the sky in exploding heaps—and I’ll be happy to add your name to the list.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

“LIE OF THE YEAR” Awarded to Barack Obama: The Uncle Onyango The President never knew about

President Obama will be known for a lot of things—but his most virulent memory will be that he lied about the Obamacare legislation that his democrats crammed down America’s throat against their will with manipulation, and coercion.  The Tampa Bay Times Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact.com called Obama’s faux pas the Lie of The Year for 2013 by saying:

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep.

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.  Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Most Americans including me won’t sign up for Obamcare.  We’ll pay the fine and do without the insurance as the medical industry will decline.  Choices in healthcare will erode away because doctors won’t make a reasonable profit off the enterprise.  But that isn’t the worst aspect of Obamacare—even thought it’s very bad. The worse thing about Obamacare is that it compels every human being in America to participate whether or not they want to—or be subject to IRS harassment, and possible jail.  Just for being born in America, Obamacare compels those human beings to participate in government healthcare, and that is just a joke.  It is so audacious, so over-the-top ridiculous that it hardly merits addressing.  Most people haven’t even paid attention to that little notion—until now.  They do now because the law is being implemented, and it is started to affect them—and their reaction is understandably negative.

The government is demanding participation into a service they are ruining with their very presence—and the audacity of their expectations is simply unfathomable.  The sheer arrogance of their demand that all human beings participate in their scam is beyond measure.  And even as bad as all that is—they knew people would be upset, so Obama lied to the American people.  He has lied about his background and qualifications, he has lied about his mistakes—such as Benghazi, he has lied about his true intentions as president, and he certainly lied about Obamacare to the facts provided by Politifact.com.  Obama is a bad person, and unqualified to be president for the lies that he’s been caught in—let alone all the lies that have not yet been confirmed.  He should not only be impeached, but jailed like a prostitute or a drug dealer.  He is of the same quality.

Obama is one of those scum bags who scoots through life-like a dog with an anus itch who keeps everyone from looking at what he’s really up to with charisma which comes naturally for him.  He is worse than a typical crooked used car salesman because he doesn’t even have a car to sell, only compulsion to purchase a communist product that nobody wants or go to jail if the fines aren’t paid.  Obama lied to get Americans to listen to him, and he has put coercion behind the effort through the IRS and Department of Justice to execute the task.  A used car salesman might lie to make the sale, but at least consumers get to take home a car.  With Obama, they go home with less than the started with in cancelled insurance policies, lost opportunities for health care quality, and a lot more money out of their pockets.

The President of The United States is a liar, a cheat, and menace to American civilization.  And the proof of that statement is in what has happened with Obamacare.  The White House can spin the reason for the lies all they like, but the fact remains Obama lied and he will always be remembered for it.  Being a liar is the legacy of Barack Obama, and in the publication Politifact.com he has forever the distinction of having the “lie of the year,” which is quite a feat considering some of the things that have happened in 2013 in the public arena.

But that’s not all Obama lied about.  Recently Obama’s Uncle Onyango Obama received his green card after waiting 50 years to get it, living illegally in Boston.  President Obama has previously denied that they knew anything about Uncle Obama.  Yet at the deportation hearing recently, The White House had to grudgingly stand by the uncle—and within a few hours Onyango finally received his green card so he could stay in the country.    Here is the report from France 24:

A US immigration judge ruled on Tuesday that President Barack Obama‘s Kenyan-born uncle can stay in the US as a lawful resident, despite his decades of dodging deportation and a 2011 drunk-driving arrest.

Judge Leonard Shapiro made the decision after Onyango Obama, 69, testified that he had lived in the US for 50 years, been a hard worker, paid income tax and had been arrested only once.

Asked about his family in the US, he said he has a sister and two nieces, then added, “I do have a nephew”. Asked to name the nephew, he said, “Barack Obama,” then added, “He’s the president of the United States”.

Obama testified that President Obama stayed with him for three weeks in Cambridge while the president was a student at Harvard Law School.

“In our tradition, your brother’s kids are your kids as well,” he said after the hearing.

Wong said he didn’t receive any special treatment and was happy with the judge’s decision.

If the government appeals, a notice must be filed within 30 days. Wong said Obama could get US citizenship after five years.

The White House had said it expected the case to be handled like any other.

In the president’s memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” he writes about a 1988 trip to Kenya and refers to an Uncle Omar, who matches Onyango Obama’s background and has the same date of birth.

Onyango Obama is the second Obama family member to be found living illegally in the US. His sister, Zeituni Onyango, the president’s aunt, was granted asylum in 2010 after her first asylum request in 2002 was rejected and she was ordered to be deported in 2004.

http://www.france24.com/en/20131204-obama-uncle-green-card-kenya-usa/

Bet you didn’t know any of that dear reader…………did you?  Obama is a liar, the worst kind there is.  He lies about lying.  Yet he is in charge of the highest office in the world, and he’s likely one of the biggest criminals.  So is it any surprise that Obama has been designated the “lie of the year” honor?  And does anybody think these are the only ones?  If you do, the joke is on you.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The “Middle Class” Insult: Differences between vacations in Kansas and Hawaii

Who plans a trip to Kansas or Iowa for a vibrant family vacation that they’ve saved up for a year to embark on?  Almost nobody.  The only people who do visit these places do so primarily to visit family members. Most would consider a vacation to destinations like Disney World, Atlantis in the Bahamas, or Hawaii to be……….good, respectable, and worth the effort.  When people decide to take a vacation to a luxurious destination, there is a promise of goods and services that are beyond the scope of every day life which is the aim of their experience.  A vacation to Kansas, Iowa or any other Midwestern state lacking such luxuries just isn’t very attractive—certainly not worth saving up large sums of money to experience.  Well the same could be said when the government says that they want to bring more people into the “middle-class.”  When government oriented people, and union leaders say people should strive to be in the middle class, they are essentially saying that people should strive to vacation in Kansas instead of reaching for the stars in Hawaii.  The middle class is not a destination worth pursuing—it is simply a settlement—a concession to the life dreams of youth—and it is appalling.

