Tag: education funding

‘A Theory of Justice,’ by John Rawls: Destroying America through the legal system

A major escalation of degeneracy by the modern statist regimes using meritocracy to propel mediocrity into every modern profession is a fairly recent trend inspired by the 1972 book A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls who was a professor of philosophy at Harvard University.  Rawls argued in that popular statist book that a new theory of social justice demands that humans counteract the injustice of nature by instituting a corrupt and unthinkable concept upon mankind, equality at the expense of quality.  Rawls believed that nature should be rebelled against depriving those favored by nature of the right to rewards they produce, and grant to the incompetent a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce or imagine on their own.  In other words John Rawls believed that justice should be redistributed into society to alter nature itself bringing different standards of justice based on social need, not individual desire.  Under this thinking if a dirt bag raped a woman, or broke into a home and stole all the money of the occupants, the scales of justice would be altered for the man if he was a member of the poor, or minority because nature did not give him the proper tools to be equal to those he robbed, or raped.  Under Rawls theory, the individual crimes are secondary to the greater good of social equality, so under his “Theory of Justice” the criminal is a useful tool of fighting against nature the tendency to make some people better than others.

A Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1972 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as “Justice as Fairness“, from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle.

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties facing such circumstances, similar to some ofImmanuel Kant‘s views. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and right-libertarian accounts.

Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls’ social contract takes a different view from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This “veil” is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their advantage.

“no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”

According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a max -min strategy which would maximize the prospects of the least well-off.

They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association [Rawls, p 11]

Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.

The agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and ahistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. Rawls seeks to use an argument that the principles of justice are what would be agreed upon if people were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is ahistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever been, or indeed could ever have been, derived in the real world outside of carefully limited experimental exercises.

“ First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.[1]

”

The basic liberties of citizens are, the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest. However, he says:

liberties not on the list, for example, the right to own certain kinds of property (e.g. means of production) and freedom of contract as understood by the doctrine of laissez-faire are not basic; and so they are not protected by the priority of the first principle.[2]

The first principle may not be violated, even for the sake of the second principle, above an unspecified but low-level of economic development. However, because various basic liberties may conflict, it may be necessary to trade them off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. There is thus some uncertainty as to exactly what is mandated by the principle, and it is possible that a plurality of sets of liberties satisfy its requirements.

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.302; revised edition, p. 47):

(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle).

(b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

Rawls’ claim in (a) is that departures from equality of a list of what he calls primary goods—”things which a rational man wants whatever else he wants” [Rawls, 1971, pg. 92]—are justified only to the extent that they improve the lot of those who are worst-off under that distribution in comparison with the previous, equal, distribution. His position is at least in some sense egalitarian, with a provision that equality is not to be achieved by worsening the position of the least advantaged.[clarification needed] An important consequence here, however, is that inequalities can actually be just on Rawls’ view, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off. His argument for this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family one is born into) shouldn’t determine one’s life chances or opportunities. Rawls is also keying on an intuition that a person does not morally deserve their inborn talents; thus that one is not entitled to all the benefits they could possibly receive from them; hence, at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to equality in assessing the justice of distributions is eliminated.

The stipulation in (b) is lexically prior to that in (a). Fair equality of opportunity requires not merely that offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed. It may be thought that this stipulation, and even the first principle of justice, may require greater equality than the difference principle, because large social and economic inequalities, even when they are to the advantage of the worst-off, will tend seriously to undermine the value of the political liberties and any measures towards fair equality of opportunity.

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

When it is wondered why there doesn’t seem to be any justice in the world of modern America, and why the court system seems to be failing, look to A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.   Under the accepted terms of Rawls’ work, if a member of society daily injects themselves with heroin, pimps out stolen women into prostitution to pay for his drug habit, runs a theft ring and is a general menace to society, the social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle.  Meaning, all the good people of society who have made quality decisions in their life, worked hard, treated others with fairness are to pour some of their hard work into the degenerate so that social justice can look favorably upon the entire human race regardless of individual value.  Isn’t it clear now why studying philosophy should be more important in your daily life dear reader?

Every courtroom in America with miles of case-law supporting them created by too many money-grubbing, parasitic lawyers have taken the work of John Rawls and made it mainstream thinking.  It is why criminals believe they have rights to the merit of the good, and why they are not motivated to change their behavior because John Rawls new theories of justice instruct them that nature has given them an unfair advantage in life, and it is up to the intelligentsia of meritocracy to determine winners and losers in society arrogantly suppressing nature behind the rule of the academic class.

Until A Theory of Justice is rejected by the American population and the case-law built upon its failed philosophy is scrubbed completely, justice will be elusive in modern society.  Criminals will continue to believe that they are “owed” something by somebody, and innocent victims will continue to search for justice among judges who sit upon their ivory towers and defend Rawls because through the meritocracy of the Harvard University elite, there is a power they dare not challenge.  It is largely because of Rawls that the Second Amendment is being eroded away, that the NDAA Act was voted upon, that the TSA, the NSA, and every other government organization works against the vast amount of American population with violations against their personal liberty.  Because under A Theory of Justice the rights of individual citizens is secondary to the rights of the under-privileged, the lazy, and the corrupt because nature selected them to be less, and it is the obligation of mankind to help them become better by giving them a free pass to continued behavior of a social menace.  Sometimes it only takes a few generations to wreck a civilization and in the case of American justice it only took a few years from 1972 to destroy the logic of our legal system.  The blame rests on the shoulders of John Rawls and his Harvard University meritocracy agenda driven psychosis of reshaping the world against the desires of nature to create a world molded by the morally bankrupt in a perpetual draining of wealth not just monetarily, but ethically till there is nothing left but a distant memory of a once great culture.  America was a land built by rules yet was destroyed by A Theory of Justice, written in 1972, a college professor functioning from a failed philosophy that was never corrected in time to save civilization.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Fast Food Workers Are Not Worth Top Wages: When I eliminated four line positions by myself

A few years ago I had to work a second job because of a tax bill that came in the mail from the IRS.  The reason the IRS is such a terrifying organization is that if you get in the cross-hairs of them it will cost either in defense or compliance.  In my case it was compliance.  I had worked hard the previous year and some of the work wasn’t easily calculated and the IRS disputed that I owed them more.  Defending my amount would have cost more to take to court so I had to pay, and they knew that was my only real option.  So I elected to work a second job to pay my bill rather than rob the money from our family’s normal income.  Every morning at 4 AM I got up and rode a bicycle from Mason to Lebanon to report for work at 5 AM at my primary employer.  At 3 PM I got off that job and rushed up the road to the Kings Island exit to work at a popular fast food establishment there by 4 PM.  My job was to work as the grill cook, and within a few short months I became known as the fastest grill man from Michigan to Florida and my exploits drew the attention of corporate headquarters.  Fast food executives paid personal visits to me to figure out how I was able to work so fast.  I worked every night the dinner rush and left at 8 PM to ride my bicycle home arriving around 9 PM.  Finally after a long hard day I’d go to bed to begin the day again the next morning.  In addition to that schedule I worked at the fast-food restaurant on Saturday nights as well covering the lunch and dinner rush from 10 AM to 7 PM as Kings Island provided a lot of business.

It took me two years to pay off my tax debt in this fashion but I eventually did without it sucking the money from our primary income.  My wife did not work and I did not want her to.  She was homeschooling our children for a bit of time during this period and she needed to be free to care for them.  Even when they did attend Mason public schools, my wife drove them every day so that they wouldn’t have to ride the school bus with all the vile filth that goes on during bus rides.  So my wife working simply wasn’t an option.  During the day she also was a teacher’s assistant in my daughters classrooms until the relationship with the school went south when we would not allow our 4th grade children to attend a sex education class that consisted of teaching them how to put condoms on a fake penis.  We declined and from that point the administrators put an “X” on my wife’s back, so we pulled our children out of the school for their own protection, and proper instruction.  Meanwhile, I rode my bike to my jobs and kept the money coming in.  My exploits during this period of time were described in my novel, The Symposium of Justice.

I was so good as a grill cook that the restaurant management agreed to some of my unusual working mandates.  I did not participate in any customer interaction; I did not take orders from the front register or talk to anybody on the drive thru.  I could make such demands because I was the best at my job that there was.  Nobody came close to my speed.  (REVIEW MY BULLWHIP FAST DRAW).  I personally eliminated four line positions at this restaurant.  Normally there would be a grill worker for the front grill, a grill worker for the drive thru grill, a fry person and a chicken runner for the deep fryer in the back.  The restaurant I worked at was busier than most because of the Kings Island traffic, so corporate was very perplexed as to how I managed to be so quick and efficient all by myself.  I of course saved this restaurant a lot of money in labor hours.

