Tag: education funding

The New Miami Traffic Cameras: Sending over $1 million dollars to Optotraffic LLC of Lanham, Md.

And to think that I actually wondered–even after extensive research on my new novel Tail of the Dragon, that exposing the police as unjustified tax collectors with money grabbing traffic citations was fair, or even right. I worried that exposing the practice of “citation quotas” among the Tennessee Highway Patrol was responsible, as I did in my fictional novel so to make people aware that the tickets were not issued under the guise of safety but strictly as a revenue generating mechanism. I wondered about it until stories began breaking in Ohio of small community police departments that have been caught issuing tickets in order to supplement their police operating budgets, so they could avoid tax levies that obviously wouldn’t pass under such harsh economic conditions. Police have turned to traffic citations in order to tax citizens to pay their own salaries and pensions. Police have been caught in a big way in Arlington Heights and other Ohio communities, but now the cops aren’t even doing the work of pulling over residents. In New Miami they are simply setting up speed cameras, taking a picture of license plates; an out-of-state company processes the citation report and sends them back to the police to issue out as mailed citations that require the vehicle owner to pay a $95 dollar offense per citation. This practice is without question taxation without representation.

In the period between October 1st and October 12th 2012 New Miami, Ohio collected over 1000 speeding violations generating more than $101,000 dollars. The village of New Miami then splits the take with the company who owns the equipment. New Miami kept $57,000, while the remaining 40 percent, or $38, goes to Optotraffic LLC of Lanham, Md., who administers the program. Optotraffic gets to sit back in the faraway land of Maryland and collect 40% of every ticket their machines generate without even having a cop on the ground to do the work. The business is extremely lucrative for the thieving natures of politicians who of course set many of the speed limits unnecessarily low all over the state and country so to provide the F.O.P offices as a means to fund themselves with supplemental income at their discretion.

It was only a few months ago that I received a ticket along that same road, RT 127 about 25 miles north of this New Miami location in the town of Camden. An officer gave me a ticket for going a minuscule 88 miles per hour at 12:30 in the morning as I was coming back from an event up in Greenville. The snot nosed kid was about as old as my own kids and had about as much worldly wisdom as a potato, as he attempted to lecture me on the dangers of driving so fast until he saw how pissed off I was. He being still young and idealistic believed he was actually saving lives by issuing tickets. What he has yet to realize is that his F.O.P brothers who were playing cards at their union hall were using the lad to do their dirty work and make the money to pay their salaries so Camden could avoid going to tax payers for a police levy to cover their extraordinary salaries and lucrative retirements. The older cops hadn’t told the wet nurse cop that most of the laws created at the state level were made under lobby pressure from the Fraternal Order of Police to create means for raising money. The stretch of road I was on could easily afford to have a car traveling 100 MPH, yet the speed was set at the turtle crawl pace of 55 MPH, and like the Sammy Hagar song of the 80’s says, “I can’t drive, 55.” I never have been, and I never will. This has put me into courtrooms so many times to face judges and clerk of courts that could equate each instance to all the years of my life times four. I’ve been to court more times over the years than I have sat at my own dinner table—so I know up close and personal what a racket the whole process is. I write about my experiences in fictional stories to let people know what goes on behind the political scenes so that they can know that it is taxation and not safety that are the real concerns over traffic citations. Knowing that, I refuse to slow down out of my own personal rebellion against a system that is foolishly corrupt. Traffic laws are simply a blanket thrown over a bed where a massive orgy is taking place. Under the sheets are insurance companies, politicians, law enforcement contractors, and many government employees—most notably cops.

Ironically one of these camera set ups mentioned above is in the town of Seven Mile where some might recognize as the fictional town of Fort Seven Mile from another one of my novels, The Symposium of Justice. I used the name of that town because I had always liked it, and needed to have a good name for a small Ohio town to serve as a backdrop for my storyline. In that book police allowed a known rapist out of jail and inserted him into the general population hoping to scare the citizens into voting for the support of more police officers. The rapist in my book Symposium was assaulting young women and scaring the female population into a froth of desiring more police presence at any cost. Now with these new cameras, a cop isn’t even needed in a car. The camera runs 24 hours a day all days of the week and doesn’t get paid to even do a job. Instead all the people involved in the scam get to sit back and let the machine do all the work. In many ways, as extreme as my scenario in Symposium seemed at the time of 2004 America, these speed cameras are far worse. At the rate of citations in just 12 days of operation the new speed cameras of New Miami, and Seven Mile are projected to generate $ 3,041,666.67. Of that money $ 1,216,666.67 is projected for the company in Maryland who makes the cameras, and that is just off three cameras. There is a plan to put these cameras all over the state and nation, which is a plot so sinister, it moves beyond the belief of any novel plotline. In fact, I wouldn’t have even considered such a thing in one of my stories, because I would have never thought anyone would believe it—yet here it is in reality.

Like the school levies designed to pay members of the teachers unions enormous sums of money for their government work, police and fire fighters also look for tax money to supplement their incomes while they sit around their union halls playing video games and cards waiting for something to happen. Their traditional reason for asking tax payers to approve levy requests was to make their communities safer. It has taken a long time for the mask to be pulled off the traffic cops and what their real intentions have been, of course under the guise of “safety.” Now, the traffic cameras prevent even the staffing of trolls in patrol cars. Now a traffic ticket is mailed to the violator without any interaction at all while the police on staff have even less to do, and an out-of-state company makes millions off the backs of tax payers who didn’t even know that their taxes have went up without their approval. Of course portions of that money will find its way into the lobbyists of state and federal governments and will pay for the lap dances of more than a few comb over politicians in favor of lowering speed limits to generate more of these citations and pay for more illicit behavior on their end, and more lap dances and prostitutes while the cameras do all the work. (Firsthand knowledge)

Police and politicians will declare, “If you don’t want to get a ticket, then slow down to the speed limit.” But such statements are of course ridiculous. The world is getting faster, not slower, and the automatic panic reaction to every accident or social complaint by a politician is to put up a new stop sign, stop light, or lower the speed limit to show the public that they are looking out for the concern of their constituents. What they don’t declare is that they like to pass laws to give work to sign manufacturers, traffic light contractors, and now Optotraffic LLC of Lanham, Md., and that the law has nothing to do with safety, but about revenue generation. These relationships are an unholy alliance who protect the labor unions of law enforcement with their radical benefits packages while appeasing power hungry politicians using radar cameras like the ones built by Optotraffic LLC to make boatloads of cash from small towns all over America for doing nothing but exploiting the stupidity of everyone involved, and the never-ending cries for more safety by society’s most docile, and pathetic squeaky wheels.

 

Rich Hoffman

I appreciate the support my readers here provide me with by clicking on the pictures below to enter the doors to even more adventure.  The support is providing the tools needed to expand life in ways that will ultimately create the means to boundless imagination.  For a sample of such projects, click here and witness one of my ever reaching projects. 

 

Obama Hates Money and those Who Make It: The Masks of Communism

The biggest weakness of the Obama Presidency is his hatred of the wealthy, which was an undeniable fact concluded upon after the presidential debate with Mitt Romney on October 16, 2012. Obama has a real problem–that no matter how much he says in an election year that he loves the free enterprise system, and the art of business—his actions speak otherwise. The gist of Obama’s debate performance against Mitt Romney was that Romney was evil because he’s a “rich guy” and that he only paid 14% of his $13.7 million dollars made during 2011 to federal taxes. Obama painted a picture of Romney as a mean, evil, corporate executive that isn’t paying his fair share. The insinuation from Obama is that “fair share” is determined by some mysterious intelligence of a mythical “middle class” and Romney has a moral obligation to pay taxes at the level determined by that mob of democracy. If Romney tries to pay less tax money through deductions and oversea investments with tax shelters, he is in some way disingenuous—even crooked.

Repeatedly during the aforementioned debate Obama stated that Romeny was paying a tax rate that was less than the average person in the middle class. What Obama declined to mention was that Mitt Romney paid in 2011 $1.94 million in taxes to the federal government. The average “middle class” person would be lucky if they even broke paying $10,000 in federal taxes and around 49% of all American citizens don’t pay any federal income tax. So the comment that Mitt Romney and other wealthy Americans owe more tax money—far more than other people who are equal people in the eyes of the law, all use the same roads, the same government services, yet the wealthy are supposed to be happy about paying over $1 million in federal taxes while many Americans simply don’t contribute equally, is preposterous. Obama thinks that by feeding that fire of guilt Romney should feel guilty and inclined to pay even more than he does now which is absolutely laughable.

