Tag: John Kasich

Jeb Bush and Common Core: Why public education is the wrong way to instruct children

Jeb Bush has doubled down on his position regarding Common Core obviously because he’s been with the program from the beginning and truly believes that government is capable of educating the population. However, the results have proven the opposite—government education has been devastating to the American public and is something that needs to be completely overhauled. To understand a bit of the conflict the following videos one by Jeb Bush being interviewed by Sean Hannity at CPAC shows how deeply Bush believes in government education. Then the second video of Michelle Malkin shows the reality of government education and how far left of the correct position Jeb Bush really is.

Jeb’s mistake is in his belief in government solutions to what should be free market competition. Education needs an infusion of competition instead of a standard for everyone. The belief that Bush has that a high standard set by government will provoke quality in education is a false one—it only plays into the mundane complacency of the labor unions behind education and their desire for a comfortable standard that the weakest links of their collective bargaining agreements can sustain. The government model allows the weak to rule the strong and that will never create an environment where the best of anything is brought forth.

It is time to have that hard discussion about education. It has been for a while, but the evidence is just so obvious, even more so than when I so adamantly pointed out this inconvenient truth a decade ago. The more I learned about public education the more convinced I was that it was the wrong thing to do, and was completely wrong for children as a learning tool. Public schools are no different from public housing projects—the intention was good, but they quickly become a cease pool of bad behavior and crime. Test scores and the general wherewithal of today’s youth shows the devastation. Public education with years of Common Core like practices have destroyed the minds of the youth—it has left them ill prepared for even basic tasks in life and certainly isn’t worth all the tax money stolen from property owners to pay for.

Education can only work if there is investment of some respectable level by the students and their parents. Parents can’t just drop off a child to a government professional and expect magic, and in today’s public education environment—that is precisely the expectation. Public education is a baby sitting service at best followed closely by a social experiment.

When my wife and I home schooled our children for a period of time there was serious blow-back from family and friends. Some of those people we no longer speak to as a result of the things that were said back then. The great fear was that my children would not be “socially adjusted” and would become social malcontents. The trouble is that social malcontents was a definition that was created and defined by government schools over the last 100 years, and has largely become a topic of falsehood over the last decade due to the instant rise of social media and technology which connects people in ways they never could before. The rules of conduct established by public education were created during a time when the AM radio was a new invention and telephones were beginning to show up in personal residences. It really hasn’t changed since—due to the labor union resistance to change and their desire to lobby political waves to maintain a status quo. But kids have changed and their needs are different from they were a century ago.

Jeb Bush is caught in that old century long belief that government schools can teach children to be great innovators and there just isn’t any evidence which produces such a conclusion after all this time. The opposite is true. Public schools are more concerned with integrating individuals into a collective mass than in nurturing the thoughts of gifted minds into unleashing new thoughts and concepts. If government schools were removed from children’s lives it is a safe assumption that creativity and individual happiness would increase greatly throughout society. Home schooled children are obvious examples—they statistically out perform government taught children in most categories—so the evidence should be easy to contemplate. But it is scary for old politicians to admit to themselves that government schools are utterly incompetent to the task of their intentions. A brand new means of instruction is needed.

This requires a complete deregulation of public education into a system that is owned and is individually profit driven both at the student level, and the level of the institution itself. They cannot be tied to state and federal money, or grants—but must rely on individual contributions from a student population that values what they offer. Then and only then can bad ideas be tossed out, and good ideas expanded upon. There is no motivation otherwise. Politicians need to get out of the education business—completely. They have trouble building roads—let alone teaching generations of youth. It’s just a stupid outdated model that is in serious need of an overhaul.

Public schools will become more and more irrelevant year by year until eventually people arrive at the same conclusions I have just expressed. It is doomed and over—which I declared nearly 5 years ago. It’s a thing of the past even now in the present. It only exists to keep government employees in a job, and politicians to say they did something positive. But those efforts are destroying minds, and that just can’t be allowed to happen without contemplation. And upon that contemplation, Jeb Bush is entirely wrong whereas Michelle Malkin represents the mode of behavior that will gradually pick up steam until public education is abandoned in favor of something that works.   The periods between now and then is something that will be painful, but will quickly sort out the righteous from the malcontent. On the issue of public education Jeb Bush falls on the side of the malcontent. He only knows to throw more federal money at something that is destroying our nation believing that it’s crucial to success.   And that just makes him out-of-touch, and unqualified to be a president for the age that is coming. The curb of politics is ahead of him, and he is incapable of catching up to it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why Obama and the Democrats Protested Netanyahu: The real source of hatred in the Middle East

 

If Obama wanted to dispel the belief that he was not a closet advocate in favor of ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a radical communist insurgent from Indonesia aligned with domestic terrorists to undo America—he certainly didn’t help his case when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress on March 3, 2015. Democrats at large boycotted the speech, which is strange onto itself, but even VP Biden gave up his seat as a leader of the Senate to protest the speech by the Israeli leader. Why? I can understand that Obama thinks he’s the leader of the free world and is something of a king, but to take matters to this extent is fishy—to say the least.

Netanyahu doesn’t want to get blown up by Iran. Given the radicalism present in the Middle East and considering that he is in a position to know specifically where the threats come from in that region, America should listen to Bibi if the concern was truly peace in the Middle East. But, witnessing the inaction against Syria, the troop withdrawals in Iraq, the continued soft policy regarding ISIS, the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Benghazi scandal—the strangely aggressive objective of killing Muammar Gaddafi without congressional approval, there is something very radical about the Obama White House that is beyond refute—and now when the most peaceful country of the region is begging for our help—the President and his Democrats are taking a position much more akin to the Palestinians as opposed to the Israelis. Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu has always been strained in the same manner that Obama utters the word “Christian” as if it pains him—which his actions seem to confirm. Why?

Before the speech Netanyahu explained his reason for the visit, “I plan to speak about an Iranian regime that is threatening to destroy Israel, that’s devouring country after country in the Middle East, that’s exporting terror throughout the world and that is developing, as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons – lots of them.” Sounds reasonable enough–as a world leader, America should be concerned about a country that wants to blow everyone up from with a warning from the mouth of a direct ally.   Where’s the controversy? Why would Democrats not show up to listen to such a warning—even if they thought it was overstated? By attending, they’d be in a position to give press interviews later criticizing Netanyahu. But by refusing to attend they discount themselves from the debate since as representatives, that was their exclusive reason for being in government. Even if they don’t like the direction of the discussion they still have an obligation to participate. That’s what they’re paid for. As public servants, that is their obligation. But they boycotted which indicates an open disdain for Netanyahu himself and a support of Iran’s position.

During the speech Netanyahu stated toward the Obama administration knowing they were watching on television, “When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy – is our enemy.” Meaning, no matter what kind of games Obama and his people think they can play to align good Muslims with bad Muslims who share in common a hatred for capitalism, or even peace on earth because they have their focus on the everlasting damnation of death—they are all enemies if logic is used to determine value. The battle lines between one culture and another demands that a choice be made—that there is no middle ground on the matter. Boycotting a meeting because Obama wants Netanyahu to lose the next election in Israel won’t make the boogiemen go away in the Middle East—it will simply empower them.