I explained to them that I could read what a person would order by way of food by the look on their faces when they stepped into the dining room.  I had their food already cooking before they stepped up to place their order.  And on the drive thru I would watch the cars pull into the lot headed for the speaker and determine what they were going to order based on the way the driver looked, how many people were in the car, the condition of the car, and various other factors.  By the time the sandwich maker called the order I had the meat prepared and perfectly cooked ready to hit their prep.  The ability was physical of course.  I have always been very fast at everything I do.  But in this case it was more psychological than physical.  This left the corporate executives baffled as to how they could train other stores to have grill cooks who did the same thing.

They offered me a .50 cent raise for my efforts which I gladly accepted bring my total to $7.50 in 1997 money.  It wasn’t much then and it isn’t much now, but it was I thought a fair wage for the work I was doing.  My rule against the customers was that I knew that some government workers came to Kings Island often and I didn’t want to speak to them.  They had put me in the position of having to work a second job and be away from my family, so I didn’t want to be nice to them, or even acknowledge their existence.  I could always tell those types upon site, so I worked it out so that all I’d have to do was prepare the food, I would not have to give the people who put me in that situation the privilege of serving them directly.

I of course became the restaurant psychologist and the young people often confided in me their problems seeking my help, which I gave them.  The managers often had wrecked lives due to all the crazy hours they worked so I helped them too; by solving many of their personal problems.  But my rule about dealing with the customers was firm.  On one such occasion a pretentious Mason school teacher who weighed in at least three hundred pounds came to the front register while the 16-year-old girl manning that station was using the restroom.  The teacher demanded service and I was the closest one to her.  I instructed her to sit tight until someone came to take her order but she ignored me and continued anyway.  Needless to say her order fell on deaf ears.  I continued doing my work ignoring her.  When the girl came back, the Mason teacher was standing their refusing to repeat herself expecting me to tell the girl what the order was, which of course I didn’t provide.  Rather than repeat her order to the cashier the teacher complained about me to corporate headquarters thinking she would get me fired for disrespecting her.  She called from the dining room making a huge fuss in front of the other customers and demanding our own management to remove me from the line.  The lead manager told her that we were in the middle of lunch rush and that they couldn’t afford to remove me from the line.    The teacher proclaimed that nobody was “irreplaceable!”  Corporate took my side on the issue and the frustrated teacher took her business elsewhere.  She was back a week later, but this time didn’t look at me.  She simply placed her order and I had her meat ready for her.  I knew exactly what she was going to order, and it was a lot of food.

With all that said, the recent union attempt to inject themselves into the fast food restaurant business is a vile attempt at communism.  Fast food workers are not worth $15 an hour.  I was the best of my kind, and I wouldn’t have thought of asking such a fee for a job that was worth more to me for its flexibility than the wage I earned.  I enjoyed being able to come in and dominate a position so that I could dictate my terms based purely on performance.  While it’s true I could have made more money quicker if I were willing to “compromise” the fact was that I wasn’t, and fast food gave me the opportunity to work such a job, get the government off my back, while not having to lower myself to people like that 300 pound Mason teacher.  People who knew me then felt sorry for me, because I rode my bicycle to work every day, worked long hard hours, and had to wear a fast food uniform well into adulthood even though I was making good money and showing great talent at my regular job.  My wife and I could have just used the public school like a baby sitting service like everyone else did, she could have worked, we could have had two cars and life could have been easier if we just played along.  But we chose to do only what we had to in order to appease our government obligations.  Making a lot of extra money would have just been consumed in further taxes and was not a smart strategic choice.  Fast food gave me the perfect opportunity to dig out of that tax liability without making it worse, and without lowering myself to making plea deals with the IRS, or using expensive lawyers to just feed the monster even more.  And it also allowed me to take care of the problem so that my wife was always around my little girls, shielding them from the evils of the world that were being placed upon them by a statist government gone mad wanting to teach them to put on a condom in the fourth grade.  Little girls who had both parents working late staying in an empty house from the time they get home from school till their parents arrive between 5 and 6 PM have lots of opportunities to get into trouble with boys in their neighborhoods, but since my wife was always home, my girls didn’t have that problem. They didn’t need to learn how to put on a condom when that was furthest thing on their minds than anything at the time.

The protests from restaurant workers demanding a “living wage” for their work in fast food are not worth more than $7 to $8 dollars an hour, I don’t care who they are.  Fast food work is entry-level work designed to fill the social needs for cheap food on the go.  Nobody should work in fast food as a career choice unless they want to go into management.  There is no such thing as a “living wage.”  But there is such a thing as “value,” and restaurant workers are only worth so much.  The fast food restaurants of America have one obligation, to provide a good quality product cheaply.  If I could have taught corporate headquarters my skills at working a grill, I would have.  Unfortunately for them, I cannot be duplicated, and no machine can do what I could do—not even the perverted imbeciles who work at the NSA and supposedly have supercomputers that cross-reference everything we do in our lives.  They can’t calculate human behavior as well as I can.  Even so, the work I did was not worth more than $8 dollars an hour and I would never have considered asking for more.  I used the job to clear my tax debt and a little bit more, and then saved up money to move out of Mason and back to my childhood home of Liberty Twp.  I stayed on at the fast-food restaurant working to make extra money for some time after so to get out in front of our financial condition.  $8 dollars an hour becomes quite a lot of money when you don’t drive a car and your wife is at home teaching your children.  The household expenses go down rapidly when you are not part of the system.  And a good bit of savings can be generated while working fast food.

A “living wage” as the communist labor unions advocate is attempting to do the same thing they’ve done to the teaching profession and virtually every endeavor that they are a part of.  They set artificially high values for their labor that is built purely on monopoly power.  In fast-food, they know they cannot obtain that monopoly unless they get all the workers in that industry to buy in to their scheme.  Fortunately for America, that plan will fail.  If twenty fast food workers decide to strike from a local McDonald’s, there are always people like me who will step in and take the money that is left in the void, and can do four jobs all by myself.  It would make me happy to do it just to keep prices low on the hamburgers we buy.  There is no shame in it, but only advantage, for what I’m talking about are the benefits of capitalism—a concept that labor unions do not understand, and despise with every cell in their bodies.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Doc Thompson Blasts Public Education and Common Core: Entertainment and Education tag team children behind parents backs

The harsher reality to the presidency of Barack Obama is not just that he is a manipulative saboteur of American ideals who supports socialism over capitalism, but he was elected as a representative of a large number of the American public—people who enjoy welfare support, think the Miley Cyrus stunt at the recent MTV awards was cool, and loves intoxication, drug abuse, and alternative sexual practices.  The worse realization about the Obama administration is that it represents a growing number of Americans.  The origin of how those people came to be such a group of degenerates is harder to pin down because it forces an admission that is difficult to acknowledge.  The minds making up the typical modern progressive described started at the same point as everyone else, small children born of a mother and a father.  But the path that delivers such minds to fish net stocking wearing voters dressed in drag voting for Obama and his free government “stuff” is different from those who tend to find such personal philosophies repulsive.  Those differences of course start in a child’s home and are determined by their parents.  But beyond that, it is public education that destroys the minds of young people and corrupts them well into their adulthoods.  Public schools are breeding grounds for progressive philosophy and are dangerous.  They have been for a long time, but it has only been the last couple of years where such admissions have begun to be made.  Doc Thompson and his producer Skip on The Blaze Radio Network dedicated an entire hour and a half to the topic of public education corruption which can be heard at the clip below.  It is worth the time to listen to, because they cover Common Core instruction during the beginning then allow the discussion to evolve into the aim of public schools—which is to educate and create progressive citizens—who wishes to work against traditional America.  Have a listen! This is classic radio and you should take the time to listen to the whole thing.  

Public schools are incubators for social change—the kind of change that would rather see a child attend a Rocky Horror Picture Show screening at midnight in some dank college campus movie theater rather than attend church on Sunday to worship the teachings of Jesus Christ.  So it should come as no surprise that kids after twelve to thirteen years of public school education arrive at 18 years of age unprepared to do anything of any responsibly as an adult, because progressive education teaches personal irresponsibility.  Public school educations are destructive, and do ruin the minds of the attendees.

