Tag: Lakota Schools

Joan Powell Was Thinking About Me: The start of a long born strategy

 

Did retired school board member Joan Powell and newly elected Lakota school board president Julie Shaffer really think that attacking me for going on WLW all the time illuminating the many mistakes made in public education—that the pressure against them would go away if I were not quoted on the mainstream radio and newspaper anymore?  Did they think that if television stations stayed away from me because I made “incendiary” comments about women and the kind of idiots who typically join PTA groups that they would gain strategic positioning?  Did they really think they’d change the dialogue using traditional tricks which I was well aware of—and used to my advantage?  Apparently—they were just that stupid and continue to be as they are apparently bewildered by the large number of conservative leaning school board members entering into the public education management of districts.  Here is a quote from Joan in a recent Michael Clark article in The Cincinnati Enquirer. 

Still, recently retired Lakota school board President Joan Powell – a 16-year board veteran and one of the most influential school officials in the region during her tenure – wonders whether the publicly stated goals of some new board members match their political agendas.

“Unfortunately some of these individuals are not just interested in reducing expenses and maintaining taxes at their current level. There are those that have a goal to destroy public education as it exists – government schools, they call them – and use anti-tax and pro-voucher issues to reduce funding to schools to help reach that goal,” she said.

“A lot of damage can be done during a four-year term. By then voters should know what they stand for and whether (board members) are working in the best interests of the school district and the voters.”

 http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140121/NEWS0102/301210029/Fiscal-conservatives-rule-more-local-school-boards?nclick_check=1

Damage for whom—tax payers or education empire builders?  The damage Joan is talking about is for her view of education, which is corrupt and devastating for American enterprise.  So that’s a good thing when people like her are on the out. 

Here’s a news flash that they and a whole bunch of others in the mainstream media and government school gate keepers have neglected to consider—that a plan hatched many years ago by a small number of Southern Ohio education reformers is just now manifesting into reality—and what they are seeing is just the beginning.  If they think for a second that everything is going back to how public education was in the 90s and 2000s, they are sadly—and pathetically mistaken.  Labor union domination of public education is ending and they are fighting to preserve a way of life that is out-dated, and destructive to American education not just in name—but actual function. 

I know of about 80 different elected officials who visit this site—Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom about 3 times a week.  There are even more who read here that consider running for an office and use the encouragement they receive from these words to pursue those objectives. Whoever thought that I poured so much work into 1500 word daily articles to appease the fools who have the mind of an egg-shell, and the patience of a shooting star—that the kind of people who enjoy tabloid magazines and television were my target audience?  Whoever was so naive to think that each and every step over the last four years was not a carefully considered chess match where even the controversial elements were calculated to the maximum effect with deep psychological impact highlighting issues at many levels?  I’m pretty good at chess—at strategy—and managing people.  Sometimes the most important work is not in front of the camera or behind the microphone but in arranging an army of such people to do those tasks instead of just one person.  Initially, you have to lead by example so that they can see how things should be done—but once they learn—they can then take the effort and run with it independently.  Wasn’t it clear that was what was going on?

Apparently not.  When Joan said, “Unfortunately some of these individuals are not just interested in reducing expenses and maintaining taxes at their current level. There are those that have a goal to destroy public education as it exists – government schools, they call them – and use anti-tax and pro-voucher issues to reduce funding to schools to help reach that goal,” she was thinking about me.  The more I worked with Lakota, the more I hated government schools—and that is a term that I have increasingly used.  If I were to run for school board I could not sit next to Julie Shaffer to manage the district without major, major confrontations—MAJOR confrontations.  If left to me, public education would be defunded and eradicated replaced by free market options where the government was not involved at all.  But I am happy to let people who do not feel quite so strongly join school boards and fight the good fight in a more civil manner.  I have more impact with more people not being an elected representative as opposed to locking horns with someone like Julie wasting my time on something that is already dying on the vine.  In 15 years, what will any of her arguments matter?  If other people wish to engage in that argument—that is good—but I am more effective elsewhere.  The strategic position for this matter is not behind a name plate—but here. 

The kind of people like Julie who organized the media blitz with the Enquirer to come after me personally should never be involved in educating children. CLICK TO REVIEW. They are not competent and are only given that ability with a government monopoly.  I will certainly never forgive Julie for what she tried to do to me—or Joan.  They used the collective entity of Lakota to satisfy their inner desire to be relevant socially—to mask personal mistakes—and to achieve that they needed to get me out of their way so management of schools could return to the unions at the cost of children’s minds—and they’d stoop to no low to achieve it.  Did they think that I’d give up and just retreat?  Did they think that more would not join the fight with me?  Yes, that is precisely what they believed. 

The Enquirer should have seen this coming.  I explained it to Clark in great detail September of 2010.  I layed all this out for him in my back yard while I was cutting targets with my bullwhips and he had his photographer snapping away pictures.  I knew as I spoke that he was scheming to build me up so that he could take me down again the way he and others did with Arnie Engle in Fairfield.  So I let him take the bait and run with it.  My plans were different—when the moment came—more than just I would move into strategic position to affect change.  So whatever schemes Clark had in mind would be useless in the long run—and I knew that.  He didn’t understand it just as Joan, and Julie Shaffer didn’t get it.  They actually thought by pandering to their latte sipping fat ass, guilt ridden, bitchy voting base that they could continue forever the scam of public education.  Well, obviously they can’t.

Sure they won their last levy at Lakota by manipulation and wasting hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to move the needle just a few percentage points with a wear-down tactic taught in Columbus to school board members.  But it’s a short-term victory as the ship they have fought to keep afloat is sinking.  Many of the districts mentioned in the Enquirer article, such as West Clermont—where I know quite a few of those people there—and they are readers here and have been for years now—the proof that schools waste tax money on teacher unions, and scam ridden politics will be exposed destroying the myth that higher taxes make for a better community.  And that is what people like Joan and Julie are worried about.  Ten years from now they will be shown to be wrong in their assertions about education and neurotic in their approach—and it will be embarrassing for them.

I will make damn sure of it—that everyone remembers. 

We’re just getting started folks…………this is far from a completed strategy.  But we’re only about four years into it.  Another four years will yield even more results not in their favor and bitching about it like this news is “new” won’t take away the blunt edge of reality. 

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Doc Thompson’s First Year On The Blaze: Lunch at Skip’s

I have never felt so bad for a person as I did for Doc Thompson while on his long-planned honeymoon when he was fired from 700 WLW radio.  The station wanted to make room for Eddie Fingers and Doc threatened the target market of Willie, and Cunningham had more leverage at the company.  Darryl Parks who hired Doc was on his way out after taking a corporate job at Clear Channel where he found himself also terminated a year later.  My involvement with WLW deteriorated quickly after Doc’s exit.  They sort of put on the table for me to fill the radio role of a villain/sexist as an on air personality, but I had no desire to play along with that Chuck Fredrick strategy.  My radio role was the Tax Killer as molded by Darryl Parks and put into play by Doc Thompson and I believed it with all my heart and sole, unlike the other radio characters at WLW who mostly put on an act for their audience.  I had no desire to become the Andy Furman of the air waves, or Carmine Guzman.  So after Doc’s exit I quickly lost interest in the station.  I had other things I could do in life so not appearing on WLW wouldn’t be a big deal to me—but for Doc, it was his life.  He lives, breaths, eats, drinks, and thinks talk radio 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  For him, I knew the termination at 700 WLW hurt and as brave of a voice as he tried to apply to the situation when he spoke to me about it on the phone—I could tell how much pain it brought him.  I felt terrible about it and was very resentful of WLW.  I tried to maintain business etiquette, but they were much diminished in my eyes.