I have pointed out on many occasions that the root for this kind of thinking comes philosophically from Karl Marx and is by the most fundamental definition communism. Of course Obama doesn’t call himself a communist, but should not be surprised when people call him a communist, because when an argument is made that the “rich” owe the “poor” parts of themselves, their property, and their livelihoods, it is communism behind the mask of progressivism. It continues to be baffling how and why the media and society at large lets politicians like Obama get away with such criticisms. In the scheme of things Mitt Romney is a much more important person than the average “middle class” union stooge who works 9 AM to 5 PM and expects to be paid six figures to do basic labor work. Those ideas are the fantasies of communists, not capitalists, and America became a great country because of capitalism—not crony capitalism, but laissez-faire capitalism—the more pure, the more powerful the economy. Such statements are beyond dispute, and cannot be refuted by a logical mind not seduced by machine politics and half-baked philosophies.

Obama whether consciously or unconsciously is behaving as a communist because of his severe hatred of the wealthy. I’ve always suspected it, but for me the information was 100% confirmed when I realized that Obama and other political progressives were saying the exact same kinds of dialogue sentence for sentence as was used in the great novel called We The Living covering the events of the Red Revolution in the Soviet Union in 1917 through 1926. We The Living was published in 1936 and to this day is one of the most vivid examples of what life behind the Iron Curtain in Russia was in the beginning days of communism in that very large country destined for economic failure. These events brought to America what was called the Red Decade starting with intelligentsia from 1930 to 1940, which was a period where communism was offered to America as an offering to future economic growth. Out of that communist pressure came The New Deal and Social Security from President Roosevelt. The names were changed at the time to reflect the independence of America but progressivism in America has very few differences from the communism of the early Soviet Union. Is it any wonder that Obama is referred to a “socialist” or a “communist?” People who say such things understand the definition of communism and know they have at their philosophical roots a severe hatred of the “rich.”

Obama’s biggest failure is that he shares with world-wide Marxists, communists, socialists and progressives a lack of understanding of the value of money. Keynesian economics reflect this lack of value in their economic models and the same disconnect can be seen in the Obama Administration. This is why the debt has increased in such an out-of-control manner under Obama’s watch. This is also why he thinks it’s fair that Romney pay millions more in taxes than the average everyday person, even though technically Romney is no better or worse of a person than anybody else. The only difference between Romney and the average “middle class” person is that Romney makes millions of dollars each year. Obama views such money-making ability as though Romney is just luckier than everyone else and the money he made is part of some ridiculous finite resource like fossil fuels, water, or air. To people like Obama, money is a mystery to them, so they believe that Romney has a disproportionate amount of it because he’s greedy. It is completely foreign to communist minds that America could support millions of Mitt Romney’s if all Americans worked as hard and were as creative with their money-making opportunities as Romney has been. That is why in America under laissez-faire capitalism we term acquiring money as “making money,” because it is wealth that is created under capitalism, and money is not viewed as a limited resource. It can be made.

Obama clearly doesn’t understand this, and his anger at Romney for being a “fat cat” is obvious. It is no wonder the American economy is faltering, the President of The United States doesn’t even understand the basics of money or the value of it. All he seems able to do is recite the historical communist argument of his party platform as a progressive from the early days of the Russian Revolution. It is too bad that history is so easily forgotten, because the argument at these presidential debates could be elevated if only people knew what the President truly represented as a politician instead of hiding his hatred of money, and the people who make it, behind what is sold as legitimate politics accepted blindly by the types of people whose knowledge of history is as deep as a dried up-stream in a scorching desert. The hatred for the wealthy is the key to why America has a faltering economy, and is becoming more akin to a mob of fools addicted to government services demanding free money from the gods of productivity, and that people like Romney owe the rest of the world the gains of their investments as a selfless testament to existence for the end result of the destitute.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 

The “Pet Rocks” at Lakota: Teachers and their scam against the public

For my national and international readers, you might be confused by this article, but be assured; the contents of this essay do affect you. My conflict with the Lakota School System, which is my home public education institution, has been robust and much discussion has occurred at this site about it. So it must be discussed now that the State of Ohio has issued the report card for public schools over the more than 600 districts, what the intentions and results are of the report. The timing of the report card of course is to help schools who have a November levy on the ballot pass their tax increases, which is the political band-aid expected to perpetually kick the can down the road of public education sustainability. The report card in essence is a complete scam, and does not even begin to tell the story of why public schools need higher taxes on property in order to provide a baby sitting service for thousands of district parents at the cost of tens of thousands to generate the revenue.

The Lakota School District achieved an Excellent with Distinction rating yet again even after tens of millions of dollars have been cut from the budget and dozens and dozens of jobs have been removed from the work force. Superintendent Mantia knowing that I would point out this issue made a public statement, “When someone says we cut the budget by millions and the results are still just as good, we need to remember these results are from last year. We had many teachers who helped our kid’s learn this material who are not here anymore.” She knew that I would say………”see—I told everybody so.”

http://westchesterbuzz.com/2012/10/17/lakota-local-schools-earns-excellent-with-distinction-rating/

The reality is that Mantia is caught between a rock and a hard place. She is paid by the residents of the district nearly a quarter million dollars to play whatever political, and economic game she needs to in order to ensure that Lakota gets whatever rankings it needs, and to preserve a strong bond rating. But she is alluding to her statement that Lakota may be downgraded in the future because of the layoffs—which at some point she will need to do if she wishes to pass a school levy, because people like me will always point out that there is no reason to pay higher taxes if the district is getting more for less. However, if she allows that to happen she will be a failure as a superintendent, so she is literally caught in a perilous political position between letting Lakota become downgraded, or continuing to prove that Lakota can cut, and cut, and cut without losing the quality of its institutional education power.

Cincinnati Public Schools was downgraded by this same report card and they have spent increasingly more amounts of money on their schools, and they are currently selling their November levy as a fix for returning back to the column of a good school. However whether or not a school district is successful or not has almost nothing to do with the teachers or the school as an institution, but rather the schools are a direct reflection of the community. The myth of higher paid teachers’ equally improve schools has officially been busted. If the situation concerning Lakota didn’t prove it to the world, or the lack or performance in places like CPS or Lockland who was recently caught cheating on their performance ratings to maintain their statuses, money spent on education has virtually nothing to do with the end result of good student production.

I have said often that all the teachers at Lakota could be fired and replaced by clamoring idiots who know virtually nothing of the world around them, and the kids of Lakota would still be good, and the district would still be rated Excellent with Distinction. The reason is simple, at Lakota the demographics mandate that successful children will become somewhat successful adults because per capita, there are more homes with two parents in them who care about the quality of life for their children. There are more children not living in poverty. There are not very many apartment dwellers in the Lakota district allowing residents to move into a nice district without having a direct financial stake in the taxes paid. There are fewer welfare recipients per household. There are fewer homes that have step children co-habiting with mixed marriages. In other words, many of the parents at Lakota take an active interest in their children’s lives, they take personal responsibility for the child’s behavior more so than other school districts with much more chaotic family structures, and the average income of the residents of Lakota are higher, meaning the children have a higher quality of life to grow up in. Districts who have the opposite of the above mentioned qualities will tend to have declining results in education performance standards no matter how much money is spent on the school, because the school is only the tail that is wagged by the dog—the parent. The process does not work the other way around as the unionized teachers would advocate. For clarity on this issue all anyone need do is remember the teacher’s strike in Chicago during the summer of 2012. Virtually every school in America that has a teaching work force that is unionized has the exact same problems as shown in Chicago. The reality is that the teachers of these schools have sold the public a “pet rock” making their services sound better, and more valuable than they really are.

The biggest villain of the entire process is the trend (legal requirement) to only hire as Superintendents of these public schools former teachers who were members of the union in the past, and remain loyal to the teachers union even as members of management. Teachers with more than 15 years or more experience tend to become radicalized by their extensive time served in a labor union, and Superintendent Mantia has been shown clearly, and her comments reflect it, that she is willing to toss infinite amounts of money at teachers’ wages, which are the real drivers of tax increases on private property. The situation becomes simply a loaded scam designed to pay teachers for a job that is grossly inflated with value.