The tough admission is that almost every American comes from public schools and to arrive at the conclusion that it is there many of the stupid ideas which lead to presidents like Obama sitting in The White House are born.  Public schools are for most parents free baby sitting services which gives the illusion of positive social instruction, so it is hard for parents to blame the progressive tendencies of their children on “the baby sitter” because it forces acknowledging that they must take action to help save their children.  For many parents this means they have to make decisions that will likely cost them money…………..and time, which often they have neither.  So they are stuck sending their children to their local public school and they put on blinders to the faults of the institution because they do not have the mental or financial capacity to solve the problem.

Public schools consume enormous amounts of tax money which strip away the expendable cash that these same parents could use to send their children to a private conservative school—so to undo the progressive instruction otherwise given.  This leaves parents with no options but to hold their nose and support their local public school just because it’s near their home.  Parents do not have a choice because public education is a monopoly.  They suppress competition and openly destroy the minds of individual children leaving the consumers and suppliers with no choices.  When a child complains to their parent that the public school is a bad place, the parent has only one choice but to instruct the child that life is unfair, and that they need to learn to live with their displeasure.  This begins a chain reaction that slowly begins to destroy the lives of those children from that day on.

Three years ago Doc Thompson did not have a microphone that allowed him to discuss public education to such a degree as he has in the broadcast above.  Radio stations that employed him would have feared losing their FCC license—which further solidifies the public education government controlled monopoly.  Criticism of public education was nearly non-existent leaving millions of desperate souls to anguish over their unacknowledged fears regarding the intentions of public education.  But now, popular radio personalities like Doc Thompson are free to delve honestly into the evils of public education in several game changing broadcasts that are routine on The Blaze Radio Network.  It will take a while to change the culture of acceptance which public education has enjoyed using their monopoly to invoke on witless students the aptitude of a destructive progressive education.  But the start of such dismantling, and reinvigoration comes from the understanding that something is terribly wrong and should be corrected in order to save future generations.  A large portion of our modern youth are lost and will never recover.  They will continue to vote for politicians like Barack Obama because they have been trained in progressive statism.  Many of those same types were seen screaming after Miley Cyrus and her sexual antics on MTV that raised the eyebrows of many concerned parents.  Someday those former students will have children and life will beat their progressive educations out of them, and they will recover to some extent to live decent lives—if they are the fortunate few.  But their minds cannot be recovered fully as they were handicapped as children in public education.  However, if our society acts now, it may be possible that twenty years from now, public education and its impact on society will be greatly diminished allowing more people to rise to new emotional and intellectual heights.  At that time, the voting population will become better and vote for better representatives because the quality of their mind will be improved.

It is not enough to just proclaim the name of the problem.  Once known, it must be acted upon, and slowly over a fairly short period of time, radio broadcasts like the one Doc and Skip produced are changing minds, and forcing admissions.  Those admissions are difficult, but they are healthy.  Nobody said that doing the right things would be easy, or convenient.  But for the health of all our futures, we must do the right thing, and that is realize that public education is a corrosive endeavor that is laced with vile thoughts and teachings—which should be sanctioned from tax dollars.  Any group, even progressives should be allowed to compete equally in the battlefield of ideas, but citizens should not be forced to pay for such things with money extorted from them through taxation under force of a monopoly.  That is the greatest evil of public education, and the reason that it must be changed—options create competition and allows evil ideas like progressivism to be crushed out of existence in direct interaction with ideas which actually work.  Progressives claim that they have the superior mode of thinking, yet they can only convince others of such a claim through monopoly status by eliminating competing modes of thinking.  The first step in destroying such a tyrannical hold on the minds of our society’s youth is to destroy the monopoly that backs public education, and to introduce new ideas—ideas that are born out of the wreckage of the old—a public education system designed to put presidents like Obama into office for aims that are not American.

Now to explain a bit, “artistically” what was going on at the MTV event where Miley Cyrus was paraded about like a slut for the advancement of progressive causes.  Watching her performance I was reminded of two other events, the Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt where she had her top ripped off to expose her breasts, then the famous kiss between Britney Spears and Madonna.   What all three women had in common was that the “public” thought of them as good girls.  Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears are graduates of the Disney Channel and were examples of nice wholesome teenage girls.  Progressive backed money was poured into entertainment, and it can make these girls do whatever the financiers’ desire like prostitutes working for an escort service.   Miley Cyrus was coached into performing the dance routine which was all very carefully designed.  Cyrus was placed on stage to rip from millions of youthful girls the innocent image of Cyrus as a Disney girl.  The dance routine was set up with the teddy bears looking not quite so innocent so to show on stage that Miley Cyrus had lost any resemblance of her youthful innocence and was no longer a little girl.  The act has been repeated for several decades now and is constructed by the same minds that stand behind Common Core education.  To understand what investors into Miley Cyrus’s record label believe, and MTV’s investment in the event, listen hard to the broadcast from Doc Thompson and his producer Skip shown above.  They have the answer.  Miley Cyrus is simply a paid spokesman for progressive causes, and she was established by an entertainment culture infused with “political progressive” money to unlock the teaching instructed to children in public schools.  Former Disney personalities are targeted because of their naturally high-profile, with foundations in family entertainment that Disney is known for.  This makes them very important in reaching the proper demographic groups with the ritual understanding of merging from childhood to adulthood through sexual practice.  Since the government profits off of misconduct through sexual recklessness, this is to their advantage.    

When people believe that Bill Gates is behind Common Core and is a good man, so Common Core must be good, consider again that Common Core computers only run on Window’s operated machines, Macintosh computers will not work.  So part of the implementation of Common Core in public schools is to support the sale of Windows operating systems over Macs.   That in itself isn’t bad, but the minds who shape the Common Core agenda for which Gates latches himself on to, in order to make a deal that will launch Microsoft driven computers into every school in America are the same minds who take the innocent greed of a young woman named Miley Cyrus and tell her that they’ll fund her record and image if she’ll dance half naked on stage with stoned looking teddy bears and sell herself to the public.  Bill Gates and Miley Cyrus think they are cleaver and astute business people taking advantage of the glories of capitalism to advance themselves.  But what they don’t see is the progressive puppet masters who have shaped the battlefield in both entertainment and education for the same intentions, to break down the traditional American family and revise the minds of youth to sexual deviancy which pushes them away from parental care and into the loving, manipulative arms of mother government, and the sinister plots of doom which were touched up in the classic novel Brave New World.   Now considering those things, listen to Doc Thompson recite the specifics of Common Core education to second and third grade students, and consider what the real intention of public education is in America.   The Miley Cyrus MTV event was the result, but the cause started in the classrooms of America’s government schools, and the plots of progressive politics that are behind nearly every single institution.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

The Lakota Levy of 2017: After they try the 2013 attempt

Lakota is currently trying to pass a 2013 tax increase so it probably will come as a shock that the school will be planning a 2017 levy attempt as soon as they can.  In the chart shown in the following video, I use another “bullwhip economic” trick to demonstrate how targeted cuts to the Lakota school district could maintain the profitable trend they have shown over the last couple of years.  Yet, the school apparently resents greatly their operation of maintaining a budget surplus and has very immediate intentions of escalating their spending as soon as they receive levy passage.  In the following chart, the red line represents the tax revenue that the Lakota communities of Liberty Township and West Chester Twp provide to the school.  The blue line is the budget for Lakota.  Watching this video it will be clear that the recent levy defeats have forced Lakota to bring their costs in line with the tax revenue supplied.  As explained, the teacher’s contract the district has with the Lakota Education Association has maintained a wage freeze lasting through 2014.  This is why the district has operated in a surplus.  However, it is also clear that the intention of the levy of 2013 is to throw money at the new teacher’s contract because the blue line spikes up dramatically and predictably until 2017.  The green line is the amount of funding the school intends to inject into their financial dynamics upon levy passage in 2013.  As it becomes terribly obvious, the green line and blue line intersect during the year 2017 meaning that Lakota will have to pursue another tax increase at that time.