Doc Thompson now works directly for Glenn Beck and has recently just completed his first year on The Blaze Radio Network.  Doc reminisced a bit about this experience celebrating his first year with his producer Skip LeCombe.  Glenn had joked with Doc about going to Skip’s for lunch.  The joke was in the context of when WLW fired Doc by inviting him to a Skip’s Deli for lunch to break the bad news.  Beck was poking fun with Doc and Skip—but in reality after their first year—it was the opposite situation from what was experienced at WLW.  Over the last year, Doc and Skip have traveled all over the United States and given hundreds of personal speeches to crowds of people on behalf of The Blaze making Doc’s new boss—Glenn Beck—very, very happy.  The Blaze Radio has grown tremendously and Doc Thompson has been a big reason why.  Have a listen:

Several months after the termination of Doc from WLW he had taken a job in Detroit, but that station was changing direction to an all sports channel leaving Doc and Skip on the out again.  Laura Ingram had announced that she was giving up her syndication show, and Doc positioned himself to fill that spot—but it wasn’t going well.  On the day after Thanksgiving in 2012 Doc hosted as a fill in for Glenn Beck and after he got off the air he called me to vent a bit.  I was taking my daughter out to lunch that day but we took some time to talk with Doc as I felt badly for him yet again the bad luck hovering behind him like an evil specter.  The job options for a guy like him were slim.  Stations were steering away from hard conservatives and libertarians as the FCC was applying indirect pressure to diversify the airwaves with more progressive personalities.  The job market for a guy like Doc was slim—really slim.

Doc wanted a syndication show and there wasn’t really a path to get there.  A month after that phone call, Glenn Beck offered Doc Thompson the chance of a life time—a chance to run the prime time spot of 6 AM to 9 AM on a new radio station called The Blaze Radio which would be internet based capitalizing on the new web-based media productions that could be experienced with mobile devices, podcasts, and satellite radio.  Doc would be the lead-in to Glenn Beck himself who has daily listeners in the millions—so this was the chance Doc had really been working for his entire life.

Now, a year later The Blaze has become a trusted news source for millions of people, and Doc has been at the helm.  Glenn Beck as Doc mentioned in his broadcast could have taken his hundreds of millions of dollars and sat on all that money for the rest of his life living comfortably.  But, instead, he has extended himself out to this freedom fight creating The Blaze for people who do not like the direction of the current United States.  Because of Glenn Beck, a person like Doc and Skip have a place to work—which is a market that is shrinking rapidly as machine politics is working behind the scenes to shut down any opposition to their way of thinking.  Glenn Beck with Doc Thompson has shown once again why he is so far out in front of the curve—The Blaze is now being picked up not just all over the world on iHeart Radio and Pandora, but conventional stations who are putting it into syndication.

Doc has a radio style that is the opposite of Howard Stern.  Both hosts are funny, and fought their way through multiple hardships to overcome tremendous opposition against them.  Both are very tall, and exceptionally intelligent.  But Doc is squeaky clean and very, very funny while Stern has resorted to pubescent jokes and shock jock material to advance himself.  Doc is to the radio world one of the best voices of liberty that there is—and it’s not an act—he is 100% authentic to his beliefs.  What he states on the air, he believes with his very soul—and that makes him a very sincere and genuine person that is quite exceptional.

I am proud of Doc and Skip for their willingness to fight it out the way they did.  I am proud of Glenn Beck for taking a chance on Doc, and I am proud off all the millions of people who have turned off traditional radio and turned on The Blaze.  That decision alone has forced traditional radio to grudgingly seek syndication of Doc and Skip’s show for the kind of content that radio listeners actually want—not the kind of crap the FCC wants to ram down people’s throats.  The kind of radio that WLW indicated to Doc that they were going to give to the world when they fired him at Skip’s Deli has turned out to be just another sports station with dying hosts barely shadowing their former self.  With the devastating news after an otherwise wonderful honeymoon and a chance to begin a life anew WLW did Doc and the world a great favor.  Doc could have rolled over and let the world crush him—but he didn’t—even in the darkest moments of his life—a period where he called me on the phone after concluding a fill-in for Glenn Beck the day after Thanksgiving where he would have been justified at being angry with the world—he didn’t give up.  It is that kind of resiliency that is taking The Blaze Radio Network to new levels of entertainment and professionalism changing forever the nature of radio entertainment.  It has been a good year—and the start of something truly special that will go down in history as a pinnacle moment for the human race.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Harvey Weinstein’s Stupid Anti-NRA Film: Why ‘Expendables 3’ will destroy Meryl Streep

When Harvey Weinstein promised to make a movie with Meryl Streep going after the National Rifle Association, he declared war against middle America. His statements were a simple declaration that many already knew—that Hollywood is teeming with parasitic liberals hell-bent on a destructive progressive agenda.  For such a prominent producer and actress to make such a bold statement is to declare their alliance with collectivism and the breath of evil which has blown it along through the ages.  So I look forward to Meryl’s anti-gun movie—because I’ll make a bet with the liberal Hollywood elite—I bet as of January 2014 that the Sylvester Stallone film Expendables 3 will out gross Streep’s anti-NRA film by over $700 dollars per screen in every market outside of New York and Los Angeles.  I will also bet that Stallone’s film will top $300 million at the box office while Streep will be lucky to break $100 million. So go ahead Harvey—make your silly NRA movie and watch all the people who will go see Expendables 3 instead.  The bottom line in the movie world is that middle America decides if films are hits or successes—and in that region—they love their guns and they hate big government.  Expendables 3 will do more for the sale of guns than Weinstein’s picture will do against them—and the liberal Hollywood machine will be left scratching their heads.  Their premier actress Meryl Streep will be out grossed by a bunch of retired action stars from the 1980s—and they’ll do it spectacularly.  Critics will pan the film with negative reviews, entertainment web-sites and television broadcasts will declare the Expendables 3 has bad production values and glorifies guns and killing—but it won’t matter.  Expendables 3 will top $300 million at the box office when it hits theaters this upcoming August—place your bets now.  And Harvey’s film will barely make its money back from the production costs.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/01/21/harvey-weinsteins-anti-nra-movie-continues-hollywoods-gun-control-obsession

My son-in-law had been raving about how good Expendables 2 was, and even as he was declaring it—I had my doubts.  I enjoyed the first one, but certainly didn’t go out of my way to see the second one at theaters.  Growing up in the 80s I sort of take it for granted that movies like the Expendable films get made—as they used to come out every couple of months in America during the Reagan presidency.  I truly enjoyed seeing all those great action stars again in Jason Stratham, Jet Li, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all in the same movie kicking absolute ass during the entire duration of the plot.  I didn’t think I’d enjoy it as much as a film like 2013’s Man of Steel, Iron Man 3 or The Hobbit.  But he did convince me recently to watch the movie with him and I’m glad he did.

