Many pundits and social commentators seem baffled as to why some Republicans share with Democrats a desire for war in Syria while others share in common a desire to stay out of such an action. It is mysterious to them that a supposed anti-war, pro peace politician like Barack Obama would support a war effort of any kind, while political “extremists” such as Sarah Palin does not. The reason is not because one political party represents elephants while the other represents donkeys, but because they are both social progressives as the others are not, or are trying to distance themselves from such political parasites.
Progressives believe in global unity, and individual sacrifice for the greater good as defined by them. They wish to think of the world as a giant global village and they are the chieftains. If some terrible thing happens in Syria, then it is the job of the “international community” to do something about it once the United Nations is made aware of an evil. In the case of Syria the crimes against the Syrian people has been known for a long time, but it was only once the United Nations inspectors supposedly saw footage, and were granted into the country to inspect conditions for themselves that progressive politicians decided that the time for action was now, rather than at any other point in time, past or future.
Progressives are not attempting to do justice to the poor people killed under a tyrannical regime. They are simply attempting to preserve the authority of The United Nations as a world police force. The war drums in Syria by otherwise antiwar politicians are the obvious result of these progressive types. If it was ever wondered what politicians are progressive and which actually hold the type of beliefs established under their respective political parties it has never been more obvious, or hypocritical as to whom are progressives than those who support the Syrian War.
Progressives are vile, despicable people who are destructive intellectual collectivists. What they are fighting for is not justice in Syria for the benefit of free people. They simply fight to preserve the reputation of the United Nations. In the context of the global community, it is the United States that is known as the official police force in that global community—and other countries who have elected to stay out of Syrian engagement wish to see the police do their job on behalf of the United Nations, while maintaining their own disengagement from conflict due simply to the financial cost.
It is not such a mystery once this basic fact is known, who is what and why they believe the things they do. Progressives want war because it further advances their desire for global rule under a gigantic social village where the values of The United States are erased so that the values of lower quality countries can be elevated. Eventually all progressives hope the values of all people will be equal under the leadership of the village chieftains, the progressives. Under those terms, things are not so mysterious. Progressives are not for American preservation, they are about advancement of United Nations influence, and the war in Syria allowing them to achieve two of their goals, to destroy the reputation of America as an independent sovereign nation, and strengthen the influence of The United Nations as a global police force. But the war is not about preserving American independence, or fighting for freedom across the world. That is the distinct and sorrowful difference. The supporters of the Syrian War are united in their goal of progressive politics and that makes them dangerous to every American who supports the Constitution of The United States of America. Progressives desire to use the resources of America to destroy it while moving all the countries of the world toward a global village ruled by a Constitution not yet written, by a society of people the progressives hope to mold from their own cloth. It is not the Founding Fathers of America that these people hope to emulate. They hope to become their own type of “Founding Father” in a society not yet known built on political views of the dangerous progressive, and their wholesale desire to destroy individuality at all cost.
For those who need to be reminded, Justin Binik-Thomas is an author, one of the founders of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and was at the heart of the IRS scandal personally targeted because of his conservative beliefs. He is also a fan of my novel Tail of the Dragon and is a recent conqueror of that treacherous road in the mountains of the North Carolina/Tennessee, which is evident by the picture on his web site: http://www.binikthomas.com. He is a frequent guest on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News broadcast and does several radio spots a year with my friends Matt Clark and Doc Thompson. He is also a personal friend of mine. So it gives me great pleasure to announce that Justin is running for the Deer Park School Board.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Committee to Elect Binik-Thomas Contact
Justin Binik-Thomas
Candidate for Deer Park School Board
Binik-Thomas Responds to Deer Park School Levy Request
Deer Park, OH, September 4, 2013– The budget shortfall remains one of the largest district concerns. I have had the opportunity to review the coffee session materials and the five-year budget with senior district leadership. I have come to the conclusion that the levy is premature.
As a taxpayer, I expect budget lines that do not impact services or people should be reduced or removed prior to a request for new funds. The five-year budget includes quite a few areas where this has not yet occurred. Among these are a postal meter, awards, and a line labeled “other.”
The coffee session materials provided attendees with a false choice of ‘tax me a bit more now’ or ‘tax me a lot more later.’ Predictably, the attendees selected the lower tax number. District mailers tout this “choice.”
The proposed levy will tax us forever in order to plug a potential four-year gap.
Next Steps
Regardless of the outcome of this levy, we need to engage in long-term revenue planning to ensure we can cover unfunded mandates, educational needs, and emergencies without continually asking for taxpayer bailouts or levies.
We have two success stories in town to use as a model: my alma maters, Walnut Hills High School and the University of Cincinnati. Each has provided ways to grow funding, using many under-$20 donors, to achieve their goals.
We can further mitigate this risk by limiting our dependence on taxpayer (federal) funds.
Justin is married to Casey and the proud father of two preschool children (aged 1 and 3). He is a nine-year resident of Deer Park and graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University (MS) and the University of Cincinnati (AA, BS). In addition to working as a contract manager in the medical research industry, he specializes in media relations as owner/consultant of Conservative Media Group.
In his free time, he volunteers as a chaplain at his synagogue and leads the Sunshine Committee. Justin has taught at religious school (grades 2, 3, and 7), currently teaches a social media course annually at a local university, and is responsible for training new employees at both businesses.
Even though I personally think public education is a complete waste of time, and am not the politician type as I don’t play well with others, I admire when local people who are very passionate about reform get involved in politics. I would say to Justin that he is wasting his time with the Deer Park School Board; however, he wouldn’t be if all the school board members were like him. It is entirely possible that public education would not be such a wreck as it is today if people like Justin were school board members in every district in America.
Unfortunately most school board members are big spenders who are in love with the government statist version of public education—filled with progressive politics and antagonistic toward American tradition. That’s why they often run and win while conservatives build businesses, make money and throw money at progressives like a fisherman trying to escape blood thirsty piranhas by pouring blood in the water to take them off the scent. Justin Binik-Thomas is not one of those types. He is a star in his own right, an accomplished person who could care less whether or not he has a powerful nameplate on his desk in charge of millions of dollars. If voters of Deer Park had to pick anyone in a ballot box during their entire lifetimes, it is unlikely they would run across a candidate as pure as Justin Binik-Thomas who simply wants to do the right thing for the right reasons at the absolute right time.
Vote for Justin Binik-Thomas for Deer Park School Board!
I’ve given my two daughters both nice weddings. One had her wedding at a nice country club setting that was very private. That was a great experience and has fond memories. The other was one that took place near downtown Cincinnati in a nice establishment specializing in wedding receptions, and often hosts multiple weddings in the same building. When my daughter had her wedding at this facility, there were four other weddings going on in the same building and that I didn’t care for. The place we were holding the wedding was very posh and elegant, but the lack of exclusivity made me perpetually uneasy. I didn’t like it.
Our wedding reception went on for quite a while and was the last of the multiple weddings to yield to the night. With that said as the music was thumping and our dance floor was crowded a group of guys from another wedding which had just ended came into our wedding looking for some fun, alcohol, and action. Well, that was a big mistake, because this is my family, my nieces, and friends of my daughters, not some random pieces of meat for young men to fondle, and I wasn’t going to stand for it. So I told the boys to get lost, that I wasn’t going to tolerate any wedding crashers. They insisted that they just wanted to have a good time, and that I should reconsider. I told them flatly, “NO.” It was my money, my family, and my decision, end of story.
The boys left with their heads hung with rejection. They couldn’t help but notice the attractive women in my family and cussed at themselves for the lost opportunities. However, little did they know or understand that part of the reason there were so many attractive women in my family is because there are men like me who fight to give them some sanctuary to reside within, who keep them from being just cheap pieces of meat for the use of young boys looking for conquest. Some members of my family thought I was too hard on the boys, and thought the wedding would be a lot more fun if a massive party erupted and I was the “cool” type who allowed wedding crashers to liven things up with their spontaneity. But I’m not that kind of guy and if I’m spending thousands of dollars on a reception center for my daughter’s wedding, it will be the way she wants it—and wedding crashers didn’t fit the profile.