It is terribly obvious that Lakota has been forced by the voting community to live within their budget with levy failures, which is good.  Yet they have been promising that the summer of 2014 would reap a payday to school employees because the blue line spikes sharply upward countering all the positive gains that have been made since 2010 to the present.  It was always my intention to bring Lakota’s operating costs in line with community revenue without raising taxes and this chart shows how well the effort has worked.  The NO votes have been the most useful tool in forcing the school district to operate the way they should have always functioned, with a keen focus on their expenditures and operating with a slight surplus.  But they seem to not have learned their lesson and have been promising their employees large raises in 2014.  Their spending projections reflect this as the numbers making up the data on the chart are generated by Lakota’s own statistics.  There is a reason they must disclose all their information to the tax paying public—it is for just this type of analysis.Historical & Projected Revenues & Expenditures

Lakota has been able to maintain a positive balance by making the forced targeted cuts due to the levy failures, which is also reflected on the chart, which is why I find my “bullwhip economic” demonstrations to be so effective.  It’s my own unique way of explaining such dry material that has a tendency to bore people to death when they are forced to attend the kind of meetings it takes to ascertain the data that makes up such charts.  So I like to put a little metaphorical zip on the information to present it in an entertaining way, otherwise the information goes in one ear and out the other.  But relevant to the Lakota levy of 2013 and all future levies, the information couldn’t be clearer.  The data speaks for itself.  Lakota plans to go on a spending binge in 2014 like pent-up sailors who have been at sea for many months approaching a whore house.  The projected numbers that make up the blue line can be obtained from Lakota’s treasurer or anybody involved in the financing structure at the school.

In October of 2013 Lakota will have to produce a new five-year forecast which will involve many of the same numbers seen in the chart discussed during the video.  However one thing that has not been yet included in Lakota’s blue line forecast is the grim reality that I have covered extensively which is that Lakota is set to lose another two thousands students between the present time and the year 2022.  This will force the layoff of around 80 teachers.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.  It will be interesting to see if Lakota includes these declining enrollment numbers into their projections, which they will have to address at some point in time.  But for their pro-tax levy attempts, they will hope to bury that information deep in their forecast because it will clearly show that they do not need more money.  Instead of the blue line projecting upward, it needs to be in a further decline from where it currently resides.

The frustration, anger, and in-trench warfare that sometimes goes on behind the scenes with the pro levy crowd is predicated directly off their lack of desire to acknowledge the facts driven off numbers shown so clearly in charts like the example I used in the video.  I call them “levy addicts, “levy zombies,” and more derogatory “latte sipping prostitutes,” because of their destructive desire to hurt an entire community with corrosive taxation as they belong to a group of people who desire to throw large wages at employees who aren’t needed, but for emotional reasons.   The desire to increase taxes for the solitary reason of injecting money into a group of employees that have a perceived value which is too high, or are not needed is simply stupid.  Many times the only reason is because the levy supporters are friends with those employees, or hope that by throwing money at the school, the money will off-set their terrible parenting skills.  They hope the school will give their children what they can’t because they are plagued with so much self-doubt as individual people; they have nothing to offer their children but social connections and a big mouth that advocates bigger and better schools to teach them in.  The root cause of the problem is that those levy advocates do not have faith in their own parenting and hope that they can hide the fact behind their chants for higher taxes, and more community spirit, and they have no restraint in demanding the community fund perpetual increases in the blue line based strictly on emotional neuroses.

It is a shame that so many young reporters who work for the local papers cannot see the benefit of the numbers shown in charts like this example, because many of them are children themselves.  This is why they support school levies.  If they are under the age of 35, they are likely still new to the ways of the world and do not understand how things connect, so they make their decisions based on pure emotion—on the backs of children who are used by the levy addicts to hide the reality of the blue number—the desire to throw money at district labor based on an anti-trust criteria. (Click Here to Review)  Then of course many people find such information daunting, and beyond their grasp.  So rather than do the hard work of analyzing data, they choose to subscribe to the emotional position of the levy addicts.  That is why the Lakota administrators are working blindly toward a 2013 tax increase knowing full well that another attempt will have to be made in 2017, because they do not target cuts unless forced to with levy failures.  Beyond 2017 there is no question that there will be more levy attempts and that within 15 years of this current time Lakota plans to add at least 10 more mills of levy to the current rate of 33, pushing the rate of taxation to a level over 40 mills, which is very unattractive to long-term real-estate investment or business growth.  That is why it is reckless, and devastating to a community to insinuate uncontrolled taxation, which is what Lakota is guilty of.

So the tax increases will not end in 2013.  They will continue until the school is forced to cut their costs the proper way with controlled cuts made without emotion.  Since Lakota will not regulate themselves, they must be forced to with failed levies.  The Levy Zombies do not run the community.  They are often young people between the ages of 25 and 35 and are functioning from personal insecurities.  It is dangerous to allow them to dictate budgets, which is why Lakota believes that nobody will ever challenge their blue line projections well into 2017.  The same logic left unchecked will pillage the Lakota community until there is nothing left but a high tax zone of residents and empty business establishments driven away by the bottomless pit hunger of the levy addicts.  Against those specimens targeted cuts is the only defense and I use bullwhip economics to highlight the point.  But aside from the spectacle of my whip tricks the situation is actually quite serious, Lakota is a parasitic organization that is selling itself as the savior of community value when it is practicing the opposite effect.  Under the Lakota plan seen on the chart, the financial imposition that public school will place on the community will be devastating and end the thriving business culture that currently exists.  Anyone who supports a school levy is crazy, especially when given the facts that show the proof.  The best thing anybody could do for Lakota and the community that surrounds the school is to vote “NO” on the levy and force Lakota to live within its means, instead of their projected path of deficit spending toward a future resulting in economic collapse.  The data tells the story.  All anybody need do is look at the data to reach the same conclusion.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

The Class of 2005: Rise of Adam Winrich and the majesticy of bullwhips

You know pivotal moments in life when you see them, especially in hind-sight, and for me the Class of 2005 at the Annie Oakley Western Showcase was one of them.  In the picture below, some of the best whip crackers, knife throwers and western performers in the world were gathered together in 2005 at the Darke County Fairgrounds in Ohio.  CLICK HERE TO SEE THIS LATEST YEAR.  Many of the people shown in that photograph are the people who mean the most to me.  I thought of that year while in Burbank, California not long after the picture was taken as I spoke with a stunt coordinator on a film production about whip work, and his fear of Anthony DeLongis discovering that he was working with me—who had taken over the whip work in Hollywood after the passing of Alex Green.  I didn’t understand the concern, even as the young actress I was teaching offered me a thousand dollar bill for our short half hour class on cracking a bullwhip.  I turned it away to her shock as she declared that Anthony would have never turned away money—who was a personal friend of hers.  As much as I loved bullwhip work, and the people in the business, there was a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that all was not right with the world.  I had just published the novel, The Symposium of Justice but for me it was not enough to write about the pursuit of justice, I had to carry out the traits of my characters in real life, and I expected myself to act and behave in much the same fashion of Fletcher Finnegan.  I didn’t want to be someone who just acted like a dynamic character from a writer’s imagination, I wanted to actually be one, and use my skills to that effect.  But that didn’t stop the need for people especially of the next generation from taking up the task and pushing the whip cracking sport to new limits.KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

I didn’t think much of it at the time because he was so young, not much older than my own kids, but Adam Winrich was one of those guys who worked out with bullwhips with the intention to become one of the best that the world has ever seen.  Adam can be seen in the picture between my wife and children in 2005.  I was very happy with that group, but always felt people like Anthony should have been a part of the festivities.  There just aren’t many of us out there in the world.  However, reflected in my discussion with the Hollywood stunt coordinator, there aren’t many films being done with bullwhips in them, so the competition is fierce on who will get the jobs when they do come about.  KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAI had no plan, or desire to challenge Delongis for a film coordination job as a master whip handler when I knew that people like my friends Gery Deer, and Chris Camp worked much harder at the technical aspects of whip work than I and should be doing those types of jobs over me.  My interest was in actually doing some of the things I was writing about, so my destiny trailed off and away a bit into the realm of politics—where real threats are actually happening.  Without giving away too much, I have spent my time since that Class of 2005 living life in much the same fashion as Don Diego did in one of my favorite films, Zorro’s Fighting Legion.  I lost touch with some of those members of the Class of 2005 in the process, and one of them was Adam.

I feel I have accomplished many of the political tasks I intended, and recently announced that I was going to put more of my personal emphasis back on the bullwhip as it has been such a large part of my life for over thirty years.  The yearly Annie Oakley event still takes place, and some of those faces from the Class of 2005 still return every year, to meet up and tell stories of their previous year.  But some of those faces have found it difficult to return as they are continuously busy working in the business.  Adam is one of those guys, which isn’t a surprise to me.  Adam worked very hard, and it shows.  Since the Class of 2005 Adam has done shows everywhere from The Conan O’Brien Show, to football halftime demonstrations and everything in between and I think he is one of the most technically proficient bullwhip artists that there is anywhere.  Many of the whip masters who learned from people like Alex Green and Mark Allen felt they had taken whip work to unforeseen heights and they had.  Young guys like Adam then took the work several steps further breaking records and delighting audiences in ways that have never been done before.

