Tag: philosophy

American Exceptionalism on the 4th of July: Hidden messages behind the movie ‘ARGO’

Dear reader, I am going to ask a lot of you today—there’s a lot to read here—but read it you must.  The future of America and all your children, grandchildren and even people you have never met yet are at stake and this critical issue requires your full understanding.

There seemed to be a lot more American flags out in 2014 during the 4th of July as paper patriots fearful of the direction of their American country thought simply saying they were patriots—or walking in a parade was enough, than there has been in the past.  It was good to see a little stirring of the American pride and as millions across the nation waited for a fireworks show as dusk crawled across the supposedly freest nation on earth, Megan Kelly on Fox News broadcast an epic debate between the filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers—the same man who launched the political career of Barack Obama.  The theme of the interview, part of which can be seen below, was the concept of American Exceptionalism and a recurring theme represented most by the current American intelligentsia was extrapolated during the debate.  The cure for many of the current problems in America are actually quite easy to fix if only the concept of American Exceptionalism were understood.  The border situation with Mexico would be solved, the economic restrictions seen throughout the world, and basic premise of freedom could save the lives of millions if only the basic understanding of American Exceptionalism could be embraced.  Yet Bill Ayers revealed what many that have learned from him over the years wished to argue regarding American imperialism as opposed to Exceptionalism.  Their position is that American had no right to interfere with other governments throughout the world, or to rob the land of the “Native Americans” or that it was built on slave labor and that all Americans should pay for the guilt of their past sins and chastise themselves before the world.  Behind the waving of American flags this particular year there seemed to be a reconciliation behind the public who many had just realized that their president—Obama had delivered them to the enemies of the world on a plate provided with a bow and apology.  It was Bill Ayers who helped develop the young mind of Barack and Michelle Obama into being a future weapon of the Weather Underground—a radical from within the people’s house.  The flag waving and fireworks were a bit more vigorous as though the American people hoped at this late hour that their complacency could erase the impact of this domestic terrorism in the year of 2014.  But it can’t, only understanding the role America plays in the world will, and supporting that role with a philosophy much different from the one that Bill Ayers believed.

There are a lot on the political left who think the way Ayers does, many of them are those who are part of the education industry.  They aren’t as violent as Ayers, but they hold very similar beliefs which can be seen through their actions.   Recently watching a “Watters’ World” episode Jesse Watters managed to get a red carpet interview with George Clooney—who is a native of the Cincinnati area and a powerful mover and shaker in Hollywood.  He’s a generally talented guy who thinks he’s very smart politically—made worse because he donates a lot of money into liberal candidates—particularly President Obama—so he thinks he has a good political grip on the world stage—but if you strip away his belief system to its root core—it will be discovered that the kind of people who shaped his foundation thoughts were people like Bill Ayers from the 1960s.  In Hollywood right now there are a lot of these young actors who are little cardboard cutouts of Bill Ayers—just as Obama is.  Clooney made sure that Watter’s knew that Obama was our “president” and deserved respect for the title—as though he were the King of America—which is clearly disjointed from reality.  Some of those cutouts are people like Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Sean Penn who all have an anti-imperialist slant against America and have communist political leanings.  Their instruction in life has come from the type of beliefs taught by liberal professors like Bill Ayers and this has gone on for a long time.  Many of the current flag wavers who are just now realizing the folly of their ways are looking for answers but their belief system prevents them from seeing them.

As an example of this scenario let us look at Ben Affleck’s very good movie Argo, which won Best Picture for its 2012 release.  This was a great film about the cause of the hostage crises in Iran in 1979 and was generally a patriotic film about the very good work of a CIA agent in bringing out some stranded Americans home from that crisis.  However—Affleck couldn’t help himself.  George Clooney was a co-producer of the film so without question there was bound to be a left leaning political messages emitting from the movie—and there was.  Understanding that very simple element and making a decision on it—has the ability to fix many of our modern problems.  At the end of the film out of all the philosophers that could have been picked for a closing statement by the John Goodman character it was Karl Marx who was quoted.  This after a brief cartoon opening told the back story of Iranian history and essentially placed the blame of the westernization of Iran squarely on the backs of American influence.  Affleck skillfully showed during the opening that once Iran’s oil fields were nationalized—which is a communist concept—that all was well.  However–once Mohammad Rezâ Šâh Pahlavi—the Shah of Iran started westernizing the country it upset the people who overthrew him. The blame for the hostage crises to begin with fell on the shoulders of America who had been caught trying to manipulate the Iranian people with Western influence, then threw gasoline on the fire by giving Pahlavi exile within The United States.  The movie Argo essentially proclaims that the fault of the crises fell on American imperialism—the same basic assertion that Bill Ayers and Barack Obama believe.

But they are all wrong, America and the accusations of imperialism come directly from the Cold War conflict with communism which was taking over the world during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, and that people like Ayers, Affleck, Damon, and Clooney are all supporters.  The Easter egg is clear as day at the end of Argo and generally none of those political activists are shy about their faith which they hide behind the Democratic Party.  What they fail to mention is that the CIA operations in the Middle East, in Central America, in Cuba, in Vietnam in virtually everywhere that there was conflict was caused by a defense against communism.  The infusion of American culture against the proposed communist cultures was the battle.  It was a fight between the merits of capitalism and communism—a fight over regional control and freedom.  Iran was under the influence of communists in the 1970s and the cost was a reversion back to their nomadic past.  Mohammad Rezâ Šâh Pahlavi had taken steps to modernize Iran but walked the line between becoming a ruthless dictator and a western loving visionary.  Ironically, and this is why I will say that Affleck did a brilliant job directing Argo—there was a wonderful scene showing how this transition was going in Iran—on one hand there were protestors burning American flags in the streets, but on the other they were eating Kentucky Fried Chicken which was a direct export of American capitalism.  So before drawing conclusions on these metaphors let’s study the real history of Mohammad Rezâ Šâh Pahlavi without the slant of communism blowing in the sails of thought.  The following comes from Wikipedia but has been edited down to the relevant portions.  The link to the entire article follows.

Mohammad Rezâ Šâh Pahlavi (Persian: Mohamad Rezā Ŝāhh Pahlawi, [mohæmˈmæd reˈzɒː ˈʃɒːhe pæhlæˈviː]; 25 October 1919 – 27 July 1980) was the ruler of Iran (Shah of Iran) from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Iranian Revolution on 11 February 1979. He took the title Šâhanšâh (“Emperor” or “King of Kings”)[1] on 26 October 1967. He was the second and last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi held several other titles, including that of Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans) and Bozorge Arteštârân (Head of the Warriors, Persian: Bozorg Arteŝdārān).[2]

Mohammad Rezâ Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza’s reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S.-backed coup d’état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms,[3] and Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. As ruler, he introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage.

A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi’a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, recognition of Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran’s intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.[4]

By the early 1950s, the political crisis brewing in Iran commanded the attention of British and American policy leaders. In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Under the leadership of Mosaddegh’s democratically elected nationalist movement, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry – thus shutting out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain’s economy and provided it political clout in the region.

Pahlavi with US President Truman in Washington, c. 18 November 1949

At the start of the confrontation, American political sympathy was forthcoming from the Truman Administration. In particular, Mosaddegh was buoyed by the advice and counsel he was receiving from American Ambassador in Tehran, Henry F. Grady. However, eventually American decision-makers lost their patience, and by the time a Republican Administration came to office fears that communists were poised to overthrow the government became an all-consuming concern (these concerns were later dismissed as “paranoid” in retrospective commentary on the coup from U.S. government officials). Shortly prior to the 1952 presidential election in the United States, the British government invited CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., to London to propose collaboration on a secret plan to force Mosaddegh from office.[8] This would be the first of three “regime change” operations led by Allen Dulles (the other two being the successful CIA-instigated 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba).

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces disloyal to the democratically elected government. Referred to as Operation Ajax,[9] the plot hinged on orders signed by Mohammad Reza to dismiss Mosaddegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi – a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, and then to Rome. After a brief exile in Italy, he returned to Iran, this time through a successful second attempt at a coup. A deposed Mosaddegh was arrested and tried. The king intervened and commuted the sentence to one and a half years. Zahedi was installed to succeed Mosaddegh.[10]

Before the first attempted coup, the American Embassy in Tehran reported that Mosaddegh’s popular support remained robust. The Prime Minister requested direct control of the army from the Majlis. Given the situation, alongside the strong personal support of Conservative leader Anthony Eden and Prime Minister Winston Churchill for covert action, the American government gave the go-ahead to a committee, attended by the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, Henderson, and Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson. Kermit Roosevelt returned to Iran on 13 July 1953, and again on 1 August 1953, in his first meeting with the king. A car picked him up at midnight and drove him to the palace. He laid down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The Shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA bribed him with $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe – a bulky cache, given the exchange rate at the time of 1,000 rial to 15 dollars.[11]

The Communists staged massive demonstrations to hijack Mosaddegh’s initiatives. The United States actively plotted against him. On 16 August 1953, the right-wing of the Army attacked. Armed with an order by the Shah, it appointed General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister. A coalition of mobs and retired officers close to the Palace executed this coup d’état. They failed dismally and the Shah fled the country in humiliating haste. Even Ettelaat, the nation’s largest daily newspaper, and its pro-Shah publisher, Abbas Masudi, were against him.[12]

During the following two days, the Communists turned against Mosaddegh. Opposition against him grew tremendously. They roamed Tehran, raising red flags and pulling down statues of Reza Shah. This was rejected by conservative clerics like Kashani and National Front leaders like Hossein Makki, who sided with the king. On 18 August 1953, Mosaddegh defended the government against this new attack. Tudeh partisans were clubbed and dispersed.[13]

The Tudeh party had no choice but to accept defeat. In the meantime, according to the CIA plot, Zahedi appealed to the military, and claimed to be the legitimate prime minister and charged Mosaddegh with staging a coup by ignoring the Shah’s decree. Zahedi’s son Ardeshir acted as the contact between the CIA and his father. On 19 August 1953, pro-Shah partisans – bribed with $100,000 in CIA funds – finally appeared and marched out of south Tehran into the city center, where others joined in. Gangs with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the streets, overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-Shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place, the new Prime Minister’s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders. That evening, Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mosaddegh not be harmed. Roosevelt gave Zahedi US$900,000 left from Operation Ajax funds.

U.S. actions further solidified sentiments that the West was a meddlesome influence in Iranian politics. In the year 2000, reflecting on this notion, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

“In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”[14]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power, but never extended the elite status of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, his system irritated the new classes, for they were barred from partaking in real power.[15]

In his “White Revolution” starting in the 1960s, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi made major changes to modernize Iran. He curbed the power of certain ancient elite factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the benefit of more than four million small farmers. He took a number of other major measures, including extending suffrage to women and the participation of workers in factories through shares and other measures. In the 1970s the governmental program of a free of charge nourishment for children at school (“Taghzieh e Rāigān”) was implemented. Under the Shah’s reign, the national Iranian income showed an unprecedented rise for an extended period.

Improvement of the educational system was made through new elementary schools and additionally literacy courses were set up in remote villages by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces, this initiative being called “Sepāh e Dānesh”, “Army of Knowledge”. The Armed Forces were also engaged in infrastructural and other educational projects throughout the country (“Sepāh-e Tarvij va Âbādāni”) as well as in health education and promotion (“Sepāh-e Behdāsht”). The Shah instituted exams for Islamic theologians to become established clerics. Many Iranian university students were sent to and supported in foreign, especially Western countries and the Indian subcontinent.

In the field of diplomacy, Iran realized and maintained friendly relations with Western and East European countries as well as the state of Israel and China and became, especially through the close friendship with the United States, more and more a hegemonial power in the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. The suppression of the communist guerilla movement in the region of Dhofar in Oman with the help of the Iranian army after a formal request by Sultan Qaboos was widely regarded in this context.