I spent about the same amount of money on that reception hall as I do in taxes for the Lakota school system each year which is the public school in my area. Yet just last night embolden by events at the Lakota football games where the school had a booth set up passing out campaign signs for their upcoming levy attempt, several emails and comments came my way from levy addict supporters who were charged up with “school pride” established at the football game. The message to me was that if I didn’t like the tax increase then I should move out of the community. Click the link below to see one of those comments and my response.
To me, those types of people are like those kids who wanted to crash my daughter’s wedding. I graduated from Lakota many years ago and have lived in the area most of my life. When I was a kid I grew up in a house along 747 when it was farmland for as far as the eye could see. My home was on the kind of land that the Carriage Hill homeowners are paying 150K per plot to own today. But I lived on such anchorage when very few homes could be seen from my front yard. Traffic down 747 had the character of a distant country road. My boyhood home is gone now replaced by a strip mall that one of the guys in my group No Lakota Levy built. I didn’t always get along with those guys, but we did join together to fight the Lakota schools massive taxation plans for a community we had all been in from the beginning. I have watched many new homes move into the area who are willing to pay extraordinary amounts of money to have essentially what I had as a kid—and that’s fine. I understand wanting to have the best for families.
But when snot nosed despots move into the area with about a 5 second investment of their time and resources into my community then tell me I need to move, I think back to the kind of mentality that was exhibited by those wedding crashers at my daughter’s wedding that I had to run off. These new pretentious homeowners who have moved into the Lakota community and overpaid for their properties due to their own stupidity, and arrogance are wedding crashers in the Lakota community relative to my position. I am the one who paid for everything with my years of tax revenue contributed, and I helped shape the school into what it is with my participation in it, because I attended there. So it’s my business if I want to tell the Lakota administration they are full of shit and need to manage their money better. And if I want to call the levy supporters a bunch of pretentious latté sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires, and diamond rings to match—I will do it, and I have a right to do it—because it’s my community and I’ve invested a lot more in it than they have.
The levy supporters think that just because they show up in Lakota and purchase a half million dollar home on a quarter acre plot of land that they have some right to tell people like me to move if I don’t like their intentions to vote for higher taxes. They are just as stupid and immature as those wedding crashing young men who thought they could come to my daughter’s wedding and play out some fantasy of what they saw in a movie. In that fantasy they thought I’d sit idly by while they grabbed the asses of the women attending and had a jolly time drinking from the bar while I paid for everything and quietly sat in a corner and acted like the out-of-touch middle-ager they thought I was. To their mindset I was old, and I had my day in the sun, and I should sacrifice myself to the youth so they could have their fun, and memories which they wanted to make at my expense. The same mentality is present with the wedding crashers of Lakota. A bunch of pretentious snobs have moved into the area and think that their little 7 to 8-year-old children should have infinite resources and that the community should spare no expense for their pleasure. They are of course wrong.
I spend as much money in taxes on Lakota every year as I did on just that dance hall for my daughter’s wedding. So it should come as no surprise what my response to the wedding crashers of Lakota is. To me they are mindless zombies who don’t consider what the cost of a tax increase will do to the community, but only indulge in their own short-term desire to fill their bellies, and they have no right to make any demands, let alone move into my community then tell me to move out if I don’t like their decisions. That is not how the world works.
If that is the levy strategy concocted at the Friday night football games by the pro levy crowd, good luck. I’m not the only one who feels that way. To most who live in the Lakota community, they see the levy zombies the same way I do, as wedding crashers. Those types of people—the wedding crashers do not care for all the events that led up to the wedding, they only want to attend the party once everyone else has done the work. In Lakota, few have done more work than I have, and few have the concerns of Liberty Twp., in their blood more than I. So it naturally disgusts me to see pretentious, short-sighted snobs enter the arena of debate with demands for higher taxes to cover a neurosis that resides deep within their psychological imperfections. I do not tolerate “community crashers,” especially when I’m paying the bill.
I know a great deal about human behavior and would happily argue with the most respected minds in the fields of psychology and psychiatry regarding their theories wherever they came from in the world. I learned what I know because I’ve been around the block so many times that I have every brick, and crack memorized around that block. On my blog postings I openly invite comments, but there often isn’t any. This isn’t because people aren’t reading—they are. Just watch the daily counter off on the sidebar. However, in the world of strategy, silence is the best compliment. When “they” can’t beat you—whoever “they” may be, the only tactical option available to them is to ignore you and hope that social castigation will dislodge a deep-seated insecurity taking you out-of-the-way of “their” objectives.
Over the summer while on vacation in Florida my nephews and I had an intelligent conversation about human nature while throwing football in the condo swimming pool. One of my highly educated nephews argued that human beings are social creatures and needed to be brought together in optimal ways to manage peace and harmony in society, even if those instances are sometimes coerced by government. Of course I disagreed vehemently with that statement, not because he was wrong, but because that is only part of the issue. He is right; human beings are a social species. They learn from babies to mimic others and this is how we all start in life. 99.99999999999999999999999% of all human beings continue that destructive practice well into their adulthood—so he is right, humans are a social species. But my argument is that humans are destined at some point in their life to graduate from this way of thinking as the mind takes over what the social connections cannot provide and becomes a freely functioning entity of its own. I am this kind of person. I do not need the approval of anybody to make a decision, and this is a radical concept to most. I am able to function without social input based on the product of my own thinking. I do not need to consul, collaborate, or gain assurances about my decisions about my private life. It is a learned trait that I would argue every human being should strive for—but it takes courage—like a child learning to walk on their own for the first time. Human beings need to be able to function off the products of their own mind—but often they don’t. Instead, they gather together in clumps of social organisms like our primitive ancestors around a fire and wait for some village chieftain to instruct them what to do next. This is how we get into the political messes we are currently in.
The reason for this elaborate introduction is to explain this next phase in the Lakota school district levy fights and why things are the way they are. It might be noticed that the newspapers and I have very little to say to each other these days. I have thoroughly insulted the press and would not expect them to solicit my thoughts, but at this point it no longer matters. I have made my decisions based on the observed conditions, and the strategy of current was formulated on those observations. With that said, I offer this small article as an explanation for those curious. It gets back to me what Lakota administrators say when they think the doors are closed and the phone lines are secure. I know they are frustrated with me for being a “bomb thrower” and working from the outside instead of partaking in their structured manner, so this is more directed at them than my normal readers so that they can understand what is happening and why.
In past levy attempts I tried to work with Lakota in the traditional way. I came to the school board meetings and allowed compliance of their silly two-minute rule where the board members pretend to be in control of a courtroom setting by “allowing” members of the community to speak to them as though they were royal nobles of some sort. When I was acting as a spokesman for No Lakota Levy I put up with this behavior to respect the wishes of the members who wanted to see the levy defeated without fracturing their social relationships with Lakota. I did not like the social schmoozing that went on in the early days of my involvement. I also took note that as I began to go on the radio and television to argue the case of No Lakota Levy, those members did not want to sit near me at the school board meetings as they feared members of the Lakota community recognizing that we were all on the same team. They enjoyed the benefits of my tactics but wanted to maintain their social status with the same people from the other side of the political aisle. After a couple of levy defeats under my strategy, those fears began to relax a bit. People were less resistant to acknowledge their association with me as I had several victories under my belt at that time—and people love a winner. So people began to sit next to me at meetings and say hello in public. But not until then.
I went out of my way to speak with people from the other side like Ron Spurlock who was the acting superintendent until Mantia came along, Jenni Logan, the treasurer, and Linda O’Conner. I was happy to speak to them in a civil manner even though we agreed on very little. But I knew it wouldn’t last because the behavior wasn’t changing which put them in trouble. As nice of a man as Ron Spurlock was, he felt woefully slack during handshakes and he looked away a lot when I spoke to him. This was because he was in internal conflict.