I am very proud of Adam Winrich who has taken the sport of whip work to new levels.  I knew there was something special about him when he was cracking his 100’ whip in the main path in front of the Darke County Fairgrounds Coliseum, only to get a reprimand by Gery because the activity was going on outside of the yellow tape danger indicators.  Gery was right; the whip was very dangerous and could have removed the head of a person who wasn’t paying attention walking by.  But Adam’s custom made whip couldn’t have been cracked anywhere else because it was so big and I enjoyed his constant enthusiasm to try new innovative ways to advance the sport.  So Adam and I had the big whip in the crowd trying to crack it which was very reckless, and very fun.

One thing that is different with me from virtually everyone seen in the picture of the Class of 2005 is that I am not nearly as campy as everyone else, especially Adam Winrich.  I am a serious person almost all the time and have to work hard to crack jokes when performing in front of people.  That is why I don’t do shows in the way that Gery and Adam do.  I’m much happier in my back yard working with my whips in private than touring around the country doing stage acts.  That’s also why I had no desire to cut into Anthony DeLongis gig in Hollywood.  I’d rather write stories and have a creative influence on producing material that gave those guys work, than sitting around waiting for some producer to come up with the idea on their own.  But that doesn’t stop me from enjoying good work when I see it, and Adam is simply one of the best that there is.  He has done remarkable things with a bullwhip and that innovation continues.

I hope that in the future he can align his very busy schedule to returning to Annie Oakley as a new class of young whip crackers is emerging and could use his mentorship.  The kind of enthusiasm that Adam brings to the world of bullwhip art is the type of thing that makes legends out of raw talent.  I am very proud of the Class of 2005 because of people like Paul Nolan, my own children, and especially Adam Winrich.  It is wonderful to see that the fire that burns deep inside a mind can translate to the end of a whip with antics that have never been done before by anybody.  And it is my hope that such innovation and technical skill will continue to advance in subsequent Classes of Annie Oakley graduates.

Nice job Adam.  I learned to do this trick from you.  Nothing against Mark Allen, but he would have never considered such a thing before some of your technical experiments.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Oprah Winfrey Used An Old Trick: Creating racial division to promote her new movie ‘The Butler’

Oprah Winfrey used the oldest trick in the book as far as promoting the latest “progressive” film containing her direct involvement.  Her film The Butler already has Oscar buzz as a surprising summer hit and tells the story of a White House butler who served eight American presidents over three decades. The film traces the dramatic changes that swept American society during this time, from the civil rights movement to Vietnam and beyond, and how those changes affected a man’s life and family. Forest Whitaker stars as the butler with Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower, John Cusack as Richard Nixon, Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan, James Marsden as John F. Kennedy.  This is the same film where Jane Fonda played Nancy Reagan.  The cast is a who’s who of the extreme political left, and primary spokesman of modern progressive philosophy.  If Winfrey didn’t know how to use such tricks, she wouldn’t be one of the richest women in the world.  But she does, and she did—one week before The Butler hit theaters she managed to say something that angered half of America and empowered the other half putting her name in all the news outlets ahead of the movie’s release.  Her film which cost only $30 million to make pulled in nearly all that total during its opening weekend, an amount that was likely spiked 7% – 9% due to Oprah’s controversy.

 In case you missed the inflammatory statements, Oprah’s played the race card one week before The Butler hit theaters when a trip to a Zurich shop ended in a supposedly disturbing racial encounter for the billionaire media mogul — a national humiliation that forced the Swiss tourism board to issue a public apology.  Winfrey had said she was in town for Tina Turner’s wedding last month and stopped in the posh Trois Pommes boutique where she asked a clerk to see a $38,000 Tom Ford bag behind a glass case.  Oprah claims that the clerk looked down on her assuming that she couldn’t afford the bag because she was a black woman.  Pictures of all these characters and more about the story can be fond at the following link.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/oprah-winfrey-brush-racism-sparks-international-incident-article-1.1422325#ixzz2cJZ30FuD

Oprah Winfrey has also chosen this past week to break her silence on the controversy surrounding her friend Paula Deen, the disgraced television chef’s use of the N-word in the past.  “I think Paula Deen was sort of used as a symbol, but I think lots of people use the word inappropriately all the time,” Oprah said during a revealing interview on Entertainment Tonight Monday. The 59-year old television mogul says she’s very sensitive to racism — a major theme in her new movie, “Lee Daniels’ The Butler.” “I do not run in the circle of people who use the word loosely,” she told ET. “For me it’s out of respect to those people who it was the last word they heard while they were being hung, the last word they heard when they were being fired, the last word they heard when their house was being burned.  “It’s the word heard every day when they were walking down the street and they had to step off the side-walk to let other people pass.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/oprah-winfrey-breaks-silence-paula-deen-controversy-article-1.1419098#ixzz2cJaiWah3

I understand the use of playing such cards to promote works of entertainment, especially when in so doing it reveals what kind of person is really behind the image.  I’ve played similar cards for similar reasons such as before the release of my novel Tail of the Dragon.  I don’t see anything wrong with it so long as the advocate is being authentically revealing—standing up for what they truly believe in.  That’s why it’s easy to see what Oprah was up to.  She knew exactly what she was doing, and the results are in the box office of The Butler.  And I also believe that Oprah believes she was a victim of racism at the Swiss purse store.  I believe that Oprah also believes that when she heads a board room conference that the reason there are people jealous of her, as she claims, is because she’s a black woman—and that white men despise her for her role of authority.  So for me, it is not surprising that she said any of the things she has recently.  My sentiments about Winfrey reflect those of Glenn Beck in a recent radio broadcast that he gave on the matter declaring that Winfrey’s action disgusted him.

Behind the public image of Oprah Winfrey is a woman who was given a tremendous chance by Steven Spielberg after the release of the film, The Color Purple to launch a media empire, which she did.  The doors were opened for her to take the wheel and steer herself to an unfathomable destiny, and she did not hold back once given the chance.  Many “white guys” wanting to prove they were not racist or sexist were actively seeking a black woman to advocate progressive philosophy to mainstream America in the late 1980s, and Oprah was up for the challenge.  The media got behind the effort for the same reason they get behind Barack Obama.  Their public and college educations taught them that the civil rights issues of the 1960s were the most important historical aspects of America’s development and they all want to play a part in shaping that history for the better.

In spite of what public image Winfrey has been able to build for herself through aligning her career path with progressive politics, deep down inside she is still the same woman she was before she stared in The Color Purple, and that personality comes out when she is being candid.  With her new film The Butler, as conservatives were angry with Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan, Winfrey did what progressives have done for years and that was disarm the critics and raise awareness for her film project by soaking up all the media attention with a blind accusation that could never be proven as millions of Oprah fans went to the theater to see her new movie—who otherwise would have passed.  By choosing to see The Butler over other kinds of movies, like Kick Ass 2 or some other film, Americans felt that it would prove that “they” were not racist by going to see such a movie, a challenge that Oprah initiated with her statements about racism. 

I don’t see Oprah as a success even though she is one of the richest people on earth.  I see a highly paid progressive spokesman who has been given power to help re-shape the world—which she has done.  No matter how much you dress up someone, and prop them up with photo shoots, films, and enamoring articles, they are what they are, and Oprah revealed what she was to the world during her press tour for The Butler.   I don’t blame her for trying to boost her ticket sales with inflammatory remarks.  But I do for being a phony all other times of her life and only revealing her deepest, darkest beliefs when it is financially advantageous to do so.  She knows as well as anybody that she would not have gained so much global popularity uttering such things during her rise to the top in the 1990s where nearly every woman in America looks to Oprah as the tribal chief of their global village.  But I do blame Oprah for being an inflammatory phony and seeking to use race as a way to prop up ticket sales and a possible Oscar nomination for her new movie purely out of fear of being called a civil rights violator.  It’s not a free market of equal ideas that people like Oprah are after, it is in the use of guilt, fear, and scandal where advantage is gained through such methods and why people like her “are” the most powerful people in the world when they would otherwise be store sellers of used junk in a flea market.