The middle class is not something people should strive to become.  They should in America strive to become upper-class—or to live their lives beyond a class system all together.  They should live life beyond judgments of any kind—but if such things are required, the opinion that should be pursued is to have “class” and work to elevate their lives and the families who depend on them to heights of respectability.  To state that one wishes to become a member of the “middle class” is essentially declaring that they are taking their family to Kansas for vacation to look at large fields of farming that extend to the edge of the world.  Kansas is a wonderful place for grain production, and family value—but not exactly a vacation destination for anyone who has their eyes on something more exotic.  For people who would settle on such a vacation they are purposely avoiding the scope and culture of a world beyond those fields.

When government states that they want to expand the “middle class” they are saying that people should not strive to become members of the “elite” which is how they often see themselves.  They want a middle class because they want a voting population that is willing to settle into being comfortably numb and subservient to them.  The term middle class is the desire of the upper class—so-called—to rule over someone, and the desire is exclusively created to set a target for people’s lives which do not challenge the established peaking order of the political class—who wish to believe they rule over everyone else.

I dare anybody to produce a name to this website of a very wealthy person not involved in politics to some extent.  I’m sure there are some, but there are not many.  The reason is that wealthy people from the upper class are expected to contribute to political campaigns to keep politicians from looting their lifestyle in other ways.  This activity gives politicians the illusion that they are members of the upper class—because they tend to associate with members of society who are wealthy.  They don’t often speak to the common middle class people—until they want votes—and when they want those votes, they want to know who the middle class people are, what their ambitions are, and where they want to go for vacation.  It helps the cause of the politician if the members of the middle class don’t expect too much in life so it is easier for them to provide government services to meet their desires.  So they encourage people into the “middle class” with the same reasoning that a lazy, no good father takes his family to Kansas to watch plants grow on a farm because they are too cheap to take their family to Disney World. So politicians lower the expectations so it is easier to fulfill the parameters of a good vacation.

Calling someone a member of the “middle class” is like calling them a cheap suit, a fast food restaurant, or in more equitable terms a Ford Focus as opposed to Lamborghini.  You make do if that’s all you can accomplish, but you certainly would not consider “aspiring” to such a thing.  To accept a Ford Focus is to settle, but one should always work in their life to drive a Lamborghini………..they may never get there, but their life will be better because they at least tried.  Being in the “middle class” is to settle for a life that one is not in charge of—that is always subservient to a “ruling class” where ironically the people who are most vocal about a middle class speak the loudest.

Any education system which trains citizens to be “middle class” is deliberately stunting the economic growth of its society.  Any politician who promotes the middle class is seeking to rule over the minds of the masses.  Any citizen happy to be one of the middle class is a lazy antithesis to the dreamers born of freedom.  They are disingenuous to their nation and to themselves for setting the bar so low that they hold down everyone connected intellectually with them just a little bit—enough to have catastrophic consequences on human development.

The middle class is not something to aspire to, it is an insult—and politicians routinely utilize that dialogue so that it has become common place—so common that it doesn’t even come across as an insult.  For those who are content to say—I’m just a simple man of simple means—and am happy to be in the middle of the pack—then being in the middle class is where they belong.  But there are those who are like Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and many others who are not content to stand in line behind the rules politicians have outlined for mankind, and be content to stay in the middle class.  They reach for the stars and sometimes snag one—and all of society is better for it.  But to catch a star someone has to reach for them, and in the middle class, most are fat, dumb, and happy to just have their average car, their average wife, their average children, their average education, their average house, their average mind, their average cloths, their average intellect and measure themselves not against the best in society but their neighbor and what kind of lawn mower they have, what vehicle they drive, and dress they way they dress.  Politicians love those types of people because they do what they are told and do not question anything that might make them stand apart from the crowd.  They are the middle class and when someone declares that they are of that “class” the term is an insult—not a credit.

No child would admire a parent who grants their family a trip to Kansas when they had Disney World as an alternative.  The reason trips to exotic places are more rewarding than those to common—easy destinations that are far cheaper, and more practical is because the expensive, hard to reach objective means more, and yields better.  It is not admirable to just be average—but trying to be exceptional is commendable—and that is a trait that cannot be engineered from the human mind.  It is attempted with modern education, but it has not been successful. People deep down inside share a love for the exceptional, and they yearn to reach for the stars themselves.  But most fall victim to the old scam from politics declaring that the middle class is a destination worthy of lifelong endowment.  Yet it’s not, being in the middle class is just an announcement that they are not a threat to the powers who crave to live in the upper class—the class where the wealthy give financial donations to parasites called politicians, and those same politicians gain the illusion of power because their associates are donors trying to buy government off their back.  Such people need someone to rule over—so they call those people “middle class” and insist that if everyone stays in that category—then the government will care for them like a nice and noble king.  It is the unsaid rule to the class system inherited by the debauchery of Europe—that the middle class exists, and is a term that should have no place in the language of America.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Kasich’s Medicaid Expansion in Ohio: Eating Sausage McMuffins with Egg and reading USA Today