Who says that a teacher is worth $60,000 a year, and who says that they must have a Master’s degree to teach a 1st grader when home schooled children perform better than the public educated one in most every instance? Who says that a teacher should be paid so much for fewer than 8 hours of contracted work and summer’s off? Who says that districts should be required to pay for all this nonsense when the real value actually comes from the families themselves and not the school? The school is simply the benefactor of a good community not the driver.

http://www.pulsejournal.com/news/news/lakota-earns-11th-year-of-excellent/nSfnb/

So keep in mind all these facts when you go to the polls to vote for your local school levy. Understand that the school is simply a parasite to the good deeds of your family. And if your family sucks, your child will most likely grow up to suck. Paying more money in taxes will not change whether or not a child grows up to be a low quality person. Success cannot be purchased with a more expensive teacher. It can only be acquired through hard work, family love, and personal dedication toward the art of success. The correct thing to do would be to take away the money that feeds the radical labor unions behind the teaching profession and force them to come back down to reality. It is irresponsible to pass school levy issues for public education and not force the hypocrisy to the surface with the grim measurements of reality. And that reality is it is not teachers who make a student successful, they are only supplements to the work a parent do. The reality is that if the parent does not do the work of raising a child, no amount of money spent on the teaching profession can save them. And with that said, virtually every statement made by public schools is a bold face lie. For the proof, just look at the Lakota School District in Southwestern Ohio and everything else will be confirmed without effort. Click here for a review.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

The Cry Baby American Teacher: Reasons why education reform requires a complete change

One of the most laughable documents I have ever read can be seen below, where a so-called “educator” by the name of John Kuhn utters his distorted vision of reality from the point of view of the American teacher. But within the laughs that are sure to come from the minds and mouths of any sensible reader, there are kernels of understanding that can be had from such diabolical diatribes. The most telling revelation to come from the below article is just what teachers instructing the American youth believe the idea economic/education system should be. The answer is that it is Scandinavia that they point to as the world’s most obvious success story. Scandinavia consisting of the countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland has developed a particular model of welfare, employment and economic governance based on universal access to tax-financed social services and social insurance. Scandinavian countries currently utilize full employment secured by expansive macro-economic policies and active labor market manipulation, highly organized labor markets, corporatist interest mediation, and so on. In short Scandinavian countries utilize central control of their resources by government with a large public buy-in with their tax resources, and American teachers are pointing to this cluster of countries as the utopian model they wish to instruct upon the future American society.

http://theeducatorsroom.com/2012/09/the-exhaustion-of-the-american-teacher/

Apparently John Kuhn, the author of that article has failed to realize that America is currently in another Revolutionary War, and the cause of the revolution is due to teachers like him. I for one do not wish to follow in the footsteps of Scandinavia, who as a cluster of European style countries are the least of the evil choices that countries long suppressed with kings, princes, and socialism have found that by introducing a few free market ideas—such as IKEA, that they can expand their economic influence. The people of these countries have long been defeated of their individual liberty and outlook for personal freedom. They are often happy to concede their incomes through taxation in exchange for lengthy vacations and hefty retirement packages. But Americans aren’t. In The United States a large number of people have tasted freedom and they don’t want any variation of socialism that Europe has offered, and this is the cause of the current Revolution in America.

John Kuhn complains that parents are not involved with their children, and this is why teachers are more important than ever. But what teachers who think like Kuhn don’t realize is that the same progressive policies that have put teachers as the bastions of democracy and social organization in every community across America, it is those same progressive policies that have destroyed the American family. It is those progressive policies of government intervention, and centralized control of the America family that have told parents that it is the school that will interfere with the power of the father if a child comes to school with bruises on their backs. The American teachers like Kuhn have injected themselves into the lives of many thousands of children and prosecuted parents for suspected abuse often. The modern teacher sees their role as protectors of children from their parents, and as the ultimate instructor of a child’s fate, and in response, parents have surrendered their authority to the John Kuhns in the teaching profession.

To understand why so many parents are on drugs these days and exposing their children to treacherous conditions at home, look to the progressive welfare programs that created no incentive to be productive adults. To understand why the divorce rate is so high look at a college education system that has produced too many lawyers who need divorces to pay for their occupations, and advertise the destruction of the family as a way to put food on their own tables. To ask why parents drop off their child at school and expect a teacher to do all the work look at the social intrusion that the school and their teachers inject in court rooms all over the country and measure that against the amount of money that a family pays in personal property taxes and the answer will present itself. If society is failing it is due to the largest influence in most people’s lives, their public education experience. The fault is on the teachers themselves who bred into society the kind of lackadaisical life approach taught to students in America that has degenerated every year since the inception of the Department of Education in 1979. The education system has been a failure. It has destroyed families, it has taught our youth the wrong values, and it doesn’t lead the world, it follows, and that is just not acceptable.

The reason for the rise in films against the union controlled education system like Waiting for Superman, and Won’t Back Down is because there are many in America who are sick of the job that teachers have done with American youth, and we want to be free of it. We don’t agree with the kind of education modern teachers are providing, and we want to reject the service in favor of something driven from the free market, not centrally located at the Department of Education that is locked arm and arm with The United Nations. We don’t give a rat’s ass what a bunch of stuffy comb-over bureaucrats cooked-up at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2002, where Scandinavia was presented as the education/economic model of the future. It means nothing in a country known for its innovation, where it has been recognized that such education philosophies will not take America were we want to go, and that is to be the “best,” not just a notable player at the table of a world economy.

I personally have no love for the European and in the type of revolution that I see coming, would not hesitate upon that day to plant the American flag square into the eye socket of a European socialist dandy serving on the board of the World Economic Forum. They have a right to their beliefs, but not into forcing my participation—and this is what they are demanding of all Americans, and why there is push-back against teachers. American teachers are the advocates of this European model, this copy-cat approach to education looking to Scandinavia to provide the world with the kind of mixed economy socialism offers in the ultimate utopia with just enough controlled capitalism to make a little money. I reject that approach and I will not participate peacefully. My squabble is not one where intend to impose my beliefs upon my neighbors, but when my neighbors intend to impose upon me with higher taxes, they are forcing my participation in a system that I utterly reject.

Educator John Kuhn is right about one thing however, the anger at education goes beyond corporate donations to education reformers and movies attacking the control labor unions have on public education. The old Bolshevik Revolution mantra about the plight of the proletariat fighting against the wealthy bourgeois is old and worn out, and is always at the heart of what these deranged socialist loving educators utter. It is also what they teach our youth—and it is for that reason that more and more people are beginning to think the way I do—that public education needs a major overhaul and cannot be saved in its current form. It is not the task of America to copy Denmark, Norway, or Sweden, and to a more limited extent, the other Nordic countries: Finland and Iceland. Scandinavian nations are noted internationally for their peacefulness, social and gender equality, strong labor unions and social democratic parties, expansive governments, and high taxes, just to mention a few salient features. They are a socialist oriented cluster of countries that is fine for them, but not right for America and it would be advisable that educators like John Kuhn who are so in love with such places on earth buy a plane ticket and move to those frosty climates to endure the communist dreams of their politicians. In America, I want the youth of The United States to learn from a much different type of teacher and that anxiety will only increase as this new American Revolution churns up past rhetorical ideas and turns to actual military maneuvers. But rest assured there will not be a quiet compliance to the direction intended by the minds of American intelligentsia because they are not acting on behalf of the nation that became the greatest in the world. Instead they wish to be one collective head in a global crowd, which is not even close to being acceptable by the standard of traditional America.

Conflict is unavoidable because the differences in philosophy are too great.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

‘Dirty Dancing’ Rebellion Against Ayn Rand: Why Hollywood is so far on the political left

(Note–the hotlinks on this page are full of support information. Click on them for more information to dive deeper into the history shown below.)

If it’s not yet obvious to the average person, there is a deep hatred for Ayn Rand in Hollywood, which has been infected with a collectivism ideology that runs deep in the entertainment culture. So when Atlas Shrugged Part 2 hit theaters last week, the ripple of anger resounding through the progressive community was one of utmost panic. But where does this anger come from and why is it there? For a hint as to the start of it one has to trace the origins of communist infiltration into Hollywood through the Democratic Party during the 1940’s and 1950’s that was very real in spite of the protests lobbied against the participants of the McCarthy hearings. Ayn Rand, Walt Disney, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Ronald Reagan and many others joined together to warn movie studios of this invasion coming into America through the entertainment labor unions, and prepared a pamphlet to protect themselves from communist influence. CLICK HERE TO READ THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT.