Remember above everything, Oprah is an actress.  She is paid to say what other people write for her.  In her case, she is extremely well paid to act not only on the silver screen, but also in real life.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Teri Benning Speaks the Truth about Lakota: A former school board member lets go of a hard reality

 

Very few things make me emotional; however the words of Teri Benning at the end of a recent West Chester Buzz article nearly brought tears to my eyes.  It is not often that truth is spoken, let alone written in public these days, yet Teri uttered such a truth about the upcoming Lakota Levy and I felt pride swelling upon hearing the delectable words of a Lakota tax payer.

“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”

Teri Getz Benning

http://westchesterbuzz.com/2013/08/13/lakota-local-schools-release-details-of-levy-proposal/

Aaaaaaaaahhhh.  I liked that so much I want to read it again…………………………

“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”

Isn’t that just wonderful?  Doesn’t that just make fantastic sense?  Of course it does.  Yet that is precisely the imagery I think of when I think of Lakota, that they are like 10-year-old kids with money in their pocket and a burning desire to spend it somewhere on something as fast as they can.  They lack any real discipline, logical understanding, or desire to do what is right for the community and instead regulate their thinking to the same old failed education policies of the past—policies that do not work, are not helping children become the best in the world intellectually, and is an obvious money pit.

It’s no secret by now that I have several personal friends who are either former school board members of public education and have thrown their hands up in frustration to now fight against it, or are current school board members who want to reform the system from the inside out.  One of my very dear friends is a former school board member from Lakota and has a wonderful insight into what goes on behind the scenes legally, and illegally, and could tell stories for the rest of all our lifetimes about what she has seen, heard, and read from Lakota—even school board members still active.  Her stories are intense, and to the untrained ears may appear radical, and over the edge.  But the passion of her statements is different from the bold logic of people similar to Teri Getz Benning.  My friend has been too close to the situation for too long and knows clearly what has been wrong in public education and just how sinister the situation has been for a very long time.  Her anger and passion are driven from insider knowledge that should send chills up the spine of every tax payer in the country.  Recently she left me this comment about another Lakota article I had written about.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.

The public school system is in the extortion and indoctrination business. In the case of Lakota, about 67% of the taxpayers do not have children attending the schools. Yet the teacher’s union and the parents do expect senior citizens and working people to support the system to the degree of extravagance that they desire. They must have new schools, new equipment, new programs, new sports programs, new buses etc. The older schools are just not good enough.

In spite of having everything new, data seems to prove that each generation of students has not been taught the basic skills to survive. Even IQ’s have dropped drastically from those of the people during the time of the founding of this nation.

No one should doubt that any new money given to any school district will be poured into salaries and benefits. That is the clear reason why the teachers, administrators and PTA (an arm of the NEA/AFT) work so hard to shame voters into voting to tax their neighbors even more.

It is high time to put a halt to this racket. Teachers are NOT underpaid. They have the summer and bountiful days off and still make as much as architects and lawyers. STOP them now!

The only defense Lakota, or any public school has against the comments of this former school board member is to call her crazy, psychotic, or a radical conservative, just as they have attempted to call me names in hopes to deflect the ears of the taxpaying public away from the truth, a truth that was spelled out above.   Public schools are indoctrination centers for the government and they are harming our children, not helping them.  This is an inconvenient truth that many pray is not the case.  Many supporters of public education love the social appeal of sports and other community programs that center around a school, and do not wish to see the ugly truth—but that doesn’t make it go away.  The truth is the truth and cannot be made into a falsehood with wishes from Aladdin’s lamp.   Public education is a racket, and corrosive scheme designed to destroy minds, rip up families, and suck the life blood out of all communities from which they reside.  Public education institutions are the cockroach of the government employment family and they should be treated as foul, vile insects that must be exterminated from our communities.  They lie, cheat, manipulate, and put themselves between parents and children in terribly destructive ways.

But my friend and I have seen too much of this truth to be objective any longer.  I despise those institutions of learning for what they don’t teach, and what they do I find repulsive.  I would like to see an end to them all and have parents take control of their children’s education completely.  That is why I enjoyed the words of Teri Benning so much, because there is no radicalism, no jaded perception present—just an honest opinion rendered from observation with an appropriate metaphor.  It is good to see that such people are out there and that they voice their opinions. At best public education institutions like Lakota are similar to 10-year-old undisciplined children.  They cannot wait to spend money they do not have yet have, and once they do have a little, they are ready to spend it on every silly thing their immature minds can conger up.  It is a relief at this stage of the game to see that new people like Teri are making their opinions known, because for every one of them, there are many dozens who sit fearfully on the fence afraid that the Lakota Levy Zombies will discover them and seek to destroy their social reputations with strong-arm tactics of peer pressure and raw emotion.  But increasingly, the trend is to not fear the Lakota Levy Zombies, but to fight back against them—which is a wonderful trend.  Whether the emotions range from the logic of Teri Benning, or the jaded realism of my former school board friends, the trajectory of emotion is pointing away from traditional public education and more toward a privately funded enterprise that excludes the government indoctrination, and for that I am very, very, happy!

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Mending Fences with Other People’s Posts and Wire: Lakota’s supporters divide up the community

Upon the announcement of the 2013 Lakota levy both sides of the issue began voicing their opinions, and one fellow that represented how the typical YES voter for tax increases thinks left a series of comments favoring the levy which can be seen below.  The guy named AJ Malott isn’t a bad guy, just a person who sees public education as an entitlement similar to Social Security and Medicaid, and he believes that the older residents in Lakota should be willing to pay for his children’s education because he is paying for their senior oriented retirements.   He also makes a point to mention No Lakota Levy, which is a group I played a large part in formulating so explanations are in order.   First, let’s see what AJ thinks.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

And another thing, isn’t it interesting that the so-called leader of the NoLakota levy group owns a contracting company? Is he expecting an influx of work when no one wants to buy/build/remodel in the community? People only want to invest in their homes if they feel connected to their home and community, and plan on staying.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

I thought we were smart by moving into the Lakota district 4 years ago BECAUSE of the support and quality of the schools. So, yes, lets put that in jeopardy so other millennials whom are starting their families do not want to move here. And, then those who want to move because they don’t want to pay the taxes can experience declining home values. Then, it can be a lose-lose situation for all.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

With the exception that they claim that the older generation doesn’t want to pay for schools for the younger generation. Well, doesn’t this whole system we have designed center around everyone paying their collective share. When one group decides they want to opt out (the seniors), it puts undue pressures on the other groups. So, if they can do it, I’m not sure why our generation can’t do the same thing. You pay for schools and I will continue to pay into benefits I’m sure I’ll never see any of.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

You know, I am finding it really difficult to continue to pay that Social Security and Medicare tax out of my paycheck. I look forward to the next generation of politicians that feel the same way, and look to make cuts to those “entitlement” programs. If you don’t want to support my child’s future, why should we support yours.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130708/NEWS/307080057/Lakota-Without-levy-district-will-decline

In that article which the commenter referenced, Bob Hutsenpiller gave a statement representing No Lakota Levy’s position.   He simply said any tax hike will be a tough sell to older residents in Liberty and West Chester Townships.  This prompted AJ Malott to assume that he was in a position to offer critical review about Hutsenpiller.   Bob went on to say “Lakota officials should continue its recent budget cutting while the seniors, retirees and residents of the district go through these rough economic times. Most of the seniors of the Lakota district are contemplating moving out of the district just to reduce their tax burden.”  For saying that, Malott felt entitled to deliver a subtle attack in order to defend his child’s “right” to a free education.  So before going into a dissemination of Malott’s comments which represent the average levy supporter in all public schools, I must put a book end into my involvement with No Lakota Levy prior to this upcoming campaign.  To discuss that I have to refer back to a Middletown Journal article from the summer of 2011 where members of No Lakota Levy without my agreement attempted to make a deal with the Yes Vote group at Lakota.  I was tipped off about the event by the reporter covering the story.  The article can be seen below.

Members of the No Lakota group are in disagreement about whether they would support a levy if Lakota puts one on the ballot.

 

West Chester Twp. resident Mark Sennet spoke to the board of education Monday, saying the No Lakota group would support a “conservative” levy in 2012 if the board would bypass the election this November.

 

However, No Lakota member Rich Hoffman, who has typically spoken on behalf of the group, said no discussion had occurred at a meeting about supporting a levy, and he was holding fast to his stance on never supporting a levy.

 

Hoffman said there may be a split in the group, but he thinks the 50-and-older crowd will stand with him.

 

Sennet said Lakota officials have made “a valiant effort to try to work and control spending,” but people still need time to recover from the economic crisis. He said he and several developers would be on the board’s side if it waited for November 2012.