On 16 January 1979, he made a contract with Farboud and left Iran at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar (a long time opposition leader himself), who sought to calm the situation.[71] Spontaneous attacks by members of the public on statues of the Pahlavis followed, and “within hours, almost every sign of the Pahlavi dynasty” was destroyed.[72] Bakhtiar dissolved SAVAK, freed all political prisoners, and allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran after years in exile. He asked Khomeini to create a Vatican-like state in Qom, promised free elections, and called upon the opposition to help preserve the constitution, proposing a “national unity” government including Khomeini’s followers. Khomeini rejected Bakhtiar’s demands and appointed his own interim government, with Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister, stating that “I will appoint a state. I will act against this government. With the nation’s support, I will appoint a state.”[73] In February, pro-Khomeini revolutionary guerrilla and rebel soldiers gained the upper hand in street fighting, and the military announced its neutrality. On the evening of 11 February, the dissolution of the monarchy was complete.

During his second exile, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi traveled from country to country seeking what he hoped would be temporary residence. First he flew to Assuan, Egypt, where he received a warm and gracious welcome from President Anwar El-Sadat. He later lived in Morocco as a guest of King Hassan II, as well as in the Bahamas, and in Cuernavaca, Mexico, near Mexico City, as a guest of José López Portillo. Richard Nixon, the former president, visited the Shah in summer 1979 in Mexico.[74] The Shah suffered from gallstones that would require prompt surgery. He was offered treatment in Switzerland, but insisted on treatment in the United States.

On 22 October 1979, President Jimmy Carter reluctantly allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo surgical treatment at the New York–Weill Cornell Medical Hospital. While in Cornell Medical Center, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi used the name “David D. Newsom” as his temporary code name, without Newsom’s knowledge.

The Shah was taken later by U.S. Air Force jet to Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and from there to Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base.[75] It was anticipated that his stay in the United States would be short; however, surgical complications ensued, which required six weeks of confinement in the hospital before he recovered. His prolonged stay in the United States was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement in Iran, which still resented the United States’ overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddegh and the years of support for the Shah’s rule. The Iranian government demanded his return to Iran, but he stayed in the hospital.[76]

There are claims that this resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel, and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the Iran hostage crisis.[77] According to the Shah’s book Answer to History, in the end, the United States never provided him any kind of health care and asked him to leave the country.[78]

He left the United States on 15 December 1979 and lived for a short time in the Isla Contadora in Panama. This caused riots by Panamanians who overwhelminglyobjected to the Shah being in their country. Panamanians viewed it as their country being used as a stooge of the United States. The new government in Iran still demanded his and his wife’s immediate extradition to Tehran. A short time after Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s arrival in Panama, an Iranian ambassador was dispatched to the Central American nation carrying a 450-page extradition request. That official appeal greatlyalarmed both the Shah and his advisors. Whether the Panamanian government would have complied is a matter of speculation among historians.

After that event, the Shah again sought the support of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat, who renewed his offer of permanent asylum in Egypt to the ailing monarch. He returned to Egypt in March 1980, where he received urgent medical treatment, including a splenectomy performed by Michael DeBakey,[79] but nevertheless died from complications of Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma) on 27 July 1980, aged 60. Egyptian President Sadat gave the Shah a state funeral.[80]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is buried in the Al Rifa’i Mosque in Cairo, a mosque of great symbolic importance. The last royal rulers of two monarchies are buried there, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran and King Farouk of Egypt, his former brother-in-law. The tombs lie to the left of the entrance. Years earlier, his father and predecessor, Reza Shah had also initially been buried at the Al Rifa’i Mosque.

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

If it is traced back the accusation of American imperialism being so vile it is the belief that cultures are better off left alone by removing American capitalism from foreign policy.  It wasn’t in the case of Iran a bunch of people who wanted to preserve Islamic faith or the sanctity of their country and its history—it was communists who wanted complete control, just as they did in Vietnam, Cuba, and Central America.  The trouble within America leaving the CIA to be so clandestine—a journey started by his grandfather Teddy Roosevelt with his vengeful commitment toward Progressivism—which would become a more “intellectual” name for communism in the states–Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. was all over the Middle East trying to stop the spread thus making those countries dangerous not just to America but their own people.  Domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers would continue to sputter the belief that America just wanted the oil from Iran to operate cars cheaply so they could drive over all the land stolen from the Indians—but behind such sentiments is communism just as those who hate America abroad are fearful of the kind of freedom that capitalism brings to people wherever it touches.  The communists in Iran didn’t care about justice; they wanted a head to put on a pike as they took over in the same manner that the French Revolution of 1948 attempted and elsewhere that the words of Karl Marx touched.

Yet Ben Afflect gave away his political sentiments in the closing scenes of his movie Argo just as his friend Matt Damon made an argument for communism in the science fiction film Elysum.  Elysium only made $93 million dollars in The United States.   It made most of its money in the foreign market raking in $193 million around the rest of the world.  Americans could tell that there was something wrong with the message—but in countries where communism and socialism are already the standard, Elysium was a ray of hope that their poor political philosophy had merit.

America has a stake in those far-flung markets because when capitalism is not a part of their life—they seek to come to America to live.  So America to protect itself has an obligation to spread capitalism to Iran, to Iraq, to China, Afghanistan, to India, Mexico, and Central America because the restrictive economies of socialist and communist countries has impoverished people and they can’t all come to America for refuge.   It would be nice if everyone could live in America—but they can’t as America is only around 5% of the world’s population.  So America has to bring itself to the world—and not be shy about it.  But first the remnants of communism and a love for Karl Marx must be removed from the debate by confronting it directly.  Affleck put the reference in a movie offered to the American public as a patriotic film and surely George Clooney thought it to be high brow political theater.  Bill Ayers wants to see American capitalism crushed so that the land can return to the Indians—or so he thinks—and America will no longer have the ability to broadcast capitalism messages to the far corners of the world where communism is still the operating foundation of their governments.

It takes more than waving a flag on the 4th of July to keep America as the best hope the world has for freedom—and economic prosperity.  And the CIA shouldn’t have to behave the way Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. did to prevent communism from gaining the looted wealth of oil fields and to use that wealth as weapons against America funneling money straight into the black hole of communist Russia at the time.  The situation was then and still is far more complicated—but the essence is a decision between capitalism and communism.  America has a need to project capitalism to every corner of the world so that immigrants don’t topple its economy with welfare benefits but instead give the potential immigrants the ability to live freely in their own countries with economic vitality as their foundations.  America wasn’t trying to take over Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or any place else—it simply wanted to show those countries how to live in a capitalist society and how to benefit from it as partners throughout the world.  The hatred of America from Bill Ayers, George Clooney, Ben Afflect and others who utter sentiments about imperialism projected from The United States is that they fear capitalism and believe that a version of communism needs to be the ruling philosophy—it has nothing to do with the good of the indigenous people.  The root of the anger always comes back to capitalism versus communism.  These radicals like Ayers do not support communism with a capital “C” but with a little one—and that is a sentiment that is very popular among those who think they know better than everyone else.

The World Cup soccer matches were so terribly boring for The United States because soccer is a socialist game.  As pointed out in previous articles, the off sides rules and lack of ability to use hands during the game is metaphorical of socialist and communists governments.  Soccer is the game most enjoyed in countries mired down with socialism.  This is why there is a huge movement in America for many years to make soccer the dominate activity among young people—but as a sport, Americans, just like their rejection of Matt Damon’s Elysium know that there is something they don’t like about it—which of course is that they are both anti-capitalist in their primary philosophic foundations.  So it’s not enough to wave a flag and clap after some fireworks explode.  If you really love your country you’ll openly support capitalism not just in America—but in Iraq, Honduras, Mexico, China, and Russia—everywhere.  There is no way to support both; a passive attitude toward Karl Marx’s communism cannot be permitted because it cannot compete with capitalism. Communism has to destroy capitalism to survive and if it does that, people will live in oppressed huts, under the control of regional warlords, international bankers, and fanatic religious radicals—and the borders of The United States will continue to be flooded by refuges seeking opportunity where only capitalism can give it.

First however dear reader you have to know your history and understand what is really behind any animosity exhibited by people like Bill Ayers who has corrupted the mind of many people with his hatred of American capitalism.  A whole generation of Ben Affleck types have bought into his anti-imperialism hook, line and sinker and they make movies like Argo to support their thesis.  But now you know rest of the story regarding Mohammad Rezâ Šâh Pahlavi without the slant of Marxist philosophy clouding the matter.  Most Americans watch Argo and don’t quite get the Marx reference or the anti imperialism at the beginning until Barack Obama says something similar in a speech, or a teacher instructs something like-minded in a class room.  Americans have been taught that they must feel “compassion” for those other places and be respectful of their history—even as communism eats away at their foundations.  Americans sense it when they watch soccer or when the message is blatant like it was in Elysium so they vote with their dollars and work out their anxiety with a few more fireworks on the 4th of July and wave their flags a little more vigorously hoping to get back what they lost in philosophy to the dregs of society represented by Bill Ayers—exposed on the Kelly File on July 4, 2014.

You can’t play with America like a cat pawing at a ball of yarn, waving flags at patriotic holidays and putting your hand on your heart at sporting events.  You have to buy into the philosophy of America and support capitalism everywhere it has an opportunity to develop—and you have to do it now.  Because the enemies are deeply entrenched, and are everywhere—at every level of society—and they want their own kind of “regime change” and as Barack Obama has proven—mentored personally by Bill Ayers—capitalism is not the mode of operation.  America is exceptional, but it is not its job to confine that exceptionalism to only 5% of the world population.  It is not America’s task to yield to 95% of the rest of the world, but to teach them to be capitalists so that same 95% doesn’t try to cross over into the Mexican border to flee the communism and socialism of their home countries.  America to defend itself must turn those numbers around so that more people within their own countries can gain the opportunities they would have in only The United States because of capitalism. It isn’t imperialism and control that America has been doing throughout the world—it has simply been the self-defense of capitalism against communism that is as still alive today as it was in 1950—only the names have changed and moved underground only to be revealed behind some of Hollywood’s biggest names at the end of the movies they produce thinking they are the smartest people in the world—and the only ones who notice.

They weren’t……………………….now, watch all these videos, and take note of the  pattern. 

imageRich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Why Most Feminists are so Unattractive: The truth behind the Hobby Lobby case

The cries of anger from the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby by feminist groups is so reminiscent of my complaints of school levy supporters who are typically feminists looking to cover their parenting deficiencies with tax payer funded baby sitting services, that I had to go back to an article that caused a lot of controversy toward me as a kind of time capsule confirmation of my thoughts—to validate its merit. An article I wrote after a very contentious first quarter—politically in 2012 became cherry picked for negative comments to use against me, so I put it on password protection to stop the bleeding. Of course it was the Cincinnati Enquirer who was doing the cherry picking on behalf of the type of feminists who are now howling in rage against the recent high court decision. In the wake of that political turbulence I had not revisited that article to take the password off—which I should have done earlier—because if people could have seen the context of the article—they would have seen what the Enquirer had done. But I never got around to it until I wanted to see how true many of my statements were in the winter of 2012 compared to the radical position of the feminists against Hobby Lobby. At the link below, my comments from that time can be revisited.

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/freedom-watch-is-off-the-air-censorship-by-the-fools-against-the-truth/

The trouble with these feminists—the ones against Hobby Lobby and the typical school levy supporters which I described with my open opinion is that they cross the line in expecting other people to fund their beliefs. People are free to believe what they want to—those feminists are free to conduct their lives in their families and be man hating despots all they want—until they ask me for something. In the case of the school levy supporters they demanded that I support their politics with my tax money. Their reasons for a school levy and their demands of the public education system put the burden on me as a tax payer to support. When they did not respect the vote from Lakota residents in the fall of 2011, I saw that they were just going to keep coming until they got what they wanted, and I let my thoughts about their actions be known. What is the point of playing the same stupid game with them when they have only one objective in mind—higher taxes to support their progressive world outlook—which I do not support? The essence of their argument was take something from me that I didn’t want to give—and to get it they were more than willing to assassinate my character and anyone attached to me through brute force.

The same is going on over the Hobby Lobby case, the feminists are very concerned that the progressive gains they have made against American tradition—which I support—are slipping away so they feel they must become aggressive to defend their position. But their position is essentially the expectation that a corporation fund the sexual exploits of women without those women taking responsibility for their actions. In a lot of ways, this is far worse than the school levy supporters who really just want free babysitting and the guilt of their career building removed from them as the government takes responsibility for their children’s educations. In this case the feminists are demanding that Hobby Lobby fund sexual activity—which is the decision of women whether or not they wish to participate in such an activity or not. Sex doesn’t just happen—it is a decision and Hobby Lobby has no obligation as a corporation or a family business to contribute to those kinds of personal activities. If women want to work for a company that does endorse that kind of activity—then they can apply for a job at such a place, or start their own company where they can provide those benefits to employees–that way feminists could work together and not muddy the water of women who actually enjoy working for a company that respects religious beliefs and traditional value.