A ritual I have which I have done for years is have breakfast at McDonald’s and read the USA Today over a Sausage McMuffin with Egg sandwich, a large Coke, and a hash brown.  I don’t do it every day, but often enough to call such an activity a ritual and way to touch base with a newspaper I have read since I was 15-years-old.  An article about Medicaid expansion roused my attention particularly since Ohio’s governor John Kasich bypassed the Republican legislature to expand the program under Obamacare’s Supreme Court ruling calling it a tax.  Kasich’s premise is that the money is there for Medicaid, and can be brought into the state for his benefit.  He thinks he’s doing a financially prudent thing, but he’s simply taking the cheese of the federal mousetrap set by Obama and his cronies.  For a governor who ran as a Tea Party candidate—Kasich was one of the first “traditional Republicans” exposed as a RINO after the 2010 elections—when the Tea Party put him into office—but lacked the courage to stick with the program.  The topic of Medicaid expansion in many states like Ohio and Michigan reminded me of a recent broadcast done by Matt Clark at WAAM radio in Ann Arbor.  He covered the lack of accountability recently in Washington and how the rules are often made up as they go—and the Medicaid issue is a perfect example of the shell game that often goes on in politics.  Kasich wants to make a run for President in 2016 and needs to distance himself from the Senate Bill 5 debate of 2011 where he took a hit with the public unions.  So he is targeting the poor to take away Democratic votes from any challengers in 2014 so he can get re-elected.  He is justifying the process by saying that he’s being fiscally smart—the money will be spent anyway—but he ignores that the money the government is dangling is part of the same $17 trillion that is already in deficit with the federal government and at the core of the whole problem.  Kasich by-passed his legislature to gain access to money the federal government doesn’t have so that he can run for president breaking every rule of checks and balances there is—the ends justify the means.  And he sells it as a benefit to taxpayers when the whole escapade is a validation of Obamacare which was shoved down America’s throats on a Christmas holiday way back in 2009—illicitly.  Later the Supreme Court said the maneuvers were valid as a tax increase, but that was not how the government sold Obamacare—and was deceitful—which is typical among all parties involved in the Medicaid exchange expansion at every level.  Have a listen to Matt Clark then check out the USA Today article.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/05/rejecting-medicaid-costs-states-more/3871811/

The way that USA Today article reads, states not accepting Medicaid expansion are “losing money” which is deceitful, because the federal government is borrowing the money anyway—there isn’t any money they are giving away generated from some legitimate source.  What the government is doing with Medicaid expansion in order to promote their Obamacare legislation is basically take participating states out to dinner and paying for it with a credit card that is way over their ability to pay the bill.  It’s easy to be generous with a $1000 meal when the borrower has no intention to pay off the food—ever.  The federal government has no incentive—or desire to pay back the money it is borrowing to expand Medicaid—and is only doing it to pull governors like Kasich away from his Republican base to throw money at a voting platform that typically wouldn’t vote for him.  Kasich is looking for voter replacements that he won’t have in cops, firefighters and Tea Party supporters in the poor—which the federal government also created, just as they control the public sector unions.

USA Today is a Gannett Company, the same outfit that runs the Cincinnati Enquirer—so they tend to lean toward progressive causes.  I have read that paper for many years so I can understand how the other side thinks about things and see how such scams are promoted within the ranks of big government supporters.  But I don’t trust blindly anything they say.  They almost always have a big government position on issues like Medicaid expansion and have for over the thirty years that I have read the paper at McDonald’s.  What they always fail to cover is where the money ultimately comes from in such schemes.  They sell the story like government makes the money that is given to Ohio—and never take the story to the next level of “why.”  That is where they and politicians looking to take advantage of the general public ignorance like Kasich are disingenuous to their readers and constituents.

Kasich these days is listening to his progressive, RINO friends—all big government people who are left over fossils from the 60s.  They believe that the exploitation of the poor can be beneficial since the money is being tossed out of the federal government through Obamacare anyway, so why not take some of it.  I have heard similar comments come from 700 WLW’s Bill Cunningham demanding that John Boehner bring home some federal money to build a new bridge on I-75 in Cincinnati.  The same type of people tend to be pro-casino hoping that gambling establishments can generate more taxable income on fools stupid enough to throw their money away on chance.  All their personal philosophies are built on foolish fiscal manipulations and deceit.  Behind Kasich’s efforts of Medicaid expansion his actions are ominous in his circumcision of the state legislature and serve the end result of validating Obamacare—allowing its tentacles of power to seep even deeper into American society—which was the plan behind the federal money to begin with.

The money coming from the Medicaid exchange in Ohio, Michigan and all states that set up such fiascos is stolen money from the future of America.  It doesn’t even exist since it was created under deficit conditions.  So it isn’t fiscally responsible to take it—nobody has lost anything except the future tax payers who must fund the deficit spending that allows Kasich to win votes from the poor in Ohio for his re-election.  For a guy who ran as a Tea Party candidate—Kasich has turned out to be a terrible statist—no different than Obama in legislative policy—by-passing his legislature and ruling from the governor’s seat like an emperor.  And the federal money he is taking to win his next election is stolen from the future with a government credit card that nobody has any intention of paying off—ever!  Yet USA Today isn’t worried about any of that so long as they get more Americans addicted to Obamacare until it is too big to repeal from some future legislative body.  USA Today is supposed to be the media which creates accountability—but since they are in bed with the Obama administration and applaud the actions of statists like John Kasich—the conditions Matt Clark brought up on his radio broadcast will continue.  Government is not accountable because the media is filled with activists for statism and is intent to create a society of second handers through their published work.