 

“We acknowledge that there were changes made,” he said. “The businesses had to make changes. The citizens had to make changes, and we were glad to see the union and teachers and board agreed to a pay freeze. But if the levy were to pass, then I guess that would be good for the community.”

Board member Ray Murray said he was pleased the business community is recognizing the district’s transparency and how it is listening to the community.

 

“There are going to be people who are not going to ever say yes to anything, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said. “We’ve got to generate more revenue. We can’t survive on a 2005 budget.”

Former For Lakota levy chairwoman Sandy Wheatley said the board and district representatives have been mending fences with those in opposition since the last election.

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/news/local/no-lakota-group-split-on-next-levy-1/nNRfH/

Needles to say, the kind of “fence mending” Wheatley was talking about was an attempt by the levy supporters to split up our group.  As she stated in her comments, there would always be people like me who would say NO to a tax increase, so the Lakota administration attempted to cut deals and split up our group so they wouldn’t have an opposition for the upcoming election in 2011, which of course didn’t work.  Prior to forming No Lakota Levy Sennet contacted me about joining forces as in the previous levy I had been doing my own thing.  He had been working from a group with a different name.  When he asked me to join his group, we called it No Lakota Levy which went on to defeat the next two attempts.  But before the second attempt under that name, Sennet had decided that the kitchen was too hot for him.  The social pressure of not supporting a levy impacted him, which was what Wheatley was referring to.  I witnessed some of the most open extortion I have ever seen through charity events, boycotts, and behind the scenes manipulation that was rancid with sinister intentions.   By the second levy, many of the people in No Lakota Levy didn’t want to be seen at meetings with me because they were afraid that such associations would harm their businesses, even though No Lakota Levy was saving them tens of millions of dollars in taxes.  In private meetings they liked my company, but they didn’t feel comfortable associating with me in public, for fear that the Levy Addicts would connect the dots and find out that they were members of No Lakota Levy.  Bob Hutsenpiller was the exception.

Once Lakota hired Superintendent Mantia her mode of operation was to apply even more pressure on the business community “mending fences.”  It didn’t work by the 2011 attempt in November so Mantia went to work with new strategies in the winter of 2012.  After my events with Sennet at No Lakota Levy, I wasn’t sure I wanted to handcuff myself to playing such a front man while so many others stayed in hiding for fear of being associated with an anti-tax group.  I played along for a while, but did not like the direction the rest of the group wanted to go.  The emphasis on public image of No Lakota Levy was becoming much more important, and I didn’t like that, and I wanted out.  I felt it would be better for No Lakota Levy if people like Hutsenpiller spoke on their own behalf, and we discussed it in meetings about future levy attempts by Lakota.  But I was very good at my job, and so long as I was there, it allowed the people who were most effected by commercial real-estate taxes to use me as a shield, which was giving Lakota the illusion that their “fence mending” was working in their favor.

I meant it when I said that in the next election Lakota would have to deal with No Lakota Levy on one angle, and myself on the other.  I don’t like to mend fences, because doing such a thing only benefits the people who build the fences to begin with, and those fences were built by Lakota politics.   I don’t like deals, peer pressure and financial decisions made under coercion and I prefer to call a spade a spade.   But I am glad to see Hutsenpiller speak reasonably representing his stance.  The amount of money that Lakota is asking people like him to pay in additional taxes is bewildering.  It is just a shame that others like him are so cold with their tongues.  Without question, they will be NO Votes in the upcoming election, but they are careful what they say in public because they will have to see people like AJ Malott at social events frequently who have no idea how much money the tax increases cost a business, and can never hope to comprehend.  Those phantom business owners don’t want the ramifications of being out of agreement with the “fence builders” like Lakota’s current superintendent, for fear that the lack of “cooperation” will have a dire cost against their livelihoods.  Unlike their contemporaries in public education, the business owners cannot raise taxes to cover their costs.  They have to actually nurture a customer base.

Every time there is a new Lakota levy there are new people like AJ Malott who come and go from the community.  They move to Lakota for the nice green space, the shopping, and the schools, but they don’t know much about the character of the area.  I grew up in Liberty Township and I know what kind of place it has always been.  It was named after the American Revolution just as the City of Monroe to the North and Hamilton to the West were named after key members of the American rebellion.  And most of the long term residents I know who have lived in the area most of their lives have that kind of blood deep in their veins no matter what their economic or social status proclaims now, Hutsenpiller is of that type.  They are free spirits who resent “fence mending” as much as I do.  They will do what they must for their businesses, but what they think in private is an entirely different matter.   The people who support these school levies are typically young people who are newer parents, or people who came from progressive places like New England, or California so they don’t really understand the argument against school funding and public education in general.

For me, I want to argue against the entire premise of public education, not just the ridiculousness of the funding.  I am encouraged to see other people rise to the occasion to make those points, which free me up to make the larger arguments.   The Lakota Levy to me wouldn’t mean much in financial investment, it’s the essence of the implication that is the problem.  I spend more on a typical dinner than the levy would cost my residence.  But the real cost of the levy is against the business owner, people like Bob Hutsenpiller who cannot build enough buildings to possibly cover the tens of thousands of dollars his taxes will go up if the levy passes.  Bob is not alone.  There are dozens of people like him who will pay millions in additional taxes if the levy passes, and it is a shame they don’t do more to defend themselves, instead of getting stuck in the political trap set by people who want to “mend fences” when the entire cost of the materials for the fence come from the business owner.

Rich Hoffman

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

When The Safety Net Becomes A Hammock: America’s welfare crises

The Fox News documentary special The Great Food Stamp Binge, hosted by Bret Baier was so good that I am going to include the complete text of their blog posting concerning that wonderful episode within the contents of this document.  If you missed it, fret not.  I have it below which can be seen in its entirety with six parts.  I suggest you watch it and share it with as many people as you can.  Everyone in America needs to see this documentary.  It is a work which explores the treacherous extent of the welfare state in our current economy.  There was a catch phrase during the documentary when Bret Baier stated, “when does the safety net become a hammock,” which I thought was particularly good because the information as provided was extraordinary and deeply revealing.  It paints a picture that points to an astonishing danger that is going to hit every American in the wake of the Obama presidency that will be very painful to overcome.  The welfare state and attack of the FDA with all other government agencies that are openly advocating more dependents upon the parental hand of statism are hard at work to remove from American culture the notion of independence leaving in the wake a society of moochers and disconnected serfs.  Watch, learn and share the following:

The tragedy of America’s great food stamp binge

By Patrick Caddell

Published August 08, 2013

FoxNews.com

 

Once upon a time this was called food stamps, but the modern world is all about branding and image, not accuracy or substance.  Thus, a snappy new name was needed. 

 

All this change is a direct result of the Obama administration’s surreptitious undermining of the law in the Stimulus Act in 2009 and the disingenuous gutting of President Clinton’s overwhelmingly successful Welfare Reform law. This was achieved by administrative fiat in 2010.

 

As I watched the rough cut with Fox Editor-at-Large Peter Boyer, I found myself at a loss for words. 

 

I don’t know whether I was more saddened, or angered by the interview John Roberts did with an apparently healthy “surfer” who happily lives a life of leisure in Southern California subsidized by the taxpayer.  

 

It was simply mindboggling to listen to this grown man explain the logic he uses to justify taking food aid — and thus free food — rather than working and paying for it himself. 

 

This great government giveaway is being undertaken and I can’t help but believe those that truly need help are still going hungry.

 

As we continued to watch I began to see what was behind the SNAP program. It is about changing the mentality of the nation, of Americans.  

 

Take this example, from “The Great Food Stamp Binge,” of what is nothing short of social engineering or reeducation. In North Carolina social workers actually got an award for breaking down the “Mountain Pride” that makes some from that state reluctant or unwilling to take handouts.  They actively fought the tradition of tightening your belt and taking care of yourself when times get tough. 

 

There is much more in this excellent program — it is a thought provoking, well told story and I urge you to watch it. 

 

Certainly, there are many in this country, who need the help.  The idea that Americans go to bed hungry or get sick due to malnutrition is one that should appall any morally sound man or woman. And that is what makes the SNAP initiative utterly foul. 

 

After watching I realized why I was angered by those who take, but don’t need, and frustrated for those who are given, but don’t want. This great giveaway is being undertaken and I can’t help but believe that those that truly need help are still going hungry. Millions of tax dollars are going to people who aren’t our neediest, it is a disgrace.