At this point everyone in town was trying to advocate that I run for school board and become politically active. They still suggest the same when it comes to trustee spots and other high-profile political offices locally. Yet the strategy to the kind of victory I am after cannot be obtained in that fashion, so I never had any intention of indulging in that activity which frustrated people who want changes to the system within the system. When Mantia was hired essentially by Linda after all the discussions we had, I saw the direction that the school board was going. They hired a political divider who would come in and play all ends against the middle where Lakota would control the strategic high ground. Immediately that is what Mantia went on to do leaving Ron Spurlock to retire and stay on at Lakota as a consultant. Mantia came to a late night meeting with the key people of No Lakota Levy assuring us that she would do one thing if the levy failed, then she did another when that reality presented itself. Within a month of the levy failure Lakota was in full political mode. Mantia did not perform as a business mind, but as a progressive radical politician, and went straight to the type of levy passing tactics that was taught at the OSBA’s Levy University.
I came to one of the meetings announcing Lakota’s cuts and as Channel 19 was interviewing me in the main hallway at Lakota East, Mantia stood off to the side like she wanted to speak to me. When I made eye contact after the interview she looked away and hustled into the auditorium. It was a strange engagement that I noted for later. Then I saw Ron Spurlock who was approaching a man who was well-known at Lakota in the band circles—a popular guy who was well-respected. That man had come to the meeting with me, which I had known would cause trouble—which is why I did it. I wanted to confirm the moral position that I suspected about the school. After my television interview this “respected man” stepped next to me and Ron, who had been working his way through the crowd to a warm greeting, immediately stopped and turned away. Out of all the bad things that were said about me behind the scenes at Lakota, the much discussed Lakota Kroger Survey, the Letters to the Editor in the Pulse Journal, it was this event that bothered me the most. I liked Spurlock. I thought of him as a good man. But he was so terrified of the internal politics at Lakota, even though he was officially retired, that he didn’t want anybody of any authority at the school to see him even shaking hands with me. It was at that moment when I knew what Lakota was all about, and that the path to fixing it would not be by running for school board, or any other “respected” position. More extremes would be necessary.
A month later my group started Yes to Lakota Kids under tremendous pressure from community groups to bring No Lakota Levy away from being such a negative social influence on the community. I agreed to the charity group creation because it was a kind of checkmate against Lakota. This was confirmed when I organized a press conference. We were giving a $10,000 check to Lakota to help pay for student participation in sports. Both sides were talking and were going to be present to issue and receive the money. I brought the media. Nobody from Lakota showed up, instead excuses were provided as to why they couldn’t come. Anticipating this, we staged the press conference within walking distance of Lakota East where many officials especially from the athletic department were. Even better, the board of education was literally four miles down the road. It was a 15 minute drive for them, yet nobody showed. Channel 5 was there, Channel 19, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Pulse Journal, but there wasn’t any Lakota representatives.
This didn’t surprise me at all. It simply exposed what was already known. Lakota couldn’t take a donation from their enemy No Lakota Levy, even to help children and they knew it. They needed the extortion of children to execute their demands, and would not stand for losing that emotional leverage against the community by my group. Lakota did exactly what I expected; they went on a full court press to smear me personally because they knew they would never pass a levy as long as I was intimately involved in the process. If I had been the kind of person who needed group reassurance as the foundations of my thinking, some of the moves made against me at this time might have destroyed me for life. This appears to certainly be their intention. They did not care who they hurt, or to what extent they executed their plans, as long as they preserved their strategic objectives, which was a tax increase. Mantia and others put a lot of pressure on the other No Lakota Levy people to publicly pull away from any association from me. The reason was that it was believed that in so doing I would feel the bite of being an out-cast and either change my behavior, or be ignored by the public.
Little did they know but I was choking under the “in” crowd and desperately wanted those shackles off so that I could be an out-cast once again, to have the freedoms that come with such a position. That is where the best strategy is, and what I desired. I did not want to be a school board member and fuss with people who constantly played things both ways every day of their lives for some perceived “greater good” and at the point I had arrived at, there was no desire to see public education preserved in any fashion. It’s a bad idea that should have never been implemented, and that is the direction I wanted to argue. I did not want the burden of being a spokesman for a system I think is destroying our youth even in protest against taxation.
Peer groups are learned in public schools primarily. The kids who are “in” and “out” are designated quickly. Kids who are “in” have something to bring the “greater good,” of whatever group is involved. Kids who are “out” do not. When I was in school I was certainly on the “out” group because I did not want to be in service to any group. I enjoyed thoroughly being on the “out” because there are many more opportunities for a colorful life outside of group comfort, which is what I’ve always strived for. Of course back then nobody really understood what I was rebelling against. My parents encouraged me to buy a class ring which they said would mean something to me later in life. It doesn’t. I never wore it, but simply gave it to whatever girlfriend I had at the time. They also told me I needed a school jacket, which I never wore—favoring my leather jacket instead. They also told me I needed to go to my five-year-reunion that was at Coney Island. So I did and while there they had the usual contests, who had been married the longest, who had the most children, who had the oldest children and that kind of thing. Out of the five categories in the contest I won three of them, I had been married the longest, (four years at that time), I had two children, three and two years old, clearly the oldest of the participants. In fact my children were running around playing tag around the podium where the Class President was speaking from. Yet I didn’t win a single category formally. I was sitting in plain view of everyone, my wife was there, my kids playing and screaming in delight running around the tables which everyone could see, yet I was as invisible to them all as a ghost on Christmas morning. Apparently it was frowned upon to bring children and spouses to the Class Reunion and socially I was supposed to know that. But I wasn’t about to go to Coney Island without taking my children. I never did things like that without them. So I brought them without asking if I could.
My wife and I laughed about that event for years. It was a clear example of the social need for groups of pack mentality to preserve their thinking on an issue in order to maintain a pre-conceived notion. The evidence of who had the most and oldest children was running around the podium during the award presentation, yet I did not win a single category. That was because I was an outcast even then, and very proud of it. The only retaliation they had to offer to me was to hope being castigated from their group would make me feel some level of shame, and desire to comply socially. Of course that concept is horrendously preposterous to anyone who knows me. Just yesterday I was having a nice lunch by myself taking some time to read a book and enjoy my day. Another man dressed in business attire sat down next to me, first asking if I was dining with anyone. I said no. So he sat down and started talking about the upcoming Bengal season, the quality of the food, the weather, about anything and everything. The guy was a real chatterbox. I was trying to be polite, but there was a reason I was eating lunch alone. I wanted to read my book. Nothing the guy said was of any value to me, and it was really getting on my nerves. After about five minutes I told the guy as politely as possible, “You know, it’s hard to read a book and have a conversation.” He looked at me as if I threw Holy Water upon his forehead. “Sorry, I just thought you wanted some conversation. I saw you sitting here by yourself and thought you wanted company. I guess you don’t…….right?” I replied as nicely as possible, “that’s right. I don’t want any company.” He got up in uncomfortable silence and took his food with him and disappeared into the restaurant. I was so happy that he left and for the next hour and a half I was alone with just my book, my food and the nice outside air of a late summer August day. When I was ready to leave, that guy was inside the restaurant sitting at the bar talking to the bartender and anybody nearby who would listen. Three businessmen were comparing Fantasy Football picks with him and they were all happy as sluts at a navel port gabbing at each other with much fanfare. The man didn’t look at me even though I had to pay the remainder of my bill with the bartender. It was easier not to acknowledge each other, and I was grateful that he felt that way.
That same mentality was present when Ron Spurlock turned away from me in the halls of Lakota East to preserve his position in the social structure of Lakota. Well before I called the levy supporters at Lakota “Latte sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match” in the Cincinnati Enquirer the wheels of castigation were well in place. I had tried to work with the Lakota school board and the superintendents to bring down their costs. I worked with the media nicely to give them entertainment within the context of their acceptability, and I was gloriously successful at it. I even played the charity game to make my friends happy who stood against the tax increases, but still wanted to maintain relationships with members of the Lakota administration. But none of them wanted to stand by the truth and deal with the severity of the situation in the manner it called for. They all separated into their various groups and expected me to facilitate myself to their whims, which simply wasn’t going to happen. When I didn’t, not even good people like Ron Spurlock wanted to be seen speaking with me in public out of fear that it would put him socially on the “out.” People fear more than most anything in the world being rejected from their respective “groups.”