Well, the news as usual was bad in USA Today—but that’s nothing new.  However, for me the good news came from my Sausage McMuffin with Egg—now that is a damn good sandwich—I never tire of them.  I could eat them like candy—and in American culture it is a great privilege to be able to purchase such a breakfast with a USA Today and read news around the world for a short half hour ritual before a new day.  The sad thing is that the news is not as good as the food—it never is.  As fattening, and unhealthy as many will claim the Sausage McMuffin with Egg to be—it is a whole lot healthier than expanding Medicaid in Ohio, or the borrowing of looted federal money with the sole intention of spreading Obamacare deep into American society where a few power-hungry idiots willing to save their political futures take the bait like headless mice from a trap set by progressives intent to end American culture.  The Sausage McMuffin with Egg is a whole lot better for America than politicians like Obama and Kasich—and their power grabs at the exploitation of the poor, and children, and women that they are so intent to utilize to advance their fun house distortions of fiscal reality with smoke and distorted mirrors that can only hide reality for so long.  USA Today is not interested in that reality—only in the ends which justify the means—and to understand that, one must know what the organization of Socialist International is all about—which the Gannett Company is fully on board with.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.

Scott Sloan on 700 WLW Supports ‘Kinky Boots’: The Peter Griffin Syndrome

Scott Sloan from 700 WLW reminds me of Peter Griffin from the popular Fox cartoon, Family Guy.  Sloan is much thinner, and less grotesque, but his mind seems to work in much the same way.  He lacks firm convictions and comes across as a guy happy to be less than perfect.  This became most noticeable when he did good work with me on the No Lakota Levy arguments—but then turned around and called me a sexist because his Realtor wife wanted to take a pro levy position to help sell homes around Mason.  He knew what was going on and why it was going on, but he made his decisions based on the pressure of the typical school levy supporters—people who make their livings using passed school levies to sell homes to neurotic thirty something child factories insecure about their parenting skills.  (I say child factories because these typical school levy supporters only produce children, they don’t often take an active job in parenting them.  They leave that to the public schools.)  I’m sure 700 WLW is struggling to deal with the numbers in his time slot as listeners like and respect people with conviction—but their strategy with Sloanie was to appeal to the “middle of the road” voter listening to talk radio, which isn’t very attractive to most people.  If people want to hear opinions like that, they’ll just strike up a conversation at the water cooler with a co-worker.  Because of Sloan’s lack of beliefs and conviction I have stopped listening to 700 WLW all together committing my time to The Blaze where Doc Thompson is now my preferred talk radio entertainment.  I have listened to 700 WLW since I was 5 years old when I received my first AM radio as a Christmas gift—but now I never listen unless someone tells me to catch a podcast of their recordings—which is how I came to learn about Sloan’s coverage of the controversial Macy’s Parade in New York on Thanksgiving Day.  The topic was the segment featuring the dancers of the popular Broadway Show; Kinky Boots and Sloan’s opinion was painful.  Listen to it below.

His guest came on Sloan’s show expecting to speak to a conservative audience understanding why they were outraged at the Kinky Boots presence on a family program.  I was watching the Macy’s Parade and was enjoying it until the Kinky Boots bit.  My wife and I turned it off once it came on because we thought it was bad.  I watched the Macy’s Parade to see the SpongeBob float, the Mickey Mouse tributes and other popular culture references.  The Kinky Boots thing was too much—it reminded me of The Rocky Horror Picture Show which I despise because both are progressive productions intent to erode away family value.  I don’t believe there should be some protest to Kinky Boots or Macy’s, I believe in freedom of speech and I voted by turning off the television—just like I turn off Scott Sloan’s Show these days.  I vote for things with my participation in them.  But listening to Sloan’s articulation of the Kinky Boots defense was astonishing.  In the cartoon Family Guy Peter Griffin is the dunce of modern fatherhood.  He’s not very thoughtful about anything, and is perpetually accident prone.  Yet because of his intellectual handicaps, he often imposes on the world his brand of stupidity which ruins things for everyone around him—and that was what I thought about listening to Sloan’s analysis of Kinky Boots.

I wouldn’t go to see the play Kinky Boots if someone gave me tickets and back stage passes.  It is not art I support, it is not representative of traditional America, and I have little interest in ever wasting a few hours of my life watching a play about a topic of drag dressing guys exploring alternate lifestyles.  The progressive movement uses this kind of entertainment to advance their political platform and within that platform is the acceptance of alternate forms of raising families—which does not work. Many of the failures we are seeing socially in 2013 come from the infestation of progressive value where traditional beliefs were perfectly adequate.  When progressive film makers, financiers and actors made the film—The Rocky Horror Picture Show with catchy songs and sexual deviancy which was an easy sell, the plot of the film was the break down of the main protagonists who were straight average Americans.  Over the course of the movie the young traditional couple newly married are converted by the end into gay loving, lesbian kissing Susan Sarandon’s.  The film was a cult classic that still plays on many college campuses with special midnight showings where attendees dress up in drag and throw popcorn at each other and yell at the top of their lungs with mass celebrations of collectivism.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show was designed to sell progressive ideas by ridiculing conservative ideas—and I hate it.  I don’t support it—although I have seen it to understand what all the fuss was.  My reaction to the movie was that it is one of the worst films ever made, although it has catchy songs designed to get people humming the tune.  The result of the film is to plant seeds of sexual deviancy into traditional America and destroy the concept of the family unit as the strength behind individuals.  For proof, just speak to the producers of the film and it becomes clear.  The producers intended the film to be a gay rights activism endeavor—and were openly blatant about it.

Kinky Boots is just a modern spin to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and the intentions are the same—the desensitizing of Americans from conservative values to progressive beliefs—namely sexual tendencies—sexual equality, and an anything goes mentality.  I watched about half of the Kinky Boots Macy’s Parade segment, and found the images grotesque—so I turned it off.  I didn’t think it was funny.  I didn’t see any social value in it.  And I saw it as an attack on my way of life in the same way that progressives would find it repulsive if I paraded my lifestyle in front of them—where my wife brings dinner to my chair every day, cooks all our meals, does all the shopping, changes all the diapers, and makes crafts for all the family members throughout the year–blankets, sweaters, and country decorations.  She gets out of the arrangements a man who puts her on a pedestal, frees her of producing income, and takes care of any trouble that might come toward her family.  People like the producers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show are very intolerant of the way my wife and I live our lives—so it’s only fair that I show the same intolerance for theirs.  This live and let live crap is for pussies, and it hasn’t worked.  It never has, and it never will.