However, as more progressive political types came into power, and the old guard in Hollywood died off, people like Wayne, Disney, Heston, and Rand—leaving the next generation of film makers to control the financing of movies and what kind of actors, writers, and producers would be in movies, a shift into communist theory began to take hold. This is how Hollywood became so far on the political left. These events happened rapidly during the Reagan White House years as films simultaneously exploited violence and individualism while at the same time promoting collectivism. Studios had to make this concession because individualism is what Americans buy tickets to see, heroic actors like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and Clint Eastwood all political conservatives were extremely popular at the box office while the communists worked their long-term plan, the gradual erosion of American value with small doses of collectivism that would add up over time so slowly that like the hands of a clock, were hard to see moving. To see a modern example of this mixed message Hollywood creation of a utopian existence that is the foundation of their communist background just look at the trailer of the new Tom Hanks film Cloud Atlas. (By the way, I’ll probably see the movie because it looks good, in spite of its collectivist, Kant-like philosophic message.)


Tom Hanks is a great actor, but is a byproduct of the modern Hollywood system. Actors by their nature are not persons of great conviction and they are very vulnerable to the type of diatribes discussed at dinner parties and fundraisers that they all attend in order to secure financing for their films. For the last thirty years, many of the people who have been funding films have been George Soros types who openly wish to turn America into a global community by destroying the wonderful images of the past, with demonized appraisal in the current time turning an entire generation of American youth against their parents and grandparents generation, which was carefully outlined in the 1958 book The Naked Communist. For Hanks to survive in Hollywood he adapted his thinking to the movers and shakers of the film industry and gradually they have separated themselves from the Clint Eastwood/Arnold Schwarzenegger ultra-man models. Progressive Hollywood financial backers have been so successful they have even managed to reinvent the ultimate male superman James Bond into a more progressive hero played by Daniel Craig. The modern Bond is much less sure of himself than the Bonds of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan which is to reflect the progressive Hollywood goal of diminishing individual achievement.

Part of that erosion of the ultra strong male, and the ultra sexy female traits coming out of “old Hollywood” was an eradication of the old symbols. Walt Disney has been smeared as being anti-Semitic; Mel Gibson’s career was completely trashed as he was baited by the media continuously after his very successful film The Patriot—covering The American Revolution in a positive light and of course The Passion of Christ. But behind these schemes was an attempt to eliminate the literary material that Hollywood actors and producers secretly loved, because it made them a lot of money, and that was Ayn Rand and the ubermensch characters of her novels. Their image and their legacy would have to be destroyed otherwise collectivism would never manifest within the entertainment industry the way it was intended. And one of the ways that screenwriters wanting to suck up to film financiers under the advice of movie producers was to smear Rand in subtle—cleaver ways to shape the next generation of youth into a belief that Ayn Rand was the ultimate villain to everything that was good. One film that was produced in 1987 that was very popular, won Academy Awards for the songs it produced and played on top 40 radio stations becoming one of the most popular women’s film in history—the extremely progressive and fashionable film Dirty Dancing.

A year ago my sister had baby twins and while we were in the hospital waiting for their birth some of her childhood friends where there to greet my new niece and nephew to the world. Growing up my sister and her friends were absolutely in love with the movie Dirty Dancing which seemed innocent enough. The songs were catchy and what was the harm in a story, it was just fun—right. Wrong. The plot of Dirty Dancing covers many of the progressive issues so important to specifically the Democratic Party–class warfare, abortion rights, the breakdown of personal family value, and the demonization of Ayn Rand as a writer. There are also seductive allusions toward ménage à trois to help usher in the open sexual relationships and the un-possessive sex of communist utopian fantasy. When the villain of the movie name Robbie declares that some people are more important than others, he then pulls out a copy of The Fountainhead that is well-worn and apparently all marked up with personal notes. He offers it to the female lead character played by Jennifer Grey, who then heroically pours ice down the crotch of his pants and tells him that he disgusts her.

While at the hospital Cincinnati television station Channel 19 wanted to do an interview with me, so I left the lobby to go down into the parking lot to meet with the reporter and while I was gone my wife got an earful from some of my sister’s friends who live in our school district, which was the content of the interview. I was talking about all the reasons the local school levy should fail speaking out against the proposed tax increases which my sister’s friends supported. My wife of course defended me while I was gone, but the gist of the women’s complaints was that they had children in the district who couldn’t ride the school bus because of me, due to the district cutting busing to punish the tax payers for not passing the last school tax increase. My sister’s friends thought I shouldn’t speak out against the levy on TV because they were having a hard time driving the children to school because of the loss of public transportation. She wanted the tax increase to pass so that she had transport for her children to go to school, saving her the responsibility.

When I returned from the television appearance my wife told me what had happened and the rest of the day was stressful. I wasn’t about to back off my position, and they were blaming me for their personal situations. As young girls of 14 to 16 years old in 1987 Dirty Dancing was their favorite movie. Now these people are parents of their own kids, and they still have in their mind the values they grew up with, which films like Dirty Dancing helped shape. Dirty Dancing alone didn’t do all the damage, but it certainly did plant the seeds for progressive thinking. Women like my sister’s friends are more likely to vote in favor of school levies favoring the labor union position, more likely to vote for politicians like Obama, to vote in favor of pro abortion policies because their favorite movie Dirty Dancing was all about those issues, and they think of that movie while they listen to music on the radio to this very day and hear the songs that remind them of that film.

Ayn Rand warned about this, and as can be seen clearly now that hindsight is available to us, the makers of Dirty Dancing were taking the progressive political position against Ayn Rand and the types of characters, and personal philosophy she advocated. Of course the villain character in Dirty Dancing who liked Ayn Rand was a social climber was more like Peter Keating–the villain from The Fountainhead, and certainly not the hero Howard Roark. But young girls seeing Dirty Dancing as 14-year-old girls fantasizing about being Jennifer Grey dancing with a much older Patrick Swayze and they learned that The Fountainhead was the favorite book of the disgusting villain in Dirty Dancing. The result is that they would be against that book for the rest of their lives and would discourage their own children from reading it in the future.

This all comes into play in 2012 now that many of those young 14-year-old girls are now head editors of magazines, newspapers and communications programming positions all over the country. They now have subordinates fresh out of college eating out of their hands willing to scrap their personal integrity like the Bosom Buddies television star Tom Hanks willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to social climb. This is how the hatred for Ayn Rand has become so pronounced. Over the last twenty years, Dirty Dancing is but one small film in a long line of television, movie and popular songs passing through the entertainment culture that advocate against individuality and personal liberty.

The war over personal ideas is currently at a fever pitch. The Hollywood community is absolutely insulted that the filmmakers of Atlas Shrugged Part 2 would even dare to make such a movie in spite of Hollywood’s long term commitment to ending any mention of Ayn Rand. But the fight is not over. Like one of my readers here pointed out recently, and actually gave me the Dirty Dancing reference–she was one that has taken what she has learned today and re-evaluated the past so she could verify the extent of the danger. And the situation is dangerous. The Trojan Horse has already unloaded the communist enemies behind the protective mechanisms of our culture, and it happened so gradually, and so subtly that nobody paid any attention to the messages. Unknowingly, millions upon millions of young people, who are now adults, were taught that Ayn Rand was a bad person that was selfish, delusional, and a diabolical menace to society. The trouble is, Ayn Rand was a menace to society—to the kind of society that collectivists, and communist utopians desired to build for America behind carefully placed messages such as what was seen in Dirty Dancing and thousands upon thousands of similar products produced by the entertainment industry not only to make money for the creative artists, but to undo America from the inside out and to ensure the transformation of America into a society of panicky lovers of Dirty Dancing and the fantasy of progressive social infestation.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

The Ghost of Robert Welch: Being right in a world that wished he was wrong

Robert Welch during the 1950’s and 1960’s was the epitome of a right-winged radical as defined by the left-winged radical fringe of progressive thought.  Welch was so far off the ideology of the left, that he appeared extreme to most sensible minded Americans who didn’t wish to see the communist infiltration of The United States that was happening all around them.  Everywhere Welch looked he saw a vast communist conspiracy that was a world-wide movement.  He was so concerned about this communist infiltration that he founded the John Birch Society in 1958, a group that was so conservative that it denounced presidents Nixon and Reagan as being “too liberal.”  Welch felt that the American people were divided into four groups, “communists, communist dupes or sympathizers, the uninformed who have yet to be awakened to the communist danger, and the ignorant.”  His language was harsh, showing his Baptist, North Carolina roots where he was taught at home by his mother—a school teacher.  He was a brilliant student and would later join the United States Naval  Academy and Harvard Law School, but he dropped out of both to become independently wealthy on his own efforts.  Welch was a man who was self-made, and held fierce convictions.  His view of the world was untainted by cooperative endeavor so typical in most people who work for others, so he could afford to see the world in the “long view.”  This led him to see communists everywhere, and he was at war with them using the John Birch Society as his club to defeat communism in America.  In 1958 he gave the speech seen below, and in it, many of the crazy conspiracy theories that the political left tried to discredit can be seen coming true to this very day.  Time and history have siphoned through the liars and the prophets separating the tin-hat kooks from the masks of thieves.  In that process, Robert Welch has been confirmed a prophet, and all too correct as many of the far-flung conspiracies he suggested were rooted in truth, as confirmed by the status of modern America.  Listen for yourself. 