I learned a long, long time ago that these groups are more destructive to the human psyche than all the mental deficiencies available to insanity. They are as my nephew argued part of the human condition generated upon the human mind during childhood when dependency is the only option. Good parents never allow their children to feel the bite of this dependency so that as maturity sets in, those individuals grown into self-driven entities reliant on their own thoughts and motivations and cast away group participation like a snake sheds its skin. The human race cannot survive with the mode of thinking that drove Ron Spurlock to walk the other way under the Mantia regime at Lakota, or the class president ignoring my children as they ran around playing at her feet.
When groups of people are at wit’s end and cannot strategically deal with the impact of an individual, they attempt to look everywhere that they aren’t. They attempt to ignore such people so to preserve their own thoughts and feelings without a challenger. Shortly after No Lakota Levy and I parted ways after the events described above, I received the following note from a radical levy supporter at Lakota. The contents are particularly revealing as it confirms everything stated:
That letter writer was an adult who holds a very responsible position within the Lakota school system, and provides insight into the kind of mentality that Ron Spurlock feared so much on a cold February evening at Lakota East. As mature and sophisticated the participants of the education profession pretend to be, they are still functioning human beings that are deficient of self-reliant thinking, and as far as I’m concerned, behind the evolutionary curve. The money they ask for with tax increases is to cover the gaps of their thinking and mask their internal neurosis. It has nothing to do with reality, but only the primal need for group behavior to separate social tasks into blocks of consensus building. The very foundations that they have built their institutions upon is set to sink in the sand during high tide as it has no philosophical foundation to plant roots of thought. All they can do when such a reality is presented to them is to ignore the facts to preserve their warped illusions.
That is why this next levy attempt of 2013 will be different. I will not try to solve the problem from the inside, because it clearly will not work under any condition. This is a problem that must be solved from the outside—in, because the root of the problem is on the inside and must be starved out of existence. They cannot see the problem because they refuse to look at it and nobody on a school board or through the mechanism of politics can solve the problem in that insider fashion. So my new tactic will be to launch the attack from the outside in, to famish the antagonists from within their own walls by starving out their supply chain. Such strategies brought down the rule of the Mongols in China, and it brought down the Roman Empire. It can bring down little ol’ Lakota, which is what I intend. It’s not against education that I rebel; it is the institutionalism of individual minds that I despise. I love education. I just can’t stand the process that is currently accepted, and I don’t like the politics connected to it.
As it should be clear by now, at no point in my life did I care to be on the “inside.” I have been at times when groups wanted to use my talents, but I do not volunteer to go. They come to me. And they can go away just as well, but my position does not change, as it has been built upon the foundations of logic and my personal observations. I will not surrender that position to the illogical perspective of group consensus to preserve the neurosis of established thinking if that thinking is wrong. My nephew was right from an academic standpoint, human beings are a social species. They need each other, and seek to speak, touch and interact with others of their kind. But I am right too, that such behavior is for the human race equivalent to a small child learning to walk for the first time afraid to let go of what props them up. A human mind needs to learn to walk on its own, free of emotional shackles to inferior intellects and it must grow from there perpetually over a lifetime. What Lakota does, and other institutions like them is artificially constrain thinking so to preserve political beliefs forged by group consensus, and that is a recipe for disaster that I cannot, and will not support—but will fight as though it was the most corrosive organism in existence—because it is.
Now, if anybody who has read this wish to argue with me, feel free to leave a comment below. I won’t chastise or belittle you for trying. I like the mental exercise. But if you don’t, your silence will confirm all that I have said above. So have at it……………….
If Lakota as a public education institution were viewed with the same standards as Microsoft, Apple, or the railroads of the 1890s, they would be guilty of anti-trust violations according to the Sherman Act. Lakota as all public education institutions backed by the federal government are monopolies, and the cost imposition that they inflict against communities is directly related to their anti-trust status. Using logic, Lakota should be judged by the same standards that private industry has been prosecuted under. CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SHERMAN ACT of 1890. Public schools are monopolies and they openly stand against competition which is why they cost so much in tax money. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to prosecute public schools under the Sherman Act or something like it so that competition could be implemented. Yet it would appear that all government entities under state control are exempt from The Sherman Act. This means that government can prosecute private business behaving in an anti-competitive fashion, but private industry cannot prosecute government for performing in a same manner.
In 1943, the Supreme Court first created the “state action” exemption to federal antitrust law in a case called Parker v. Brown. The California Agricultural Prorate Act of 1933 had established special marketing programs for agricultural commodities to restrict competition and raise prices for producers. Porter Brown, a raisin packer, sued W.B. Parker, the California Director of Agriculture, charging, among other things, that the California statute violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court disagreed: “We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. . . . The Sherman Act makes no mention of the state as such, and gives no hint that it was intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state.” States are thus exempt from federal antitrust law, even though California’s agricultural producers would certainly have been in violation had they made a private agreement to restrict production and increase prices.
The result of that 1943 Supreme Court case is that government has been allowed to monopolize as an anti-trust entity against the public without fear of ramifications. In the case of public schools, property owners have no choice but to pay for the public school that happens to be in their district, as designated by government—the state. The state created a monopoly status for these public education institutions to ensure their continued funding regardless of performance because there is little to no competition against them. This allows public schools like Lakota to continue to raise the prices of their service as no other competition exists to drive down their per pupil costs except for other public schools also set up with monopoly status and protected by the state under the “state action” exemption.
In a just world where the courts pursued “fairness” this practice would be highly illegal. But the courts are not intent on justice. They are intent on protecting such monopolies for their own preservation as even the courts are part of the monopoly process. They too are protected from cleaver lawyers by the “state action” exemption, and are free to provide support to the anti-trust practices of government—particularly public schools like Lakota. Lakota and their fellow public schools are every bit as guilty of anti-trust practices as the railroads of 1890 provoking the creation of the Sherman Act in the first place, as statism philosophy in government desired to control the capitalism being unleashed by the industry tycoons of the era.
For the protection of private business and residents who pay the taxes there needs to be a version of the Sherman Act introduced that protects society from the monopolies of public education. Personally, I don’t believe there should have ever been a Sherman Act—that the government overstepped it’s boundaries upon its creation. But as the current Supreme Court looks upon the case-law of the like–1943 Parker v. Brown case, they provide a way out for prosecuting their fellow public workers with anti-trust. Such excuses for statism need to be removed. If the government can prosecute industry for anti-trust violations than private interests should be able to prosecute the government with the same intention—to influence competitive options and supposedly keep costs down to the consumer.
The solitary reason that costs are out-of-control in public education institutions like Lakota is because they are monopolies. They are functioning anti-trusts protected by government to eliminate competition which drives up their costs against the communities they supposedly serve. For the protection of all tax payers, anti-trust legislation should be brought to fruition protecting all against the violations of monopoly status in public education. If the Sherman Act exists to prosecute businesses supposedly guilty of anti-trust, then a new act needs to be created so that future Supreme Courts do have the language to prosecute public sector interests that is operating as an anti-trust—such as public education.