My in-laws recently returned from a trip to Israel and the Sea of Galilee region. It was clear to them where the boundaries between the two countries were and the religions in general. The Muslim based Palestinians were living a massively impoverished collectivist existence, the Jew based Israelis were living a largely capitalist lifestyle complete with irrigation and plentiful measures to obtain food. It was clear to my in-laws and the pictures they showed to us during a family gathering just how different the two cultures were—and that was at the heart of the modern trouble. The Old Testament and the Quran have similar beliefs and characters from their religious doctrines which should be a uniting factor among those people in the Middle East. But the hatred that the two sides have for each other has roots that extend into essential philosophy as opposed to religious belief. That much was clear from the values exhibited by the two cultures shown in the personal documentation of the region by my family members. Israel is prosperous, whereas the rest of the Middle East not associated with sales of oil to the West is essentially an armpit of intellectual decrepitude and they are prone toward economic and political socialism—as opposed to capitalism.

I wouldn’t call Israel a capitalist country, they have labor unions, social discrimination that leads to success or failure, and a government that holds way too much property in its possession. But, they do embrace much more capitalism than anywhere else in the Middle East except for maybe the United Arab Emitras. The rest of the entire Middle East is suffocating under socialism and hard-core communism and it uses the religion of Islam to mask that reality. This causes an income inequality readily apparent between Palestine which feeds the anger of the aggressors against Israel with jealousy instead of actual religious differences. If the root cause of the hatred is sought after honestly, the big hatred for Israel, America, and the West in general is that their economies are driven more by capitalism as opposed to socialism, not that Christians believe in the Old Testament over the Quran.

Thus, the same could be said for Democrats and Republicans in American politics, the Democrats identify with their collectivist brothers and sisters in the Palestinian movement, and Republicans identify with those in Israel because the country’s general economic philosophy is more aligned with the GOP. The protest by so many Democrats toward the Benjamin Netanyahu has a lot more to do than hurt feelings, or even fears that it will violate their arms negotiations with Iran—it’s a fundamental philosophy over socialism and capitalism and to them—Israel represents a love of money and the value it represents which they despise—personally.

There is no other explanation for Obama and his Democrats for their desire to protest the Netanyahu speech than to illustrate their innate hatred for capitalism. There is no other rational explanation for the amount of hatred aimed at Israel in general in the modern world. Arabs see the creation of Israel by a deal made by the French and English after World War I as a western intrusion of their homeland, and I can understand anxiety over it, but not the hatred so prevalent today which provokes a sitting president and his political party to boycott such an important event. Even now, England and France are so openly socialist that they are no longer the countries that they once were—as imperialists global empire builders—so the Arabs have largely forgotten about them. There are currently large sectors of both societies in both England and France who will support the caliphate that is brewing around the Mediterranean and support terrorist activity on behalf of ISIS—so it is Israel and America that holds the most attractive targets for their hatred, not because of a deal made during World War I, but because one side of the Gaza Strip leans toward capitalism and has vibrant gardens and a flourishing economy, and the other side is a dirt pit of impoverished conditions and backwards thinking. It is in that understanding where the whole picture suddenly becomes very clear—Obama and his Democrats have in common with ISIS, HAMAS, and the radical Muslim Brotherhood a hatred of capitalism and money in general—and lean toward the theocracy of belief as opposed to the facts of value. And that is the primary reason for their hatred of the visit by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

uBeam’s Meredith Perry: Changing the world of energy distribution through innovation

Meredith Perry was an astrobiology major in college and did space research for NASA, but at the tender age of 25 years she has taken on the remarkable task of challenging the entire electrical delivery system framework with her very new and innovative company called, uBeam. And, she’s hiring. Her goal is epic and she is just two years away from making it happen. As of this writing she is poised to partner with a tech company with deep pockets like Apple or Google to remove power cords from all appliances starting with mobile devices. Here is the way she describes her company to potential applicants.

Our engineering team is comprised of world-class multidisciplinary inventors, where the word “impossible” is not part of our lexicon. We take pride in solving complex technological problems quickly, across many fields. At uBeam, we go from PowerPoint to prototype in a month or less.

We’re on a mission to untether the world, and we’re in search of new blood to join the team. We’re seeking hands on, dedicated people who are driven to push the boundaries of technology, people who are not looking for a typical 9-to-5 desk job, who are looking to make tectonic shifts in the world of electricity.

About her new technological invention she says according to her website and USA Today, “I started looking into types of technology that harnessed ambient energy, and I stumbled across piezoelectric [material], and I thought, if this can harness vibration, how do I induce ­vibration over the air? Then I realized that sound is vibration over the air. It was a natural “aha.”

“The dream is to replace all electrical outlets with uBeam transmitters,” says Perry. “You’ll wake up and just go through your day with your device and it will be charging in your house, in your car, at your bus stop, at your gym, in your hotel. We want to be absolutely everywhere. And wires won’t be anywhere.”

Here’s how it works. uBeam’s transmitter is a wafer-thin square the size of a salad plate that punches out ultrasonic frequencies much like a speaker creates sound. The receiver, currently in the form of a smart phone case, resonates at the same high frequency and turns that imperceptible movement into energy, charging the phone.

uBeam’s transmitter doesn’t go through walls, so a square tile is required for each room. Although uBeam is still a few years from being consumer-ready, Perry is convinced her “competitively priced” creation will find its way into our homes and any commercial space where devices are used.

“What I’ve seen over the years is people making tiny improvements in existing technology as opposed to saying, ‘Let’s throw this all out and do something new,'” she says. “I know the odds are so against me. But I wouldn’t start a company and bust my (rear) for years unless we were working on something orders of magnitude better than anything else out there.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/ubeam-founder-meredith-perry-replaces-cords-with-wireless-charging/23699083/

http://ubeam.com/

http://www.fastcompany.com/3029523/most-creative-people-2014/meredith-perry

I love Meredith Perry’s attitude and the implications for her invention is quite extraordinary. It has a real chance of completely changing the way that power is transmitted from one place to another. It of course highlights the origin of power to begin with where the debate of Thorium as opposed to dirty energy is clearly a better option, but because of politics Thorium was suppressed as dirty energy was highlighted. There is a real danger of Perry’s invention being crushed by the status quo because it will completely change the way that homes and businesses are wired during construction. uBeam is certainly one of the biggest breakthroughs in science and technology that is currently on the frontier of discovery—and it came from a very young and ambitious young woman unafraid of the status quo—or her place in it. She is to me a remarkable young woman.

I would say that the best home for uBeam would be Apple, who has enough fluid cash to purchase all the big three auto companies in America right now. Only from such an innovative company would something as cutting edge like uBeam have a chance of cutting through the massive amount of lobby power that will try to sink them. It would give Apple a tremendous advantage over their competition such as Samsung for a few key years of future product rollouts. Obviously, uBeam would need to be available to all products, from the new Samsung televisions to their mobile devices—but Apple working with uBeam could corner that market to protect the wireless power market from the political machine that seeks to capture and regulate energy to throttle the cost and demand.

A company like uBeam is one step closer to my dream of every car, home, and personal power consumption device pulling free energy out of the air and being self-generated which is a real possibility. In our immediate lifetimes the debate will occur that the current power grid all across the world is old-fashioned and well out-dated. All power lines could be replaced with personal power devices—and that is a debate that will cause current power companies and the governments in their pocket a lot of heartache. Perry’s uBeam company is the gateway to such thinking and once people get a taste for it, they will accept it for everything from their washers and dryers, to their cars—and eventually their homes.