Yet the feminists expect “others” to fund their recklessness—and their personal philosophy of complete independence of males in their life. At the foundation of their proposal is to actually enslave everyone—whether they believe in the same things as the feminists or not—into contributing to their lifestyles. So the feminists are far from independent—but rather they are more dependent than ever. The only difference is that the feminist demands that society care for her instead of a single husband which might expect something in return—such as traditional housewife roles within a home, caring for children, preparing a majority of the meals, taking care of most domestic obligations—etc. The feminists want to be free of all those obligations, yet they still want the support of big government to care for them the way a typical “man-of-the-house” traditionally did, bringing home the money, taking care of fixing things and providing non emotional advice regarding priorities for the family’s direction—the “father knows best role.” In that role a housewife might have told children—“don’t do this or that or I’ll tell your father.” The children fearing such an overpowering figure might then correct their behavior. The modern feminist instead tells her children—“do what the government tells you, do what your teachers tell you, and mind the police.” The feminist has simply replaced the traditional head of household man with government. The trade-off was that government doesn’t expect anything from the feminists in return leaving them free to do anything they want, believe anything they want, and to espouse values regardless of their destructive tendencies without feeling the impact of direct consequence. Instead—those consequences are distributed to many people—people like me who do not support the feminist cause.

It’s not that women should be pushed down into a passive role in society. The only real difference between men and women are purely physical. The mind of people is where value really is—so in that context men and women are equal—if the mind is the root of judgment. But the feminists do not have the right personal philosophy—they are wrong about most of their assertions—at least compared to my traditional American values. They are free to believe or be as wrong as they wish—but they are not free to impose those values on other people who disagree with them. In essence, that is what the feminists against Hobby Lobby are attempting to do. It is that same attack gay rights advocates have against Chick-fil-A, or that race baiters have across the entire economy—the goal of all these parasitic groups is to gain something from other people who do not necessarily support those viewpoints—making those parties contribute in the acts by default.

This strategy puts the blame of bad, reckless behavior on the entire society as a result making correction of such behavior irredeemably impossible. For instance, a cost of feminism is the destruction of parenting ability provided to children. The divorce rate has increased, men have become feminized, and role models have been removed from the home as the state through teachers, and through court appointed liaisons became the central figures in a child’s life. Judges decide where a child sleeps in divorce hearings as opposed to the parents. The parents lose their rights to instruct their children once lawyers and government in general becomes part of the process. The adverse effect is that a whole generation of children are coming to age who look to government for decisions—which government is incapable of making—causing major problems currently. Feminism can be traced as the cause. It is of course more complicated than that—not all men are capable of being a good head-of-house; women not so attractive then don’t have access to the same type of good men as attractive women do—most feminists are not very attractive—which is the deep insecurity that they have and foundation for their commitment to feminism. Yet their commitment to that particular cause then has a chain reaction effect that could be blamed on destroying society—the effects are just now being recorded—socially. But all that is hidden because feminists through legal victories in the past have pulled everyone into contributing to their faults.

Feminist are fearful of the Hobby Lobby case because they see the trend turning against them and it is scary. If they cannot hide their stupidity behind all of society—behind large corporations like Hobby Lobby and others—they will be left vulnerable to take responsibility for the cost of their beliefs against society. For them, that is a terrifying prospect. Just as my comments from over two years ago have proven, the feminists are extreme radicals and when I made sure that I wasn’t going to go along with their plan—they did everything they could to come after me publicly which still angers me. They had no right, which led to my comments in the article linked above. And when I called them on things, they cherry picked my words and attempted to manipulate the situation into their favor just as they are doing now against Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court. But history will prove what I’m saying correct. Just as I was able to resurrect the article above from two years ago, ten years from now this article will be reviewed similarly. And the facts will be known, the cost of feminism will be well documented, and the truth will be obvious. It is that truth which the feminists are terrified of in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. The tide is finally turning against them—and there isn’t anywhere or anybody to hide behind. Hobby Lobby is one less place in a field of vanishing confinements that a decade from now will be an empty plain leaving the feminists and other such progressive groups bare and completely exposed for what they have always been.

Wonderful American women are people like Dana Loesch, Ayn Rand, and Annie Oakley.  There are many others, those are just a few examples.  So it isn’t women hating to declare that feminists are destructive, and on the wrong path.   Just factual.  And thank God for women like the Tampa Bay Buccaneer cheerleaders–symbols of American exceptionalism. 


image Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
 

Why Men Crave BDSM: The long twisted road that must stop–self sacrifice and personal abuse

While researching why the movie Cloud Atlas was so bad, I discovered that the director Larry Wachowski had turned himself into a woman named Lana, and that the film was assembled during his/her transition.  So I’m going to say something here that will likely make some people very angry and hurt some feelings—but so what.  These things have to be said.  As I say them consider this—I have spent over twenty years studying the cause of human sacrifice—most notably from the work of Joseph Campbell.  When I was a kid, I wanted to be something between an Archaeologist and a test pilot—but I have no patience for 6 week digs that take place over decades to find a few pots, or academic politics.  And as far as a military career, I have little respect for authority or chains of command so a military career has always been out of the question.  I have over the years however developed quite an extensive talent for handling bullwhips which has naturally led people to assume that I participate in BDSM practices.  Much to their disappointment when they see my reaction is that I don’t have a single cell in my body which desires a passive role in anything I do—and I have absolutely no desire to rule over others as a dominator.  I have met lots of people who wanted to be hit with bullwhips, who wish to be stripped naked in front of perfect strangers and hit the way only an expert whip handler can—with body wraps that make a violent sound but dissipate their energy while wrapping around the body before tearing away flesh.  When I have been approached by these people to have this done to them by me—I have always declined. 
(Yeah, I know that guy, really well). I was in Hollywood once where an unnamed actress wanted to pay me a handsome amount of money to treat her in this fashion and I tried to explain to her why she wanted to have it done and that she needed to correct that desire.  Of course it angered her and she never spoke to me again—but let me be clear—I have a lot of experience in the how and why people desire BDSM, and I have always been against the practice.  Unfortunately, a majority of the people in the world these days desire BDSM in some capacity and this is extremely unhealthy.  The cause I will reveal at the end of this article, but first we need to understand why people do it—or want to have it done to them.  The best example of course is Larry Wachowski who started messing around in the Dungeon in Los Angeles and his experiences there ruined his marriage and made him realize that he desired submissive sex—and that he was really a woman.  No—that is not the reality—he just took it too far and misread his desires.  So below are quotes from an article on the topic by dominatrixs who are paid professionals whose task it is to turn people into sexual submissives—particularly men—and their observations on why their clients came to them.  Larry Wachowski’s story is actually one that too many people have, men and women and there is no way to solve the many riddles in American culture when these silly fantasies occupy the minds of a society the way that it currently does—so some attention must be given to it.  The part where my opinions on it will enrage people is that it is clearly a mental neurosis built on poorly constructed values which causes it and is the direct result of a failed personal philosophy.  If you dear reader are a man and have submissive fantasies—you are fu**ed up and need to be fixed.  Here is why.

Many men who turn to submissive fantasies do so for precisely the sort of vacation from responsibility that Roiphe suggests women are seeking.  Olivia Severine, a transsexual dominatrix living in San Francisco, says most of her clients were “very high-powered” men weighed down by responsibility. “They came to see me as a brief escape when no one was looking at them for direction or leadership,” she says. “The time with me is when they were told what to do, what to feel and how to act … and all the weight of their careers, families, lives, is lifted from them for a cherished few hours.”

Mistress Shae Flanigan, a Los Angeles dominatrix, says her clients are “CEOs, high-ranking managers, lawyers and wonderfully brilliant men from all over the business spectrum.” What they have in common is “that they come to me to create an environment where they don’t need to think,” she says. “Where they can trust me to keep them safe while I weave together an enticing, thrilling, euphoric and painful world where it is literally impossible to think.”

It isn’t that these guys wish they had less real-world power — it’s just, power is stressful, and submission provides a release. “BDSM is a hell of a lot more affordable of a vacation than the Bahamas, I promise you,” says Flanigan.

Melissa Febos, author of “Whip Smart,” a book about her time as a pro-domme, tells me, “As someone who spent nearly four years catering to the submissive fantasies of men, and who eventually had to acknowledge her own submissive fantasies, I can say with some certainty that I think all people experience anxiety about power,” she says. “Aren’t our objects of eroticization often the things we feel unreconciled about?”

Most of Febos’ clients “experienced an imbalance of power in their lives,” she says. For some it was “extreme disempowerment,” like child abuse, racism or poverty; for others, it was “an overwhelming burden of power,” related to everything from wealth to politics. (“During the Republican convention, business at the dungeon boomed,” she says.) All of that is to say that “eroticization stemming from anxiety is not gender-specific,” Febos explains — nor is it specific to the relative power one has in the real world.

“Everyone, regardless of career choice or level of importance, is saddled with the burden of making important decisions about their own lives and the lives of the people around them,” Domina Nyx of New York City points out.

While Natasha Strange, who has worked as a domme for almost 20 years, has had plenty of “men who are powerful and want to give up control for a bit,” she’s also had tons of “musicians, cab drivers, pharmacy reps, teachers and your basic blue-collar workers who are just kinky and want to feel desired for an hour or three.” Interestingly enough, she says, “The very first female client I had was a housewife and a mother of two.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/155087/sex_escape%3A_why_do_men_go_to_dominatrixes

All of my creative written works up until this point have been focused on human sacrifice.  It is a topic I have long been obsessed over.  When I realized that becoming an archaeologist would not answer the questions I was asking I turned to comparative religion and philosophy to understand.  In my 1997 screenplay The Lost Cannibals of Cahokia I directly explored the horror of this topic and the work bounced around Hollywood for a number of years.  When I showed apprehension in joining the Writers Guild when directed by a Wilshire Blvd agent—the story died because with the promise of developing the script was a reworking of the sacrifice plotline and a refocus on the horror aspects.  Well, the point of the story for me was to understand why human beings felt they needed to sacrifice themselves to other people.  So I continue to retain the rights, but development died on the vine.  My 2004 novel The Symposium of Justice was essentially about a vigilante who protects people from the desire of an “evil system” to sacrifice the good for the many at the expense of the individual.   My 2012 novel Tail of the Dragon was essentially about a man who refused to allow himself to be sacrificed in any manner at all socially.  His refusal caused the greatest car chase in American history—it became a kind of Vanishing Point type story except much more intense.  But the central thesis was on sacrifice.  I have had many publishers, agents, actors, financiers and the like convey their appreciation of my works, but there is always something left out of our dialogue which goes unsaid and prevents further interaction and development. 

From 2006 to 2009 I conducted a number of onsite visits to areas known for their human sacrifice to understand better the cause.  I visited the site of Cahokia outside of St. Louis and the subject of my 1997 screenplay.  Based on some new information from that visit The Lost Cannibals of Cahokia screenplay won an award at the Indie Gathering Film Festival in the horror category.  Shortly after my wife and I visited the Chichen Itza archaeological site in the Yucatan Peninsula to study the actual location of many human sacrifice examples.  I had thought that the Mel Gibson film Apocalypto was actually one of the best Anthropological/Archaeological films done on the Mayan culture and on human sacrifice.  So out of all the world’s sacrificial sites—Chichen Itza held the best example of the practice that was the most fully preserved.   I had my thesis which was put into my books and screenplays and ironically, Mel Gibson was destroyed as a filmmaker after that film which came out during this period.  There was something about the subject matter of sacrifice which made people feel uncomfortable.  On one level they agreed—the Mayan practice of human sacrifice was terrible, and barbaric.  On the other, human sacrifice still occurs; it is just much slower and doesn’t necessarily mean that a person must be killed—literally.  Just metaphorically—the cause of most BDSM is to reconcile that metaphorical death within an individual life.

While helping Doc Thompson promote the first Atlas Shrugged film over AM radio, I discovered Ayn Rand and read all her books and found that she had already been down the road I was going in regard to human sacrifice.  She had approached the problem philosophically where mine was archaeological, but the conclusions were similar.   This helped me refine the argument from a big general thesis against sacrifice to a more pointed one backed by her previous work in Objectivism.  So this lead me to establish the proper background in declaring that I have spent a lot of time on this notion of sacrifice and explored its nature as a corrosive social element and am fully capable to speak on the matter with authority.

The reason that men desire to “not think” and to surrender themselves to a dominatrix is because they have been taught that not everyone is a superman—that not everyone can support the world—and that weaknesses are virtuous.  It is inconceivable to me that a “powerful” man responsible for the jobs of many people and the fiscal merits of a company he works for—or owns, would desire to have his pants pulled down like a child and be spanked—harassed, and dominated by another human being because they want a vacation from making hard decisions.  The cause is a failed philosophy at the heart of their very minds.  But the cause of the belief that not everyone can be a superman is that the notion of self-sacrifice has been embedded into such men from the time that they were children.  If a man is too successful, he feels guilt about it and seeks to reconcile that guilt by being dominated—the way he dominates others.  It’s a silly belief that a social balance must be maintained and that it can only be found through masochistic pain.  That is the start, and like Larry Wachowski who went from zero to a 1000 after the success of his Matrix film—he did not have the mental capacity to deal with the success other than his instruction of self-sacrifice by a society still functioning like the now extinct Mayans.

When the actress asked me to beat her with one of my whips, I understood what she wanted.  She sat with me at the catering truck talking about how tough it was to get roles in Hollywood, how relationships were tough to maintain, that everyone expected you to be one way or another and that if you didn’t fit those molds—you didn’t get parts.   She went on and on about her father’s expectations, her mother’s feminist declarations—her agents typecasting—I don’t think I said a word during the entire lunch hour on set.  It was like nobody had listened to this girl for a decade and for whatever reason she felt she could talk to me.  At the end she put a stack of ten $100 dollar bills on the table and asked me to hit her with my whip the way I had been doing on set—only privately.  She talked about the culture of Los Angeles and how much money I could make providing such a service to the frustrated actresses in Beverley Hills, the confused house wives of the studio executives up in the hills around Burbank and the cultural immigrants of Glendale looking for the kind of abuse they received in the countries they came from in the safety of a person they could trust would not hurt them permanently.  She told me about places like the Dungeon where Larry Wachowski lost his mind and manhood.  Apparently this nice clean-cut girl who was married to one of the producers with several of her children on the set spent a lot of time in those kinds of places.  I told her I didn’t do that kind of thing—that my interest in bullwhips was inspired by Douglas Fairbanks and the old serials of the 30s, 40s and 50s.  I hoped that by mentioning old Hollywood, we would find common ground—but instead she went cold and got up embarrassed from feeling so vulnerable in what she revealed to someone who wouldn’t jump to the dark side with her.  “Fu** Douglas Fairbanks” she said as she took her tray back to the truck.  She left the bills on the table, angrily dispensed her tray, then came back to retrieve the money and sat down next to her husband who had been doing his best to avoid my gaze—until his wife sat back down next to him.

These broken thoughts—these desires to be abused don’t just regulate themselves to the bedroom.   They come out in voting booths where voters secretly desire to be dominated by a Barack Obama, or commanded around by a Harry Reid, or lied to by Nancy Pelosi.  Men and women want to be seduced by Bill Clinton—they know he is a scum bag liar, but they have this notion of wanting to be abused by him to satisfy the internal need they have for insult—pain, and suffering.  The more comfortable their lives are, the more they feel they must pay someone or something back to the universe to balance out existence.  And non-thinking pain and abuse accomplishes two things, it does give them a retreat from responsibility, but also it equalizes the guilt they feel from being successful and having the ability to get their nails done, or play a round of golf at 1 PM in the afternoon until 5 PM while most people in the world are working.

Chances are dear reader you have these same thoughts and feelings and they were given to you by a failed society and its ridiculous philosophies built upon crumbled civilizations from the past.  If you desire to be spanked, slapped around, have your hair pulled—to be called disgraceful names, to be handcuffed, raped, or have things clipped to your skin by someone else until it hurts—you are messed up.  You are broken and need to be fixed.  What you are feeling are ancient thoughts that should be eradicated.  They are not healthy thoughts given to you outside of your control by some deity living in the hereafter.   They are screwed up philosophies given to mankind by the past which always lead to failed societies.  In the case of Larry Wachowski he destroyed his life and is seeking justification in the form of being a woman to excuse his mistakes.  It is only because he is a progressive that the studio bosses keep him employed hoping that one of his films will be the next Matrix—which was a fluke—a one shot wonder.  But the entire nation of America is seeking a similar punishment through self-sacrifice and under such a belief system nothing can endure.

Consider the absolutely stupid notion that we are supposed to thank our troops for their service to their country.  The popular phrase—“some gave all” implies that giving one’s life to the freedom of everyone in the country is the noblest thing anyone can do—and that is just stupid.  The sudden appreciation of our troops over the last decade of treacherous debt (nearly $18 trillion and counting) only confirms to individuals everywhere that the state is the highest authority and its continued preservation must be endured at any cost—even if it means death.  Therefore, with that basic premise intact success is believed to be reconciled through pain and suffering.  And because sex is a major part of every adult life, punishment has entered the bedroom to align the minds of warped individuals with the insanity they are being forced to contend with due to massive mismanagement and poor philosophical choices of the world’s governments—particularly America.  It is worse in America not because it is a bad nation, but because there is a pretense of freedom which is assumed, but the old diabolical need for abuse still persists in the human mind forcing the behavior underground on a massive level.  This duality causes many of the problems we are seeing.

In Asian countries where the governments are communist and abusive, the old desires to be abused by an authority figure satisfy their innate impulses so the sexual deviancy does not go underground the way the cultures of Los Angeles or New York conduct their affairs—living one way in the open, another when nobody is looking.  But the causes are all the same—mankind has not grown up and away from the self-sacrificial nature of their ancestors and are still just as primitive.  Until a mind grows up and away from such a desire of sacrifice—the evils of personal destruction through masochistic abuse and internal hatred will continue.  And that will cause more movies like Cloud Atlas to be made instead of films about people who have overcome self-sacrifice—like in Atlas Shrugged.


image Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman Blast The IRS: What ‘Les Misérables’ and a -2.9 GDP drop really mean

The other day when I told the story of Attila and the Witch Doctor, which has been around for quite a long time now as a metaphorical reference to the corrosive tendency contained in governments—and currently polluting the American government, it was the only way to explain the current IRS situation ( CLICK TO REVIEW).  I realized during one of my visits with Matt Clark on WAAM radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan that the only real way to explain the crimes of the IRS was with that Attila comparison, but before I espoused on live radio about aspects of deep-seated philosophy which many AM radio listeners during the day time hours are not interested in—I had to introduce the concept in a way that modern readers and listeners would understand.  This left Matt and I to recollect the previous week’s events in a gear that radio audiences understand which was pecking around the surface of the IRS controversy.  Those broadcasts can be heard below, we did a full hour for his Saturday show which of course captivated audiences with a truth they get few other places.  We recorded it with a video feed from my end, but Matt was having technical issues but made the whole thing work anyway the best he could.

The IRS is guilty of several crimes and they are stuffing the information behind a veil of social masks designed to conceal their actions.  During our talk it hit me that the only way to explain this IRS situation is through the proper context of the history of Attila which was actually a concept Nathaniel Branden provided to Ayn Rand.  Those two archetypes, Attila and the Witch Doctor were constructed during a period of American history where near pure capitalism was seen being snuffed out by regulation and the events which would create The Great Society were being implemented.  The book discussing Branden’s archetypes was For The New Intellectual published by Ayn Rand in 1961 well before any of the current troubles occurred—but the signs were clearly present.  The temperament of talk radio which requires a lot of back and forth as a fluid discussion would not allow for the introduction of the Attila concept without all the back story—so it wouldn’t fit during our one hour talk radio show.  But as Matt played several clips from the IRS hearings—things I had heard, but not in the condensed order that he played them—it was obvious where America was going wrong and how it had to be fixed.

The IRS clearly has become the modern Attila—an entity which rules by force and is controlled by the Witch Doctors in the White House and Supreme Court.  They were hiding their obvious crimes against the American Constitution which was created specifically to protect citizens from future Attila types so that the protection of the Constitution would be eroded away before America realized a crime had taken place.  All of America had been trained to support either Attila or the Witch Doctor through their education systems—provided of course by the government and their metaphorical Witch Doctor lawyers.   That is a mouthful to say on live radio but it was dashing through my mind as Matt and I spoke.  This leaves Americans defenseless to deal with a corrupt IRS because most citizens have either already submitted to Attila the ultimate dominatrix or a committed alliance to a Witch Doctor following the philosophy of Immanuel Kant essentially declaring that reality is anything that the mass collection of people in a democratic government believe it to be.  So if the masses believe that the IRS is innocent of a crime—then this is to be the projected fact in the news media and legal briefs for all time.  When the IRS commissioner revealed to Trey Gowdy—which Matt and I spoke of—that the commissioner did not believe the IRS did anything wrong he was playing the Witch Doctor role.  His assertion was that the government was spending considerable time and money convincing the masses through public relation tricks that a crime at the IRS had not been committed, that evidence had not been destroyed and that there was nothing to see for the inquisitive eye.   The arrogance found on the face of the commissioner was the knowledge that if the government through the Witch Doctor antics of Obama could sway enough American support to believe in their innocence—that the reality of their innocence would follow—therefore leaving the IRS free of conviction.

This obviously was not the case; The IRS is guilty of using its power to harass citizens into a particularly desired political direction—good for the Attila regime represented by the IRS.  The IRS is not serving the needs of the people, and government certainly isn’t serving the tax payers of The United States—they were falsely believing that they were part of an exclusive culture of aristocrats and that the IRS were their personal minions to force compliance protecting that aristocracy.  I blame much of this trouble on the philosophers of the past, people such as Kant, Marx, Descartes, Hume, Hegel—basically the Rationalists, and the Empiricists—or put more simply those who abandoned reality and those who clung to it by abandoning their mind.  Those philosophers shaped the modern world to fit the mold of old world Europe.  Marx was so backward he had no answer for capitalism which he sought to destroy after watching the two primary revolutions in France, particularly the Revolution of 1848.  The workers of the world unite slogan was built up against the Attila aristocracy so affiliated with Europe at the time.  Capitalism freed the minds of man—especially in America.  But for anyone who has seen the play Les Misérables it is clear that it was the Attila of aristocracy that was suppressing the people of France.  Capitalism would have freed them, but Marx had arrived first to their radical minds in the form of the Witch Doctor who wanted to rule over Attila—so the young communists used Attila tactics to overthrow the aristocracy thus catapulting them all not toward freedom, but to continued oppression because they didn’t understand what they were doing—philosophically.  That is why there is a red flag in the play—and the movie—it represents the blank red flag of socialism as proposed by Karl Marx—a fellow Witch Doctor from the philosophic school of Kant.

In America roughly 50 year later the IRS formalized itself in 1918 after first being created during the Civil War in 1862 to raise funds for the effort.  Once the government received a taste of the revenue collection system they became addicted and continued to collect taxes long after the war was over passing law after law not because they needed to—but because they could—the Witch Doctors had the power of Attila and they intended to use it—and did.  As that same European socialism came to America through its universities by way of Marx and Kant the IRS gained more and more Attila like tendencies becoming essentially Javert from Les Misérables the mindless functioning Attila with a terminator like persistence to recapture Valjean at any cost—in spite of him becoming a successful factory owner and caretaker of Cosette.  This was a classic case of cutting off one’s nose to spite its face—but being a non thinking servant of the Witch Doctor aristocracy Javert mindlessly served that order and in the end when he had failed could only commit suicide in self sacrificial obedience to the Witch Doctor oriented “law” which he enforced with brute force and conviction.  The IRS as a government organization became this “Valjean”—the Attila by default and would spend the next hundred years destroying capitalism in America until as Matt and I pointed out during the broadcast America only had a -2.9% GDP in the first quarter of 2014—which apparently shocked everyone—except me.  I’ve only been saying it for four years now.  That drop is a direct result of too many Attila types in American government imposing force upon job makers instead of freeing them up to create jobs and products.  (Why is this so damn hard for people to understand, the hero in Les Misérables was a factory owner.  Fantine suffered because she lost her job at the factory–had to sell her hair, teeth and her body to care for her child—but why—because not enough people built factories for god’s sake.  She was poor because there weren’t enough jobs.  There needed to be more people like Valjean, not less and only capitalism provides such things)  The IRS has spent a century destroying capitalism and now they have been caught as law breakers—and the government instead entrenched itself to protect its Witch Doctors.  Obama got on a plane and flew to the Midwest to rally support seeking protection from a congress that wants to sue him over Executive Order malpractice.  Again, the philosophy Obama exhibits is the one of Immanuel Kant—that if enough people believe something—the reality is subjugated toward that majority belief.  So the facts of the IRS case are ignored in preservation of Attila and the Witch Doctors in Washington.

Matt Clark and I had a great talk as usual—and it was very productive.  Many people who avoid reading, thinking, or taking responsibility for the state of the world were not aware of the Branden/Rand metaphor developed in 1961 because universities are teaching Kant and Marx, not the new philosophies born in America by minds defending capitalism. Instead, the goal has been to return America back into the European fold of Attila and the Witch Doctor through art, like Les Misérables and the persistence of the IRS who is the metaphorical Javert protecting the aristocratic system of government with mindless commitment.  Too much to discuss on AM radio, but it was the essence of the problems covered on Matt’s show.  It is because of Attila and the Witch Doctor that the IRS has been committing so many crimes in the light of day and getting away with it—and why the government itself is powerless to do anything about it—even though justice is crying out for attention—and revenge.


image Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

‘Jersey Boys’ Review: Clint Eastwood at his absolute best

If it wasn’t such an astonishing film with some truly remarkable points to make—I would likely have just enjoyed Jersey Boys as a pleasant movie. It’s not the normal kind of film that I would go to the theater to see. I’m not really crazy about pop music, and I could care less about another mobster movie—which Jersey Boys is at its heart. But this was different—I have been a Clint Eastwood fan all of my life and continue to admire his work late in life when most people would have cashed in and checked out a long time ago. I remember well when George Burns was still living well in his 80s which defied logic—but even he looked like a burnt up old man. Eastwood still has his swagger—and his mind at 84 without any sign of slowing down. I knew during the filming of Jersey Boys Clint’s wife wanted to run off with an old friend—a much younger man, then when Eastwood was ready to give her a divorce, she decided she didn’t want it. I also knew that Eastwood’s oldest son Kyle was in the film as a musical coordinator, and that one of his newest daughters Francesca was supposed to be in the cast.  I also knew that he was in pre-production for American Sniper—and there was a lot of other subplots not even related to the difficult production of Jersey Boys which is very well documented. Heck, the main character Frankie Valli is still alive and performing, and would see everything that Eastwood put on film—which can be intimidating to get right. There were at least 1000 reasons Jersey Boys should have been a bad movie and there would be every excuse available for it—so I went to see the film to support Clint Eastwood and his tireless efforts as a brilliant film director. What I saw wasn’t just good, or even great—it was magnificent.

Jersey Boys is a movie filled with very subtle scenes of radiance.  The strength of Clint Eastwood not only as an actor, but a director is in his ability to put many emotions in a scene from moment to moment. This was never clearer than when Frankie Valli rescued his daughter who was a run-away from a vile scum bag with a mobster hit man. The moment brought laughs from the audience and was reminiscent of one of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry films but within a moment in the same scene was a level of drama seen in Mystic River. Valli had rescued his daughter then tried to tell her he was going to save her by making her dreams come true—helping her develop a singing career. As Valli spoke the words, it was clear he was making a mistake—the girl only wanted her father’s attention and her rebelliousness was clearly a response to an emptiness left in her life by a father who was always on the road. The scene was like Eastwood himself, a person who works at many levels all at the same time. The actor clearly had to know how Eastwood wanted to shoot the scene, yet the real Frankie Valli is one of the producers of the film and the decisions he had made eventually would lead to the death of that daughter and had to be painful for him. Eastwood handled all these elements like a symphony—effortlessly. Most directors would have wanted to show off how brilliant they were in such a scene—but Eastwood doesn’t even feel he needs to put a light on it. It just is—and he moves on to the next scene which is just as brilliant for the rest of the movie. It is amazing not only on how Eastwood handles things in front of the camera, but the elements behind the camera which affect what’s in front like an untouched maestro that only extreme maturity and philosophic understanding could provide. I had the feeling that the scene would cause the real Frankie Valli a lot of pain, but Eastwood didn’t care. I thought of his character from High Plains Drifter from many years prior—“people are only scared of what they know about themselves inside.” Eastwood had seen through the emotion written on the page of a screenplay to the heart of the problem and he did not hesitate to cast his opinion through film—which was gut wrenching. Moments later, Eastwood had the audience laughing again and enjoying music. It was quite phenomenal to see.

An example of such brilliance was the way the main characters provided narration throughout the film looking directly into the camera like it was a live stage play. Typically, it is a big error for an actor to look directly into the camera and speak to an audience—yet Eastwood pulls it off without being distracting. I can’t ever recall seeing such a narrative that does not interrupt the flow of the film and it wasn’t just one character—but several. It is a difficult concept to conceive, and even harder to pull off—yet Clint Eastwood effortlessly pulled it off knowing very well that he was shooting a period piece that most of the audience was alive to confirm—and playing music that many in the audience knew by heart. For any other film director—the task would be daunting—but for 84-year-old Clint Eastwood who is a master of his craft and at the top of his game—it was just the result of a life fully lived by a man who had seen and done everything and lived to tell the stories.

Jersey Boys could have been a PG film—there was no sex in it, or nudity. It was done very stylishly—except that the F-bomb was used extensively. But it was never distracting—it felt natural—like part of the culture we were witnessing. Warner Brothers would have reigned in any director except Clint Eastwood. They would have cut the language to get the PG rating for ticket sales, but because of whom the director was—they left Jersey Boys alone which tremendously elevated the authenticity of the subject matter.

Jersey Boys is a musical, but it didn’t go out of its way to be elaborately flowery in that category—the way Chicago, or even Walk The Line did—it again was an effortless exchange between a master filmmaker who happens to be old and uniquely able to convey wisdom that only elderly people can achieve—without being stuffy. Jersey Boys is really amazingly efficient in its delivery of complicated subject matter, well-known songs, and the telling of a story backed by actual history. In one scene the music is interrupted while one of the band members turns to the camera and speaks directly to the audience. It was a strangely satisfying way to tell the story that might only make sense on a printed page as a dream sequence. Most filmmakers would struggle to tell the crew in a meeting what their vision for such a scene would be—yet again Eastwood pulls it off as if everyone does it in every film ever made.

I found myself identifying with the young Frankie Valli and his unique relationship to a mob boss in Christopher Walken. I had a similar background—and understand how complex those types of relationships can be—how the morality between right and wrong can easily be colored gray. Eastwood in telling this kind of story never loses sight of right and wrong while at the same time covering every shade of gray that there is with humor, horror, pity, and honor. There hasn’t been a mob film done this well since The Godfather or Goodfellas. Christopher Walken played his part with all the confidence one would expect—and entered the storyline reminiscent of Pulp Fiction. Again there is typically a tendency to overplay the Walken type of mob boss in films because his performance was so incredibly strong. Yet Eastwood backs off the thrusters just enough to hit the right speed with the entire mob portion of the story seemingly taking a back seat to the music—which of course it was actually the support structure without naming it.

Yet my favorite character in the story was Bob Gaudio who at the end of the film proudly proclaimed to the camera—that without him, none of the events of the story would have happened—and he’s right. Gaudio wrote the songs that made Frankie Valli famous and carried the Four Seasons to heights they wouldn’t otherwise achieve. It wasn’t a teamwork exercise—it was because of Bob Gaudio that the Four Seasons produced so many hits. Frankie Valli had the unique voice, and everyone in the band did the hard work on the road—but it was because of Gaudio that there was anything to sing. I think only Clint Eastwood could have had a character deliver a line like that without sounding pretentious. It was a uniquely Clint Eastwood line delivered authentically.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jersey-boys-premiere-clint-eastwood-713739

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/16/clint-eastwood-reflects-on-age-america-and-acting/

If you go back to Eastwood films like Play Misty for Me the fabulous cinematography seen in Jersey Boys is not there. But the substance of subject matter was. Eastwood films are always intelligent, even in his comedies like Every Which Way But Loose. But Eastwood never let technical limits stop him from making a film. He doesn’t seem to worry about making something that will be criticized by someone who might think they can do it better. He just makes things—and really doesn’t seem to care how it’s judged. In this fashion he has made a lot of movies over a very long career. But starting with the movies he has made since his late 60s, the subject matter and quality of the films has become much better culminating in Jersey Boys. If this isn’t the Best Picture at the 2014 Academy Awards—I don’t know what would be. It is filmmaking at its best by a director who is the best. It was a pleasure to watch, and a real treasure to come from Clint Eastwood who once again has not disappointed me at the movie theater. I got more out of Jersey Boys than I thought I would—and that is always a good thing. And for me to feel that way about a film—it has to have some unique texture that speaks at many levels—and Jersey Boys does—just like the guy who made it.

I first ran into the music of Frankie Valli when I saw Grease as a kid, the movie with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John. Even back then, Valli was already considered an elderly music legend. At that same time, Clint Eastwood was an aging actor playing parts in films that were nearing retirement. It is then ironic that these two entertainment professionals are still around and kicking in 2014 and that they united to make the film Jersey Boys. For me the most haunting portion of the film was the first time the daughter who would die later  in the story sat at the top of the steps of their home angry at her daddy, Frankie Valli for not being home more. For both Eastwood and Valli this had to be a hard scene to film, because their entertainment lives had taken a toll on their personal lives. For Eastwood it was happening again and again, and during the filming of Jersey Boys his wife wanted to run off with a another man. But who could blame her Eastwood hadn’t been a saint. Eastwood has had so many girlfriends and children by them over his long life that he had to have many similar discussions with them as shown in Jersey Boys. The pain is that Valli did not listen to his daughter even though it was obvious that he loved her. There has been several times where I have had the same talk with my daughters and I chose to stay home—and to this day my kids appreciate it. I never had to deal with the kind of things Valli or Eastwood did—but these are the kinds of decisions that must be made by people who want to play the entertainment game at that level. Eastwood handled the scene with haunting coolness given the fact that several of his own children were on the set of Jersey Boys and undoubtedly the real Frankie Valli had to watch the dailies and it had to hurt him. There was real pain in those scenes—and they were handled with care without being too mushy.

If you dear reader were thinking of seeing Jersey Boys, you should take a moment over the upcoming weekend to see it at the theater. The end of the film transposes into a large musical number that is reminiscent of the stage play. It was just another example of the expert care Eastwood’s direction of the film exhibited. It was stylish without being campy—and unusually potent for a bookend to the entire film. Jersey Boys is one of those unique films, and it is a treat for everyone who sees it. It embodied all the elements of living life the way only an 84-year-old man who has always pushed the limit can tall it—making it a real American treasure that will never be forgotten. It is quite simply an amazing film.

Rich Hoffman   www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The IRS Cover-up: Doc Thompson breaks down the timetable

The Blaze as a news source has really excelled during the recent IRS scandal. Doc Thompson particularly had a wonderful broadcast on the timeline of the IRS cover-up during an obvious attempt to destroy evidence once they were caught targeting specific groups filling for tax exempt status. That broadcast can be heard through the video below. What is clear while listening is that the IRS hoped to contain their actions by slowly releasing the story to the public under controlled circumstances—and when it blew up, they destroyed the evidence.

The same day that Doc recorded that broadcast Trey Gowdy had his turn with Commissioner Koskinen and as a former prosecutor—he deservedly dismantled the smug government employee representing the IRS. Gowdy during his examination asked the commissioner—what criminal statutes were looked at to determine that the IRS conducted no wrong doing.

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrong doing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” Gowdy shot back. “How would you know what elements of the crime existed? You don’t even know what statutes are in play.”

Koskinen said he believes he can rely on common sense, but Gowdy blasted that answer out of the water before Koskinen could finish his thought.

“Common sense? Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense?” Gowdy said as Koskinen shook his head at the table.

“You can shake your head all you want to, Commissioner. You have said today that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and I’m asking you what criminal statutes you have reviewed to reach that conclusion.” Gowdy concluded that Koskinen had “no idea” whether any crimes have been committed.

Koskinen then tried to close out his argument saying enough evidence is in to dismiss the idea that the IRS scandal was a coverup directed from the White House. But Gowdy rejected that idea, and said it’s Democrats who are trying to say the GOP is “obsessed” with the White House when it was the White House that first intervened.

“It was Jay Carney that perpetuated the myth that it was two rogue agents in Ohio, it wasn’t any of us. Was that accurate?” Gowdy asked.

“Not that I know of,” Koskinen replied.

“So that was inaccurate and that came from the White House. Who said there’s not a smidgen of corruption?”

“My understanding is that was the president,” the commissioner answered.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/23/watch-gowdy-slams-koskinen-for-claiming-no-criminal-actions-at-irs/

The IRS for many years has maintained an edifice of competence. It has been feared to even contemplate an IRS agent coming to demand an audit of a suspected tax evader. The IRS has the power to totally destroy the lives of virtually any individual—and this has made them something to fear—and they maintained that fear through sheer intimidation. Behind that intimidation was the façade of a government bureaucracy that had excellent record keeping. That is still likely the case—but the minimum damage that the IRS has inflicted upon themselves with this scandal is that they have either shown themselves as completely incompetent—where they don’t know a head from a rear end—or they are criminally negligent and corrupt at their highest levels. There is no middle ground that will come out of this scandal.

In the recent history of America the lies which came from politicians have proven to do them in—most notably, when Clinton claimed he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. But George Bush the senior raised taxes after he declared, “read my lips, no new taxes,” and Bush the younger when he declared war with Iraq without there being weapons of mass destruction. Americans don’t forget these things—and what the IRS has been caught doing is far worse than all those collection of lies put together. There is no way to explain the conduct or the manipulation by the IRS—especially regarding the destruction of evidence. They have lost their authority to impose themselves on an American public as a governing authority. If they will lie about silly little things like 501C3 targeting of political rivals—they will lie about anything.

But there is something worse about the IRS than their propensity to lie—it is their arrogant assertion that they are above the law. When the current IRS commissioner declared that he didn’t believe that the IRS had anything to apologize for, he was declaring that essentially the IRS was beyond the law and that his ignorance of the law or behavior of the IRS in general was not his burden so long as he didn’t have knowledge of the offenses. The commissioner actually proposed to Gowdey that his ignorance of the law was testimony to his innocence and the innocence of the IRS in general.

It is unlikely that the IRS will ever recover its reputation. It has been compromised, and forever tarnished—and will never again resume its previous status as infallible—and an authority of utmost integrity. Like the police scam of traffic citation writing, the IRS as been exposed as a politically partisan attack agency designed to confiscate wealth with the law at its back. But that law only works one way—against the American people. When it is supposed to be applied to the IRS, the law is to be manipulated with countless excuses and re-written to serve the needs of the government against the people they are supposed to serve. The IRS is corrupt beyond repair and has proven to be everything but competent—and no matter how much they try to evade their treacherous actions—are now in league with the criminal class of America more reminiscent of the mob. The IRS like the various mafias throughout the world is simply an organized crime syndicate that uses force to steal wealth. It is nothing more than a gang of thugs who don’t even have the courage to project to the world who they are—which are thieves sanctioned by the government to commit piracy against the enemies of progressive enterprise. Instead they tried to play innocent and ignorant of the very laws they were supposed to be masters of—as they clearly destroyed evidence hoping nobody would notice.

The IRS doesn’t belong in our communities enforcing any type of revenue collection—they belong in jail.

Rich Hoffman   www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Emperor of Aldersonville: Lakota becomes “The New Clothes”

Patti Alderson is a state-central-committee woman tied to many political heavy weights from Governor Kasich to John Boehner. She is one of the wealthiest citizens in Southern Ohio and is involved in many charities—and has been a major levy supporter for Lakota schools. Years ago my group No Lakota Levy offered to her charity The Community Foundation to join forces and help the children of Lakota and the pay for play extortion rates exhibited by the public school and their labor union. Instead of working with me as proposed, she decided to attack me which became the foundation of a media blitz led by her and her friends on the Lakota school board. When I heard what she said about my reaching out a helping hand I made my opinion of her type of levy supporters known—which of course she understood clearly and took all the offense that I intended. The rest is history. Reflecting on the matter I have come to believe that the real reason she was so angry with me wasn’t just the truth of my statements which conveniently found their way into every media outlet in Cincinnati. It was because I am likely the only person in America who does not kiss her ass. When it comes to Patti Alderson, politicians want her money, business people want her alliance, public employees want her ability to control the temperament of a community, and countless legions of parasites just want to be invited to her parties. Click the video below to hear my radio segment on 700 WLW talking about this issue. I was careful not to name names at the time of the interview, because at that time all the guilty parties were not so obvious. But over time, the pieces came together nicely.

When the deal was offered to the Community Foundation to join forces I wasn’t all that impressed by her reputation. Wealthy people like her put their pants on like everyone else, so I didn’t see anything coming from her as particularly special. To me, she was clearly playing politics when she refused to help the youth at Lakota by picking sides in favor of the levy supporters at the expense of the children attending. So I have first-hand experience of how she conducted her business—leading to the things that I said about her supporters backing the Lakota levy. And while all this was going on, it surprised me how people who were quite intelligent, wealthy, and powerful coddled her so openly. It disgusted me—because the real cause of the school levy at Lakota fell right on her doorstep, and too often she skated away free of responsibility because nobody challenged her—because nobody wanted to be on the political out with her—since she controlled so much.

So I have some context to her proposal of bringing the Boys’ and Girls’ Club to the Lakota area. In order to achieve this she wants to share expense, time, and space with Lakota schools. Under this plan, the Club would use the space after school and during the summer, while Lakota would expand kindergarten to all day for those who wish, and have a place for younger pre-school children during the day when school is in session.  Seven months after the 2013 levy passed, there was a proposal for tearing down the old Union school and building this shared new facility. During the last levy campaign the following excerpt was taken from an article in the “Journal News” published in May of 2013, “’No part of this levy is just going to be hanging out there undisclosed as far as what it’s going to be about,’ said Joan Powell, school board president. ‘It’s very important to recognize that of the levy dollars we are contemplating asking, virtually all of them are dedicated to either additional personnel we need to give help along the way, for security, or for technology.'” So now that Lakota got their money, it is time to start breaking the promises which won their votes, and at the center of the activity—as usual is Patti Alderson.

People in the know around the politics of the situation have reported that Patti’s group received around $350,000 cash as a giveaway from Attorney Mike DeWine to purchase a building down on Smith Rd for another youth center. Alderson’s company was the real-estate broker on the deal and collected the commission. Now, none of that is big stuff to Patti—its chicken feed really, but is part of the game of politics which she enjoys controlling. And in order to control those strings there needs to be an unquestioned, mutually agreed upon target—and that is the exploitation of children. When I had my fall-out with Patti, it was because I was trying to take away that exploitation which left the pro levy argument publicly stripped down with nowhere to hide. I hoped at the time that more people would listen to my argument over hers, but in the end, it was a lesson of the old children’s story, The Emperor’s New Cloths. Patti is used to everyone telling her wonderful things, because they want her money just like in that famous story. Then when a child says—“but you’re naked”—anger ensues. I was the one who metaphorically told her and the rest of the levy supporters they were really naked and was using the children of Lakota as their cloths to hide behind. Most people who I thought had guts and nerve stood down and got behind Patti. They told me privately that they supported me, but publicly they stood behind Patti. Most did, but not everyone.

Recently Patti gave up her position after 15 years as head of the Community Foundation. publicly it seems that Patti wishes to pursue her interest in this Boys’ and Girls’ Club deal. But Beth Hauer believes it’s something else related to her—which can be seen in the comments section of the Journal News link shown below.

I wonder if Patti Alderson’s resignation has anything to do with the formal, documented complaint that I filed against her as CEO, the Foundation, a now former V.P., the West Chester Tea Party, the Cincinnati Tea Party and a number of other people concerning the last election for a Fiscal Officer for West Chester Township? I have to tell you, Journal News, that I am not happy about your decisions not to publish anything about that federal complaint, and to publish glowing articles about Patti Alderson.

From that same Journal News article written to give glowing praise of Alderson’s work over the years:

“She’s able to get things done because she does her homework,” said Foundation co-founder Debbie Boehner, the wife of U.S. House Speaker and West Chester Twp. Republican John Boehner. “She is a brilliant businesswoman. Patti’s always had her hands in something that’s a change factor.”

Boehner, who has been friends with Alderson for more than 35 years, said she is amazed with how much of her time and her talent she has given to this community, including spearheading the recent effort to form a Boys & Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty.

“I don’t think that anybody comes any closer,” Boehner said. “We ought to call it Aldersonville instead of West Chester.”

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/foundations-founder-signing-off/nfhzy/

So now Patti Alderson is even more directly aligned with Lakota schools and is looking to tear down the Old Union School which has value by building something else designed to essentially provide free day care to more levy supporters and use the altruism of the escapade to get more shiny stars on her reputation.

Taxpayers have spent half a million dollars refurbishing the old school, putting in new windows, adding air-conditioning, and re-carpeting rooms in the building, not long ago. The school is structurally sound and by tearing it down equity will be lost in it. A charter school or maybe a business could make good use of it as new school buildings that have gone up in recent years often require additional money for structural repairs.

While the school system takes over the childcare responsibilities after school, there are many local day-care centers that will suffer. Parents often want the school to handle their children after hours because it is less expensive. This way the taxpayers are subsidizing childcare for parents under the leadership of Patti Alderson. The parents will pay less because the school system is building and maintaining the structure and the tax payers will absorb the cost.

There is a very great possibility that in this shared project the donor-grant funded responsibility could fall behind in payments do to the funding mechanism failing. These things always work so well in meetings, but reality often deals different cards. That would leave the school system to pick up the slack. The Club has received a $500,000 grant, and the rest will come from donors. This means that at some point in time, tax payers will be asked to cover the costs of mismanagement which history indicates this to be the future of this endeavor.

It is a huge undertaking to decide to provide the luxury of all-day kindergarten (when the value to the children is questionable), subsidizing childcare for parents, extending busing (when recently there wasn’t money to provide it), and tearing down a perfectly good school to make room for a new building which will just turn out to be another temple built to honor Patti Alderson.

The taxpayers passed a levy, and within 5 months, this plan was unveiled which was kept from voters prior to the election. This appears to be a “bait-and-switch” situation led by an underhanded and unethical group of people. No Lakota Levy said this all along—I certainly did.

Patti Alderson is now openly cozy with the Lakota school board and even sat with them, superintendent Mantia, and a facilities person from Lakota in a round table discussion on Monday June 23rd.  At the meeting a decision was made to pursue a land lease arrangement with the Boys & Girls Club for the Union school property. It was discussed that Lakota would not fund a new building. It was estimated that demolition of the existing building would cost about $500K. The building currently has an occupant that will end its lease in approximately a year, (summer of 2015). Lakota made a study to see if they had room with existing facilities to house an expansion of the all day kindergarten activity; there currently exists enough space within Lakota’s current buildings to due this service expansion. It was said that someone who wanted to put a charter school in the existing building had first dibs but superintendent Mantia saw that proposal as potential competition for Lakota which didn’t make her happy.

The financial attractiveness for Lakota is that the district would get some revenue for the property – possibly to offset the cost of the building demolition. It would be a long-term lease. It sounds like Boys and Girls Club could, in turn, lease some of the building space to others. The plan is to have the all day kindergarten be tuition funded, which is why it will likely fail and fall back on the tax payers at a future point. Lakota’s lawyers will now draft a land lease plan and at this point it would seem that the approach would not redirect any of the levy fund’s commitments as stated to the public. But the devil is always in the detail in these kinds of things—and a few years down the road when things don’t work out the way everyone intended, the financial loses will have to be recovered somewhere by somebody—likely the tax payers.

This is where my problem with Patti originates. The last levy at Lakota is projected to generate well over $10 million dollars from every property in West Chester and Liberty Township. Yet Patti is a rich woman and has the ability to generate vast sums of money just at her charity events. She has in her power the ability to fully fund Lakota as a self-contained entity. If she wanted she could remove the burden of Lakota funding from tax payers—but that is not what she’s interested in doing. Her focus instead is to use other people’s money and resources to use “good causes” to show what a giving person she is. My experience with Alderson is that she enjoys more being the center of attention than actually solving problems. Children are an easy target and are the most exploited demographic group of people on planet earth, and that exploitation is alive and well in West Chester—or as Debbie Boehner says—“Aldersonville.” The real goal of the effort at Lakota will be to expand kindergarten for parents too busy to care for their young children. Everything else about this whole deal is to inflate the ego of Patti Alderson—based on my experience with her. People tell me all the time that she means well, and has the best of intentions—but I’ve seen her behavior up close and she showed me her fangs—and that is not a person who is trying to do “the best for the community.” The context of that niceness is to be seen as the Emperor of Andersonville—as defined by John Boehner’s wife Debbie and her new “social” cloths.

In the story The Emperor’s New Cloths a vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid”. The Emperor’s ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but continues the procession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor’s_New_Clothes

I am happy to be the only one in the crowd not functioning from a desire to keeping up a destructive social pretense. The Boys and Girls Club deal with Lakota for Patti is just another robe for an Emperor of Aldersonville where everyone kisses her ring and begs for her money. Just like the school levy campaign was a chance to get like-minded supporters of altruism together for parties, cakes, and back-scratching. It is why she chose not to take my offer of a partnership because the goal wasn’t helping kids; it was in exploiting them for the causes of wearing new cloths and showing them off to the people of Andersonville. In the end it won’t be Patti Alderson writing a check for all her ideas—even though she could—it will be the tax payers still paying for her metaphorical wardrobe years from now once she has disappeared into history and the many monuments dedicated to her charity work will be lost to future generations who could care less who or what she ever was—or anything she ever did.

A special thanks to the many people who contributed to this article. It helps to have so many eyes and ears in the trenches. Not everyone is intimidated by the Emperor of Aldersonville, and lucky for the tax payers of Lakota, the number is growing.   Let’s see, what was it that Patti said about me to the Cincinnati Enquirer……………“We refuse to accept funds where political statements are attached.”  She also said she had no affiliation with Yes To Lakota Kids.  Oddly enough, one of those members was on her arm Monday playing their part in making a deal with Lakota.   Ahhhh, the emperor has new clothes indeed–and of course politics played no part. 

To review the deal that Patti was so against, CLICK THE LINK BELOW to read an article done about it in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2012/03/06/anti-tax-groups-offer-to-pay-student-sports-fees-small-solution-to-big-problem/

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

THE QURAN IS OUTDATED: Gabriel’s Middle-Eastern adventures of sex and nonsense

Recently, I provided evidence that religion is one of the stumbling blocks which prevent a proper investigation into earth’s past.  Due to religious strife and careful adherents to ancient documents and paper-thin prophets—it is clear that religion does more harm than good and is one of the aspects of human society which must be adjusted.  However, this does not mean that I am an atheist, or a godless heathen.  I simply don’t sacrifice myself to the notion of a god the way humans have done since the dawn of time and desire to see a new pattern emerge regarding spiritual worship—because to my eyes, virtually everyone everywhere in the world has gotten it wrong.

Most people use religion as a bridge to step over bad behavior into what they think is everlasting life.  It allows them to make mistakes in their daily living by attending a church on Sunday and being forgiven by some deity.  I would encourage you dear reader that if you are too weak-minded to live your life well, to not drink too much, have sex with too many partners, molest the youth, or treat others poorly without the fear of God to keep you in check, than this article is not for you.  Keep attending your religion—keep reading its text, and preparing for the life ever after.  Because I would rather you waste your life with such a sacrifice if it keeps you from being just another tyrant over the lives of others.  But for those with a little discipline and self driven curiosity it is time to scrap the old for the new in regards to religion and come up with some new mythologies which are more meaningful.

Even atheism has become a religion of sorts—its function is to declare that life is to be lived now and it has a kind of hedonism aspect to its followers which is not what I’m talking about.  The trouble with the human being is the collective notion of sacrifice which needs to be eradicated without the value of religion being stripped away—the establishment of positive parameters to live life by.  If that could be done, than religion would earn its worth, and lose the destructive nature indicative to its existence in whatever form it arrives—whether it is Islamic, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish—it is time to stop worshiping the life and times of old mythologies and folklore with a blind adherence to historical fact.  Most of those stories from all the major religions were passed down second-handed from one group of power controllers to another and cannot be trusted.  The contents of the writing have been fed to a collective public more to control behavior than to usher them off into the next life—and given what science is attempting to show the human race—they are no longer relevant.

All religions are based on faith, which forces a participant to accept things without evidence.  Once the mind is opened to this folly it tends to do the same for virtually everything it encounters.  As an example, the Saul Alinsky method which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so effectively uses allows them to gain a kind of religious following by appealing to the part of a human brain which has been opened to accept religious mythology as fact.  This allows them to stand in front of people like a high priest and utter complete lies without anybody questioning them—hiding their bad behavior in the light of day.   It was Hillary Clinton who wrote a thesis on Alinsky while at Wellesley College for which she received an “A.”  Saul Alinsky offered her a job for her two interviews which Hillary declined.  Barack Obama is of the same mind as both Alinsky and Clinton and within the social circles of community organizers and attorneys, they learned how to use Alinsky methods to appeal to the religious nature of people and force them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t.  Hillary in her critique cited benefactors of Alinsky’s approach to Martin Luther King Jr. and Walt Whitman in the way that Mormons cite Joseph Smith, or Christians do Jesus Christ, or Islam reveres Muhammad.  This places the characters of the narrative above reproach and prevents analysis of their actions.  Once this is done further inquiry into their motives cease and faith takes over as the guiding light.

More is hidden from the human being under this process than anybody acknowledges and is the largest contributors to the spread of evil throughout the world.  The religion itself might actually be beneficial on one level, but since the mind as been opened to accepting things on faith then a chain reaction of bad events often follows.  Politicians aligning themselves with a religious order use this open door to get people to accept higher taxes, political corruption, and even the premise of war applying basically the same Saul Alinsky methods. The religious high priest does the same to manipulate the public into committing collective evil without consideration.  Because the masses view their participation as a collective enterprise, they use faith to accept their role and cast off logic to the “hand of god.”  In this way they do not take responsibility in life for their actions, but instead defer responsibility to a “higher order.”

Once a mind shuns responsibility for their thoughtless actions on their religion, they will do it for their career, their family, their daily commute and soon everything that happens to them is “meant to be,” as if some god were steering their life-like a car down a lost highway.  This takes away the responsibility for living and allows people to believe that they are part of something bigger—which then sets the stage for political corruption when the same methods are applied to pass school levies, take away the Second Amendment, or pass Obamacare.

I have thoughts on what should replace the old religions—which are clearly ineffective in the modern world.  The life and times of the characters in the Bible, or in the Quran are outdated and no longer relevant.  If there is one trait that could be blamed on the Middle East not accepting capitalism and still looking like it did in the times of their religious leaders of thousands of years ago—it is that their religions hold back their social development.

In my family there is a joke about the archangel Gabriel where I say that he met Mary outside of their village and had an affair with her for which she became pregnant.  Back then, a woman who became pregnant without having a husband was often killed, so Mary came up with the story of immaculate conception to explain how she came to be in that condition.  The reason it’s a joke is because that same Gabriel came to Muhammad in a cave and recited the Quran which then became the sacred text of the fast growing religion in the world.  Gabriel was a busy guy…………….he was a lot of places at the start of these two religions—where to this day are in constant conflict in Jerusalem and everywhere else they meet.

I have read the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine for over thirty years and watched carefully the events of study in the Middle East, particularly Israel, Jordon, Egypt and Iraq, and my conclusion was that Gabriel was either a Jim Jones, or Charlie Manson type—charismatic leaders who were deranged intellectually and ran around planting all kinds of seeds—having sex with women putting them in danger culturally and speaking nonsense to lonely hermits in a cave—and anybody else who would listen.  Or that Gabriel was some kind of ultraterrestrial prankster designed to occupy the mind of man foolishly on low-level intellectual pursuits while they pulled the strings of society in the desired direction.  But what Gabriel was not–was sacred.

I’ve had a few run-ins with these Gabriel types over the years and always send them packing.  It helps to be intellectually fit so to see through their ruse—but for irresponsible people looking for a miracle at every turn of their lives living hapless existences like a pinball caught between the bumpers of life—Gabriel types find their minds ripe for plunder.  And they become the next tyrants thinking they are bringing to the world a boon.

It is time to evolve and religion as we know it today is holding down the human race.  It might hold some individuals together—giving them purpose and meaning.  But ultimately that meaning is toward the ends of collectivism and works against individual responsibility.  The number one reason that people are having a hard time with capitalism as an economic engine for their nations and instead gravitate toward socialism is because of their addiction to religion and hatred of self-responsible activity.  Religion feeds this lack of self-initiative and instead provides a crutch into the next life—allowing this life to be lived poorly and recklessly.  After all isn’t it the Christian premise to declare that “we are all sinners?”  So what’s the point?  Let’s just do what they tell us and hope we can live better in Heaven for eternity.  In the meantime we do what our preachers tell us to do, and if our politicians say the same kind of things-we follow them as well.  And vast amounts of evil spread across the world as a result—all in the name of some god at the center of religion inspired most of the time by the archangel Gabriel.

It would not surprise me to learn that while Gautama Buddha was sitting under the tree of enlightenment and was approached by the demon Mara where temptations were presented—that Mara’s real name was Gabriel and that he was a feisty traveler with malicious intentions similar to Saul Alisnsky—who was just a “community organizer” who carried on his tongue the end of civilization and single-minded purpose to have sex with lonely women and use religion to pull them into his tent.  Thus began all of the world’s primary religions.

It’s time to rethink things—without such people a part of the process.

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

FROM THE PAGES OF AYN RAND: Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Angelina Jolie and the great Sergio Leone

The first time I was on television was on a commercial for the restaurant I worked for when I was only 16 years old.  I was a part of the filming and of setting up some of the shots and it gave me the opportunity to work with a crew from Channel 19.  The commercial just happened to air that week during “Tough Guy Week” where nightly they played movies from the toughest characters in Hollywood, people like Steve McQueen, Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee and best of all, Clint Eastwood.  I had been familiar with Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns before, but on the night that my commercial aired it was the same night that For A Few Dollars More played on television, so I ended up watching the entire film so that I could see how the commercial turned out.

The “Man With No Name” character in the Sergio Leone westerns—the trilogy A Fist Full of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, Bad, and the Ugly starring Clint Eastwood was a benchmark in tough guy films.  There had never been another character like the one that Eastwood played in those westerns in all of human history—including stage plays from the Renaissance.  Eastwood’s character was a brand new concept that few understood at the time—but loved.  That love continues 50 years later and has had an impact on cinema that has only escalated.

Eastwood would continue to work this personification of a male Übermensch conceived by Leone for several more films—particularly High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider, The Outlaw Josey Wales and Sudden Impact.    To a smaller degree Eastwood played the same role in the contemporary comedy Every Which Way But Loose as a bare knuckle fighter.  Eastwood’s characters were so popular that they spilled over into other films like Star Wars where the characters of Han Solo and Boba Fett were direct embodiments of the Leone westerns that were only 10 years old at the time.  Kevin Costner would take on a similar Übermensch role in The Bodyguard which was the romance drama of 1992 that women swooned over.  Arnold Schwarzenegger would adopt Eastwood’s screen presence in films like The Terminator, Commando, and Conan the Barbarian, and following Eastwood’s movie production pattern at Warner Brothers did a comedy with Danny DeVitto called Twins—where his  Übermensch character could be played off the hapless antics of a much smaller man.

Progressives in Hollywood of course hated all this attention on these tough guy films and the actors who played them.  In 1989 Tim Burton tried to make a common everyday guy into a tough guy with his Micheal Keaton Batman film which attempted to stop the trend of these superhuman character films that were out of reach for the common man.  Progressives did not want these Übermensch types to steer the American public away from their social messages of interconnected reliance on each other, feminist causes, and sexual experimentation in gender roles–so they tried to get the situation under control.  The most obvious attempt was in the Batman films by Warner Brothers.  While the first film was visually stimulating, the sequel fell apart leading Val Kilmer to play in the 1995 version of a Batman reboot.  The movie was good, but Kilmer wanted nothing further to do with the role—likely from internal pressure within the Hollywood community to stop making Übermensch films.  The next Batman film was with the progressive George Clooney playing the caped crusader, which bombed and was a terrible film filmed with progressive slanted messages—which the public rejected.  This would cause Hollywood to return grudgingly back to the Übermensch concept by plucking the older material directly from comic books.  There was some experimentation with Spiderman to take the Übermensch concept and make him more altruistic which fell apart after Spiderman 3 in 2007 completely imploded on itself as Hollywood had lost the formula.  Christopher Nolan would dig deep into the roots of the Übermensch and get it right which has launched the current superhero parade of films from Ironman, The Avengers, The Hulk, Superman and all the good stuff that’s coming.

Meanwhile James Bond went from an obvious Übermensch in the late seventies and early eighties to a much more “progressive” and less secure secret agent in the 90s which nearly destroyed the character when Timothy Dalton took control after Roger Moore and showed that Bond wasn’t always so sure of himself—which audiences didn’t like.  The Bond franchise is still struggling to find itself as fans still love the old Roger Moore, Sean Connery version of James Bond over the newer—less sure of themselves—James Bonds.  Personally I find the new Bond films by Daniel Craig to be nearly unwatchable.  I enjoy them for the stunts, but the Übermensch Bond is not there.  Progressives love the new Bond and promote it actively—but it just doesn’t take to the American consciousness.

Then there is Quentin Tarantino who loved the old Leone films as much as I did and resurrected the Übermensch concept with a new spin to appease his producer Harvey Weinstein—he cast the lead as a woman and gave the origin for the special mystical power of the Übermensch to the East as a tribute to martial art films from the past.  The result was a fun romp through a bloody series of films where the heroine Uma Thurman was essentially playing Eastwood’s “Man With No Name” character from the Leone films.  It doesn’t matter in the least that Thurman’s character was a woman—what matters is that she was an Übermensch.  Angelina Jolie would take the Übermensch type of character into her portrayal of Tomb Raider where she played the video game character Lara Croft.  To this day even though critics panned the film as not very good, Jolie is known as Lara Croft even though she has made dozens of very good films.  It was her confidence—and Übermensch character in Tomb Raider that fans will always remember about her.

So what is the point of this little history of films produced by Hollywood?  Well, most of these stories lean back on the Leone films which were real breakthroughs at the time and indicated that mankind changed forever.  Human beings want their Übermensch in spite of what political or social forces wish to acknowledge.  And the first filmmaker to really get it right was Sergio Leone.  Without him, it is unlikely that any of the above would have happened—and Hollywood would be just another industry failing in America under progressive leadership.  Instead, Disney now has control of the Star Wars franchise and the world just spent a week wondering if Harrison Ford’s broken leg from the new Episode VII set would hinder his ability to resurrect his Übermensch Han Solo once again.  Disney is rumored to be planning a Boba Fett film which will essentially be a science fiction spaghetti western inspired directly from Sergio Leone—and it will make a ton of money—and progressives will be left scratching their heads wondering why.

So let me give you the secret dear reader.  Let me explain to you the reason why this trend has emerged and given birth to a comic book culture that is taking over today’s youth steering them away from the pacifism of progressivism.  When Ayn Rand spent approximately twenty years writing two books—one, The Fountainhead and two, Atlas Shrugged, she took Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch and completed the work that the German philosopher was unable to due to madness.  In The Fountainhead was the first real attempt to provide an Übermensch to ever occur as a fully functioning character.  The novel published in 1943 was part of a growing trend for human beings to grapple with the Übermensch concept.  In just 1938 the first Superman comic was produced based on a 1933 fanzine trying to take the overman idea as proposed by the socialist George Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche’s direct influence of Hitler’s National Socialism and complete the destructive nature of the incomplete philosophic principle.  The Superman comic was a direct reaction to the type of sentiment which led to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal ideals in America and had a bit of a liberal spin on it.  Ayn Rand further flushed out the Übermensch concept and put them on the pages of her novel, The Fountainhead—which to me is one of the greatest novels of all time.  Rand would then further perfect the concept into Atlas Shrugged which 60 years later is still selling like French Fries at McDonald’s.  It was in these two books that the Übermensch found the right philosophic balance and emerged as a new way of thinking.  It was this concept which found itself into the Sergio Leone films thus inspiring modern Hollywood in ways that would be inconceivable otherwise.  If not for Ayn Rand, her early work as a screenwriter for Cecil B. Deville, her casual associations with Walt Disney, and John Wayne and her deep work in philosophy with the fresh eyes of an immigrant who had seen the worst that communism had to offer—the movie For A Few Dollars More would have never happened, and likely Clint Eastwood would have remained an obscure actor doing bit parts on television shows.

Without Ayn Rand’s fleshing out the concept of the Übermensch there would not have been a Star Wars, there would not have been an Arnold Schwarzenegger in film, and Kill Bill would have never even gained the ability to be made.   Without question there would be attempts, but they would have failed.  When direction was given on how Han Solo should get up out of his chair after killing Greedo in the cantina, or how Boba Fett was supposed to walk down a hall, reference was pointed back to Clint Eastwood—“do it like the characters in the Leone films.”  And it was Ayn Rand who invented the type of Übermensch who appeared for the first time in The Fountainhead so that Clint Eastwood could have some sort of reference on how such a character should behave—since one had never been seen before in the history of the world.  Ayn Rand took the speculative theory of what an Übermensch was supposed to be and fleshed it out in her novels.  Filmmakers like Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood then brought that Übermensch concept to Hollywood which has changed the world.

There is no going back now.  It is only a matter of time that society acknowledges their intense desire for the Übermensch.  The evidence is obvious from the intense interest in comic book films, space odysseys, and an 84-year-old Clint Eastwood who is still tougher than men a fraction of his age.  It’s not the muscle which produce the toughness, it’s in the mind—the beholding of the Übermensch concept—something that became very real to me the first time I really came to understand it watching my first television commercial on Channel 19 during “Tough Guy Week.”  The world has been forever changed for the better in a tug-of-war between the Übermensch and the progressives who despise having to even hold a rope against the strength of such characters.  They have no choice.  Their years of progressive philosophy inspired by Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx are coming to an end in failure.  What is coming are the philosophies of the Übermensch brought to man’s mind through films inspired directly from the pages of Ayn Rand.

image

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Arrogance of John Koskinen: Sonasoft backed up IRS emails–the evidence is available

It took me a few days of extreme anger to calm down enough to even write about the congressional testimony given by IRS commissioner John Koskinen.  As I watched the man speak to congress, I saw arrogance at its most audacious exhibition, and a disrespect that unionized government employees have toward their employers, the tax payers.  I spend a lot of time talking about this issue and am quite certain about the validity of my arguments.  Yet when you see such an obvious case of misconduct happening right in front of our faces—the IRS being caught red-handed with the metaphorical blood dripping from their fingers—and they still declare their innocence–it convinced me that no government employee under any unionized representation can be believed about anything under any circumstance—and that is quite a vote of no confidence.  We see school teachers lie routinely about their poor conduct and often the sharpness of their rebuke is hidden behind the lives of children taking away the blunt edges of criticism.  But in the case of the IRS—here is a long time government employee in John Koskinen who fully expects the world to believe that a hard drive crash destroyed all the evidence of their targeting conservative groups in an IRS scandal that is the biggest crime to come out of government since Watergate.  And the John Koskinen found he could sit in front of the world and declare innocence when the evidence of malpractice is painted all over his organization.  The only reasonable thing the guy could have done was admit to the mishaps, promise to make it better, and cooperate.  Instead, he dug in deeper destroying evidence and smugly declaring the innocence of the IRS without even knowing what is possible in the world or data collection and the destruction of evidence.

As criminals, the IRS should know that the only way to really lose data on a hard drive is to burn the disk and destroy it completely.  Data may not be totally recoverable, but partial information is quite possible even on a malfunctioning hard that has crashed.  But even worse, the information was backed up elsewhere with a company called Sonasoft as reported by Breitbart.com and The Blaze over the weekend.  That creates a very specific problem for the IRS.  They are not in control of the backed up data:

As IRS commissioner John Koskinen sat on Capitol Hill belatedly informing a Congressional committee of the “disappearance” of years of email communications from a host of IRS employees under investigation–including Lois Lerner–it was discovered that the IRS had hired an email backup company to prevent just such a loss of data.

After the commissioner’s testimony, a Twitter user went hunting for info on the IRS and discovered that as far back as 2005 a company named Sonasoft had announced that it had been awarded a data backup contract from the IRS. Even as late as 2009, the company had tweeted about its association with the taxing agency.

So, how is it that commissioner Koskinen was so sure during his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that all the emails of the very IRS operatives under investigation just happened to have disappeared forever?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/21/Lost-Emails-The-IRS-Has-a-Contract-With-Email-Backup-Company

The answer is as plain as a gold nugget on top of a pile of shit.  It is unequivocally evident—the IRS has attempted to cover up their crime by destroying evidence with the arrogance of government employees who are obviously not very tech savvy.  They are caught, busted, and guilty as hell and everyone knows it.  As I watched the hearing during Paul Ryan’s portion, I nearly threw my television through the front window, across the yard and into the street.  My anger was intense not just because the IRS has confirm everything that people like me have said about them and is turning out to be true—but because they actually are so rotten and corrupt that they are willing to dig in even further to deny, deny, and deny destroying as much evidence as possible to avoid a clear assessment of their crimes.  As an organization obsessed with legal terminology they know that as long as there is never any direct evidence, that they cannot be prosecuted.  People may not trust them—but at least they won’t be directly guilty.  They know that the evidence they are trying to hide from the American people is so damning to them they will do anything to keep it out of everybody’s eyes, even if they must lie to continue the charade.

The so-called lost emails are certainly available for public consumption.  No matter what sort of hard drive crash occurred on a localized server, the emails of Lois Lerner will be retrieved and read to the world and all these guilty parties will have much more serious problems to contend with.  This is no longer even about politics—this is a crime—a gross abuse of power and it has major implications for the future of the IRS.  Over time, it will all come out, and there will be a lot of broken pieces.  The trust in that agency is gone forever.  The real impact just hasn’t sunk in yet.  But it will.

The IRS is an arrogant organization which needs to be dismantled.  It was bad before this revelation, and now it doesn’t even have righteousness on its side any longer.  John Koskinen should know that the NSA has a record of every email created at the IRS, and likely, so do other agencies.  There is nothing private about email.  It is like speaking in a shopping mall, or city street.  It is a form of communication—but nothing that happens in email should be considered private.  Yet these government employees are so arrogant that they actually think they can suppress evidence and went in front of congress and lied about their actions.  That is absolutely amazing—astonishingly arrogant, and stupid.  These are the people we pay so much!  They aren’t even smart enough to understand when the eyes of the world are upon them—and a lot of very smart people analyzing their every word—that they can’t delete a bunch of emails hiding evidence and blame it on an IT failure.  That just doesn’t cut it.

John Koskinen said, “I don’t think an apology is owed.”  He doesn’t think that the errors of the IRS constitute accountability.  Then a Democratic Congressman alluded that the whole scandal was a concocted conspiracy theory not concerned at all by the behavior of the IRS.  What we are seeing is a major conspiracy that involves many people—and in this case half of the people on Capitol Hill appear to be guilty.  They are using every trick in the book to throw all investigations off their trail, but to no avail.  The emails are recovered and have been backed up.  All it takes is guts to put them out to the public, who will likely be ready to lynch the IRS once the contents are discovered.  When that happens, major heads will roll in Washington D.C. and that is what has everybody scared.

It is in that realization that I nearly destroyed my television and had to spend two full days calming down.  I don’t like being lied to, and the IRS has lied to my face and expects me to just go away quietly. Worse yet, it wasn’t directed at me—but at all Americans, and for that—they deserve the wrath that is coming their way.  If the Republicans screw this up, they have no hope.  The Democrats have placed themselves on a tee and are daring the Republicans to hit them out of the park.  If the Republicans really wanted to win in 2014 and 2016, they’d hit the IRS issue hard and without remorse.  This is not a conspiracy equivalent to Area 51 and Bigfoot—this is evidence of such things that normally might be regulated to conspiracy theory.  In this case, the IRS has done everything everyone who fears it has claimed and the proof is on those backed up emails at Sonasoft.

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com