 

Welch was in his day the modern version of Glenn Beck and Beck has seen much the same level of scrutiny that Welch did from the political left.  As modern history has shown, Beck has been much more right than wrong, most notably in declaring that the Muslim religion was attempting to form a Caliphate to unite the former Ottoman Empire, and hiding their actions behind religious debate and political sovereignty.  Welsh in his day took the facts of his time into account and added them up to the logical conclusion that the communists were attempting everything they said they would during the Bolshevik Revolution, and that was to bring communism to the entire world.  Leftists wish to practice evasion and not add up any facts, they only wish to feel their way through the world, so it is not hard to hide such conspiratorial plots from their un-inquisitive minds.  But to people who are fully awake and observing the facts of reality for their true value, people like Glenn Beck in the modern age, people like Ayn Rand from the days of Welch, or Robert Welch himself, the facts point into one direction, and the events that follow are easy to predict once they are accepted as reality. 

I didn’t know anything about Robert Welch and only learned about the events of his era, and his communist concerns by studying Ayn Rand and the events that occurred around her.  I have said much of what Robert Welch said in 1958 here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom in the modern age through independent conclusions, by simply adding up the evidence and arriving at conclusions based on that sum.  All that is required is simply acknowledging the evidence, and following it wherever it points, and in the case of modern issues, it is collectivism that is bringing much of the worlds evils upon the human race whether it is through religious rhetoric or political philosophy.  Communism as Robert Welch feared was in fact imposed upon American culture through “The Insiders,” and such an insidious plot was hatched from the basic human need of collective acceptance.  It didn’t require a great conspiracy of secrecy to induce; all that had to happen were that communists create a modern environment centered on collectivism and the world’s religions and political parties would fulfill the objectives of The Naked Communist also printed in 1958.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. 

Leftists have attempted to paint me as a radical right-winged advocate just as they painted Welch, and Rand.  But the reality is that my position is only considered radical compared to those who have accepted collectivism in various degrees out of rejection of personal liberty.  My position is the one of reason and logic built upon evidence, not emotion.  It is the advocate of emotional decisions that find their philosophies fall apart in their hands like water trying to run through their fingers.  And to be fair, few people had a history behind them to show how well capitalism worked, so communism was very appealing to a society of soft minded intellectuals.  It was easy to call Welch in 1958 a conspiracy theory advocate, because America was still riding the wave of near perfect capitalism seen in America from 1880 to about 1905.  The impact of socialism in the American economy was disguised due to the impact of World War I and World War II wrecking the world’s economy leaving only The United States to profit.  When Robert Welch gave his speech in 1958, people on the left and in the political middle giggled at Welch’s naive world vision.  But as history would prove 50 years later, Welch was correct about nearly all his assertions. 

Action is now dictated.  A choice must be made, because the mixed economy in America that has been laced with collectivist communism must be removed before America can restart its economic engine.  That requires an acknowledgment of what Welch stated half a century ago, and to understand that it has come true in our day and time.  Such times require our personal courage to make the hard decisions, the unpopular social position that is against collectivism, which is the parasite of capitalism. The decisions of today demand an understanding that the best way to help everyone in the world is to convince them all to look out for themselves and to strive for independence in a way that has only been flirted with in the past, but never fully utilized. 

But calling the prophets of American society names because they state the inconvenient won’t fix the problem.  Ignoring the facts of reality won’t make them go away.  America will not survive another 50 years of mixed capitalism induced from communist infiltration to such an extent that the original perpetrators are long since dead and have given birth to progressive spawns who no longer know the technical definition of communism, but instead call themselves democrats and progressives, or MTV viewers who get their news from Comedy Central and consider themselves “worldly.” Those same fragmented minds will always declare that people like Robert Welch were crack-pots who should be ignored.  The reason is that they are the ones who advocated the evil upon mankind thinking that they were saviors fighting on behalf of collectivism.  In reality it is collectivism that is the true evil parasite that is seeking to destroy life itself beginning with personal liberty on a long documented quest for power and conquest in the ancient tradition of candidacy into the priesthood on the shores of “Diana’s Mirror.”  Intellectuals, the same fools who advocate collectivism know precisely what my reference to “Diana’s Mirror” is.  If not, they can Google it. But it is there where the trend toward communism begins, and such roots must be pulled up from the mind of which they grow so that America can return to the foundations of freedom that made it the greatest country on earth, land of the free, and home of the brave, before communism rotted away the minds of the intellectual and seduced the hearts of the weak. 

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

Presidential Executive Orders: The path to tyranny by servents who think they’re celebrities

When people point out that government is out of control, that it must be pulled back into reasonable levels of staffing and regulation, they are often viewed by mainstream society to be radical dissidents who are acting as counter-revolutionaries to the revolution of socialism that has infected America since Teddy Roosevelt used Presidential Executive Orders to bypass congress, and make rulings like a king over the legislative process in the House of Representatives, and the Senate. For many years this process has been abused to reflect the personal desires of American presidents, but other than FDR who had 11 Executive Orders over a 16 year period, most of the presidents up until Bush Jr. showed a tendency to not abuse their power.

However starting with Bush Jr., presidents began to run the Executive Branch as a dictatorship and it cannot be questioned that the national deficit has increased along the lines of presidential executive orders. When congress and the senate learns that a President is willing to bypass the entire legislative process with monarchy-like executive orders they tend to have shown an unwillingness to engage in the hard discussions of balancing a budget and going against a president who may be their party representative, even though they know full well that the president has overstepped their boundaries in a thirst for power.

It was an Executive Order from Kennedy that made public sector unions legal in the United States which has led directly to the chaos in government budgets now being experienced with serious union resistance to austerity measures on budget cut-backs. Yet that is only one of the many Executive Orders issued by American presidents, which a small sampling can be seen below. The frequency of the issued Executive Orders obviously has increased over the last decade and demand censorship by the people of America. Reeling in the power of these politicians is the obligation of all Americans, and without a willingness to do the difficult, and “unpopular” work of tongue lashing out-of-control politicians, more Executive Orders can be expected in the future.

Here are a few of the Presidential Executive Orders over just 100 years, which started the modern progressive era that has caused so much trouble. There may be some debate about the numbers. Different sources are given below for comparison. But the general idea is evident.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED : —
T. Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 139 in 3½ years!

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
Allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
Allows the government to take over ALL FOOD resources and farms.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
Allows the government to MOBILIZE CIVILIANS INTO WORK brigades under government supervision.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
Allows the government to take over all health, EDUCATION and welfare functions.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
Designates the registration of all persons. Postmaster General to operate a “National Registration”
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
Allows the government to take over RAILROADS, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to Federal departments and agencies,
CONSOLIDATING 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international TENSIONS and economic or financial crisis.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

http://www.combatveteransforcongress.org/

There are many more but this certainly provides context of just how serious the problems over executive orders truly is. Executive Orders are too reminiscent of a dictatorship and they should be ended as a practice that is today all too common. Obama in just 4 years has entirely too many Executive Orders. The whole reason for the orders is Obama wished to by-pass the legislative branch which is the direct representatives of the American public, so in issuing Executive Orders, Obama has declared that he does not respect the wishes of the American people.

The people who are wrong in the manner of politics today are all those who wish to continue a government that spends money in a deficit toward promises that do not make American culture stronger, and has a tendency not to respect elections leaning instead on cleaver public relations and executive orders to do whatever they want, just for the sake of doing it. It is time to have the serious discussion that little of anything in our current government is good for the future of America, or the people who make it a great country. There is no compromise with the kind of people who would dare to issue Executive Orders by-passing the legislative process so that politicians who are merely public servants can pretend they are kings.