Lakota in 2013 is seeking a new levy and they expect that nobody will question the merit of their tax demands. They can issue any financial information to the public they wish and we are stuck with the results because there is no competition. If a property owner has possession of a business or residence near the Lakota school system, they must pay taxes to the public school because of their monopoly status and lack of competition mandated by the school. When Lakota states that they have done everything they can to save money and in order to continue being a good school, they must have more money; they make those kinds of comments knowing that they have no competition to prove otherwise. Private schools and neighboring schools are not competition when they are not working to solicit the business of the same student base and when it comes to public education at Lakota it is not Lakota East against Lakota West regarding finances. One does not try to outperform the other in a race to perform the best service for the lowest cost. The reality is that Lakota as a district is under the control of a monopoly. Their costs are driven by a labor union and that group does not want ANY competition. Their mandates are created by politicians, not the free market. They are the worst kind of anti-trust there is, and it is criminal that they are allowed to exist as monopolies under different rules than what the private sector witnesses. If there were any justice, Lakota and all public schools would be prosecuted as monopolies by the federal government with the same fanfare that was shown against the railroads, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, or Microsoft. The trouble is the prosecutors would be the same people who built the current monopolies, the public workers who are the employees, lawyers and politicians who built the public education system. With the same vigor that the government proved in court that Rockefeller and the other “monopolists” who fell victim to the Sherman Act would not do the right thing and allow fairness in the marketplace, the public workers will not regulate themselves—so they must be made to do so with law—or some other method. To stand as an illegal entity with the backing of the federal government to impose their will against the tax payer as a monopoly is simply unconscionable.
For more on this issue read about it extensively at the links below:
I didn’t think much of it at the time because he was so young, not much older than my own kids, but Adam Winrich was one of those guys who worked out with bullwhips with the intention to become one of the best that the world has ever seen. Adam can be seen in the picture between my wife and children in 2005. I was very happy with that group, but always felt people like Anthony should have been a part of the festivities. There just aren’t many of us out there in the world. However, reflected in my discussion with the Hollywood stunt coordinator, there aren’t many films being done with bullwhips in them, so the competition is fierce on who will get the jobs when they do come about. I had no plan, or desire to challenge Delongis for a film coordination job as a master whip handler when I knew that people like my friends Gery Deer, and Chris Camp worked much harder at the technical aspects of whip work than I and should be doing those types of jobs over me. My interest was in actually doing some of the things I was writing about, so my destiny trailed off and away a bit into the realm of politics—where real threats are actually happening. Without giving away too much, I have spent my time since that Class of 2005 living life in much the same fashion as Don Diego did in one of my favorite films, Zorro’s Fighting Legion. I lost touch with some of those members of the Class of 2005 in the process, and one of them was Adam.
I feel I have accomplished many of the political tasks I intended, and recently announced that I was going to put more of my personal emphasis back on the bullwhip as it has been such a large part of my life for over thirty years. The yearly Annie Oakley event still takes place, and some of those faces from the Class of 2005 still return every year, to meet up and tell stories of their previous year. But some of those faces have found it difficult to return as they are continuously busy working in the business. Adam is one of those guys, which isn’t a surprise to me. Adam worked very hard, and it shows. Since the Class of 2005 Adam has done shows everywhere from The Conan O’Brien Show, to football halftime demonstrations and everything in between and I think he is one of the most technically proficient bullwhip artists that there is anywhere. Many of the whip masters who learned from people like Alex Green and Mark Allen felt they had taken whip work to unforeseen heights and they had. Young guys like Adam then took the work several steps further breaking records and delighting audiences in ways that have never been done before.
I am very proud of Adam Winrich who has taken the sport of whip work to new levels. I knew there was something special about him when he was cracking his 100’ whip in the main path in front of the Darke County Fairgrounds Coliseum, only to get a reprimand by Gery because the activity was going on outside of the yellow tape danger indicators. Gery was right; the whip was very dangerous and could have removed the head of a person who wasn’t paying attention walking by. But Adam’s custom made whip couldn’t have been cracked anywhere else because it was so big and I enjoyed his constant enthusiasm to try new innovative ways to advance the sport. So Adam and I had the big whip in the crowd trying to crack it which was very reckless, and very fun.
I hope that in the future he can align his very busy schedule to returning to Annie Oakley as a new class of young whip crackers is emerging and could use his mentorship. The kind of enthusiasm that Adam brings to the world of bullwhip art is the type of thing that makes legends out of raw talent. I am very proud of the Class of 2005 because of people like Paul Nolan, my own children, and especially Adam Winrich. It is wonderful to see that the fire that burns deep inside a mind can translate to the end of a whip with antics that have never been done before by anybody. And it is my hope that such innovation and technical skill will continue to advance in subsequent Classes of Annie Oakley graduates.
Nice job Adam. I learned to do this trick from you. Nothing against Mark Allen, but he would have never considered such a thing before some of your technical experiments.
I’ve talked about it before; the opening chapter to my novel The Symposium of Justice was dedicated to the immense frustration that I feel every time I hear about cases like the one Glenn Beck revealed recently that had been buried since 2007 from media scrutiny. If not for people like Glenn Beck and The Blaze Radio Network, stories like what happened to Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian from Knoxville, Tennessee would simply be swept under the rug forever, as many such stories are. Hearing the story upset me so much that it took me a week to respond accordingly to it. I feel very passionate about these kinds of cases. But needless to say, I feel terrible that nobody was around who could have helped Christopher and Channon from being brutally raped and killed by five attackers Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd. The crime committed was so malicious that it should have been a national story, but it wasn’t, most likely because the attackers were black and the victims were white. The story didn’t fit the modern progressive agenda, so it was ignored. I wish that someone would have been able to stop this crime before it happened. For me, I think the worst aspect of the case was the fact that Channon Christian was a virgin, who had made a decision to avoid sexual activity due to her Christian beliefs for her future husband. Channon thought enough of the act to make a day-to-day decision that would be a grand gift to her future husband meaning her entire life’s objective was savagely stolen from her by a gang of thugs. When they dumped Channon’s broken body into a trash can later that night after hours and hours of torture, rape and severe mental abuse, it was more than just Channon’s life that left her body after slowly suffocating. All her life decisions were simply stolen from her and cheapened by a group of people who completely lacked value of any human standard, and behaved like a pack of rampant animals to destroy the lives of a nice couple just because they could. Virginity doesn’t mean much to a cheapened nation such as what we have today, but for people who are not progressive, who are not liberal malcontents, or products of modern government dependency, it still has value and that value was brutally taken from Channon Christian in an act that is terrible beyond the physical abuse. The violence cuts through to the heart of what we are as people, as rational human beings.
As reported by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, on January 6, 2007, the couple made plans to watch a movie at a friend’s apartment, but they never made it. They would never be seen alive again.
When Christian didn’t show up for work the next morning, family members immediately grew worried and reported them missing, Beck explained.
“It turns out that the couple had made it to dinner, but when they arrived at the apartment complex where Christian’s best friends lived, they were carjacked by multiple assailants,” he said. “What followed was one of the most heinous, gruesome, senseless hate crimes, ever.”
It was at this point in the program that Beck advised parents to have their children leave the room or pause the show and watch it at a later time due to the graphic details of the story.
Newsom was gagged with a sock in his mouth, his ankles were bound with his own belt, his hands were tied behind his back, his face was covered with a bandana and his head covered with a sweatshirt that his five assailants had tied around his neck with shoestrings. He was than violently raped with an object and beaten. “One can only imagine the horror Christopher experienced as he was then forced to walk barefoot to the nearby railroad tracks, where he was shot in the neck in the back,” Beck said solemnly. “But the shots didn’t kill him — he fell to the ground and was paralyzed.”
“That’s when the assailants stood over him, placed the gun against his head and fired, killing him execution style,” he added. Newsom was shot a total of three times. But not even that was enough. The attackers then poured gasoline on his body and set him on fire.
Unfortunately, the horror of this tragic story is not over. Beck went on to speak of what also happened to Christian on that night.
The woman was forced into a back room of the house where she was hog-tied with a strips of fabric from a bedding set. She was brutally raped “in every possible way imaginable” for several hours as the assailants beat her viciously with several objects, including a broken chair leg. By the time Christian was taken into the living room, the five attackers realized they had left their DNA on their victim. In an attempt to cover their tracks, they poured bleach down her throat and on her body before they wrapped her body in black garbage bags and covered her head in a plastic grocery bag. “She was then placed in a garbage can in the kitchen of the house — all of this while she was still alive,” Beck noted.