 

Many of you have probably heard the Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The SNAP program is one big fish giveaway that leaves people reliant rather than reliable.  The government is on a mission to sign people up – one in seven in this country already receive food stamps — and the taxpayer is footing the bill for, what I believe, is a tragically misguided plan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/08/tragedy-america-great-food-stamp-binge/#ixzz2bgjaIv5O

Rich Hoffman

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

The Best Talk Show Host in America: Doc Thompson ignites the flames of liberty with ‘The Blaze’!

What is the strongest beacon for freedom in the world today?  Is it Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, John Stossel, or any other modern commenter, publisher, or financier?  I would say not.  Is it the multitude of freedom oriented websites like FreedomWorks, or American Thinker?  I would say not.  Rather, I would say that it’s a new force to the entertainment world.  Several years ago the former Fox News star Glenn Beck started his own news organization called The Blaze—which is changing the way the news is delivered.  As an online publication that rivals traditional magazines like Time, Life, and People it also specializes in providing the latest scoop on news stories in the way that made the Drudge Report so important to the art of breaking news stories.  But it’s not even The Blaze that I’m speaking about—not as a website based news source.  In January of 2013 Glenn Beck created The Blaze Radio Network which is an all internet radio station that broadcasts online outside of FCC regulation.  Normally these kinds of operations are fly-by-night and built with pure heart, but little money.  Well, not anymore.  Glenn Beck has invested a considerable amount of his personal fortune into the new Blaze Radio Network and brought in top talent like Doc Thompson and his partner Skip to provide 24 hour a day seven days a week news and entertainment radio that is unparalleled anywhere.

I was very disheartened to learn that my friend Doc Thompson was leaving Cincinnati.  I have been a talk radio fan all my life.  I used to lie in bed as a kid and listen to radio broadcasts from 700 WLW and WMOH till the pre-dawn hours while the rest of the world slept, literally and figuratively.   During my working years, I would listen to talk radio through long hours of 2nd and 3rd shift hard labor.  As I grew older and had started participating in talk radio actively I enjoyed being more than just a listener, especially on Doc Thompson’s Cincinnati show.  I respect the art of being a talk show host.  But Doc was a bit too freedom oriented for the sports talk stations of Cincinnati, and was too big of a name to put on a station that didn’t have a voice equaling his own booming enunciations.  So it didn’t take long before Doc moved on to the Detroit market leaving a void in Cincinnati, and the freedom movement that was so strong here.

There are other voices, but on FCC controlled radio stations, they are somewhat handcuffed by their station managers, and the advertisers who essentially control the content.  Doc has been a breath of fresh air wherever he has worked, but the stations he worked for never allowed him to utilize his full potential of talent consisting of humor, deep political analysis, and a tremendous range of topics that he can discuss.  But more than anything, Doc is the opposite of the kind of radio host that Howard Stern has been—he has deep convictions and tries to be a good person.  He wants to do good with his microphone, and that has hindered him during his long career………..until now.  Glenn Beck hired Doc Thompson in January to start off his new Blaze Radio Network with the 6 AM to 9 AM morning show just ahead of Glenn Beck’s national show and the gloves have come off.  For the benefit of my readers here I have placed two of Doc’s recent shows on the following video clips so that they can be listened to on demand in their entirety.  I would suggest playing them and filling your day with their contents.  There is a lot of comedy, loads of great information, and some deep sincerity from Doc and Skip which is typical of them in what I consider to be one of the best radio show in the history of talk radio that was only made possible because of Glenn Beck’s innovative, and bold investment in the enterprise.

The reason I consider The Blaze Radio Network to be the purest beacon available for the freedom movement is because it is free, and it is not under the regulation of the government in any way.  This allows the programming on the Blaze Radio to be unusually unconcerned with regulators who can threaten to pull their license if at least a balanced approach to statist concepts isn’t adhered to.  Every television, and radio station in America is typically concerned about these federal regulations, and it does water down the content, even on programs like Rush Limbaugh’s.

Doc and Skip are for the first times in their life completely free as talk show hosts, and they are making excellent use of that liberty.  Before any organization can hope to be a beacon of freedom to the listeners they service, they must in fact be free themselves.  Because of the commitment of Glenn Beck into The Blaze Radio Network, it is the most “free thinking” broadcasting anywhere in the world.  It functions the way that The Constitution intended with the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, to use free speech not in a destructive way to boost ratings with sex, and deviant discussion, but with high quality content from people who care deeply about the topics they discuss.  And for the first time, radio hosts who work for The Blaze have a boss in Glenn Beck who is just as committed to liberty as they are.

I know Doc Thompson personally.  I have been to dinner with him where he and Skip would not stop doing research for their radio show even at 1 AM in the morning.  Doc never turns off his engine.  He never completely shuts down.  Radio work and the matters of current events are his number one passion.  He is constantly analyzing material for his shows, and he ruthlessly looks for fresh content.  Doc is one of the hardest working people I know, and in entertainment/news, this is certainly the case.

Doc has been fighting for a chance to do what he is currently doing for more than 20 years of radio in cities all over the United States.  In one of his darkest days of recent past, he never let up off the gas.  I remember vividly when his wife Yuna Lee left her television job in Richmond, Virginia so she could finally marry Thompson after several years of a long distance relationship.  Finally they were going to be together, living not only in the same house, but in the same city.  Yuna boldly left her job to take a job at Channel 2 in Dayton where she works to this day.  But the very moment the two were married, Doc lost his job in Cincinnati.  He was always a bit too passionate, too “wholesome,” and too “Tea Party” for the Cincinnati stations, which left him jobless again looking for a home.  Even in those moments when he was most tempted to change his style to fit the producers of radio shows, he didn’t.  He held tight for a syndication deal because he knew he was that good and he needed someone to believe in him with financial backing.

Glenn Beck was that guy, and the benefit to freedom is that finally Doc Thompson has NOTHING in his way to be a serious pain in the ass to statists, progressives, communists, union thugs, race baiters, education empires, and every parasitic entity hanging from the halls of government.  For the first time in his professional life Doc Thompson is free to provide the kind of radio that hasn’t been conceived since the very early days of radio broadcasting before the FCC put its claws into the lives of every radio listener.  Doc takes full advantage of this freedom, as evidence in the over 5 hours of broadcasting played above.  I hope you took full advantage of those clips to let Doc’s voice bring the sounds of freedom to your ears.  The Blaze Radio Network it has nearly replaced all my old news sources.  I play it all the time, at home, in the garage, in my back yard, in my car, on my iPod—especially during flights, on vacation, in the middle of the mountains, and in the deepest valleys while camping.  Because The Blaze is broadcast across the internet, and podcasting is always available on Soundcloud, every show Doc and Skip do can be listened to on demand.  By loading his segments onto my iPod I can attend business engagements pausing his information, then resuming when my time frees up.  When riding my motorcycle, I can broadcast Doc into my helmet through my iPod, which is a completely new technology.  Years ago the only way to listen to a radio on a motorcycle was to have a bulky device attached to the handle bars.  Now I can hear Doc anywhere at anytime of day and the information is free.  CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO FIND DOC’S BROADCASTS ON SOUNDCLOUD:

http://soundcloud.com/docthompson

For traditional radio talk show listeners, The Blaze Radio Network has a full staff that broadcasts out of New York the news at the top and bottom of every hour just like most other AM stations.  They are doing much better work than Fox News is, and certainly leaps and bounds above CNN, MSNBC, or any other news source.  The Blaze guys are on top of just about everything 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  They are always there.

For these reasons listed above Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network is the best and most authentic example of a voice for the freedom movement that there is in the world.  Doc works harder, plays harder, and has the tools in his tool box given to him by Glenn Beck to be a monstrous success, which he and Skip are well on their way to becoming.  What they are doing is the wave of the future, and the most effective form of new media there is.  I trust The Blaze in ways that I have never trusted any other news source. Their news is good even when they don’t agree with what the other side has to say. Such as in this example:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/we-should-be-like-jay-leno-glenn-beck-defends-tonight-show-host-in-moving-monologue/

The Blaze is a game changer in the news business, and Doc Thompson working for the Blaze Radio Network is a game changer in the world of radio.  The radio business will never be the same again, now that Doc Thompson is loose and able to communicate the truth where it lives most brilliantly, at The Blaze operated by Glenn Beck and managed by hundreds of wonderful people who deeply care about the state of America and it’s role to the rest of the world who look with longing eyes toward the freedoms that only we have.  I would recommend dear reader that you tune in to this wonderful tool for freedom and support it with your attention which will be mutually beneficial for many years to come.

Rich Hoffman

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!