An American President is not a king, a god, or even a celebrity. Our modern public wishes to see them this way out of an immaturity that mankind has not yet grown out of, but in philosophic principal a president is a servant of the people who elect them. The legacy of a president which so many are concerned with is not in the best interest of the country, it is only in the interest of a leader. In America, we are supposed to be a people who don’t require “leaders” to hold our hands while we cross the street, or wish to start a new business. Leaders are for weaklings in other countries. Presidents are not American leaders, and therefore should not have a right to issue Executive Orders like a European monarch. Yet they do, and the public lets them because people don’t wish confrontation or even ridicule by those in power. So they smile and line up to shake the hand of a shriveling politician who disguises their bad breath with bucketfuls of mouthwash—for it is more than tooth decay that the mouthwash hides in a typical politician, especially presidents. It’s a lust for power that is most easily seen in the behavior of Presidential Executive Orders that decays the soul of the small minds who crave public approval and votes so they can sit in an old building called The White House.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

Bringing Nothing to an Everything Fight: How Romney Destroyed Obama

Thankfully—slowly, political candidates are learning not to be so nice, and to stick to the facts when debating a progressive, emotional candidate. We have covered this topic in great detail here at this sight, especially in regard to public schools run by progressive labor unions. But on the big stage of the Presidency, politicians have regulated themselves to nice hand shakes and careful jabs marred in politeness since Ronald Reagan was president. That is, until October 3, 2012 when Mitt Romney decimated the hapless Barack Obama in a debate that clearly showed what a businessman with a successful background looks like next to a political activist raised on communism by his parents, grandparents, college professors, and community agitators in Chicago with no experience in even running a fast-food restaurant—let alone an entire country.

I am not a fan of machine politics, and I am not particularly excited about the kind of government that Mitt Romney wishes to bring to The United States. But as far as having an understanding of how the economy works, and business in general, he is clearly the better candidate over Barack Obama, and this was displayed vividly in the first Presidential debate of the 2012 elections. Credit for the victory belongs to Romney. If anyone watching the debates still wishes to vote for Barack Obama it is because they are simply too stupid to understand what was they were hearing.

The reason that Barack Obama lost the debate is because Romney forced Obama to answer factual questions and to stay out of economic theory based on emotion. Romney never let Obama even come close to an emotional argument, and this left Obama defenseless, and alone standing on a stage in front of millions of people utterly decimated. No progressive, not even Bill Clinton can win a debate if they are forced to stick to facts. All progressives require emotional decisions in order to advance their cause, which is why women tend to support Barack Obama over Mitt Romney, because they tend to vote with emotion as they are traditionally more emotionally motivated between the two sexes. In the political game of rock-paper-scissors, facts always smash emotion—100% of the time. The key to beating all progressive causes is to use facts to dismantle the opinions of emotion.

The Romney/Obama debate will forever be the skeleton key that reveals how logic can be used to win debates, and elections. I have used the very same method to beat down the aggressive levy advances of my local school district as the teachers union typically uses emotion to capture the argument without any facts to back their statements. When I forced the topic to logic, they could not win, and they continued after many attempts to maintain their emotional position even when the facts were grossly evident, and at that point the discussion evolved into ridiculousness. When the topic of why a public school was in financial trouble it was not because the state took away funding, it was not because the kids needed the money, it was not because the school needed to hire the best teachers–it was because the school board laid down at the feet of the teachers union and ate out of their hand, which caused the financial crises. There was no other reason which was revealed by sticking to the facts.

When men and women argue typically as husband and wife, the husband usually complains that he loses because he allows the argument to devolve into an emotional one. He loses because he does not stick to the facts, but allows his heart-strings to be yanked and pulled needlessly. This is notoriously prevalent in younger couples who are still immature in their thinking. Older couples tend to learn not to play such games which is what leads to a successful marriage. Progressives have for years used the same perilous tendency to advance socialist causes by using emotion to position their statements in much the same way that women use emotion to beat men in arguments.

But as men who do not allow such emotion to govern their actions, they learn that the best way to maintain their integrity is to stick with the facts of an argument without being pulled into the emotional fray of the women they argue with. They learn that their women actually respect them more for maintaining their integrity without emotion, and such men will learn that their sex life will increase proportionally.

The same rules apply to every facet of life. No business can succeed built of pure emotion. They only succeed with the facts of the matter, the bottom-line numbers. They do not succeed based on theory, they succeed based on fact. The same holds true in an argument between husband and a wife. Yes Aunt Millie will be upset if the wife and her husband do not attend the birthday party for Millie’s second child who lives on the other side of the country. No the couple cannot afford the plane trip at that stage in their marriage. The man should not cave into the crying wife stuck between loyalty to her sister and her husband by charging the plane fair just to keep his emotional wife happy. It might be the nice thing to do, but the couple could not afford it, and no level of emotion can change the fact. No argument can change the fact either. The goal of the argument on behalf of the wife is to convince her husband to let her have things both ways, peace with her sister, and peace with her husband who doesn’t want to fly across the country for a birthday party. The man might gain anger from his wife by stating that her sister should have not moved to L.A when the rest of the family lives in New York and still expect the family to be close, but the sex will be better later, because the wife will respect his honesty.

And the politician can learn an important lesson in that metaphor. Politicians would gain more respect if they were just honest, and didn’t try to pander to the emotions of the voters. Nothing ever gets done with emotional progressives, and the conversation is pointless because they are never rooted in any facts. Politicians who try to play nice and be the good guy either way will end up being crushed by the politician who uses the emotional argument because the opponent will surrender the facts to emotion, which is equivalent to giving up the strategic high ground in favor of kindness, to avoid the conflict. Romney won the debate because he did not allow emotion to dictate the conversation leaving Obama as defenseless as a sobbing woman who is stuck between loyalty to her sister and her husband. Obama is stuck between his communist instructors and the genuine expectations of his supporters. Because he could not fight the facts, because Obama has routinely ignored the facts, he was extremely vulnerable and he was defenseless to debate Romney and this will continue because so long as Obama does not face the facts of his presidency and the economic conditions that surround it, he cannot win a single one. Obama can only win if people chose to ignore the facts. And this is true for virtually every conflict.

Politics will improve dramatically when we are no longer impressed that a politician stuck with the facts and made a compelling argument. I yearn for a day when a politician like Romney and another politician also arguing the facts have a debate that actually is productive instead of a one-sided slaughter like what happened on October 3, 2012 with the emotional Barack Obama. Debates are intended to discover the truth by looking at the facts, not distorting them through the lens of emotion. If Romney continues to debate with facts on his side, the Presidency will clearly be his. This first debate is only the tip of the iceberg of the type of misery dictator Obama is in for between now and the election.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

Want to Make Barack Obama……….MAD: Go see ‘Atlas Shrugged Part II’ on October 12th

Obviously too many people took communism for granted during, and after the Cold War. Because it is shocking how many wrong thinking people have bought into the communist philosophy of collectivism. The more that President Obama speaks, and the closer to Atlas Shrugged Part II comes to opening in movie theaters all over The United States, it becomes more and more obvious that radical collectivists such as the writer of the below article at The Guardian in the United Kingdom are terrified that those of us who do not want or need collectivism desire to cancel our subscriptions which would leave them lost in an ocean of politics without a paddle or pot to piss in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/02/pity-the-billionaire-thomas-frank-review

Collectivists have performed the ultimate scam, they being completely dependent upon our efforts; have positioned themselves to be our slave drivers by simply using the kindness of our natures against us. The reason that author of The Guardian newspaper hates Ayn Rand so much, and presumes that she is the darling of the right-winged political movement in America, is because such collectivists fear that writers like Ayn Rand will wake up people to the scam communist advocates like that Guardian writer supports. So here is a lesson to those collectivist types, The Guardian does not represent my beliefs in any way. Barack Obama represents nothing of my political affiliation. CNN, MSNBC and all the prime time news stations do not represent my philosophic principles. In most cases, Fox News is too liberal for me. Yet the fools like that Guardian reporter would have people like me believe that I am in the minority, that I am wrong because I am not on the side with the most democratic support. The communists believed that if they dominated democracy with mass numbers, then they would earn the right to rule over the bourgeois with a dictatorship of the preliterate. They call people like me evil for not wanting to spend my entire life sacrificing on their behalf. That is the meaning of The Guardian article, and all those who criticize with such fury the author Ayn Rand.