“Channon Christian’s last minutes on earth were spent slowly suffocating in a garbage can after she had been savagely beaten and raped for hours,” he added.
Could the police have stopped Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd from carjacking the poor couple on their way to the apartment complex? No. Would further taxation of a new police levy stop the violence? No. Would more welfare money dumped into the system prevent the vast evil exhibited by the attackers? No. Would more education about race differences stop the crime? No, in fact it probably made it worse by giving the attackers the belief that they were “equalizing” themselves by destroying the life of a young white couple because of the hate that flows into their culture from music, from government, and all progressive outlets. There are only two things that could have eliminated this dreadfully destructive incident………..a very large handgun that would have killed the attackers on the spot, or a society that advocates social value. I prefer the later, but understand the former is more of an option in a valueless world.
Channon Christian was trying to live her life with some sense of value. Her commitment to virginity was a step in that direction which is sorrowfully lacking in modern society. It’s not so much the act of sex that virginity represents; it’s the commitment to placing value on it. Millions of women give sex away cheaply, but Channon was attempting to set herself above such tawdriness by saving herself for her marriage and the children that would come out of such a union. Women who make these kinds of commitments to families they don’t even have yet are the kind of women who become wonderful mothers, wonderful wives, and wonderful grandparents who inspire entire generations. These punks took that from Channon and every child she would have produced from a loving husband conceived in a bed that only they shared through a union they believed to be pure and under the care of God.
It is not because of the color of their skin that these attackers are scum bags that belong to my temperament at the end of a vigilante’s justice. Hearing this story makes me wish terribly that I could have been somewhere close by to lend a hand—to prevent the terror from even happening. But the reality is that this isn’t the only crime like this that has happened. It’s not the worst of these crimes to have been committed. In fact, it is happening right now somewhere in somebody’s dark corner of the world and there isn’t a politician, a law, or an education institution that can stop it. The more they try, the worse they make things. The only combat there is against this kind of thing is a sense of value, a sense of goodness that is advocated and supported by society at large. I cannot be in every spot of the globe, so I hope these words will reach people who are, and inspire them to change their communities for the better. I spend all this effort on blog postings, articles and books because it is the best strategic option against the kind of parasites we are up against.
What was the real hate crime here? Was it racism? No. It was a group of valueless thugs who wanted to steal value from someone else. So they took it from a couple in love on their way to building a future together. Since the thugs couldn’t give themselves value where they were lacking, they sought to steal it away from someone else. Even though the murders couldn’t make the thugs suddenly become valuable people, it could break the measure of goodness against bad, and give the perception that everybody is just as tainted and corrupt as the twisted fools Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd. In the much discussed Treyvon Martin case where a young kid of color was shot and killed by neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, was it a case of racism? No. Based on the evidence presented in the case, it would appear that young Treyvon thought about the world unfortunately that he had a right to travel through a gated community and not to be accosted by any neighborhood watchmen. The community he was passing through had value, value for their yards, their landscaping, their cars, their homes, and this made an attractive target for people seeking to fill themselves with value others built. The attack provocation is not one of racism but of differing values. One party either wants to steal the value of another monetarily, or metaphorically. Sometimes they just get a charge out of putting the fear of violence into those with value who feel frightened to shut themselves up behind think glass windows and locked doors. Sometimes the next step is the preference to actually yank those of value from their cars in Knoxville, Tennessee and steal away everything they ever were and everything they would ever become with brutal, diabolical sex, then murder. Where does the hate come from………….it’s not racism, it’s in hating those who have values making those who don’t feel like they can’t measure up in comparison, which they don’t.
My idea of justice on these kinds of matters are what I wrote about in The Symposium. I do not think tax payers should continue to pay for the life of Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd with life in prison. Tax payers should not have to feed those worthless criminals in jail for the rest of their lives, it is simply too expensive. It’s not even an eye for an eye type of revenge thing; those criminals are parasites on society that have done more than enough damage. They have robbed the world of a likely nice couple who would produce nice Christian children who would have raised them with nice southern family values, and that is a detrimental cost quite enough. The cost of one night of brutality is bad, heart wrenching, and terribly cold-blooded. But the cost of the loss of such innocence is far worse, because it is increasingly becoming more and more difficult to find people in this world who actually have value and to preserve them from becoming victims of the valueless. The cost of losing such people has a far greater impact on the social fabric of our civilization than anything else. Good people are lost forever in such cases and it is happening every day. Meanwhile the scum bags that do the crime get to sit in jail for the rest of their life fed like animals in a zoo off the tax payer. They get to live out their days as productive contributors of nothing, while those who would have otherwise been productive find themselves brutalized and stuffed in a garbage can to die where the media placed the story because it didn’t fit their agenda. The violence is not created by racism in its natural state, but by a media who seeks to advance a political agenda that pits the valueless against the valued in an attempt at social equality where nothing of worth is safe from the convicts of righteousness.
Very few things make me emotional; however the words of Teri Benning at the end of a recent West Chester Buzz article nearly brought tears to my eyes. It is not often that truth is spoken, let alone written in public these days, yet Teri uttered such a truth about the upcoming Lakota Levy and I felt pride swelling upon hearing the delectable words of a Lakota tax payer.
“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”
Aaaaaaaaahhhh. I liked that so much I want to read it again…………………………
“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”
Isn’t that just wonderful? Doesn’t that just make fantastic sense? Of course it does. Yet that is precisely the imagery I think of when I think of Lakota, that they are like 10-year-old kids with money in their pocket and a burning desire to spend it somewhere on something as fast as they can. They lack any real discipline, logical understanding, or desire to do what is right for the community and instead regulate their thinking to the same old failed education policies of the past—policies that do not work, are not helping children become the best in the world intellectually, and is an obvious money pit.
It’s no secret by now that I have several personal friends who are either former school board members of public education and have thrown their hands up in frustration to now fight against it, or are current school board members who want to reform the system from the inside out. One of my very dear friends is a former school board member from Lakota and has a wonderful insight into what goes on behind the scenes legally, and illegally, and could tell stories for the rest of all our lifetimes about what she has seen, heard, and read from Lakota—even school board members still active. Her stories are intense, and to the untrained ears may appear radical, and over the edge. But the passion of her statements is different from the bold logic of people similar to Teri Getz Benning. My friend has been too close to the situation for too long and knows clearly what has been wrong in public education and just how sinister the situation has been for a very long time. Her anger and passion are driven from insider knowledge that should send chills up the spine of every tax payer in the country. Recently she left me this comment about another Lakota article I had written about. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.
The public school system is in the extortion and indoctrination business. In the case of Lakota, about 67% of the taxpayers do not have children attending the schools. Yet the teacher’s union and the parents do expect senior citizens and working people to support the system to the degree of extravagance that they desire. They must have new schools, new equipment, new programs, new sports programs, new buses etc. The older schools are just not good enough.
In spite of having everything new, data seems to prove that each generation of students has not been taught the basic skills to survive. Even IQ’s have dropped drastically from those of the people during the time of the founding of this nation.
No one should doubt that any new money given to any school district will be poured into salaries and benefits. That is the clear reason why the teachers, administrators and PTA (an arm of the NEA/AFT) work so hard to shame voters into voting to tax their neighbors even more.
It is high time to put a halt to this racket. Teachers are NOT underpaid. They have the summer and bountiful days off and still make as much as architects and lawyers. STOP them now!
The only defense Lakota, or any public school has against the comments of this former school board member is to call her crazy, psychotic, or a radical conservative, just as they have attempted to call me names in hopes to deflect the ears of the taxpaying public away from the truth, a truth that was spelled out above. Public schools are indoctrination centers for the government and they are harming our children, not helping them. This is an inconvenient truth that many pray is not the case. Many supporters of public education love the social appeal of sports and other community programs that center around a school, and do not wish to see the ugly truth—but that doesn’t make it go away. The truth is the truth and cannot be made into a falsehood with wishes from Aladdin’s lamp. Public education is a racket, and corrosive scheme designed to destroy minds, rip up families, and suck the life blood out of all communities from which they reside. Public education institutions are the cockroach of the government employment family and they should be treated as foul, vile insects that must be exterminated from our communities. They lie, cheat, manipulate, and put themselves between parents and children in terribly destructive ways.
But my friend and I have seen too much of this truth to be objective any longer. I despise those institutions of learning for what they don’t teach, and what they do I find repulsive. I would like to see an end to them all and have parents take control of their children’s education completely. That is why I enjoyed the words of Teri Benning so much, because there is no radicalism, no jaded perception present—just an honest opinion rendered from observation with an appropriate metaphor. It is good to see that such people are out there and that they voice their opinions. At best public education institutions like Lakota are similar to 10-year-old undisciplined children. They cannot wait to spend money they do not have yet have, and once they do have a little, they are ready to spend it on every silly thing their immature minds can conger up. It is a relief at this stage of the game to see that new people like Teri are making their opinions known, because for every one of them, there are many dozens who sit fearfully on the fence afraid that the Lakota Levy Zombies will discover them and seek to destroy their social reputations with strong-arm tactics of peer pressure and raw emotion. But increasingly, the trend is to not fear the Lakota Levy Zombies, but to fight back against them—which is a wonderful trend. Whether the emotions range from the logic of Teri Benning, or the jaded realism of my former school board friends, the trajectory of emotion is pointing away from traditional public education and more toward a privately funded enterprise that excludes the government indoctrination, and for that I am very, very, happy!
According to Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network John Boehner is a “pinko, commmie, bed wetting, mambie pambie, hand wringing, crying, orange tinted, ‘I’ve gotta do whatever I can to save the children, the puppy dogs, and the rainbows,’ dirt bag in congress.” It should have been clear from the outset that John Boehner had been bitten by the progressive bug of statism when he took the gavel of House Speaker from Nancy Pelosi, then immediately started crying. Boehner was crying because he had gained enormous power the way he perceived it–3rd most in the entire world behind only the President and Vice President of The United States, and he was proud of himself for being elected into that position. He was proud that his peers had just voted him in congress the equivalent of the Homecoming King of a big high school football game. They had enough faith in him to protect their lobby interests on K-Street, to look the other way while they made millions off insider trading on Capitol Hill, but worse of all, did exactly what Doc and his producer Skip established during the following broadcast, use Cloward and Piven methods of overwhelming financial systems in order to create havoc allowing for massive changes in American philosophy through case-law to bring about “progressive changes.” This is what Congress led by John Boehner is guilty of doing by adopting methods of making illegal aliens legal so that they can vote in upcoming elections. Listen to that epic Doc Thompson broadcast from The Blaze Radio Network at the video below. (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE)
John Boehner recently sent Barack Obama a birthday present knowing full well that America is burning on several fronts, many inspired directly by those same Cloward and Piven strategies designed to invoke progressive changes. In the world of Capitol Hill the idiots there believe that they are royalty and actually rule over the population, and in order to stay in such power they must continuously find new ways to “game” the system in order to increase their voting blocs, and they do this by giving away the wealth of others, confiscated through government, and literally buying votes in elections based on their wealth redistribution. The Democrats have done this kind of thing for years, and now the GOP is doing the same once they suffered a stinging defeat after Barack Obama was elected for a second term.
The GOP lost the last election because they played by the rules against an opponent where anything goes. The GOP did not respond accordingly. Fewer voters participated in that election on their behalf than did in 2008 showing support for John McCain and the first possible woman vice-president Sarah Palin. Palin was publicly dismantled by attack through every branch of the media ruthlessly, even though she was a woman—because she was a conservative and had been a successful governor. McCain was simply too much of a “nice guy” to respond to any attacks from the left believing that he and his party were above such a fray. Republicans under McCain’s leadership routinely believed incorrectly that they were “above” such fisticuffs while Obama and his minions ruthlessly attacked all their political opponents with blood in their eyes and a knife behind their backs. The GOP has failed to respond to progressives in American government since Ronald Reagan was in office three decades ago. Instead, they have taken up the mantra, “if you can’t beat them—join them.”
This is how Republicans have invested so much of themselves in the new Gang of Ocho Bill that seeks to give amnesty to illegal aliens. While the budgets across the nation collapse under progressive strain, the GOP seeks to find voters for 2016 among the illegal aliens hoping to beat out the Democrats in giving away more stuff to earn those voters. Meanwhile they have surrendered ground to their old base of support assuming that they will always vote for the GOP instead of the lowly Democrats. But they have been wrong. Instead of holding their nose and voting or people like John McCain in 2008, then Mitt Romney in 2012, they just stayed home to watch sports, play video games, or went shopping. People have stopped being interested in politics because of all the crookedness that is going on in Washington, surrendering their voting rights to the illegal immigrants who mean well, but often come from statism controlled governments and see nothing wrong with taking all the free stuff the American government wants to give them to earn their votes.
This brings everything around to Doc’s statement about Boehner. Boehner was supposed to use his power to bring about justice, and enforce righteousness, yet he has refused choosing instead to defend government statism. Boehner has chosen to “get along” with a president who has openly been hostile to the American way of life. Obama is a devoted radical of the left and ran an administration that will go down in history as one of the most corrupt and secretive in the history of presidents. From the questionable origins of Obama’s birth and education background to the Benghazi scandal, to the IRS attacks against conservative groups the Executive Office has openly used Cloward and Piven methods to “progress” society to the left by yanking the Overton Window dramatically in that direction. John Boehner has stood by like a weeping child and let him do it believing incorrectly that Americans don’t want a fight in politics. He and all those who think the way he does are wrong.
I was proud when a politician from my area took the third most powerful position in the world in 2010. However, watching what he’s done with it, I am deeply ashamed of the man. If I saw him or a member of his family around my town, at the grocery, or other social event, I would not seek to shake his hand, or even acknowledge his existence. A year ago I was invited to a breakfast occasion with John Boehner which I turned down. Now I would be insulted if I even received such an invite. I wouldn’t simply refuse due to time constraints, but because it would be an assumption that the host considered me cut from the same cloth of such a weak-kneed, wussy, of diabolical character, soft will, and corruptible spirit. I would consider such an invite today in late August of 2013 to be equivalent to an invite to fight in a parking lot—because the invitation would be one of disrespect.
Doc was right to call John Boehner all the things he did because the guy has not only done a bad job as House Speaker, but has caved into the enemies of America as defined by logic. Capitol Hill is a land infested by peasants not of financial demeanor, but of moral aptitude. They are lacking minds capable of leading anybody anywhere, and to cover their deficiencies, they seek to redistribute wealth to maintain office. This is what John Boehner and his GOP supporters are after with their support of illegal aliens. In America foreign immigration is part of what made The United States great, and there is a process for earning the honor of citizenship. But that path does not involve free phone apps telling immigrants how to “game” the system with welfare abuse and parasitic living. Anyone who supports such methods deserves to be called everything that Doc called them, and much, much more.
Upon the announcement of the 2013 Lakota levy both sides of the issue began voicing their opinions, and one fellow that represented how the typical YES voter for tax increases thinks left a series of comments favoring the levy which can be seen below. The guy named AJ Malott isn’t a bad guy, just a person who sees public education as an entitlement similar to Social Security and Medicaid, and he believes that the older residents in Lakota should be willing to pay for his children’s education because he is paying for their senior oriented retirements. He also makes a point to mention No Lakota Levy, which is a group I played a large part in formulating so explanations are in order. First, let’s see what AJ thinks.
And another thing, isn’t it interesting that the so-called leader of the NoLakota levy group owns a contracting company? Is he expecting an influx of work when no one wants to buy/build/remodel in the community? People only want to invest in their homes if they feel connected to their home and community, and plan on staying.
I thought we were smart by moving into the Lakota district 4 years ago BECAUSE of the support and quality of the schools. So, yes, lets put that in jeopardy so other millennials whom are starting their families do not want to move here. And, then those who want to move because they don’t want to pay the taxes can experience declining home values. Then, it can be a lose-lose situation for all.
With the exception that they claim that the older generation doesn’t want to pay for schools for the younger generation. Well, doesn’t this whole system we have designed center around everyone paying their collective share. When one group decides they want to opt out (the seniors), it puts undue pressures on the other groups. So, if they can do it, I’m not sure why our generation can’t do the same thing. You pay for schools and I will continue to pay into benefits I’m sure I’ll never see any of.
You know, I am finding it really difficult to continue to pay that Social Security and Medicare tax out of my paycheck. I look forward to the next generation of politicians that feel the same way, and look to make cuts to those “entitlement” programs. If you don’t want to support my child’s future, why should we support yours.
In that article which the commenter referenced, Bob Hutsenpiller gave a statement representing No Lakota Levy’s position. He simply said any tax hike will be a tough sell to older residents in Liberty and West Chester Townships. This prompted AJ Malott to assume that he was in a position to offer critical review about Hutsenpiller. Bob went on to say “Lakota officials should continue its recent budget cutting while the seniors, retirees and residents of the district go through these rough economic times. Most of the seniors of the Lakota district are contemplating moving out of the district just to reduce their tax burden.” For saying that, Malott felt entitled to deliver a subtle attack in order to defend his child’s “right” to a free education. So before going into a dissemination of Malott’s comments which represent the average levy supporter in all public schools, I must put a book end into my involvement with No Lakota Levy prior to this upcoming campaign. To discuss that I have to refer back to a Middletown Journal article from the summer of 2011 where members of No Lakota Levy without my agreement attempted to make a deal with the Yes Vote group at Lakota. I was tipped off about the event by the reporter covering the story. The article can be seen below.
Members of the No Lakota group are in disagreement about whether they would support a levy if Lakota puts one on the ballot.
West Chester Twp. resident Mark Sennet spoke to the board of education Monday, saying the No Lakota group would support a “conservative” levy in 2012 if the board would bypass the election this November.
However, No Lakota member Rich Hoffman, who has typically spoken on behalf of the group, said no discussion had occurred at a meeting about supporting a levy, and he was holding fast to his stance on never supporting a levy.
Hoffman said there may be a split in the group, but he thinks the 50-and-older crowd will stand with him.
Sennet said Lakota officials have made “a valiant effort to try to work and control spending,” but people still need time to recover from the economic crisis. He said he and several developers would be on the board’s side if it waited for November 2012.
“We acknowledge that there were changes made,” he said. “The businesses had to make changes. The citizens had to make changes, and we were glad to see the union and teachers and board agreed to a pay freeze. But if the levy were to pass, then I guess that would be good for the community.”
Board member Ray Murray said he was pleased the business community is recognizing the district’s transparency and how it is listening to the community.
“There are going to be people who are not going to ever say yes to anything, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said. “We’ve got to generate more revenue. We can’t survive on a 2005 budget.”
Former For Lakota levy chairwoman Sandy Wheatley said the board and district representatives have been mending fences with those in opposition since the last election.
Needles to say, the kind of “fence mending” Wheatley was talking about was an attempt by the levy supporters to split up our group. As she stated in her comments, there would always be people like me who would say NO to a tax increase, so the Lakota administration attempted to cut deals and split up our group so they wouldn’t have an opposition for the upcoming election in 2011, which of course didn’t work. Prior to forming No Lakota Levy Sennet contacted me about joining forces as in the previous levy I had been doing my own thing. He had been working from a group with a different name. When he asked me to join his group, we called it No Lakota Levy which went on to defeat the next two attempts. But before the second attempt under that name, Sennet had decided that the kitchen was too hot for him. The social pressure of not supporting a levy impacted him, which was what Wheatley was referring to. I witnessed some of the most open extortion I have ever seen through charity events, boycotts, and behind the scenes manipulation that was rancid with sinister intentions. By the second levy, many of the people in No Lakota Levy didn’t want to be seen at meetings with me because they were afraid that such associations would harm their businesses, even though No Lakota Levy was saving them tens of millions of dollars in taxes. In private meetings they liked my company, but they didn’t feel comfortable associating with me in public, for fear that the Levy Addicts would connect the dots and find out that they were members of No Lakota Levy. Bob Hutsenpiller was the exception.
Once Lakota hired Superintendent Mantia her mode of operation was to apply even more pressure on the business community “mending fences.” It didn’t work by the 2011 attempt in November so Mantia went to work with new strategies in the winter of 2012. After my events with Sennet at No Lakota Levy, I wasn’t sure I wanted to handcuff myself to playing such a front man while so many others stayed in hiding for fear of being associated with an anti-tax group. I played along for a while, but did not like the direction the rest of the group wanted to go. The emphasis on public image of No Lakota Levy was becoming much more important, and I didn’t like that, and I wanted out. I felt it would be better for No Lakota Levy if people like Hutsenpiller spoke on their own behalf, and we discussed it in meetings about future levy attempts by Lakota. But I was very good at my job, and so long as I was there, it allowed the people who were most effected by commercial real-estate taxes to use me as a shield, which was giving Lakota the illusion that their “fence mending” was working in their favor.
I meant it when I said that in the next election Lakota would have to deal with No Lakota Levy on one angle, and myself on the other. I don’t like to mend fences, because doing such a thing only benefits the people who build the fences to begin with, and those fences were built by Lakota politics. I don’t like deals, peer pressure and financial decisions made under coercion and I prefer to call a spade a spade. But I am glad to see Hutsenpiller speak reasonably representing his stance. The amount of money that Lakota is asking people like him to pay in additional taxes is bewildering. It is just a shame that others like him are so cold with their tongues. Without question, they will be NO Votes in the upcoming election, but they are careful what they say in public because they will have to see people like AJ Malott at social events frequently who have no idea how much money the tax increases cost a business, and can never hope to comprehend. Those phantom business owners don’t want the ramifications of being out of agreement with the “fence builders” like Lakota’s current superintendent, for fear that the lack of “cooperation” will have a dire cost against their livelihoods. Unlike their contemporaries in public education, the business owners cannot raise taxes to cover their costs. They have to actually nurture a customer base.
Every time there is a new Lakota levy there are new people like AJ Malott who come and go from the community. They move to Lakota for the nice green space, the shopping, and the schools, but they don’t know much about the character of the area. I grew up in Liberty Township and I know what kind of place it has always been. It was named after the American Revolution just as the City of Monroe to the North and Hamilton to the West were named after key members of the American rebellion. And most of the long term residents I know who have lived in the area most of their lives have that kind of blood deep in their veins no matter what their economic or social status proclaims now, Hutsenpiller is of that type. They are free spirits who resent “fence mending” as much as I do. They will do what they must for their businesses, but what they think in private is an entirely different matter. The people who support these school levies are typically young people who are newer parents, or people who came from progressive places like New England, or California so they don’t really understand the argument against school funding and public education in general.
For me, I want to argue against the entire premise of public education, not just the ridiculousness of the funding. I am encouraged to see other people rise to the occasion to make those points, which free me up to make the larger arguments. The Lakota Levy to me wouldn’t mean much in financial investment, it’s the essence of the implication that is the problem. I spend more on a typical dinner than the levy would cost my residence. But the real cost of the levy is against the business owner, people like Bob Hutsenpiller who cannot build enough buildings to possibly cover the tens of thousands of dollars his taxes will go up if the levy passes. Bob is not alone. There are dozens of people like him who will pay millions in additional taxes if the levy passes, and it is a shame they don’t do more to defend themselves, instead of getting stuck in the political trap set by people who want to “mend fences” when the entire cost of the materials for the fence come from the business owner.
I had no plan, or desire to challenge Delongis for a film coordination job as a master whip handler when I knew that people like my friends Gery Deer, and Chris Camp worked much harder at the technical aspects of whip work than I and should be doing those types of jobs over me. My interest was in actually doing some of the things I was writing about, so my destiny trailed off and away a bit into the realm of politics—where real threats are actually happening. 