Ambient energy is important because it generates energy from everyday motions in life. uBeam is using ultrasonic waves to create energy, and it is entirely possible that the same could be done on a massive scale—just study an electrical storm during a spring rain where cold air strikes a front of warmer air provoking a violent storm. Such things have been tried before but were struck down politically because money could not be made on generating the power or the delivery method. When it comes down to something like what uBeam proposes, the technology is viable, clean, and much more efficient and reliable, but it will threaten the current infrastructure which will find it a threat to its very existence. So for the next step in wireless power transfer to occur it needs two things to happen—one of which it already has. It needs a fearless, smart, and charismatic young person who doesn’t understand the nature of defeat and is a rebel even by the standard of the Silicone Valley tech companies. Meredith Perry is the embodiment of such a person. The next thing it needs is a protective entity that has an immediate need for such a product as uBeam is producing. Apple or Google are among the only companies with the big guns to protect uBeam from the resistance that will surely come. If those two things can happen, the world just may change for the better.

Needless to say, I’m rooting for uBeam and its founder, Meredith Perry. She reminds me of my daughters who are the same age. There is a lot of hope in her, and I would hate to see that ambition crushed by a world protecting itself from its own insecurities. For that reason alone I’m ready to rip out all my outlets and convert over to uBeam technology. It’s just a matter of time.

Rich Hoffman

CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

The Value of Good Employees: Chick-fil-A showing the best of private sector employment

The biggest difference between workers in the private sector and those in the public is the monopolization of effort that is typically associated with a lack of options. In the private sector there is a lot of competition whereas the public has virtually none. Scientists, teachers, IRS service representatives from the top to bottom get a check whether or not they perform so they are not motivated to do a good job. In the private sector there are other options and a check only comes if the product or service rendered is one that people actually want. Private sector work actually demands performance and those who excel do so because the product they offer is superior to other attempts of a similar value.

I thought I was in for a tough time the other day when I visited the Chick-fil-A at Bridgewater Falls near my Ohio home. My wife and I waited until about 2 PM to visit so that the lunch crowd would die down a bit, but the parking lot was still full. Parking next to us was a couple of “wigger boys” with their pants pulled down to look like rap artists complete with neck tats and a girlfriend belonging to one of them—maybe both. I typically go to nicer places just to avoid those types of people. But this particular Chick-fil-A is near the Hamilton/Fairfield border and there are a lot of these types of people coming from the government subsidized homes in that area—so you tend to bump in to them at the Bridgewater location. But I wanted a chicken sandwich so my wife and I went in any way.

The scank boys and their trashy girlfriend complete with a baby tucked into something that looked like a purse took one look at the crowded dinning room and said, “fu** this” and turned around to walk out. I gladly held the door open for them to leave happy to see them go. As they walked by they smelled like cigarettes, pot, and spit. I watched them walk like penguins across the parking lot back to their car to make sure they didn’t open their door into my own car out of disrespect. Once they were gone, my wife and I resumed our visit to Chick-fil-A.

I had just been thinking about those “wigger boys” trying to emulate a government subsidized African-American existence that has fed the rap culture with so much negativity when a young man of color stood at the counter to take our order. He was excessively polite, well-spoken and very clean-cut. His voice sounded like it belonged on the radio with a deep resonance that held behind each word an articulation of confidence that came from nowhere else but from within a complete personality. He said “sir,” to me about ten times in 2 minutes and was extremely professional. He even wiped the overflow off our drinks as he prepared them. Everything he did the attendant did with professional flair and an appreciation for the quality of his work. He was marvelous.

Chick-fil-A typically has better employees than other similar fast food restaurants which is clearly a by-product of their recruiting practices. But this guy was excessively good even compared to Chick-fil-A employees. I continued to be impressed as we were given our food and I turned to find a table I had been looking at recently vacated, and still dirty. I had been thinking of cleaning off that table so we could sit down—because it was rather messy. But before I could perform the task a woman in her middle years was already there wiping it down clean. She even got on the floor and hand-picked bits of food that had fallen there so that it wouldn’t be messy around our feet. That further impressed me. We sat down and I watched the woman who promptly went behind the counter to wash her hands. For a fleeting second I had the feeling that mankind wasn’t falling off the edge of the earth into an abyss that it will never recover from. I was delighted.

The articulate attendant continued to take orders from the line that continued to be nearly out the door. With each customer he showed the same interest in perfection and left his customers with a fulfillment well above the standard for a fast food experience. As I thought about him, and Chick-fil-A in general I had to contemplate what drew us to the restaurant as opposed to the Chilis just across the pond from our location, or the Wendy’s down the road mixed with an Arbys, Frisch’s, Subway, Pizza Hut and even an Applebee’s all located nearby. At that hour even the Chilis restaurant had a nearly empty parking lot—but Chick-fil-A was full. And the employees seemed excited about working there. The food after all was pretty average. I mean its good, fresh and there’s a decent variety, but the Chick-fil-A experience is different and that seemed to be more of what was drawing people in than anything.

A large part of that experience which sets apart Chick-fil-A is the quality of their employees—which directly carries over into their food and overall environment. It is obvious that Chick-fil-A puts an emphasis on quality employees and this gives them a market advantage over everyone else. It also helps that they stay so busy that quality people tend to be drawn to the place to avoid the scum bags and skanks that are found everywhere else. In the case of my experience, the disenchanted social misfits decided they didn’t want to brave the crowd, but as I looked around most of the people in the dining room were pretty clean-cut types who looked like they might attend church often—and likely took an interest in the lives of their families. It probably had more to do with why those “wigger boys” and their “hoe bag” decided to leave because they felt uncomfortable with the environment. They would be more at home at a Taco Bell, or a White Castle where half the workers behind the counter looked the same as they did.

I’ve worked on the other side of the food counter for a long time and I know what goes on. When I buy food if I see someone working in the kitchen covered in tattoos and looking like they belong in a rap video I am likely to be careful what I order and I will watch them prepare it. It’s not practical to expect a low quality person to prepare food for your own sustenance. Garbage in tends to make garbage—so I am usually careful about stuff like that. I have an extreme reluctance of going through drive thru windows for that very reason.   I like to see what I’m buying and I don’t trust people I can’t see to do the right thing. We are dealing with an entire generation raised on movies like Jack Ass and shows like Beavis and Butthead and they think it’s funny to spit in food and rub their body parts on what we put in our mouths. At Chick-fil-A I have much more trust in the food making process than I do someplace else—especially Taco Bell. McDonald’s I trust more just because they have been the best at taking the human element out of the food making process. There are many fewer opportunities for food tampering at McDonald’s than there is at Burger King or Wendy’s. But Chick-fil-A is the best of them all and they still do a lot of traditional food prep.

A Chick-fil-A would never occur with government workers at the helm. If the restaurant were unionized it would also not have the same level of service. It would at that point be just another chicken place—it would lose its special appeal—its value. Government workers and those coming from union mentality households tend to believe that jobs were created so that employees can buy flat screen televisions and play video games all day—that a job is just something that gives them a check at the end of the week instead of a privilege for earning a living based on their individual merit. It is because Chick-fil-A understands how to recruit and keep good employees that they have such a market edge over a very competitive marketplace.

Whenever I go to Disney World with my family one of the things I most look forward to is the treatment of the customer anywhere within the vast complex in Orlando, Florida. The employees are always very professional and enthusiastic about their jobs, which allow customers to buy into the fantasy setting they try to create. Negative people are a deterrent from positive thought processes, and at Disney World negativity would destroy the fun world created by the theme parks. So I actually look forward more to the positive environment by the workers than of the rides and attractions themselves. But at Chick-fil-A I get the same without the extraordinary expense. And that is what is so magical about the fast food giant. And I have to thank that young man who made my experience so much better recently—who was so much better than the average Chick-fil-A employee—which is saying a lot. He created such a positive environment that he elevated the personal work ethic of all those around him and that is the most marvelous gift of all. It was why that restaurant was still packed even as the other restaurants in the area were preparing for their dinner rush. Chick-fil-A at Bridgewater Falls hadn’t yet stopped being busy from lunch, and the way things looked, they weren’t going to get a break. But the employees stayed positive anyway, which is what makes them so much more special.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Controversy Over ‘American Sniper’: Why evil hates the new Clint Eastwood film

The best part of the American Sniper film is that it has flushed out the counter insurgents within United States cultures—those who actively work against the ideas established in the Constitution to create an economy based on capitalism, personal freedom, and moral integrity.  The popularity of the film has forced opinions to be mirrored against the radicals of American society and display the contrast.  One of the typical and less profanity ridden examples of hate against the film is the article shown below from Salon.com–a left leaning publication.  It seamlessly combines an attack on the integrity of Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood, and the GOP in general into one dribbling hate fest.  Have a look:

Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a[youtuhero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than anguish with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.

But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia– from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mindset.

In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on U.S. gun culture, “Bowling for Columbine.  Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directed comments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.

Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/

For many years these types of leftists have attacked the fundamental conservatism of American culture with accusations that silence opinion so not to be labeled in such a hateful manner.  Socialist radicals just as they are taking over Europe, the Middle East, and every poverty-stricken nation throughout Africa, India, and China have successfully eroded away opinion against their schemes using the same methods and everywhere but America has it worked.  In the United States the leftist strategy is certainly at work, but it has met with considerable resistance particularly from the type of Americans who love their guns, their country and their God.  Chris Kyle is a danger to them because it gives those core Americans the knowledge that they are not alone and isolated in their thoughts and provides clarity to the true insurrection by socialist minority forces.  These insurgents have been at work for many years as change agents against the American republic trying to force a conversion into a mass driven democracy guided by socialists.  American Sniper is the movie of normal Americans, and they have showed up in mass to see it scaring the crap out of those insurgents hoping to remain undetected.

Clint Eastwood has had a battle with these insurgents for many years starting with his Dirty Harry films.  Those cop drama movies were all about the changes happening in America through those change agents as Clint Eastwood’s character represented the last vestiges of John Wayne’s patriotism.  Critics pushed on Eastwood throughout that series and in each film Dirty Harry addressed those issues.  For instance in Magnum Force, the second Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood dealt with the thin line between his character and the vigilantes who were cops who created a secret squad of assassins killing bad guys without any court process.  It was essentially an argument between raw conservatism and fascism.  In the Enforcer the story dealt with underground communist terrorists similar to the real life Weather Underground.  Dirty Harry had a female partner which created conflict in the face to the severe danger being created by radical groups pressured by a political system to hire women to the force just for social satisfaction.  In Sudden Impact everyone was against Dirty Harry as the character was forced to step away from the politics surrounding him.  At the end of that movie when the killer was found, Eastwood’s character let her go—because there was no justice possible to rectify the situation.  By the time the Dead Pool came out—which launched the career of Jim Carry—Dirty Harry was a celebrity just trying to live his life—but circumstances would not allow him to do so.  Even with all the feel good publicity expected by Dirty Harry—in the end he had to turn toward raw vigilantism to solve the crime.  Eastwood has always answered the leftist critics with his arguments in his most controversial films.  He as done plenty of soft, non political films, but Eastwood has always expressed a lot about himself and his views in his movies.  His best films are the ones where he is most controversial because the passion of his convictions comes out clearly which is why after all these years—he is still a beloved actor/director.  Like a time capsule Eastwood has been there from the beginning and has chronicled the present insurgency in the topics of his films as they happened to our social tapestry.

So it is again with American Sniper which essentially returns to the topic of the very first Dirty Harry film.  The fight between Chris Kyle and Mustafa in the film is the same as the one between Dirty Harry and Scorpio.  American Sniper is an exploration of evil and what to do with it when you find it.  What is the responsibility of America when evil is at their doorstep?  That is the question that Eastwood answers in the film.  And American audiences like his opinion and have voted with their wallets.

Evil is among us.  It is at work and it forces us to look within ourselves to decide what to do with it.  It’s not complicated—it’s rather simple.  For Chris Kyle, because his upbringing and state heritage gave him the ability to detect evil as viewed by Christian orthodox—he had an advantage over those less fortunate throughout the world.   After all, we are lucky to be born in America.  It would stink to be born and raised someplace else—but we need not feel guilt about that to the point where we give the value of that benefit away just to make the rest of the world feel better about themselves.  The insurgents among us feed off that tendency and make it into a reckless enterprise.  Chris Kyle, like many of us are products of our environment—and those of us born on the winning team are lucky to be there.  But we have a right to protect that value by projecting it elsewhere so that other little children not born under capitalism and freedom can taste what we love and cherish.  If left alone—those other countries become cesspools of evil by default.

So the question remains, is it a higher morality to leave a country like Iraq alone as the terrorist evil there hell-bent on revenge for their arguments with Europe and a conflict that extends back to the Crusades—or should America sweep in to free people from the evil at work behind the broken ideologies of collectivism that is ever-present among the communist driven ISIS currently reeking havoc once again in Iraq upon our departure?   Would Iraq be better off or worse off without all the CIA involvement, or the alliances formed due to oil companies in Saudi Arabia?   If left alone, the entire Middle East, Israel included, would be a pit of communism and that is the real issue that leftists hate about American Sniper.  If the traditional definition of communism is defined as evil because it robes individuals of their ownership and value and surrenders to the collectivism of the mob then it is easy to designate all terrorist activity as evil.  They aren’t freedom fighters fighting against institutionalism.  They are fighting in favor of institutional religion, politics and economic viability. And that makes them evil.

Evil likes to hide in the masses.  Within collectivist systems where the value of the good is robbed to hide the degradation of the bad, evil can flourish—so it prefers collectivism over individualism because it can operate in a concealed fashion.  Clint Eastwood made a movie in American Sniper that stares that evil in the face—and the leftists advocating that vile evil don’t like it.  So they criticize the film, Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood and anybody who expresses appreciation for the film hoping to push everyone back into the hole that they have been living in for years allowing evil to flourish.  But this time it’s not working.  And they are scared—as they should be.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Huffington Post Blames Supreme Court for Republican Wins: Swinging back the correct way

Before the election results of 2014 are fully sustained, it is important to understand how the radical element of our society viewed those elections—which are represented below so clearly by the Huffington Post. The aforesaid article came out just a few days before Election Day 2014 and reveals a great deal of the underpinnings of progressive beliefs. Obviously, the concern is that American politics is moving back to the conservative right based on the polling of the Republicans taking control of the senate and defeating Democrats in several key races. Momentum is evaporating from the left and they realize it. The same desperation that has made Barack Obama into the king of empty forums and a White House backtracking on the importance of a midterm election—the political left is losing support rapidly. Have a read of the way progressive organizations viewed this particular election and what they are blaming their eroding support on.

There is still suspense over what will happen on Election Day, with control of the Senate hanging in the balance. But regardless of who wins, we already know the 2014 election belongs to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is the first election where the country will experience the full impact of the Court’s recent decisions rewriting the ground rules of our democracy.

When the Court dismantled our laws regulating money in politics and gutted core voting rights protections, we knew those decisions would have consequences. But only now are we seeing the full scope of their impact: a return to pre-Watergate, pre-Civil Rights era practices. Cash from unknown sources is flooding the most important races, while state politicians have instituted new barriers to the ballot box for millions of Americans. Regardless of who wins, the integrity of our elections has been undermined.

For the first time in decades, citizens in nearly half the country will find it harder to vote. In 14 states, 2014 is the first major election with new voting restrictions in place. For many working class, minority, elderly, and young Americans, voting is now more difficult and expensive. For some, it is impossible. In Texas, for example, 608,000 registered voters do not have the photo ID now required to cast a ballot. A disproportionate number of them are black and Hispanic. Some have already been turned away at the polls.

While the voice of ordinary citizens grows fainter, the voice of the 0.2 percent of Americans who spend the vast majority of money in federal elections — often anonymously — is louder than ever. Outside campaign spending has shattered previous records, with new groups like super PACs and “dark money” groups that do not disclose their donors dwarfing the spending of ordinary citizens and sometimes even candidates themselves. In many key races it is impossible for us to know who is buying our elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-weiser/supreme-court-voting-rights_b_6093372.html

 

Essentially, the Huffington Post is blaming their collapsing polices on the inability of their base to compete with money pouring into the political machine as if there was some type of unfair advantage being conducted. They seem to forget that Democrats have a nearly exclusive claim on minority voters, and the technically stupid. There are a lot of really stupid people out there and they mostly vote for Democrats. Democrats also have a lock on the public sector unions and all labor unions in general who pour many, many millions of dollars into candidates who obviously do not represent mainstream America. In fact, the progressive obsession with the whole photo ID issue is that it complicates the voting process too greatly for the typical Democrat. This means fewer voters for them who typically are sympathetic to the handouts given out by government.

What they mean by “pre-Watergate, pre-Civil Rights era practices” is that they successfully suppressed the influence of those who stand against them—and that now the pendulum is swinging the other way—and they don’t like it. It means they always intended to yank the nation radically to the political left with the intention to keep it there. But the nation doesn’t want to stay there; it doesn’t want the poor education practices, the hateful attitude toward business, the castigation of values and religion. It doesn’t want an abusive and top heavy government that will use the IRS to enact its will on dissenters. It doesn’t want Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton who fails to understand that it is businesses that create jobs and nobody else.

I am personally not all that impressed by the election results. Sure the country is moving politically more toward my direction, but my representatives are far too pink to my blood red Republicanism. I live in a red state and a darker shade of that red than average—so many of the victories to me are just more wash-outs and future villains that need to be fought. But at least those are people worth fighting. The kind of politics the Huffington Post is referring to has deliberately been hidden from the view of the vast majority of Americans and it is now exposed. Now that people can see it, they are rejecting it—as many always knew they would. That is the price of deceit, and when elections are won by deceit—as they have for far too long now, progressive organizations like the Huffington Post should understand that any ground they have made will be lost in a whim just because their ground was not won by actual victory, but through deception. And this past election is only the beginning. There is a long way to go, but that direction is one that does not favor the progressive—that is for sure. Their arguments are tired, and now gleefully exposed.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

How to be a Great Parent: The importance of mentors through leadership

If there is one skill that I have which is strongest, and most valuable, it is that of mentoring—or providing leadership.  I’ve had that ability virtually from the first breath I’ve ever taken.  When I was younger I naturally knew what the next possible action of every situation was, but I often respectfully wasn’t presumptuous enough to disrespect the older generation who thought it was their job to provide leadership.  So I yielded a lot to their failures and figured that I’d just fix things when they were out-of-the-way eventually.  Part of the reason for that decision was that I have always believed it is best to allow people to arrive at conclusions on their own and that the leadership provided by me was to point the flashlight where they needed to go empowering them to take possession of their own destinies.  It is not good to have vanity in such an activity where others feel they owe you gratitude for showing them the way.  A good leader should leave the smallest footprint possible so that the minds affected feel that they arrived at a destination on their own—therefore getting their buy-in as individuals.  Of all the leadership roles that are most important in the human race, the relationship between parent and child is the most important—so naturally I have always been a great parent to my children.  But I’ve never sought to beat them over the head with my parenting ability, but rather allowed them to carve out their individuality based on their own predilections.  The results have been spectacular of course and highly unusual by social standards.  Of all my kids, some who are biologically connected to me, and those who come in by marriage—they are all unique.  However, my oldest daughter has put herself out there a bit and is emerging as one of the best photographers in the Cincinnati area doing many weddings and coverage shoots for expensive real-estate.  For those who are curious, here is my oldest daughter providing a sampling of her outlook on life which obviously makes me very proud.

I never look at those types of things and reflect of my input into helping to shape her.  It was my leadership ability which helped pull out of her way the obstacles that might otherwise encumber her, and to show her what could be achieved.  Since I don’t practice the social evasion of a second-hander there is no secret yearning for public recognition for doing a wonderful job as a parent—not even within our own family structure. The reason is that those receiving mentorship by me should arrive at their destinations on their own merit taking possession of their lives individually without the vanity of public recognition.  No other person, particularly those un-enlightened oafs lacking direction, has the right to take credit for a person’s destiny.  There should never be a temptation from one to another to say, “I made you what you are.”  To do such a thing is to rob from the recipient of your leadership the right to declare their own life for themselves—and thus all decisions which trickle from them in the thereafter.

In this next clip my kids took my grandson on a day trip for no other reason than just to give him the experience.  They left after breakfast and drove across the state for a day of adventure and were back before dinner.  It was the kind of thing that most people never attempt—because they have such poor time management in their lives, they don’t even provide the effort.  When my kids were little children, I always provided them with similar adventures which squeezed everything out of life that there was available—because it is always in those efforts that the gold nuggets of existence reside.  As a leader you never quite know where or when those nuggets might turn up or in what quantity.  What you do know is that the treasures are hidden off the normal path of life and that if mankind wants some of that treasure that they have to step off the paved roads we are all taught to stay on to find them.  I taught my kids to look for treasure off the main roads—and as adults they have done just that.  I can’t take credit therefore for their wonderful lives—they own the right to their decisions and how they spend their time and energy.  So it gives me great pride to see them take my grandson on a simple adventure designed specifically to his age and ability knowing that what they are doing is providing leadership to the young man—which will empower him to wonderful things during his lifetime.

If leadership is done right, it should be as invisible as possible, only recognizable in your absence.  If people don’t learn to do for themselves, they will forever become prisoners of other people’s opinions—which is a chaotic mess of discombobulating thoughts.  If they learn to do for themselves, the potential that is unlocked is endless.  When I was younger I was the hated target of many parents who were doing their jobs incorrectly—and they hated me for the light I shed on their lives which they desperately hoped to conceal.  I was always—and still am—that guy who said to everyone chained to those types of circumstances not to listen to their parents out of obligation or loyalty—but only if they offered leadership that was valuable.    Don’t follow their light if they lead you to the doors of a mental prison or the mouth of a lion.  When I was younger I’d say these things but would often not take it to extreme measures because I wasn’t sure back then if my thoughts were correct as experience had not proven my path to be the right one.  However, as an adult I know without any doubt what the correct path is, and no longer feel that I should hold back.  So I don’t.

In a lot of ways this blog is doing the same things I have always done, only it allows me to do it on a larger scale—giving more people access to the types of things I have always said and done.  I offer the elements of this blog as insight into self-empowerment.  It’s the best parenting tactic that there is.  It is one thing to teach a kid not to touch a hot stove by allowing them to come to that awareness on their own.  The lazy method is to put the fear of God into them scolding them upon an attempt.  The proper method is to make them aware of the danger without fear by getting down on the floor with them—at their level so not to rob them of initiative and let them discover through you that the oven is hot by a simple demonstration—by pretending to be burned.  Of course you as the leader would not actually allow yourself to be burned—but you pretend to be so that they can see the pain on your face and equate that experience to something they’d rather not embark on giving them the self-empowerment to make decisions.  Once they learn to observe the conditions of their environment and make value judgments based on reality—you will have shown them how to overcome any obstacle, anywhere, at any time.

My daughter featured in that first video is the type of person that I don’t worry about getting a flat tire in the middle of nowhere—because she can figure out how to get out of that situation.  I don’t worry about people assaulting her—because she has been taught how to think for herself and adapt to the circumstances given to her—even if they are aggressive.   I don’t worry about her making money, because she has been taught how to gather treasure off the paved roads of life and knows what to do with it once she gets it.  I don’t worry about her because she has the ability to provide leadership of her own to others and can do so as an endless stream of motivation.

Parenting should never be like an Academy Award ceremony where all the members of your life turn out to provide recognition for a job well done.  Most of the time it is a completely thankless job—most of the people most affected by it will not have the ability to understand what it is that you’ve done—if a parent does a truly good job, they will likely be the scorn of the family making everyone else feel a level of guilt for their own inadequacies—that’s alright.  Being a leader is a lonely job that must cut through public opinion with the clear sense of direction that comes from the person holding the light—and trusting their ability to find the proper way in the darkness whatever the obstacle.  The best of these leaders do their job without anybody even knowing that they are doing it.  And there is no greater role for the leader than the parent.  It is important not to shatter the confidence of a young person just to exert a feeling of control over another human being—which happens in most relationships between parents and children unfortunately.  Children are treated disrespectfully primarily because the parents are corrupt with the wrong type of thinking.  And those children often grow up to become menaces of society in various forms.  The failure can most of the time be traced back toward parenting failures and severe lack of leadership.

I only used this example of my daughter because it’s hard to know what a real human being is supposed to be like for those who don’t know any.  By social standards my daughter is exceptional.  But to my standards she is normal—and it makes me angry to see so many people surrendering their lives right out of the gate because of the mental restrictions placed upon their lives by poor family leadership.  Most of the world’s problems begin with that very primal concept—the parent/child relationship.  Most of the world’s problems start with poor leadership and a lack of understanding how important self-empowerment is to each and every individual on planet earth.

And for those who want to utilize the services of my daughter—here is how you can find her:

http://brooketownsendphotography.com/

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Corrupt Politics Behind Lakota’s Boys and Girls Club West Chester: The exploitation of children to fulfill fantasies of vanity

The essence of the Boys and Girls Clubs across America is really an excuse for altruistic latté sipping prostitutes to bath themselves in perfume and take selfies at award dinners to celebrate their bailout of failed parenting and offerings of all day babysitting services to families too busy and ignorant to perform the task of mentoring for their own children.   In spite of the hoards of celebrities which participate in commercials for the Boys and Girls Clubs, the basic message of the organization is that parents fail at raising children and that there is a social safety net out there to catch all those lost children who would otherwise fall through the cracks of civilization.  The idiocy of the message is that an alliance with government schools will somehow miraculously overcome bad parenting and make children complete citizens who will then grow up and “serve” their communities.  Needless to say, I think the whole premise is a bad idea.  So it should come as no surprise that I’m against the one that is being built in West Chester, Ohio in partnership with Lakota schools, which can be seen at the two articles below, one from the Journal News, the other from me where I break down the essence and politics of the deal telling the behind the scenes story of how that ridiculous endeavor came to be and who the personalities involved are.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/lakota-looking-to-lease-land-to-new-boys-girls-clu/nhSHs/

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/the-emperor-of-aldersonville-lakota-becomes-the-new-clothes/

However, the focus of this present article should be on the strategy of the Lakota superintendent Karen Mantia—as I am in a unique position to tell the story—which of course she will deny when pressed—but actions always do speak louder than words.  Karen when she was hired and overpaid by Lynda O’Conner, current Vice President of the Lakota school board, came to Lakota to pass school levies.  Up until that point Lakota residents had a strong resistance against tax increases proposed by the school.  So she set to do as she had in Pickerington, Ohio, to unite the business community and get their buy-in to her school system—as school superintendents like to see themselves as CEO’s who run vast corporations.  Coming to Lakota she sought to convert members of the opposition from No Lakota Levy—my group—into her way of thinking but first she had to know the political lay of the land.  She met with us and she and I had a nice conversation about my motorcycle and recent trip to Key West.  She was smooth and unassuming and made my partners believe that she had a head on her shoulders and that she just might approach school business with a mind to savings.

However, what Karen knew and discovered during that meeting, and through subsequent dinners through Lynda O’Conner with members of my No Lakota Levy group was that the builders and developers who were a part of the tax resistance were scorned by the school and not getting any work.  After all, Lakota schools is one of the largest employers in Butler County so it is hard to be in the business of developing things when you are on the shit list of local government employment group, so some of those members of the No Lakota Levy group wanted to repair their relationship with the school because they needed the work and felt vulnerable being on the wrong side of politics.  Mark Sennett was the first to defect out of pressure applied to him, which was revealed during the summer of 2011 when he misspoke to the media that No Lakota Levy would support a 2012 levy under certain conditions.  Of course I corrected that to the media and Mark was pushed out of the No Lakota Levy group.  Other developer types joined Mark, while others stayed with me.  Mark being a former government employee himself didn’t have strong convictions about things and was a member of No Lakota Levy because his affiliation with me saved him a lot of money in taxes—so we agreed on that much.  But on other matters, his reasons for being a part of the group were not as strong as mine.

During her meeting with No Lakota Levy Karen learned who the leaders of the group where and who the moderates were and quickly went back to the drawing board to figure out how to divide and conquer our group.  I warned our guys that this was her intentions and that she wasn’t such a nice old lady as she seemed.  For that particular election, they listened to me, but after the third levy defeat for which we orchestrated again saving local business owners millions of dollars—they began to feel the heat of being on the political out within the community and wanted desperately to repair their inside relationships for the exclusive purpose of gaining work from Lakota.  As developers, they couldn’t afford a sustained resistance to Lakota’s constant tax requests and Karen knew it.  So she attacked them where they all shared common ground—through the local socialite Patti Alderson.

Karen nurtured a friendship with the West Chester version of Lovey Howell from the Gilligan’s Island television show which cut directly to my No Lakota Levy members, because many were involved in the Community Foundation with her.  After discovering that Karen seemed like a reasonable women—a titan of industry much like herself–Alderson formed an alliance that would continue well into the next two years.  The purpose of this alliance was to pull the business oriented support of No Lakota Levy away from the ideological elements—represented by me.  I warned our members that this was what was going on, and told them that Karen planned to ignore the voters by going for another levy attempt in 2012 during a meeting right before Christmas in 2011.  They held tight for as long as they could, but really could not stand up to Alderson who put a lot of social pressure on them to buckle, because in essence they needed her more than she needed them.

On cue, Karen made her moves and positioned Lakota for an early 2012 levy push for either May or August when everyone was thinking about summer break—a tactic she tried in Pickerington.  Patti put pressure on my No Lakota Levy guys to separate from my radicalism and join the political moderates who were under the thumb of Karen Mantia joined together through the Community Foundation. Sensing the separation, Karen then worked the radical elements of her levy supporters to come after me personally and smear my name leading to the now famous Kroger Survey incident.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.   Reports of the survey came to me from No Lakota Levy supporters who directed me to the website “Yappi Sports,” which naturally infuriated me.  I agreed to a plan by the other No Lakota Levy members who were direct friends with Alderson to help them with a charity type organization called Yes To Lakota Kids.  Originally, we were planning to join Alderson’s group—but since her real objective was not to help kids, but build alliances against No Lakota Levy in favor of Karen Mantia’s efforts—she couldn’t work with me.  So we started our own group which touched off a firestorm of panic.   Immediately school board member Julie Shafer whom I debated on 700 WLW scoured through my articles and pieced together some of the worst things they could find that I had written to smear me publically—because the Yes To Lakota Kids foundation strategically cut too far into Lakota’s turf—which I knew it would all along.  So they had to take action.  I stood by my comments and felt good about it until the No Lakota Levy guys in direct alliance with Alderson left me stranded at the altar.  I knew the temptation was strong from them to end the levy fight, but I didn’t think they would side with her against me—but in the end, the politics of the deal was stronger than friendships and the rest is history.  Because of the damage on both sides—as I was intensely furious about the incident even more so than what caused me to say the things I had said in the first place—a short cease-fire was agreed upon.  Karen took that time to lick her wounds and try a different approach using a strategy of friendliness to counter all the vile things I had said about them.  Lakota spent many thousands of dollars on publicity to re-invent their image, and tried again for a levy in the fall of 2013 which they won by the slightest of margins.  Karen knew she had to try to get the money during a low year of voter turnout, as there weren’t any big state or national races on the ticket—otherwise she might not get another chance until 2015.  At the rate of spending Lakota already needs to try for another levy in 2017—so her time to take her one and only shot was in the fall of 2013.  My old friends and I joined together once again to resist the levy, but without me in the formal role of spokesmen—the effort failed.  I was better working in front of the scenes than behind and among them they couldn’t find anybody else to do the job the way I had.

I did what I had to do shortly after the levy passage to reduce my tax burden to absorb the cost of the levy, because I simply wasn’t going to spend the extra dollars out of my pocket to pay Lakota.  But for the rest of the members, who sided with Patti, they now have a substantially higher rate of tax to pay because of their wishy-washy behavior and failure to stand for their convictions—which leads us to this whole Boys and Girls Club at the old Union Elementary school.  What’s in the deal for Alderson—she gets to attend more dinners that worship her wealth as spotlights will douse her with attention—which she desperately seeks.  Karen gets a partner to support her in the next levy attempt as Patti pulls a lot of the local Republicans off their small government positions and into her fold just because of the wealth and political influence she commands. The local levy supporters get a free babysitting service so that they can feel the lack of guilt from being such sucky disconnected parents and my best friend from the No Lakota Levy days gets to build the whole thing.  He stood up to them for a while, Lynda, Karen, and of course Patti, but in the end he was locked arm and arm with West Chester’s Lovey Howell after the school board meeting finalizing the deal several months ago.  He was finally, conquered by Karen Mantia’s strategy implemented carefully and patiently.

So when people say about the Boys and Girls Club deal that there is corruption involved, now you know dear reader what they are talking about.  The inside deals are voluminous and run to the deepest cores of politics in Butler County.  Karen came to Lakota paid by O’Conner to do just this kind of divide and conquer tactic—but what all these elements have in common is their exploitation of children to commit the deeds.  Lakota routinely does this to gain money and leverage for their collective bargaining contracts, but in essence the Boys and Girls Club is no different.  They use children and the unfortunate victims of bad parenting to bath themselves in vanity for self recognition that has its roots in their personal religious outlooks.  Children and their misfortunes by all these parties are continuously exploited for the gains of adults who deep down inside want to be adored and loved by the masses for reasons that trace back to their own childhoods and the failures associated there.  That is why when the next levy is attempted by Lakota it won’t be the old cast of characters from No Lakota Levy this time—it will be a much more ideologically driven base that stands in defiance.  I knew what Karen was up to all along, because it takes one to know one, and I am well at work on the next campaign against them and will not again be vulnerable to wavering souls driven only by tax savings and not rooted in firm convictions.

Rich Hoffman   www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Racism falsehoods: The myth of “white privilege”

Bill O’Reilly and Megan Kelly from Fox News had an interesting debate about the perceived disparity of the black population and the so-called white privilege that is so much talked about regarding minorities.  Kelly rattled off a series of statistics which showed that blacks are clearly falling behind in virtually every category of social measurement and she leaned in favor of the argument supporting “white privilege.”  O’Reilly proposed a number of opposition arguments which provided clarity refuting the designation favoring whites.  That discussion can be seen below and is worth noting.

I have had more personal friends who were black than white over the years and understand the issue very well.  Megan is only talking about the result of statistics, but not the cause—whereas Bill O’Reilly began to touch on the real issues.  There is no white privilege in America.  The suppression of the whites against the blacks is a thing of the past and is only still considered by the very ignorant.  The cause of the disparity between the statistical facts rattled off by Megan Kelly is that blacks tend to support by default the position of collectivism versus the personal responsibility of individualism.  Collectivists associate all the things that happen to them as a group allowing many in that group to hide their bad behavior behind the mask of consensus.  In poor populations where fathers are infrequent, government sustains personal incomes, and the general philosophy is a collectivist oriented belief system statistics like the ones Megan Kelly discussed will take place regardless of the color of anybody’s skin.

If personal responsibility is not present in a culture, it will fail and resemble the kind of conditions seen in Ferguson.  The cries for equality by blacks and accusations of white privilege only come from those who decry personal responsibility and seek more collective mandates to hide their crimes.  The crimes of the typical perpetrator of the Ferguson riots would be loose moral attributes, poor family structure, terrible work ethics and deplorable personal conduct—all traits that center on collectivism.   Those who are successful in society tend to be those who conduct themselves with a code of some valor, personal responsibility, and awareness of their impact on the world around them not as a collective mass—but exclusively as an individual.

Being an avid motorcyclist I can name countless times that I have watched a person in another car throw a smoked cigarette out of a window. A lot of the time the same cars displaying environmental concerns are the worst perpetrators.  Think how hypocritical it is for a lover a nature to liter the streets of earth with cigarettes freshly consumed and still smoking.  But whenever a car is seen with bumper stickers displaying rainbows of support for mother earth, and cigarette smoke dances from a cracked window, 9 times out of 10 that same person will throw their empty cigarettes into the road while sitting at a stop light.  Many times they throw them out the window while driving not even caring that I’m on a motorcycle behind them.

I have studied this behavior for many years and this is the conclusion resulting from those observations.  People who throw their cigarettes out of windows tend to be collectivist oriented people who do not hold personal responsibility in high regard.  They assume that they are hidden behind a mask of anonymity provided by collectivist identification.  Because personal responsibility is not what they are functioning from they can’t imagine why or how their small cigarette thrown from a window could harm the earth.  What they fail to see is that if 30 to 40% of all people in a 300 million person population did the same, the roadways would be littered with pollution caused by the cigarettes.  But if the same person believes that a corporation—which is a collective group is harming the earth with pollution, then they will march with signs of activism and proclaim with fervor—“down with the rich CEO” the individuals at the top of large companies.  Their lack of personal responsibility has a double edge to it, first they hate individuals who control groups of people—so they attack CEOs, second they only understand things in terms of collective reference.  Anything outside of those parameters are invisible to them—like the thought that a simple cigarette might cause pollution in the world.

The same can be said of the welfare recipient, or the louse who blows off a free public education because their fatherless households failed to instruct them of the value, or the drug addict who shrugs away the value of their life in favor of getting high—the removal of personal responsibility during times intoxication.  The collectivist cannot associate responsibility with personal behavior because their lives are constructed around avoiding that diagnosis.  Thus you have race baiters like Al Sharpton declaring to a mass of angry blacks that “police have the money for guns, but not for education,” as if spending money on public education would solve the problem in poor black neighborhoods.  Billions of dollars in additional funding could be thrown into public education in a black neighborhood and nothing would improve—just as nothing has improved in public education in spite of additional spending for decades now—because personal responsibility for education is not being taught as an entry-level criteria.  Until that happens nothing will improve.

No matter what the topic when collectivism is involved, the result is always the same.  Decaying circumstances follow no matter what the skin color or sex involved entails.  If personal responsibility is vacant, corruption follows in every case.  There are no exceptions.

It is a lack of personal responsibility that is killing black America.  It is a lack of individual assessment and family structure that causes most of the trouble in communities like Ferguson.  During the last election, I supported Herman Cain and in the future I hope that Ben Carson runs for president, just as I have supported Alan Keys in the past.  They are all black politicians who I adore, so nobody can call me a racist.  I have more affiliations with more minorities than most people have in their entire lives, so I can speak fluently when I say that personal responsibly is the key to success in life.  The lack of personal responsibly is the cause of failure almost every time—even considering the misfortune of hard luck.

White privilege only comes to those who are taught to conduct their lives responsibly.  White people who adhere to collectivism as their guiding philosophy are just as wrecked as blacks who do the same.  Color has nothing to do with it—personal responsibility is everything.  I have known many blacks who are quite successful. I know whites who are very successful.  And I have known many other types men and women who are very successful—and what they all have in common is a belief in themselves as individuals.  All the failures in life that I have ever known all share in common a belief in collectivism—in the hope that they can live forever concealed from responsibility.  They of course cannot, but the fault of their circumstances are their own.  They can read these words and become angry, but they can offer no argument in favor of collectivism that cannot be refuted easily.  Notice the lack of comments on this article—which is free to the world—yet the lack of a defense of collectivism.  That is because they can’t defend it.  Collectivism is the reason that black communities, white communities and groups of all kinds fail.  It is no mystery, only a carefully concealed secret driven by a desire for waking intoxication of personal irresponsibility.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Producers and the Second-handers: Why people prefer electric shock over thinking

(Reuters) – So you say all you want to do is to take a few minutes to sit down and think without anyone or anything bugging you? Maybe that is true. But you might be in the minority.

A U.S. study published on Thursday showed that most volunteers who were asked to spend no more than 15 minutes alone in a room doing nothing but sitting and thinking found the task onerous.

“Many people find it difficult to use their own minds to entertain themselves, at least when asked to do it on the spot,” said University of Virginia psychology professor Timothy Wilson, who led the study appearing in the journal Science. “In this modern age, with all the gadgets we have, people seem to fill up every moment with some external activity.”

In some experiments, college volunteers were asked to sit alone in a bare laboratory room and spend six to 15 minutes doing nothing but thinking or daydreaming. They were not allowed to have a cellphone, music player, reading material or writing implements and were asked to remain in their seats and stay awake. Most reported they did not enjoy the task and found it hard to concentrate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/us-science-thinking-idUSKBN0F827V20140703

That information may seem extraordinary, but it’s really not—rather it is consistent with general human behavior and is caused by two basic roles that individuals evolve into as they mature into adulthood. People will become either a producer type personality—who makes things from self-initiative and are quite rare in the world or they will become a second-hander, a person who essentially lives through others. An example of second-hander behavior would be the type of person who dates a beautiful woman because of the prestige of being seen with her might provide. An example of a producer would be a person who dates a beautiful woman because they personally enjoy her. The same could of course be applied from women to men, cars, clothing, homes, food—just about every category of human endeavor. The typical “gold digger” personality from women who marry for money would fall into this category versus the woman who marries for “love.”

These behavioral conditions can actually be seen on any playground in the world where children play. Future producers are the kids who are the first to climb to the top of the monkey bars, or help a kid stuck on the slide whose nerve has left them as they descend. Most of the kids will reside in the safety of numerical superiority watching the producers be the first to climb to the top of a slide, or crawl under a strange obstacle, or swing across a crevice.   Once they see the safety of the task, they will then follow—gaining assurance from the leader—the producer.

The differences in creating these personalities come directly from the parents. If a parent lets children gain self-sufficiency by doing things on their own at the earliest possible moment—then there are favorable odds that a child will develop into a producer. But most parents coddle children and enjoy caring for them as dependents—as the behavior provides meaning to lives of parents who are otherwise insecure about their roles in existence. So too long parents carry children on their hips, feed them too long, and help them up when a child should learn to climb on their own stunting the growth of the young minds into the role of a second-hander. They learn as children to live through their parents. As older children they live through their peers. As adults they live through the rest of society.

This is why as adults they don’t know what to do with their own thoughts and would rather be electrically shocked than to think on their own for 15 minutes—a second-hander must get their next thinking actions from a producer otherwise they can’t function. It would be the producers who would happily sit for 15 minutes or more thinking quietly. The second-hander needs music made by someone else, television made by someone else, reading material made by someone else, video games made by someone else, etc—in order to have thoughts put into their head. With those things removed—they are terrified at the lack of thought in their minds and would gladly endure great amounts of abuse to have that sense of terror removed from them.

As has been declared on many occasions at this site—except without the direct correlation—public education systems are in the business of making second-hander children who will grow up to become second-hander adults. The entire ordeal of public education is primarily focused on building these types of minds which works well for consumerism—but not so great for capitalism as industry and invention are created by producer type personalities. Producer type children tend to not do so well in public school as the system is not geared to develop their skill sets—so they become frustrated. This is also why homeschooled children do better generally than publicly taught children, because homeschooled children are taught to be producers as opposed to second-handers.

As a test dear reader if you consider how something might make you look, or how others might think before you do something—you are functioning as a second-hander. If you do a task because of the curiosity of doing it when no eyes are upon you and enjoy thinking alone with no input from the outside world—then you are thinking as a producer. But it is very clear on the playground of children who will be who. The future lives of all those young people can be predicted just watching children play. You can see who will have marriage difficulties, who will have nervous breakdowns when their cars won’t start, who will bounce aimlessly from job to job—just by watching children play. You can also see who will be the future inventors, leaders, and wealthy elite—not because they are greedy, or vicious—but because they are often the first to climb to the top of the monkey bars, and will not hesitate to push bigger kids out-of-the-way to be the first to go down a slide.

What the test reported by Reuters above says—which is supposed to be shocking—is that public education systems and parents in general have successfully built a human race of second-handers who are all waiting for someone to tell them what to do next. It therefore should not be a surprise when there is so much apathy in the world. It’s not because people are bad—or stupid—it’s because they have been taught to be second-handers who cannot act until told what to do. It is for society to determine if this is acceptable.

Speaking personally, it isn’t for me. But then I’m the kind of person who could spend weeks alone in a room with everything turned off alone with my thoughts—and be perfectly happy.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

image