Those people do not represent me, those communist/progressive political advocates who hide themselves in the Labour Parties under seemingly legitimate politics, or in the media newsrooms taught by radical university professors with their pony tails and dandruff flakes fresh on their unwashed pot infested sweaters. What does represent my point of view, and millions who share my sentiments is stories like Atlas Shrugged, who just had their premier in Washington D.C. where the following clip was released to a hungry public. In the following clip, the message is the exact opposite of what the communists have been telling the world in their not so obvious attack on capitalism. But what those communists didn’t know was that people like me would take that attack personally. Some like me took it so personally that they have invested their life fortunes into the film version of Atlas Shrugged Part II in order to defend capitalism from the leeches of capitalism.

I would say that the most evil thing in the world–the least freedom oriented motive is the utterances from collectivists who have embedded their lives into mine. I resent deeply having to pay taxes toward organizations I find detestable. I find it appalling that I am forced to pay thousands of dollars each year off my property tax to keep a government school open that is run by a labor union I do not support, that teaches children values I don’t share. It is evil to compel my participation through force into such activity, because with collectivists’ attack on pure capitalism they have pulled my participation into their lives against my will. That is evil. If I do not pay my taxes, my property will be taken, which is forceful confiscation.

Collectivists have criticized Mitt Romney for evading his taxes by only giving 14% of what he made as a millionaire. What they fail to understand is that Romney’s 14% is a lot more than any village of workers if they contributed 100% of their entire paychecks for a year they still would not come close to the amount of money that Romney spent in taxes. Romney is called names for being a smart business man, for knowing how to avoid paying some of those looting taxes, because who says it’s good but the collectivist to pay taxes at the levels the collectivists set? The measure is created by collectivists. The implementation is done by collectivists. Only collectivists will call it evil for those who try to get a tax bargain, because it’s their system of communism that they wish for everyone else to be compelled to contribute. But if Romney doesn’t agree with the policies of welfare, the policies of big government, the way public education is taught, he is compelled by force to give money. The only defense he has is a “no” vote at the polls, or hiding his money in a tax shelter, because only a fool would pay their share of taxes deemed by looting politicians for mooching causes.

Out of all the entertainment that is available, not much of it reflects the viewpoints of people like me. Collectivist in their distorted mirror of viewing the world think that I am evil for not feeling compelled to provide a livelihood to the parasites of existence. But in my life, I do not ask others to live their lives on my behalf. I avoid such debts like any sane person would circumvent a deadly disease because to me, they are one in the same. I reject what collectivists determine is my “fair share” and I applaud anyone who avoids paying their taxes by $1. The person who avoids paying millions in taxes I consider a hero! Such a person has avoided the looting collectivists and put harm toward their parasitic ways and that makes them great. The collectivists who call people like me names for wanting nothing to do with their bloodsucking lives are not my friends and they do not share my values.

But authors like Ayn Rand do, along with film makers like Harmon Kaslow, John Aglialoro and Christopher Nolan. They do represent my values. And those values are not evil or even decadent because they are not widely accepted by a class of parasitic people who proclaim that they cannot live their lives without my assistance, compelling me to waste parts of my life on their lives because they don’t understand the value of living. Collectivists are like people caught in quicksand and they wiggle and move grabbing onto anything that’s stable determined to drag others under just so they can save themselves. They get themselves into all kinds of trouble all on their own yet they expect others to save their lives with our own, and call us evil for desiring to leave them stuck. Collectivists expect others to spend their lives helping them out of the quicksand of their own making, which to me is a deplorable evil.

It’s evil to me because every day of life is precious. I enjoy every single second of every single day, and I seldom ever waste my time. I could have 1 million years of life and I would never be bored for one single second of any single day in that entire span of time, because life is meant to be lived, and loved. And I resent when collectivists attempt to hold me up, or waste my time with their trivia, and expect to take my money when I worked hard to make it. It is evil because they stole away the time it took for me to earn my money with my time. The collectivist is evil because they willingly steal from me to serve their valueless needs that are infinite in their expectations. Atlas Shrugged is not a movie designed for collectivists. It is a movie intended to be enjoyed by individualists. Communists will hate it. Communists will call it names. Communists will attempt to keep people from seeing the film with the same vigor that they put up the Iron Curtain to keep their own people from seeing any hints of light from capitalist countries, so they could manage to keep their own people in the dark and loyal to their party rule. Communists who hate Ayn Rand are like an insecure husband who is ugly beyond belief but is married to a beautiful woman, desiring to keep the woman locked up in his bedroom so she cannot see what an ugly fool he truly is, because he knows his wife will leave him for something better if she sees it. Atlas Shrugged is the “other” choice, and collectivists know that if people see it for themselves, that they will eventually feel the way I do, and desire to be left along, to pay the fewest taxes possible and to live life separately from the masses who cast themselves recklessly into the quick sands of life. I am happy, and proud that finally a movie that speaks to people like me has found its way into movie theaters and I will go see Atlas Shrugged Part II multiple times just because I can, and because it angers people like Barack Obama and the writers at The Guardian.

Join me on October 12th to see Atlas Shrugged Part II.  Click here to find a theater near you!

http://thegulch.atlasshruggedmovie.com/events/

Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
 

“Who is John Galt” : A superhero for the Intellectual Producers

The question that everyone is asking no matter what side of the political aisle they find themselves on is Who is John Galt, because of the new controversial film Atlas Shrugged Part II. The answer is that John Galt is a superhero to the productive intellectuals who have for many years enjoyed other superheroes such as Batman, Superman, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, Spiderman and many others without having a specific hero rooted in reality that articulates their views. John Galt is a superhero because without weapons, special powers, or any interplanetary aid he holds within him the ability to save the world. He is able to do this with the personal realization that he alone is responsible for his own life, and due to that reality he is able to unleash tremendous creative potential that others benefit from. Through his life, the level of creative potential that is sapped off of humanity through collective philosophies is increasingly evident. John Galt with only his independence and his intellect is able to unlock a treacherous secret that has befuddled humanity since its inception, the tendency to revert philosophically backwards after great technological breakthroughs had been achieved. John Galt is the ultimate superhero because it is his intellect that crushes his enemies without ever declaring war, but by simply preventing them from robbing his merit in life, to sustain themselves.

The controversy over John Galt however is that his enemies are unfortunately all too real in the day to day lives of the modern world. When people proclaim that “They are John Galt” they are declaring their right to their own minds, their own creative potential, their own lives independent of the collective whole of society. By doing this they actually strengthen civilization in ways that humanity has never before realized, because the act of such a proclamation places the responsibility of living squarely on the shoulders of those doing the act and not allowing collective bodies of society to hide the faults of their unproductive lives. John Galt is the creative force that breaks through the unspoken barrier which restricts the intellectual producers who for so long been ridiculed as “greedy,” “selfish,” “right-winged,” “bourgeois” and “upper class.”

This whole idea of John Galt as a superhero of course infuriates all the advocates of collectivism. Unlike the traditional superheroes mentioned above who have villains using diabolical powers in an attempt to take over the world, the villains of John Galt could be the next door neighbor who roams around the neighborhood collecting fees for their homeowners association proclaiming that a homeowner is in violation of the rules because their garage door is open. The enemy could also be the school levy advocate who demands higher taxes on a community so their child can have a free education but in doing so they feed a tyrannical labor union advocating socialist teachings to the children and society at large. Or perhaps the villain is a family member who wants to know why their loved one dropped out of college to pursue an entrepreneurial enterprise instead of brown-nosing alums for a future job in a future office cubical of no real productive worth. The villains of Atlas Shrugged are too real for the masses that live their lives through collectivism and they often feel guilty upon reading Atlas Shrugged the classic novel, or watching the films that are currently being released. So their reaction to the material is anger, and castigation.

The collectivists deep in their minds, because they have not done as John Galt has–and that’s take personal responsibility for the quality of their lives, feels deep guilt when they realize how much they rely on other people. They lack the courage to face the trials and tribulations of daily life alone, and this makes them a burden on the intellectual producers who create all the jobs in society, and drive all the materials that produce the best culture. They hide their personal fears behind collectivism and mental evasion. The message of the superhero John Galt is one that personally calls collectivists out and puts the light on their behavior, which goes against the entire reason they built their lives around collectivism in the first place. When Galt declares at the end of the Atlas Shrugged, to “get out of my way,” he is saying that he does not need anybody, that he alone has the ability to do the job at hand if only the parasites of intellectual ineptitude would get out of his way and allow him to live to his full potential.