Expendables 2 was wonderfully testosterone filled without apology.  It was uncompromisingly manly—and for that I was grateful.  I have not laughed so hard genuinely in a long time as I did when Arnold Schwarzenegger ripped the door off a Smart Car that Bruce Willis was driving and declared that he has shoes bigger than the car—all while mowing down bad guys with machine guns.  It was a wonderfully fun movie and it was just pleasurable to see a movie with all those actors known for their tough guy rolls in the same movie.  It was a movie made for the core of America from the rural areas of Pennsylvania to the recluse mobile home dwellers in the Nevada Mountains.  Santa Monica, California might look down their nose at all these old action stars mindlessly killing thousands of people centering around a ridiculous mercenary plot—and New York career climbers would find all the activity repulsive—but everyone else in America loves it.  Expendables 2 is an American movie made for American men.  End of story.  It is a film meant to be watched by men while the women cook in the kitchen during Holiday events gossiping about other family members who aren’t present.  In such times men have very little to do—they usually watch football as grown men run into each other as hard as they can, or they watch movies like Expendables 2.  It is a fun movie that is not afraid to touch the heart of a testosterone driven entity.  Women might complain about that testosterone when its inconvenient to them—but in the bedroom they want it.  Expendables 2 is likely to improve the love lives of many women, so they shouldn’t complain.

As for Harvey Weinstein he’s built his career producing movies that exploit violence and guns—films like Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Grindhouse, Sin City, the Kill Bill movies, Rambo, Django Unchained along with many others.  He also has made several sexually exploitive films.  He had Madonna show her bare breasts in the 1991 film Truth or Dare, and had Nichole Kidman very; very naked in Cold Mountain, which likely ruined her career.  Once people saw her in such a nude fashion in that movie after the film Eyes Wide Shut,there was nothing left to desire in Nichole.  Everyone had seen everything and Nichole was officially old news after that.  Here is Harvey’s film resume:

Executive producer

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

Because of his Academy Awards he falsely believes that he’s a “serious” filmmaker.  But what he’s done is use action films exploiting massive amounts of violence—some of the most violent movies ever made—and turned those profits into progressive agenda films—like Silver Linings Playbook, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, and Chicago.  He is the opposite of someone like Walt Disney who took his profits from animated films to crusade for traditional values. Harvey exploited violence, sex, and over-the-top action to fund progressive films—which never make much money. So now, Harvey thinks he’s the king of Hollywood and that he can command Meryl Streep to make a film that will sink the NRA.  Well, good luck, Harvey.  Your Hollywood friends might like a film like that—but while the women are gabbing in the kitchen during Holidays cooking dinner as they are prone to do—the men won’t be popping in a DVD of your upcoming stupid anti-NRA film.  They’ll put in Expendables 2, and in the future Expendables 3, and if Stallone gets his way, Clint Eastwood will be in Expendables 4 taking the director’s chair and appearing in the film.  I’d pay damn good money to watch Clint Eastwood as an 86-year-old man blasting bad guys with a .500 magnum over one of Harvey’s pictures like Zack and Miri.

So have at it Harvey—take my bet.  Your movie with Meryl Streep will be grossly out performed by Expendables 3 which will add to the cast mentioned above Harrison Ford, Antonia Banderias, and Mel Gibson.  In addition, ten years from now where men have the option to watch all the Expendables movies or the latest anti-gun film from the Weinstein Company what do you think they’ll pick. Even with all of Hollywood’s efforts to make women “equal” or enlightened, they’ll still be in the kitchen cooking dinners for their men and talking about those men’s mothers—and the men will be looking for violent entertainment that features guns—guns, and more GUNS!  And there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it. It’s the way God made all of us, and that is the way it will always be even 2000 years from now long after progressivism has fallen off the radar as a failure in social engineering long forgotten—like all of Harvey’s non-violent progressive films—such as Chicago and his upcoming film with Meryl Streep dead before it is ever made.

Meryl Streep and the Poop Particles of Doom: The progressive attack against sanity

After listening to Meryl Streep attack Walt Disney while honoring Emma Thompson’s rabid feminism, it does not surprise me that many men these days seem to prefer the stinky exit of the human body’s digestive system as opposed to a heterosexual relationship with these modern “man hating females.”  But I am not one of those guys.  Even the vilest feminist is a better option in my book.  As progressives would label such a position “homophobic” I would call it sanity, clarity in thinking, and the best option available.  Some people have phobias of spiders, some of snakes, some of heights—mine has and always will be that of the poop particle.  I have one real fear out all possible fears and that is of the remnants of material left over after the digestive process.  I have never liked seeing cow patties on my grandfather’s farms, I hate watching dogs defecate—and worse yet—eat it—and I have absolutely no desire to ever pursue an orifice that creates such matter in pursuit of sexual pleasure.  With that hatred of poop particles in mind, this educational film from the late 1950s reflects my impression of the “homosexual.”

The same people who have communicated this same-sex type of lifestyle are the same people talked about in my article yesterday attacking monogamous marriage.  They have an agenda and from my vantage point it is destructive—and disgusting.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  It’s not that I want to return America to the 1950s.  For me, that period of time was too liberal.  I’d prefer 1750 to about 1790 myself, but that’s just me.  In that video shown above, I wouldn’t even tell a kid to inform a teacher—as the parent is the last and only line of defense that matters in a child’s life.  But in the video at least the film makers addressed the kind of threats that might come to a child so they could learn to defend themselves from the vile acts of adults who are clearly screwed up in the head.

We live in a society where declaring that sex which involves fecal matter is healthy, proper, and naturally good.  If anyone disagrees they are called a “homophobe.”  This behavior has paved the way for the child raped by his teacher in Michigan.  CLICK TO REVIEW.  Likely, that teacher wouldn’t have even been a teacher in the type of society ran by those who made the homosexual video above, as that society would have spotted his antics in the light of day.  As things are today, nobody is comfortable calling out any kind of homosexual behavior that might lead to abusing children, because they don’t want to be attacked by progressives calling them “homophobes.”  In 2014 that is nearly as bad as being called a “sexist.”  If you don’t support feminism, you are a “sexist.”  If you don’t support poop particle sex, you are “homophobic.”  Both carry a social stigma created by a progressive establishment and those types are directly at fault for creating scenarios where teachers like the one in Michigan have the ability to destroy the lives of his students.  The fault is squarely on their shoulders.

As much as progressives hate the naivety of the 1950s and all the times that came before it where tradition and family value paved the way for strong healthy lives—the world they have created is far, far worse.  Can anybody in their right mind declare that feminism has worked?  Can anybody declare that the Michigan teacher was not mentally insane because of his sexual prerogative?  Can anybody think that Meryl Streep would be a fun date?  Progressives have created these problems, and they suppress a value judgment against them by calling sane people names for trying to identify the problem.  At least there was a time in America where bad behavior was identified and a warning to future conduct was attempted.  It may have been fear based, it may not have encompassed the entire enormity of the homosexual complexity—but at least a social norm identified for the benefit of a majority of the population was considered.  At least children were getting a warning of what to look out for among perverted adults.  Back in the “old fashioned” days, such people hid their behavior.  Today they run labor unions and make decisions right out in the open.

The way society is today people who might otherwise warn children away from parasites like that Michigan teacher keep their mouths shut because they don’t want to be called a “homophobe.”  But is that such a bad name?  Is it really a negative to be told that a person doesn’t enjoy poop particle sex?  It isn’t to me.  It states that my mind is not confused into behaving like a dog but would prefer even a feminist over a homosexual.  I may feel sorry for the person attracted to such things, but that doesn’t make them superior to the biological structure that was bestowed on mankind for the sake of mating rituals and human evolution.  The warnings of the 40s, 50s, and very early 60s were valid even if they were rooted with fear and religion into conforming society around a set of values that were being recognizably lost.

As despicable as Meryl Streep’s political views of men hatred are, she would still be a better dinner date than the eventual peril of the poop particles in a man’s hairy ass.  That to me is the gauge of sanity in our modern time where such judgments are forbidden to even be discussed, let alone dealt with.  In my family we have a couple of dogs and I watch often in horror when one sniffs at the other after urinating, or defecating and becomes quite excited about the occasion jumping around as though they just found out they won a million dollars.  We also have a cat, and sometimes that animal will puke right in the middle of the floor and the dog will come and lick it all up clean. This behavior is disgusting by every measure of human value judgment—except the homosexual leaning beings.  For them, this behavior has appeal, and from my point of view—is reminiscent of an illness of some kind.  Such illnesses could be treated if they were identified, but instead they are promoted.  That lack of proper danger recognition is what lead to the kind of rape case that happened in Michigan between a union president—teacher, and his student.  In a society that called such behavior bad, the rape and abuse likely would have been averted.

We’ve all been told that we need to be open to other ways of thinking and embrace the “progressive” view of the world which states that feminism is more important than traditional value, and that same-sex practices are equal to traditional heterosexual practices.  But they are not.  One involves poop particles and the other doesn’t, and poop particles are not good, healthy, or delightful……..unless one considers themselves a dog.  And that would be an insult—and nobody wants such a thing leveled in their direction.  So what do we call such people?  For all the faults pointed out by progressives toward films like the training film against homosexuality in the 50s, nothing has been offered as a modification or replacement to the attempt to at least identify bad behavior that might truly endanger children.  Instead, we are told to look the other way and ignore the faults that progressives have brought to us all in pain, suffering and misery.  And not even the fine acting of Meryl Streep can disguise her cover of a truly disgusting premise behind the progressive platform—that of the poop particle and the terrible expulsion of human waste that propagates from such unions in a sexual ritual centered purely on pleasure like a mindless animal—instead of the continuation of the human race.  At least in the 50s they considered the impact that such behavior would have on children.  The modern progressive does not—instead they seek to use children for their own pleasure and attempt to excuse the behavior as a “learning” experience that will pave the way to adult behavior that will never be able to relate to traditional value—which was always the real goal of their maniacal strategy.

I will give credit to the gay community and the progressive in general for one aspect of their strategy which is brilliant–the use of Meryl Streep as a growing advocate of feminism, erosion of Second Amendment rights, and general liberal causes.  Many men who do not find such revulsion toward fecal matter as I do are choosing the gay life than a life shared with a feminist man-hating radical which substantially bolsters their numbers. The way to make more people turn toward homosexual behavior among men is to provide them with Meryl Streep as a spokesman for feminist causes…….brilliant.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Monogamy is Unnatural: A college professor reveals the goal of modern education institutions

Look around………………do you see all the problems around us?  Of course you do.  We all do.  But how did all those problems get there?  Who created those problems?  And how in the world do we solve them all.  As readers here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom know, I point directly to our education industry as the root cause of much faulty thinking which is causing those problems.  For years now I received hate mail, and critics of my blog postings attempting to convince me to think the way they do………which is a flat line concession………..a surrender to the animal impulses of life.  The origin of the hate is that they resent having their faults pointed out and placed before their eyes to read.  I typically write around 2000 words per day, much of it ending up on these pages.  I don’t offer these works as published material.  The polish that would typically be accompanied by such work is not there; instead I present them as though I were giving a stump speech in a city square.  The goal is to get people to think and perhaps question the nature of things that are currently accepted as reality.  However when opponents who love flat-line thinking want to attack these works, they sound much like the critic featured below attacking Matt Walsh.

On his blog site, Matt Walsh has been creating quite a stir.  The stir has been so intense that he has attracted negative attention—which is a sure sign of success.  On this is the topic of manhood which Matt often writes about and tries to define what makes a good man.  Surprising nobody a college professor took exception to Matt’s views on relationships, manhood, and sex.  The college professor became angry when he discovered that his students were beginning to quote Matt, so he wrote in to complain about it.  I have received hundreds of these kinds of letters, some of them I have published to show just how stupid the people who write them are. Matt, nicely omitted the college professor’s name, but the letter was so good that I am going to included it below along with a link to Matt’s site for the origin. Needless to say, I agree with Matt emphatically, and I won’t do his words injustice with my own musings about the topic which I have covered in other ways with voluminous content.  So please do enjoy the back and forth that follows…………….the future of mankind is at stake.  If you have a child in college, or even high school, there are excellent chances that they have a teacher who thinks just like this guy:

Monogamy is unnatural

Posted on January 7, 2014by The Matt Walsh Blog

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

 

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence. Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

 

[Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement]

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me. It wasn’t until your name came up for a fifth time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it. But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism. Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family.

 

The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth. Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths.

 

Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity. The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life.

 

You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman. Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage. Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies.

 

Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor.

 

I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets.

 

Good Day Professor,

And this was Matt’s response:

It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect. Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class. But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart. You should be proud.

In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like “monogamism” out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist.

Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion.

Monogamy.

Monogamy is “unnatural,” says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose. A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread. What you people — you socially “progressive” academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological. The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick. You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears.

But there is SOME truth in what you say.

Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either. If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural. It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard. I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor? Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are “biologically fitted” to do? I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things. But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case.

I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes. Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage?

It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us.

If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders? That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence.

You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float. Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices.

If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business. Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you. Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles? No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise.

All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/07/monogamy-is-unnatural/

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Carcass of West Chester: Silverman and Company Inc., try again

In a lot of ways fighting a developer who has invested many thousands if not millions of dollars into a parcel of property which was initially turned down by residents complaining about the change of use in zoning considerations is no different from fighting a school levy.  Both involve government and utilize the standard process of beating residents into the ground until they submit to social pressure.  This has never been truer than the re-emergence of the Kroger Marketplace proposal in West Chester, Ohio.  According to the Pulse Journal, Blue Ash-based Silverman and Company Inc. recently resubmitted a request to change 35 acres zoned for residential use to Commercial Planned Unit Development to include a 133,000-square-foot grocery store at the intersection of Tylersville and Princeton Glendale.  This was the same parcel of land in contention during 2013.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.

The first phase of the Crossings of Beckett shopping center would include a Kroger grocery store, a bank, a pharmacy with drive-through access–a Fred Meyer Jewelers, a small medical clinic, a Kroger fuel center, an additional 15,000 square feet of retail space alongside Kroger and three additional out-parcels along Ohio 747.  Basically, it’s just another strip mall with gas stations that are already just one mile further to the south.  And there is nothing in the Silverman proposal which helps fill the massive vacancies of the old Biggs retail center just two miles to the south—which to this very day is mostly empty.  The old Biggs center is comparable in size to a Kroger Marketplace, yet Silverman and Company Inc., do not own that property—so they aren’t interested.  They’d rather build on their property of course, at a location of their choosing and if the residents pose resistance—they’ll strategically wear them down the same way school levies from public schools have.

To try to take the edge off the community battle which took place the last time this endeavor was proposed and Tom Egger led the community to resist and suppress those plans the developer made changes to the plan to eliminate the three parcels on the north side of the site.  The new plan also calls for the creation of a buffer zone for residents to the north, according to Tim Burgoyne, Silverman and Company Inc.’s director of site acquisition and development.  This tactic is common for developers so that they can give the illusion that they have compromised.  It is the same stupid thing the local public school of Lakota did when they put their last levy on the ballot.  They spent hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to essentially convince the community that they “listened.”  But in reality they just imposed their government backed will upon the voters wearing down resistance.  The developer in this case is performing the same task—but showing the community that they are “compromising.”  They hope to take the edge off Tom Egger’s case and earn the zoning commission’s support of their endeavor with a kind of rigged election process.  Likely the deal was cut with zoning officials before Silverman and Company Inc made their recent announcement.  These guys always dip their feet into the pool before they jump in.

As stated to the media by Burgoyne, “The residents wanted nothing along there, so after meeting with the community and staff members and getting everyone’s input, we believe that we have substantially addressed their concerns and we’re excited to move forward.”  What Burgoyne means is that they moved around the architectural drawings from the original proposal, which deliberately asked for too much knowing they would get resistance from the public—then backed off to their original design so to show that they compromised.  Of course that is speculation, but I’ve been down this road many more times than once—and if that’s not exactly how the situation played out, then I have swamp land on Mars to sell you.

http://www.todayspulse.com/news/news/developer-submits-new-plan-for-kroger-along-ohio-7/ncjpD/

This is supposed to be why we have government, and zoning should look at their vacant properties at the old Biggs Center and evaluate that if they allow this Kroger Marketplace into the empty field of the proposed location, they can forget about ever filling the much more lucrative location at the corner of Union Center and 747 where there are already stop lights, double lanes of traffic and an artery directly into Fairfield, Beckett Ridge, Tri County and I-75.  At the Silverman property all those things will have to be built, which makes developers happy, but will erode away the lives of Tom Egger and hundreds of families in the area.

This of course puts the Trustees of West Chester into a difficult position as they will have to vote upon the zoning recommendations—which will likely fall in their lap this time around.  If they vote against the proposed site they vote against a developer who wants to bring something truly good to West Chester.  The trouble is—it’s in the wrong location.  If they vote for the developer then they doom the lives of many tax payers looking for protection from government—and they will doom the Biggs location.  Prospective businesses for that location will choose the new corner of 747 and Tylersville because it will be the latest and greatest development in the West Chester area.  But 15 years from now, it will be old like the current Biggs location is today, and homeowners like Tom Egger and his family will still be looking at an older building bringing tons of traffic and unseemly elements to his back yard once the media has moved on to the next new thing.

I’m all for developers making a few bucks off their investments.  But the West Chester zoning board said no once before, and here come Silverman and Company Inc., with some market up drawings to give the illusion that they give a damn about what’s best for the West Chester community.  Surely they are counting on the local residents to scratch their heads and declare, “hey–they listened.”  But they didn’t, they just think the people of the community are suckers who will buy into a scam that is as old as time—and they expect to use government to protect their investments.  When Silverman and Company Inc purchased the plot of land in question, their investment was a risk.  There was no guarantee that they would convince West Chester zoning into allowing their proposal to come to fruition.  But with the many games that go on behind the scenes, they use government to protect their investments, even if it goes against the will of the people.  That is what this second proposal is—it’s very disrespectful, and ultimately damaging to the West Chester community.  But Silverman and Company Inc., won’t care.  They’ll make their money, and move on to the next location like vultures picking clean the carcass of road kill.  And within two decades the corner of 747 and Tylersville will look like modern-day Route 4, and replacing the homes of people like Tom Egger will be section 8 designations as government picks up those properties because nobody wants to move into an area that looks down into a Kroger parking lot.  The only people who will want to move to a place like that are future economic despots and people looking for government checks and a nice corner of that parking lot to sell drugs to other treacherous characters and scumbags.  Only the carcass won’t be road kill that time—it will be West Chester.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Ditzy Braless Bitches and Enamored Weak-kneed Men: How public relation firms destroy society with ‘Social Proof’

In the original draft of my novel Tail of the Dragon I was extremely critical of public relations firms—especially those owned by foreign interests in the New York market.  This of course did not sit well with the public relations branch of my publisher.  During rewrites it was insisted upon that much of my harshest criticism be removed.  As the publisher, they had a contractual right to do that even though I wasn’t crazy about it.  Much of the public relations subplots of the novel did not make it into the final draft which didn’t hurt the story, but did not allow me to expose to the extent that I creatively wished to illuminating public relation firms as the propaganda arm of misinformation by exposing a vulnerable aspect of human nature—their ancient and very tribal need to travel in herds.  I was tapping into my reader’s intellectual desire to rebel away from such a manner in my novel, but with that publisher, it wasn’t going to fly.  Public relations professionals such as those who work to improve the image of government schools or run cover stories for corrupt politicians use a term called “social proof,” which Bill Whittle from PJTV covered during a recent segment.  Social Proof, used to be called ‘Peer-pressure,’ but has since taken on a new, less harsh name.   It is essentially a type of mob mentality that convinces people to go along with the herd.  President Obama is really President Social Proof–he convinced a slew of voters that to question him was racist through public relations mechanisms utilizing social proof. Now, several voices are crying out that the Emperor…President…is wearing no clothes, and all that’s left to do is run the hollow people into the river.  Watch Whittle’s explanation of that metaphor below.

Social proof is how the scam artists of public relations work their magic.  They convince the masses that a truth is not a truth because a majority opinion does not believe such a thing.  Once the masses invest into a belief public relations specialists can then direct social temperament to the molding of that belief—which is happening at virtually every level of endeavor in modern America.  Public relations are so corrosive that it could easily be assumed that almost nothing we hear today we can believe—because most of it has been formed to expose social proof as the mechanism of mental acceptance.

Years ago I worked with a girl on a project whose father ran a large downtown Cincinnati public relations firm.  This project involved WLW radio, major local politicians, and a wide range of very dynamic individuals.  I attended several meetings at this downtown location and as things became friendlier, she came to my house.  The more I came to know this young woman, the more I despised her.  I held my opinions in check for the good of the project we were all working on, but quickly, my desire to work with such a corrupt—formless personality became too great.  On an evening when I was set to go do a show on WLW during Willie’s time slot, I refused as the personalities involved had attempted to steer this project into the realm of social proof where a formless void of chaos was acting upon the development.  I quickly learned during this experience why large companies become faceless, spineless organizations as public relation firms and lawyers take their products down a similar path and once there they often have too much time and money invested to back out—so they withdrawal from the creative process leaving everything to the parasites of public relations—which is about as unproductive as an endeavor as there is.  They do nothing for a product except expose in consumers their need to satisfy a social proof which drives them to participate in the products represented by public relation firms.

My experience with this firm disgusted me, and it took me several years to get the bad taste out of my mouth, but I did learn a tremendous amount from them—which ended up in my book.  But as my publisher stated, damning public relations firms would surely damn the sales of the book because without public relations—how could I hope to sell a book in this modern climate.  My statements were the same as what they were all those years ago with the Cincinnati firm and WLW radio—I’d let honesty and the desire for a product that touched on the human desire for anti social proof carry the day.  It doesn’t always work so well, but I feel better about the things I do when social proof is not a factor—but the curiosity of the masses are instead driven by individual desire.  Those generated by public relation firms promoting social proof are essentially advocating falsification of reality.

One of the reasons I love Star Wars so much is that the love of that product is driven by individual freedom and recognition.  Social proof actually worked against Star Wars in the 70s, the studios were rebelling against the film and if not for Alan Ladd Jr., 20th Century Fox would have pulled out of the deal.  The industry did not want the product of Star Wars, but the internal desire of the human race did—which proves to me that such things are possible—and it gives me hope.   Every time we go to the movies and see a preview for a new film—most of which will not live up to the hype, we are seeing attempts by public relations specialists to expose to the mass public a demand created by social proof to obtain strong opening weekend sales.  Most films because they are completely social proof in their content fizzle out within two weeks of their box office take as the public turns away disappointed to their next hope for a successful movie going experience.  In 2013 to 2014 the films which defy social proof are the Disney film Frozen, and Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  The product of those films exceeds the social proof of popular opinion and my excitement over those enterprises is because they overcome the falsification of social proof.  Those two films are the two best-selling films which still have strong box office support several weeks after their opening weekend release which means that the content of those films defies social proof.  People do not go see them because of peer pressure; they see them because the stories communicate to their individual natures.  There is a BIG difference.

The Disney Company utilizes social proof in massive droves to attract people to their television, movie and amusement parks.  But once there, Disney actually provides a good product and people come away generally happy and fulfilled on an individual level.  Barack Obama uses social proof to hide his many crimes and scandals.  This leaves society always feeling anxious and compelled to fill the void with conspiracy theories.  But the behavior does not change because social proof creates a paralysis among the human species which states that action cannot be taken against injustice if the masses do not recognize the peril.  This is why liberals, progressives, out-right communists and socialists have attempted to remove value from society using public relation firms to help them commit the deed, so that society would not have the intellectual tools to make such a determination.  So long as society is paralyzed with shackles of lost value, they cannot act out against political crimes because social proof prevents them from acting.

Social proof advocated by public relations firms are one of the worst aspects of modern society.  In my local school district of Lakota they are used to hide sex scandals from teachers against students, and advocate dangerously high tax rates among the property owners.  In the current White House, Obama uses social proof to hide the content of his past and the crimes of his present—such as Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the IRS scandal.  Social proof does not hide the crime, but it does take away the means of holding conviction against it.  Individually, most people will declare under their breath that something is wrong, but due to their ancient tendencies toward collectivism, will not stand by such convictions in the light of day as social proof prevents them from openly advocating such a thing.  It is in this way that much evil is committed in broad daylight and suffering on an epic level is perpetuated.  And all such things begin with public relation firms and ditzy braless bitches lacking a soul propped up by cowardly men who would rather sip wine from their high-heeled shoes than stand on the ground of conviction for what’s right and what’s wrong.  They’d rather spin the facts with social proof and hide the crimes of existence behind that terrible form of peer pressure.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Target Leaving Middletown: How high taxes, school levies and socialism destroy communities

When Middletown schools defeated their 2013 school levy by the narrow margin of 238 votes the media made some theater of the issue and behaved as though something troubling was amiss.  Then those same voices cried out in shock as it was announced that Target—the popular chain of retail stores was closing two area stores—one directly in Middletown and another nearby.  Upon that news I could only shake my head.  Most people do not see the connection of high costs through taxation, unemployment, and how such things repeal a thriving retail community.  Those same voices are currently arguing for higher minimum wages and even more taxes for wasteful public schools teaching children liberal educations instead of conservative ones.  Then they are stunned when a large department store like Target wants to move out of their community when thriving Target stores in nearby Bridgewater Falls, and Voice of America are swelling with business.  To them it doesn’t seem fair—they feel that Target retail stores should stay open regardless of how much money they are making as they are performing a social service.  And they believe these things because they have been taught through public school and other liberal dominated places, that socialism works and is good—when in fact it is bad and destroys communities like Middletown.

I have watched Middletown decline all of my life.  Unlike Michael Moore who had a personal crisis when he saw the same type of decline happen to his town of Flint, Michigan, I know very well what has caused and is causing the declines in economic activity around Middletown.  It’s not the rich, greedy, white man as the socialist Moore proposed—it is human nature which turns and runs from too much interconnected responsibility with human beings who do not share their values.  Real estate investors, the kind of people who would buy homes of value in Middletown, and the kind of people who decide or not to bring Target stores to the Middletown area do so based on the prospect of value and profit their product can render.  As I watched interviews from the residents around Middletown speaking of the vacant strip malls which used to be filled with economically vibrant diversity—they are perplexed as to why they are no longer there—as if their existence had come to be so to provide a service to those people.  They never grasped that those businesses existed in those places so that they could offer a product or service so that they could make money, and when they cannot make that money—they leave.

Not a single member of government can bring a Target store to the Middletown area.  No government can create the jobs of a Target store.  They can lure Target to the Middletown area with the promise of lower taxes, but they cannot get management to do all the work of operating a retail store there.  If taxes go up after a Target store has come to an area, then Target has to sell more retail goods to offset their profit losses expunged from the taxes.  And if the kinds of people who come to those highly taxed stores are typical welfare recipients who are diseased by their own unhealthy lifestyles, Target is not going to make much money.  Target’s costs will be high because those types of people tend to have high crime rates among their populations, and high crime means sales margins are eroded.   Store maintenance in such places tends to be high as well.  Target as a management group can put the same effort into the VOA area and have much higher profit margins because the crime is not nearly so bad, the people are respectful of each other, and the employee base there is more robust and dependable.  In Middletown where many Target workers are weighing working everyday at the retail giant or staying home and collecting welfare, it is difficult to maintain a staff which can successfully provide the kind of service that attracts good customers as opposed to bad ones.  Nobody wants to go to a store to buy a pair of pants and hear a rant from some “baby momma” who is bitter about their life and is as snappy as a piranha in the Amazon.

Good people do not like to associate with bad people.  Moms with 10 year marriages, two children they are caring for, and a purse full of money they worked their ass off to get do not want to be greeted at the door of a Target by gang bangers, drug dealers, and the type of people who would rather buy a bottle of Jack Daniels over a bar of soap.  Those moms tend to spend their money in places where they can share their experience with people who have common values with them.  They don’t want to deal with such people who provide cat calls wanting sex by a malignant group of misdirected youth gathering in the parking lot of a Target to distribute drugs into the Middletown area.   They would rather go to the Voice of America target where the people are nice, affluent, and respectful.

The same decline in economic activity can be seen elsewhere around the Cincinnati area.  Detroit is not the only place where socialism and bad political management of taxed resources have destroyed communities.  And ultimately the fault rests squarely on the government schools which for three decades advocated socialism over capitalism leaving people completely defenseless intellectually to deal with the concept that Target stores will move away from their communities if they do not maintain a quality about their lives which is conducive to positive economic growth.  It doesn’t take long when socialism enters a community to destroy it.  Politicians who give away the efforts of the productive disincentivize that continued activity which pushes away the productive leaving only the parasitic to reside in their communities. When effort is taxed and those looted resources are then given to the unproductive, what else would or should happen?  The politician who suggests socialism is essentially stating that those who can pull a wagon full of those unwilling to walk should do so out of the kindness of their hearts—but the reality is that nobody of any worth, or intelligence would do so. They’d put down the wagon handle and walk off leaving all those riding in the wagon to transport themselves.

The Middletown school levy failed because the tipping point had been reached.  There are still plenty of apartment dwellers, welfare recipients, and parasitic drug addicts who will vote in favor of the Middletown school levy because they really have nothing to lose. Someone else is likely to pay for the taxes they voted in favor of.  But, in doing so the good property owner sells his apartment buildings to a “slum lord” and the profitable enterprise like Target simply pulls away from the area taking with them responsible employees who would pay taxes into a community.   It doesn’t take long to run out of other people’s money—and this is what has happened in Middletown, and why Target is leaving.

These are the dangers of socialism and if you believe that taxes can forever be raised on those able to pay—you have been taught incorrectly—and you should blame the foolish public school which put such ideas into your head.  Those socialist beliefs are what have killed Middletown over many years to such an extent that it cannot even support a Target store.  That realization is a crushing blow to a community that has forever seen its better days.  Once an area gets a stigma of having too much crime, too much low intellectual aptitude, and an unproductive workforce—it’s over.  Such reputations cannot be easily won again and only time will heal such things. Only Middletown doesn’t have time—and neither does its people.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Real Robber Barrons of Puget Sound: Labor union votes for a new contract

What happens when you pay people who generally aren’t worth it over $100,000 a year–they operate a union against productivity which is what Boeing narrowly escaped over the weekend with a 51 to 49 vote among approximately 31,000 eligible members.   Making that kind of money the machinist union at Boeing is the economy of Puget Sound and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is basically their own local government.  Because of their belief in the evils of capitalism they nearly drove Boeing as a company to move their new 777X design build with its composite wing out of Washington to be manufactured in right-to-work states where the union could not wreck the development of the new state-of-the-art plane.  Most of the members of the machinist union do not have the technical aptitude to build a new airplane from scratch let alone sell it to markets all over the world.  Yet they are paid six figures because of the union infiltration into a successful American company and they buy their boats, their new trucks, and live their relatively opulent lives blissfully unaware of what makes a company work—or profitable.  Their union preaches against the evils of profit—yet they demand more and more money with every contract.  For this latest contract the members received a $10,000 signing bonus and money towards a 401K plan.  Still, the margin of victory for Boeing was razor-thin.  Many of the 49% of the union members who voted against the contract believe the company should continue to fund their pensions.  They don’t want the 401K plan.  They obviously don’t fathom that Boeing cannot continue to throw money at them in such a rate for indefinite periods of time—because they are disconnected from where the money comes from.  For them, the planes arrive on the shop floor, they assemble them, and they leave.  They have little to do with the design process, the sales and marketing, or the delivery.  They simply show up, do some work, and leave with their six figure incomes.

To get an idea of how much money the machinist make at Boeing understand that there are 11 different pay grades depending on job categories.  At Boeing the lowest level machinist are considered Grade 1 which stars at about $25,000 per year and tops out around $66,000 per year.  The top-level union workers before the contract made more than $90,000 in base pay annually not counting shift differentials, overtime or incentive payments.  After the contract those workers will top out over six figures in base salary.  Clearly this was the difference in the vote.  Many of the aging workforce at Boeing saw the writing on the wall.  In the Puget Sound/Evertt area where the Boeing plants reside the median household income is about $47,000 a year.  If Boeing packed up and left—which they clearly intended to do so to avoid more work stoppages in the future from their striking labor force, there is no place else capable of paying employees such large sums of money for performing jobs that are only worth half that value.

Boeing has been throwing money at the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for decades and like gambling addicts they have spent it as fast as it has come in and continued to reach their hand out for more, and more, and more until the company finally looked to move from the Evertt area.  The decisions Boeing were faced with reminded me of my hometown where I once worked at Cincinnati Milicron—which is now a parking lot.  A vast complex that resembled a small city is now completely gone down in Oakley just north of Cincinnati along I-71.  All the skill that was employed there is gone.  Just to the west of that location was the old Norwood General Motors plant which built the old Camero.  It’s now gone—destroyed by the parasitic unions.  Just to the north up in Hamilton, is the old Fisher Body plant for General Motors where my grandfather worked.  Long after his death my grandmother continued to give me comic book money from the retirement benefits he received as well as thousands of other retired GM workers all over the country who were not productively working any longer.  General Motors was trying to cover all those legacy costs with newer workers in a pyramid scheme concocted by the unions which did not add up.  To this day the old Fisher Body building is still standing, but the company is gone.  It’s primarily just warehouse space now.  Over to the east in Middletown was a town—once a thriving place flourishing off the old Armco Steel Plant.  The wage structure got out of control there and most of the orders for business went away.  It is now AK Steel but employs far fewer people than it once did and is only a distant shadow of its former self.  The result is that the economy of Middletown crashed and burned.  Homes that should be $70,000 in value are $20,000, and the area is riddled with crime.  As people lost their jobs they became addicted to welfare and the quality of life for the once prosperous town dried up like a gold mine in the Old West once the precious element ran out.  That is the eventual future of Puget Sound.  This latest contract only buys a little more time.  It will cost Boeing a lot of money to move their operation to another state, so it was cheaper to throw $10,000 bonus checks at workers so they could pay off their new Ford F350s or plan to buy a new boat.  Boeing has a hot new plane to build and sell, so they took the lesser of the two evils.  But why should they be in such a situation and why would the Department of Labor side with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and not Boeing in forcing the job provider to bleed itself dry to appease a bunch of out-of-touch workers bred under a communist labor union system designed to destroy American business.

In the videos above the guys at PJ Media hosted by Bill Whittle explore this topic, and it is worth watching.  The guest Dr. Burt Folsom told the story of the so-called Robber Barrons at the start of the progressive era, (just prior to the Twentieth Century) when many of the American labor unions were just getting started.  Because of their hatred of capitalism the government went after the Robber Barrons, such as the rail road industry and went on anti-trust witch hunts and essentially through federal force took away the power of American business and handed it over to the workers of manufacturing.  The manipulative power that the Robber Barrons formally had were now in possession of the solidarity effort of the labor unions—which turned out to be just as corrupt, and destructive.  The biggest difference is that the labor unions didn’t create jobs, as the Robber Barrons did.  With two evils being equal—that of human greed—the companies created by Robber Barrons through capitalism at least provided good jobs whereas the labor unions provided nothing but labor.  Labor can be found elsewhere if it becomes too problematic, but Robber Barrons who create jobs—cannot.  They are few and rare as gold whereas general labor who can push a button on a CNC controller and read micrometers into the thousands of an inch are quite common.

The vote at Boeing over the weekend which upset many of the labor union members is the grudging realization that without Boeing in Everett, Washington, there is nothing that will replace their loss and politicians, union leaders and all their F350 driving members with their $10,000 bonus checks are at the mercy of those who create the jobs.  100 years of progressivism has come smashing against a cold reality that should have been obvious from the start.  Eventually the union demands will outpace Boeing’s ability, or willingness to pay off the workers with bonus checks and excessively high salary—and Boeing will move to a right-to-work state or possibly move their operation to another country where they can obtain stable labor without such outrageous expectations.  But for now, with a narrow union vote, some of the members are beginning to see the writing on the wall and is appreciating Boeing not as a Robber Barron company that has been forced to become a heavily subsidized company of political entrepreneurialism, but for its roots as a Market Entrepreneur.  It was the labor unions which pushed Boeing into a relationship with politics to protect itself from the thieving hands of an ungrateful workforce—and the rest has been downhill—except that Boeing still makes cool airplanes that sell very well—which is the only bright spot of an otherwise bleak future.

Watch the videos above to learn more.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Dennis Van Roekel’s Epic Failure: An out of control unfunded teacher pension system

When National Education Association president Dennis van Roekel states that there “is no teacher pension crises” among his members, he is functioning from a level of denial common among left-winged nut-case progressives.  The Ohio Education Association, (an affiliate of the NEA) with net assets of negative $11.5 million, and a $1.2 million deficit in 2011-12 paid only $8.2 million in pension costs.  The reason that Roekel doesn’t believe this isn’t a crises is because he fully expects state governments to cover the gap—and to do that—taxes will have to be raised on residents.  This is expected by the unions because of their government monopoly status over the education system where they can drive up costs to any level they wish then impose on tax payers their reckless burden without fear of losing that business—because under government law they have access to virtually every child in America.  So from Roekel’s point of view—it’s not a crises—because he expects someone in government to wrestle the money away from the public for his members with manipulation or force.

Recently Roekel made a bit of a splash with the liberal progressive think tank The Center for American Progress when he proposed getting rid of the “outdated” “step-and-lane” system.  This brought about some upturned pinky golf claps among politicians and ass-sniffing, brown-nosing education professionals for its “forward” thinking.  Yet Roekel is only performing the traditional dog and pony union show where their monopoly power dictates progressive radicalism of a magnitude equivalent to domestic terrorism.  His ultimate solution for everything is higher taxes to provide a product that liberalizes American youth with a not so disguised babysitting service as parents struggle to work two jobs to pay for everything.  Read more about the ACP story at the link below:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/news/2013/10/25/77986/the-nations-largest-teachers-union-calls-for-revamp-of-teacher-pay-system/

The Education Intelligence Agency report recently looked at the unfunded liabilities of the NEA union to begin understanding the amount of trouble that is coming straight at Roekel’s government monopoly enterprise and illuminated how ridiculously foolish—and arrogant Roekel’s denial that there is no pension crises facing his members or the states that employee them really are.  Roekel has been destructively misleading.  The following is text from the Education Intelligence Agency website followed by the origin link.

14 state teachers unions have almost $700 million in unfunded liabilities

December 24, 2013

Mike Antonucci

Mike is the director of the Education Intelligence Agency and has covered the education beat since 1993.
Archive »

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The good folks at Bellwether Education Partners created a web site called TeacherPensions.org in order to focus some much-needed attention on the structure of the retirement system and its financial implications. The site features a range of opinions about teacher pensions, including that of National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel, who says flatly: “There is no teacher pension crisis.”

Van Roekel defends the defined benefit system, and explains that a key principle of the system is “When actuarial liabilities exceed actuarial assets, the state and/or employer must make the necessary additional contributions to amortize the unfunded liability in no more than 30 years.”

That seems like a pretty simple solution, but if it were, perhaps Van Roekel’s own organization and its affiliates would not be experiencing their own mammoth shortfalls, due mostly to the pensions and retiree health care benefits they granted their own employees.

An Education Intelligence Agency analysis of 2011-12 Internal Revenue Service filings reveals 14 NEA state affiliates do not have the financial assets to match their liabilities and total almost $700 million in combined debt.

The ability of these affiliates to address their long-term debt by increasing pension contributions, as Van Roekel suggests, is compromised by their short-term debt. Nine of the 14 affiliates had deficits in 2011-12. In fact, the combined spending of all of NEA’s state affiliates exceeded their combined income by almost $24 million.

Even at the national level, NEA’s pension plan for its 2,600 employees and retirees was only 87.9 percent funded in 2012, down from 94.2 percent in 2010.

EIA has constructed a table that lists each of NEA’s state affiliates, its budget deficit or surplus for 2011-12 and its net assets, positive or negative, as of the end of the 2011-12 school year. For purposes of comparison, the table also lists the number of days each affiliate could operate solely on reserves based on its 2011-12 expenditures and net assets.

The 14 state affiliates with a negative net worth are:

* New York State United Teachers, with net assets of negative $302.8 million and a $24 million deficit in 2011-12. NYSUT contributed almost $30.8 million to its employee pension plan that year.

* Michigan Education Association, with net assets of negative $160.5 million, and a $4.8 million deficit in 2011-12. MEA contributed $14.1 million to its employee pension plan, and instituted a three-year, $50 annual assessment on its members for the express purpose of funding the staff pension.

* New Jersey Education Association, with net assets of negative $77.5 million. NJEA had a $13.2 million surplus in 2011-12, even after contributing $17.1 million to pension costs.

* Washington Education Association, with net assets of negative $35.1 million, and a $3.7 million deficit in 2011-12. WEA contributed $8.1 million to its employee pension plan.

* Massachusetts Teachers Association, with net assets of negative $26.7 million. MTA had a $7.8 million surplus in 2011-12 after contributing $4.1 million to its employee pension plan.

* Illinois Education Association, with net assets of negative $17.7 million, and a $17.9 million deficit in 2011-12. IEA paid $26.3 million to its employee pension plan. Despite its own mess, IEA is adamantly opposedto the Illinois state government’s efforts to address public employee pension debt.

* Indiana State Teachers Association, with net assets of negative $16.4 million, and a $4.5 million deficit in 2011-12. ISTA paid $4.1 million toward employee pensions.

* Iowa State Education Association, with net assets of negative $12.7 million, and a $4.3 million deficit in 2011-12. ISEA paid $2.2 million into its employee pension plan.

* Ohio Education Association, with net assets of negative $11.5 million, and a $1.2 million deficit in 2011-12. OEA paid $8.2 million in pension costs.

* Texas State Teachers Association, with net assets of negative $11.3 million, and a $243,000 deficit in 2011-12. TSTA contributed $1.4 million to its pension plan, and holds a $1.6 million quasi-endowment “to sustain the association for the long-term.”

* Pennsylvania State Education Association, with net assets of negative $8.3 million, though it did have a $9.2 million surplus in 2011-12, suggesting another similar year would put it in the black. It spent $7.3 million on pensions.

* Virginia Education Association, with net assets of negative $5.1 million, and a budget surplus of $1 million. VEA contributed almost $2.2 million to its employee pension plan.

* West Virginia Education Association, with net assets of negative $2.2 million, and a budget surplus of $132,000. It is unclear how much WVEA contributed to its employee pension plan in 2011-12, but its pension liabilities totaled $3.7 million.

* Georgia Association of Educators, with net assets of negative $1.8 million, and a $476,000 deficit in 2011-12. GAE paid $746,000 to its employee pension plan.

NEA’s largest affiliates are overrepresented on this list. This is problematic because the health of the large affiliates, particularly in collective bargaining states with agency fee provisions, enables NEA national to funnel crucial subsidies to its small affiliates. Many small affiliates could not sustain themselves at current levels without those funds.

As a union, NEA believes state governments should extract more revenues from taxpayers to sustain the defined benefit system of public employees. As an employer, NEA is aware of the pitfalls of extracting more dues money from members to sustain the much more generous defined benefit system of union employees.

It’s a race against time for NEA as it attempts to stave off public pension reform before it is swamped by its own private pension costs.

http://www.eiaonline.com/2013/12/23/pension-predicament-14-nea-affiliates-have-almost-700-million-in-unfunded-liabilities/

The good thing about these unfunded liabilities is that currently the NEA is trying to cover those costs with their union dues which means that they will have to increase those dues among their members.  That probably won’t be very popular.  This is also leaving little money for PAC funding which means less money for donations into progressive candidates.  As a former math teacher it would be assumed that Roekel would know this—but he doesn’t.  He’s preaching the same tired garbage which has made public education completely irrelevant over the last thirty years—really since the creation of the Department of Education in 1979 when education became centrally planned by the federal government.  The only benefactors have been the unions—certainly not the students.  Roekel’s concerns are primarily teacher recruitment and licensing of teachers as if this would stop the onslaught of his members who are trying to get into the pants of their students on an epic scale.  Roekel is ignoring that psychological and specifically “progressive” problem as vigorously as he’s ignoring the pension system issues.  But what would anybody expect from a former teacher who is now president of the largest labor union in America.

The bottom line is that Roekel’s perspective is shaped by the security that he has the power of the IRS at his back—as wind in his sails.  He knows that his union can recklessly spend over budget—as they have for years because the mandate for states and their tax payers is to just cover the tab without thought or question because the lives of their children are held as extortion pieces for ransom.  The NEA unfunded liabilities are just one aspect of a terrible web of failure coming from public education which is completely controlled by progressive labor unions. And that aspect alone should dictate why such organizations should be eradicated from the earth—forever.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com