I expected a lot of the trouble I had when I called the levy supporters of Lakota Latté sipping prostitutes………….I knew there would be push back, and I laughed about it with Scott Sloan and his producer off the air the night before I was set to go on the air and talk about it with him.  I had worked with 700 WLW for a few years on school levy issues and had thought Sloan was a man’s man, and actually valued his man card.  After the position he took with me not just on our interview, but later that day, I had the feeling that I had misjudged Sloanie.  He wasn’t a tough guy who was willing to take on the teacher unions with me—like he sold himself—he was just another guy trying to appease the women in his life hoping to keep peace in his household by any means necessary—and I was very disappointed in him.  Like Peter Griffin from The Family Guy, Sloanie put his finger to the wind and took the position he thought the majority of people believed.  I tried not to hold the incident against him and continued to speak to him through email for months after.  But over time it became obvious that we were two different kind of men, and people can’t be friends or otherwise if they don’t share common values.  The same person who calls me a sexist for distinguishing that there are dramatic differences between men and women and that traditional America had more right than wrong on the matter is the same person attacking a conservative advocate who found Kinky Boots appalling.  Sloan took what he thought was a libertarian approach to the Kinky Boots issue stating that it was harmless entertainment that people can take or leave.  But when it shows up on a public street, on a public broadcast, or on a largely watched family holiday program during Thanksgiving, it’s not just about fun and promotion of a Broadway play.  It’s about advancing a progressive agenda—and in the defense of traditional value—men are needed, and there are too few of those these days to do the job.  Men these days think it’s better to be open-minded and slap-stick stupid like Peter Griffin than rugged tough and rooted in conviction like John Wayne—and that is disappointing.

During Halloween this year a kid was dressed in drag, he had on very high heels, a super short skirt and a long blond wig.  From a distance he looked like he belonged in a Whitesnake video played by a Victoria Secret model.  He passed as an attractive woman until we came closer to him and heard his voice. He was very disruptive going door to door pretending to be a woman and giggling about the negative reaction he had from the homeowners after they had closed the door.  He obviously lacked a strong father figure in his life and as a result filled his thoughts with progressive influence, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Kinky Boots.  What kind of father would this kid grow up to be—what honor is there in such a life where pictures of him will show up many years from now dressed in drag as he is trying to raise a family? The answer is not a very good one—and that is the real cost of this kind of recklessness.  When a man or confused boy dresses in drag, they are surrendering their man card, and in doing so; they surrender their authority to ever be a “father knows best” type of family man.  Any off-spring he may have will want “a father knows best” type of person in their life.  Daughters grow up and almost always have reverence for their fathers, and sons almost always grow up to become like their fathers and if that kid has two or three kids of their own later—those children will be denied a person in their life who sets the bench marks of acceptable behavior high enough to be proud of.  And that is the cost of living a life lacking conviction.  The cost of being a Peter Griffin dad is that you get a lot of laughs, often they are the life of a party—but when it really matters, they are a let down to their families and to themselves—and will end their lives being embarrassing disappointments to their off-spring.

Men like it or not are the pillars that hold up a family. Women often provide the love and nurturing that is needed, but men provide the needed reliability that gives a family roots to grow in.  Progressives despise this ideal, as they wish to make the world need government services to equalize the world of the inequalities that exist.  Not all moms are good ones and not all dads are honorable, so the progressive solution was to destroy all good dads and good moms so that everyone is equally penalized and let public schools do the child-raising.  What productions like Kinky Boots are really up to is letting men know it’s OK to be a floor tile inside a family home instead of a pillar of strength that holds it up—walked on and discarded as useless.  Dads are belittled routinely in popular media, and the effects are starting to show in mainstream attitudes.  People like Scott Sloan have bought into this concept and many others who have grown up watching shows like The Family Guy featuring Peter Griffin as the bumbling fool of a dad setting the bar so low for their ambitions that they are walked on by society instead of holding it up. Kinky Boots is about finding your passion, overcoming prejudice and transcending stereotypes—and one of those stereotypes is that a man must be straight-laced, strong, and a pillar of strength in their family.  And when a man can’t live up to that lofty height and stand by a set of convictions that their family can honor, and depend on—they call those traditional types of men a sexist—and hope their wife gives them a piece of ass two weeks after their last period, and consider themselves lucky for getting it.  And in the quiet moments when they think nobody is looking, they dress in their wife’s clothing and pretend to be the authority of the house by wearing her pants—then they by a ticket to Kinky Boots.

You want to see hypocrisy, let a traditional family group put a float in the Macy’s Parade full of house wives and home schooled children……………and wait for the violent storms of rage from the gay community, and other progressive groups……….and the result of all their strategies will become very, very clear.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Art of the Businessman: Profit is the Academy Award of a job well done

Because of people like Bill Maher—who serves as a spokesman for progressive causes—many believe that “business” is inherently evil, vile, and selfish.  Business people are depicted on shows like Maher’s broadcasts as detrimental to the state of a human being.  Barack Obama has this impression of American business; school levy supporters in our local communities do as well, all of Hollywood projects this image too.  Look at how business was depicted in the film Avatar, or in Robocop—the villains are almost always business people.  I’m sure that’s not always the case—but I’ve seen a lot of movies, and I can’t think of a single instance of where business, and business people are depicted in a heroic circumstance except the Atlas Shrugged movies, or the old Fountainhead film.  Even the great movie Citizen Kane depicted the evils of American business as during the rise and fall of Kane from power—all he really wanted in life was his Rose Bud.  CLICK TO REVIEW.  The hatred for business is very obvious in Maher’s interview shown below where he had on Ron Paul to explain his brand of Repubicanism.

My wife dragged me out shopping over the weekend, which is really hard to do—and as we were leaving I watched some of the tributes to Nelson Mandela on television following his death at the age of 95 years old.  Mandela’s position on apartheid was a good one.  He is the modern version of Gandhi who through pacifism changed the direction of a nation.   He is the primary example of how one man can change a country.  However, Mandela was a communist, and it takes a lot more than making blacks and whites equal to make a country great.  Equality is just one aspect in a very large umbrella of things that must be done correctly for a country to thrive.  And South Africa is not thriving—it’s essentially a third world nation because socialism and communism have left the country with little to nothing in economic activity.  I was thinking about Mandela as my wife and I went shopping for Christmas.  It warms my heart to pull into a shopping complex and see thousands of cars packed into a parking lot trying to navigate a maze of other cars all looking for the same thing.  Communists will look at such a sight and declare that the consumerism of Christmas is evil—and vile.  But a capitalist like me sees people buying things for other people as gifts and somebody who made all these items benefits from the products offered in the exchange.  There are so many little things to buy and sell that the economic strength—the potential strength of America is on full display during Christmas.  I love the audacious displays of lights, I love the smell of food from the many restaurants, and I love the long lines and crowds trying to buy items for someone during December in America.  I love all this activity because they are all signs of economic stimulation—the products of somebody’s thinking mind realized in the form of a product.

When Chick-fil-A has a line around the drive through selling their chicken sandwiches, that restaurant chain is the direct result of Truett Cathy—a person I admire greatly.  I consider every one of his chicken sandwiches to be a miracle of modern capitalism.  I love them, I love eating at Chick-fil-A, I like the fresh flowers on the table, the supplier of the chicken, the lettuce that is always fresh, the juicy tomatoes, I love Chick-fil-A sandwiches and the quality they exhibit.  They are the result of Truett Cathy’s idea generated from his mind under the merits of capitalism.  I love book stores, I love Bed Bath and Beyond, I love Best Buy, I love J.C. Penny.  I love Target.  I love Chilis restaurant, I even love Charming Charlie’s.  I love seeing all these places slammed with business during the Holiday Season.

http://www.truettcathy.com/

Making money is not a dirty word.  In business it is like winning an Academy Award in the entertainment industry—it’s a sign of respect for a good job done.  Money is the exchange that brings value to the endeavor.  When a company makes money, it has won an award for doing a good job.  Walmart is often criticized for exploiting workers in China, and its tendency to drive down prices for consumers.  The Walton family is enviously looked upon as corporate greed in the worst extreme by jealous rivals—but the fact remains that Walmart’s success is the money they’ve made—it is the capitalist equivalent to a job well done.  And as for China, what jobs would be created in that communist country if not for exports to The United States?  Walmart’s success brings work to the people in China who need it.  Jobs are not created from trees, they have to actually arrive out of a thought that somebody has for bringing a product to market, and somebody has to be that market.  Walmart brings lots of products to market in a way that makes them affordable to the average person.

I see business as a creative enterprise, not as a stuffy old game full of meetings, flights to have meetings, and meetings to have meetings over lunch, dinner, and more excuses to have meetings.  This is often the result because the proper focus of the reason for business has become lost over time due to people like Bill Maher.  In business, engineers, architects, machinists, truck drivers and a host of other people from the top to the bottom have an opportunity to create something that had never existed before.  In business, the joy is not in making money—it is in the creation of a product.  Making money is the reward for doing it well—but it’s not the reason.  I love business because it’s a creative enterprise—it is the product of somebody’s mind.  Business is good—because it’s artistic in the purest sense of the word.  People like Maher see artists in people like Picasso and Shakespeare but those are only one kind of artist—the other kind are people like Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Donald Trump, Truett Cathy, and many others who created somethings from nothings and made money as a reward for doing so.

The term “making money” is an American concept because under capitalism that’s what occurs when the product of a person’s mind generates an invention from nothing that is then bought and sold generating money (value) that wasn’t there before.  When I went out for Christmas shopping with my wife I saw a lot of people “making money” and it made me happy for them in a similar way that it makes me happy to see films get Academy Awards.  It is nice to see people succeed at things.  Businessmen who are good make money from nothing deserve respect not ridicule.  They bring about products that did not exist before and the world is better for it.  Patented designs, new ways to manufacture goods, streamlined production lines, are all aspects of American business that “make money.”  Making money is not bad—it’s good—it’s very, very good!

What nobody talked about during the death of Nelson Mandela was the fact that the former president was a communist which world leaders with their feet in the world of Socialist International are all well aware of.  Mandela showed that a communist leader could be a charismatic and likable person the world would cherish.  For global communists still hoping for a world united under the banner of progressivism, Mandela represented their hope that others will follow in his example.  But what a businessman sees about South Africa through their art of making money is a gross failure.  South Africa may have had fairness and equality among blacks and whites, but how were they making money?  Where are the latest cars coming out of South Africa?  What about airplanes?  What about food?  What about great literature?  What about soft drinks?  What about movies?  How about jet engine building technology?  What have the South Africans done under the communist leadership of Nelson Mandela—economically?  The answer is nothing—or next to it aside from some diamond exports.  South Africa like most other countries in the world who have failed to embrace capitalism fully, suffer because they do not make money—but instead wait for money to be given to them from somebody who has already made it.  Because they fail to understand this basic premise, they suffer needlessly and must live their lives as second-handers to the creative enterprise of business people who made the products they are seeking.  This relationship might cause anxiety, and jealously—but it doesn’t change the nature of the issue.  Fairness does not trump productivity when all things are considered.  Fairness is important to the human race, but not at the expense of economic activity.  When a country makes money—it helps more people as a direct result.  Fairness and equality does little good if everyone lives in a cardboard hut and is waiting for a food truck to arrive from a capitalist supporting economy to feed them.

The hatred that Bill Maher and his progressive kind share against business is just the kind of thing that destroys the essence of Christmas—not just the religious aspect of it—but the commercial which is uniquely American.   Economic activity is the sign of a healthy country, and it is good to see so much activity going on during the Christmas Season.  Business people are not villains, the way Maher has attempted to portray them.  They are artists whether they know it or not on the front of a creative enterprise—the art of making money which is validated as successful or not based on how much profit is generated from the effort.  Instead of being celebrated as the hope for mankind, they are vilified by progressives, communists, and socialists as impediments for equality.  But what those same progressives never reveal is that the only way the world can be truly equal is if everyone is equally poor—like they tend to be in places like South Africa.  Likely during the Holiday Season in South Africa there is as much activity in the entire country as there was at just the shopping complex I visited with my wife over the weekend.  The reason is clear, yet never discussed—because in America artists even make money as business people, whereas in South Africa they have to wait for someone to dig it out of the ground, or bring it to them on a boat.  And that is not the path to prosperity for any nation.  The cause of economic improvements………..growth, of closing the gap between rich and poor is not more regulation, but less with more artists in business to create new things that can be bought and sold.  Then and only then do more people prosper, thrive, and live.  Because economic stimulation comes directly from the creative enterprise of business, and the money they make for the benefit of everyone.  

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Hollywood Club of Progressives: John Stossel’s exploration into why entertainment is so politically left

Not all that long ago in the not so far away land of Los Angeles I gave Jennie Garth and her children a private bullwhip demonstration much to their delight and fanfare, when a question about George W. Bush’s presidency came up.  Jennie is the former star of Beverly Hills 90210 where she played Kelly Taylor.  She’s done other things, but she will always be known for her work on that popular Fox television broadcast during the early 90s.  The Bush question was related to the American policy in Afghanistan and was an invitation to “vet” me of my political beliefs—which I made very clear.  Prior to the discussion I was the star of the party—the “expert bullwhip handler” from Cincinnati, Ohio.  After the discussion people stayed politely distant as the politics in Hollywood is standardized to the far left.  Many actors and actresses like Jennie in one on one discussions agree with Midwestern logic—but in a town where projects are “green lit” based on political affiliation—stars wanting work, or to have the opportunity to appear on television and radio to promote their work must toe the line of liberalism with a religious-like fervor.  To say that one supports something that George W. Bush did as president is like saying that global warming is a myth, poor people became that way of their own making, or labor unions are filled with communist sympathizers—or that God is making baloney sandwiches for his many mistresses in the next incantation of Mt. Olympus called Heaven.  The statements may have truth to them or be completely rhetorical—but because they take on a religious quality—are taboo to even speak about in the light of day—especially for those who want to work in Hollywood and make the kind of money that only  that industry produces for essentially being paid spokesmen for progressive causes.  This was a very good topic that John Stossel recently covered in the following video segments.  The show was very excellent, very true—and paints a rather clear picture of the problem in Hollywood.  All these clips should be watched.

Ayn Rand warned of this infestation of Hollywood by communist insurgents in the 40s, 50s, and 60s with her Screen Guide for Motion Pictures that was put together with the support of people like John Wayne and Walt Disney.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.   These days nobody calls them communists primarily due to the McCarthy Hearings—but the new term is progressives.  If there is any doubt on the matter, read that Screen Guide written by Rand in 1947 and the situation becomes quite clear.  When I was visiting with Jennie it wasn’t out of desperation to work in the industry.  I personally love Hollywood and the filmmaking process—I love the art that has come to human culture through film—but I’m an old Hollywood kind of guy, a John Wayne, Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Walt Disney type—not the new age of Hollywood that Jennie represents.  I was invited to the table of Hollywood a few times because of my talents—with the little show for Jennie Garth being the last time.  But the cost of that invite is to sit on your beliefs—like most actors do—and go with the flow like the paid mouthpiece that they really are as actors.

Actors are paid to say and do what shows up on a written page.  So it is not hard for them to become spokesmen for causes that are progressive when their paychecks depend on it.  It’s a game in Hollywood that the participant must be willing to play—and that deception ends up directly in the living rooms of nearly every American home through magazine tabloids, entertainment oriented television, or some other form of trivia.  I saw a day or two ago that Pam Anderson known for her platinum blond appearance and large breasts was now going to color her hair into a brunette.  This account actually made top news on Yahoo over stories like the impending budget crises in Washington, or the further failures of government health care.    That’s how powerful Hollywood is, and how it has the ability to shape our culture.

Stossel’s work on this issue was particularly good even for him.  I have watched Stossel’s reporting for years and used to watch 20/20 just to see his hard-hitting reporting.  This is a topic that affects nearly everyone in the world because of the power that Hollywood has over the human being with its trivia producing factory.  Some of that trivia I like, some of it I despise—and so do most actors—including Jennie Garth.  Away from the cameras and all the tabloid photographers who follow her everywhere—she is just a mom who watched my whip performance with the same bright-eyed wonder that most people experience when they see it.  Like me, she and her celebrity friends love old Hollywood and the romance of that era which is so wonderfully captured in Disney’s Hollywood Studios amusement park in Florida.  But they know what it takes to get projects off the ground in the modern Hollywood, so they usually keep their opinions to themselves and do a bit of acting to sell their projects to investors—and a hungry public.

When Stossel gave Harrison Ford a rough time for his rainforest public awareness piece as being hypocritical because the Indiana Jones star is a very dedicated pilot who has 7 airplanes of his own—in private Harrison Ford and Stossel are likely to have many more similar beliefs than opposite ones—Ford likely sees the hypocrisy when he lends his image to a “green friendly” cause—but he’s an actor and can justify it to himself by taking one of his big planes to get a hamburger just to even things out in his head.  There’s a reason Ford moved to Wyoming and built a ranch—it was to be away from the constant pressure to put on a mask for progressive causes and to actually relax—which is nearly impossible to do in Hollywood—where politicians seek desperately to have their photos taken with celebrities to bolster their image.  As a box office juggernaut even Ford has to play the game to get work in Hollywood, and for him a little rain forest message is no skin off his back if it keeps him on the invite list—because after all—who is against the rainforest?  Even developers are pro rainforest—because if they are all cut down—what will those people do for work.  Lumber companies tend to be some of the greatest conservationists—they actually replant trees so that twenty years from now they can cut them down again.  Trees actually grow; they are not a finite resource.  Plus they eat a lot of the emissions that are given off by Ford’s airplanes.  So it’s a win/win situation.

Stossel had some interesting ideas on why Hollywood was so liberal, and I think there is a lot of truth to them.  But he’s only scratching the surface on the cause.  Actors and actresses like Jennie Garth are paid to play someone else, so it isn’t difficult for them to put on their acting hat and take up a cause for the cameras when they are told to do so. They might say in private during bullwhip demonstrations away from cameras, producers, and money men what they really think, but when it’s time to act, they do—and in Hollywood it is progressive causes that keep actors and other entertainment professionals employed.  Rather, it is the labor unions that most entertainment professionals belong to which sets the standard of liberalism.  That is what an actress like Jessica Alba has in common with a machinist at Boeing in Seattle—they both belong to labor unions with a fundamental communist outlook at the world marketplace, and they will bend their belief system around the way they make money for themselves. Most machinists working at Boeing are solid blue-collar truck driving Americans—who love to watch Chuck Norris and Clint Eastwood films—of rugged independence.  But when it’s time for a union vote—they meet at the union hall and rant and rave about the inequities of management versus the worker—or otherwise the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie—the roots of the behavior are in communism imported into America through the labor unions—setting up shop in the entertainment industry just as Ayn Rand warned—who was a screenwriter herself working for Cecil B Demille prior to the infestation.

Communists wanted Hollywood as an obvious strategic platform to project their philosophy of global equality to the entire world—and they came through the back door of the labor unions.  The result is that people like Jennie Garth become the gate keepers of the next generation of Hollywood hopefuls.  After our get-together and my comments in support of George W. Bush the warm reception I had in Hollywood went cold quickly.  Flying into LAX the reception was warm, the dinners were frequent, and company was robust to say the least.  Civility ruled the day and the rest of my meeting was cordial—subtly so.  But when I left Los Angeles that time the car that picked me up at the hotel had nobody in it but the driver—unlike when I arrived.  I was treated well, but uneventfully dropped off outside the airport as promised—but nothing more.  When I arrived home, phone calls were no longer received, emails unanswered and the trail had gone cold on the projects we were working on.  A stunt coordinator who had introduced Jennie and I told me nearly two years later—“no offense—but you’re too much Cincinnati.  There’s a reason they call them ‘flyover’ states.”  It doesn’t matter that Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, and George Clooney are all from Cincinnati—what matters to Hollywood is that the Midwestern charisma is kept, but the acceptance of progressivism is advanced.  Failure to advance progressive causes means a failure to work—even for Steven Spielberg.  Spielberg would NEVER come out in favor of a future presidential candidate like Rand Paul, or even Ben Carson—because in so doing, the industry would turn on his projects and his reviews would be terrible.  He’d be blacklisted in a worse way—through the critical appraisal network which can cost a production company millions of box office take.  Just look at what happened to Jerry Bruckheimer after The Lone Ranger.  The safe bet is to stay tight-lipped and hope that people learn something from their films—such as in the movie Lincoln where it was obvious that Republicans worked on behalf of freeing slaves and Democrats wanted to continue the practice.  Spielberg did this film while trying to help Obama bolster his image with private advice.

Shortly after that incident I decided to start this blog because I figured that as things were, I wouldn’t do any work for Hollywood anyway—at least during this progressive era.  So I might as well be unique and make my opinions about things known.  I knew it would cause me to become blacklisted in certain business and entertainment circles, but so what.  I have other things I’m good at in life, and I can use those things to make money—I don’t have to dance in a monkey suit for progressive causes just so my projects can get funding—which is all the liberalism in Hollywood is really about.  The labor unions keep progressivism alive for the benefit of the communist roots that was injected into Hollywood prior to the start of World War II.  And it is those labor unions which keep Hollywood radicalized and liberal for the benefit of Socialist International and other global organizations intent to finish the spread of global communism to every nation on earth.  It is because of that game that even mentioning George W. Bush in Hollywood is a dangerous thing to do, but to speak about Nelson Mandela—the great pacifist of South Africa—and communist—will lead to bottles of wine, and escorts back to the airport—and returned phone calls even if a person lives in Ohio.  Often people—especially actors—shape their opinions about things not around their actual beliefs—but in what fills their bellies, and pays their bills.  And in Hollywood where the opportunity to make millions of dollars with lifelong security is at stake—many people will alter their personal beliefs for the trade of financial security—99.999999999999999% of the time—I just happen to be one of the .000000000000001 who won’t.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com