To understand what Galt is talking about, the best comparison would be to consider three hikers who are backpacking 10 miles into the rugged mountains of West Virginia. Everything the backpackers need would have to be placed inside the backpacks for the week that they would remain in the mountains. Each backpack would weight between 20 to 40 pounds. Metaphorically speaking John Galt is one of the backpackers and before starting out, he volunteers to carry the tent for all three hikers because he is stronger than the other two. They resent the fact silently that Galt thinks he is stronger than they are, but they say nothing because they don’t want the extra weight on their own backs.

Two miles into the hike one of the two weaker backpackers complains that they don’t think they can keep pace with Galt because he is going too fast for them. They ask Galt to slow down so they can keep up. This forces Galt to walk slower to appease the weaker hiker. Another two miles into the hike the other hiker complains that the straps on their backpack are hurting their shoulders. They have incorrectly packed their equipment putting not enough weight on the hips, leaving most of the heavy lifting done incorrectly by the shoulders. John Galt then volunteers to take away some of the weight and carry it himself to relieve the pressure on the fatigued hiker. Another two miles in both of the weaker hikers complain that Galt’s pace is too brisk, that they need to stop and rest once in a while to catch their breath. Of course this irritates Galt. The weak hikers tell Galt that if he has so much energy then why doesn’t he carry the weight of both their packs so that they can keep up with Galt, then they wouldn’t have to stop so much over the next four miles. They rationalize that each according to his ability each according to their need, that Galt has an obligation to take away their burden since they are not as strong as he is. Galt then tells them that they will never become strong themselves if they don’t learn to carry their own weight, and to fight through their struggles for their own good and benefit. But this sounds too hard to the two weak hikers, so Galt in frustration throws off all the extra weight he had been carrying and proceeds on without them.

As the sun sets much later that day after 10 more breaks from the two weak hikers they arrive at the camp that John Galt has already set up. They discover that Galt had arrived 6 hours earlier, had pitched the tent, found enough wood to build a fire, start a fire, begin cooking dinner, and read two chapters of a book he had been studying. Galt well rested and content could only manage a smug wave at the two weak hikers as they staggered into camp sweating profusely, overcome by exhaustion. The hikers demand of Galt water since they had depleted the contents of their canteens. Galt points to the creek that runs alongside the camp, as if the solution should be self evident, yet the tired hikers complain that they are too tired to filter the water for themselves and they complain that Galt is so selfish for not spending his extra time filling jugs of water for them since he obviously had time instead of wasting his time reading a book.

For those who are the intellectual producers, not the parasitic intellectuals that we find in our public schools and colleges, but the actual producers of society—John Galt is their superhero–their kind of representative in the art of literature and now motion pictures. Of course for the two hikers and the others who think like them John Galt is a terrible person who has treated them unfairly because he thinks his “shit doesn’t stink,” that he “considers himself superior.” They find the message of John Galt appalling, because John Galt makes them realize what burdens they truly are, and how parasitic they are to the creative minds of existence. Those who hate Atlas Shrugged with great passion are no different than the two hikers who wanted Galt to carry all their equipment for them, to move through the hike at their pace, so that they could believe they are equal to John Galt as they would all arrive at the camp at the same time. Since they outnumbered Galt two to one, they believed they held the majority of opinion which compelled Galt to carry their gear and make them feel included in the successful experience of a hike into the mountains, instead of a couple of weaklings who packed too heavy, were not determined to carry their own weight, and showed no interest in arriving at camp in good time so they could fill their minds with the contents of a good book in the rustic mountain setting, as was Galt’s goal.

The name of John Galt does incite anger among those who know they are parasites to creativity and if a genie could grant these people three wishes of anything in the world that they could want or desire, they would spend all three continuing the illusion that collectivism works so that they could hide their true worth from the eyes of the true producers—the intellectual producers of individualism. The reason is that no amount of money can hide the value of these people. These types could be given $10 million dollars and within 5 years they would have spent every bit of it on women, homes, boats, cars, and charity because their minds are not equipped to think on their own, they are the weak hikers of our lives and will not be able to carry their own load through the mountains of West Virginia even with the help of money, because they lack the intellectual capacity to do so.

What the two hikers, and all the people who hate John Galt, Ayn Rand, or the great book Atlas Shrugged fail to realize is that their lives were enhanced greatly because Galt made them carry their own load up the mountain, that he did not deny them the experience of the merit of their labor. Because deep down inside, as does every intellectual producer, they all know that in the next morning when the sun rises that the weak hikers will be sore to their bones, but the water they scoop out of the stream will taste so good, because they earned it, and it wasn’t given to them. People like John Galt live every day in this fashion, so when they declare “I am John Galt,” they are saying they understand what John Galt is, what he represents, and why he is important.

In the reality of the real world, this is why John Galt is considered a superhero, because it takes superhuman strength to resist the temptation of succumbing to the weak hikers of the world, to the parasitic collectivists, and help them when they cry and beg for it. It takes superhuman strength to know, over their protests, that if collectivists are forced to carry their own weight, that they will be better people for it and that by helping them, you actually hurt them more than their little minds can fathom. It takes superhuman strength to resist the comfortable blanket of collectivism when the entire world advocates it, except for those few who understand fully who John Galt is, and why he’s so important.

So the answer to “Who is John Galt” is known easily to those who are intellectual producers. The answer will infuriate those who are not intellectual producers, but John Galt is not a superhero for those types of minds. He is not interested in the collective acceptance of their opinions. He is a superhero functioning from an inner strength that is completely foreign to them, John Galt knows that the way he can help the world best is by dropping the extra gear he’s carrying on their behalf and moving ahead at his own pace so they can benefit when they finally arrive to where he is mentally, and enjoy the experience of the camp site he has already built. By dropping their gear, the metaphorical John Galt can provide them with a nice tent to lay in to rest their bones, good food to eat which they didn’t have time to prepare on their own since it took them all day to hike up the mountain, and the inner victory of forcing them to hike the mountain on their own, in their own time without robbing from them the wonder of a drink of water of which they fully earned through the struggle of their labor. It takes a real superhero to do all of that and know inwardly that it was the correct thing to do when the only thing the hikers could say in kindness to him was a complaint at having to get their own water when they first came into camp exhausted.

John Galt is a modern answer to the welfare culture that has allowed politics to rob from them the benefit of living their lives. John Galt is a superhero in a culture of collectivists who wish that John Galt would just carry their gear up the mountain so they can pretend they are also intellectual producers who are important to the world. That they can also climb up the mountains of life and arrive at camp at the same time as John Galt. Only their strategy is to hold the John Galts of life back from arriving too early so the complacency of their existence is not shown in the light of their lives. Rather than struggle to become more like John Galt, and the other intellectual producers who know and love the message of the superhero John Galt, they instead complain that their water should have been given to them upon arrival, and that Galt was a selfish, mean man who forced them to toil needlessly out of pure spite.

That’s when John Galt, the superhero did the unthinkable, the most courageous thing a man in his position could do—he encouraged the men and women who thought like he did to drop the gear of society and to stop carrying them on their backs, and show the world where they were wrong in their subscriptions to collectivism. It truly takes superhuman strength to say NO, but in John Galt’s case, and increasingly more intellectual producers are beginning to acknowledge in spite of the howls of protest, they are beginning to say NO too, to the collectivist who require the work and effort of the “producers” without being able to contribute equally the other way with the efforts of their own lives. Without John Galt’s refusal to say NO to the looters in his own life, the parasitic nature of those in a collective society never are addressed, and society arrives late to it’s destination of achievement, which is a crime against everything that breaths. John Galt is a superhero because this is the crime he fights, the one where collectivists become parasites on the fate of the human race and hold it back only so their feelings aren’t hurt with the realization that they are not like John Galt, but are the un-intentional enemies to his very existence.

Who is John Galt? He is everyone who realizes that they are the intellectual producers who make the world move. They are the creators of the world’s campsites. It is through them and by them that everything happens. And it is they who have to help everyone become better by forcing them to carry the weight of their own life, keeping them from the slavery of their own philosophy, because the waters of life taste best when it is earned through the effort of one’s own existence and not the unspoken debt to another human being.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:

 
Contact me personally at: