Over this past week, there were a couple of public debates allowing the current West Chester trustees Catherine Stoker and Lee Wong to defend their records against the challengers Mark Welch and Matt King. I support Mark and Matt and you dear reader will too after watching the video shown below. Clearly Mark and Matt are much more competent as potential trustees. Just listen to them. There really isn’t any question.
Stoker blamed the withholding of legal expenses from inclusion in the trustee agenda on staff not being able to pay a vendor, a vendor billing at the current rate of $290 per hour that could not be contacted for longer terms, a vendor whose billings were included in over half a million dollars of legal expenses to the township during 2012? In defending the Wong and Stoker exclusion of Fiscal Officer from executive sessions, Stoker cast doubt on the integrity of the Fiscal Officer without cause. But yet, as trustees, Wong and Stoker claim all the credit for the successful operations of the township and the growth of commerce and industry. No credit to the developers, investors, merchants, donors, etc.—the visionaries who really made it work—or the staff and employees of the township who helped enable it. Bet you didn’t know that video was so exciting did you? Watch it again with “educated eyes.”
If this debate doesn’t clear things up about who the people are behind the campaign signs, then it needs to be watched until it does—because the differences are incredibly obvious. The decision is basically does West Chester want a couple of long-term career politicians who have little idea how to run the community, or do they want a couple of highly competent businessmen who have more than two cents to apply to the various problems of community management.
For me it is easy to decide. I wouldn’t vote for Wong because he’s certainly not competent. He is a nice enough guy, but there is more to running a community’s finances than riding a bicycle around West Chester. And with Stoker, she is too politically savy to actually do the will of the people. She is a typical politician, and that alone makes her unqualified. The only real answer is Welch and King. Those two guys represent opportunity. The other two represent stagnation, complacency, and a slide backwards toward the business cycle of so many Cincinnati communities that have had their day in the sun, then fallen to decline due to corrosive politicians.
To prove that America has long been infiltrated with communism as stated in the 1958 book The Naked Communist I am covering each of the 45 Planks of Communism cited there to provide the proof. CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST INSTALLMENT. When it is understood to what extent communism has been quietly placed into our culture during a very delicate time in American history, it can then be understood what is happening to the world in the modern age. So let us explore the meaning of Plank # 16 shown below.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Over the last 30 years American society has been under siege mysteriously by a rash of court cases driven by money grabbing lawyers hungry to charge $300-$500 per hour to their clients. The lawyers learned their tactics during their law degrees by professors already trained in the ways of communism—only under different names. Any doctrine that embraces collectivism over individuality has its roots in communist propaganda planted generations before even the law professors received their educations, so the concepts of communism were taught without naming the name allowing entire generations of young lawyers to advance communism thought thinking they were actually fighting for civil liberties. This has resulted in court cases removing the Ten Commandments from public places, allowed defiling art to attack symbols of American heritage, and created many millions of pages of case-law in civil rights litigation that have shaped our society to such a radical position that children are presently suspended from school just for making the shape of a gun with their hands. The meaning behind such measures is fear from law suits leaving public schools to over-react from fear of parasitic lawyers that might bring lawsuits should a school shooting erupt. The communist intention of the law to begin with was to attack the concept of the Second Amendment so that children would grow up in a world not accepting the use of personal firearms. The school was not devious in suspending the students for pretending to shoot other students in normal games of “cops and robbers” they were simply protecting themselves from the potential of future lawsuits. But it was lawyers who created the case-law which provoked such a fear in the first place and the roots of that desire came from Communist Plank #16.
To prove the validity of the claim made by the book The Naked Communist one only need to look at the ability of the organization known as NAMBLA to rise to prominence and use the American courts through the ACLU. NAMBLA is openly wrong, and unquestionably evil, yet it is advanced and defended publically as a way to attack the First Amendment by pretending to defend it. NAMBLA is a byproduct of the International Lesbian and Gay Association which is supported by The United Nations and is protected by politicians like Hillary Clinton. Working together, these organizations have openly attacked American tradition by seeking to twist The Bill of Rights legally to invoke public hatred for those same Rights. This was the intention of communist infiltration of the legal system specifically targeting civil rights.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[1][2] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[1][3] Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.[3][4] Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls.[3] As of 2005, a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco.[3]
In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA’s membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA. Many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in UN contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that “no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children”. The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994.
IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be “groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia.” Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the UN reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the UN were eventually successful in 2006.[23]
Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that “NAMBLA is not a gay organization … They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights.”[24] NAMBLA responded by claiming that “man/boy love is by definition homosexual,” that “man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture,” and that “homosexuals denying that it is ‘not gay’ to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it’s ‘not heterosexual’ to be attracted to adolescent girls.”[24]
In 2000, a Boston couple, Robert and Barbara Curley, sued NAMBLA for the wrongful death of their son. According to the plaintiffs, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of murdering the Curleys’ son Jeffrey, “stalked … tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA’s website at the Boston Public Library.”[8] The lawsuit further alleged that “NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain and promote pedophile activity.”[8] Jaynes wrote in his diary, “This was a turning point in discovery of myself…. NAMBLA’s Bulletin helped me to become aware of my own sexuality and acceptance of it […].”[25]
Citing cases in which NAMBLA members have been convicted of sexual offenses against children, Larry Frisoli, the attorney representing the Curleys, argued that it is a “training ground” for adults who wish to seduce children, in which men exchange strategies on how to find and groom child sex partners. Frisoli also claimed that NAMBLA has sold at its website what he called “The Rape and Escape Manual” that detailed how to avoid being caught and prosecuted.[26] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA “may extol conduct which is currently illegal”, there was nothing on its website that “advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape”.[27]
The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members, some of whom were active in the group’s leadership. The targets of the wrongful death suits included David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA. The Curleys alleged that Jaynes and Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their son, were members.[citation needed] The lawsuit was dropped in April 2008 after a judge ruled that a key witness was not competent to testify.[28]
As a result of the existence of NAMBLA which started in 1978 there are countless rapists, pedophiles, and sexual deviants that have been allowed to openly express themselves which directly attacks the moral aptitude of America. Communists knew that if the American people could no longer differentiate between right and wrong they would lose their way and fall to the collectivism of communism by default seeking safety in numbers. The attack against American civil liberties through the mask of defense was to frighten, outrage, and move patriotic sentiment away from The Constitution, and toward social collectivism opening the psychological door to communism.
In this way lawyers have been used to destroy the American family through easy divorce legislation, cases where schools can infringe upon family through inference, and children are not even allowed to make certain shapes with their hands so to quell the sentiments of the collective society. Individuality has been attacked for the “greater good,” and the cases that paved the way were those centering around NAMBLA—which were so extreme that once accepted, case-law allowed the book of interpretation to be opened widely so that right and wrong behavior were no longer applicable.
This has always been the intention of Communist Plank #16, and the result is all around American society today. It is the cause as to why most people simply shake their head in bewilderment when they hear the latest atrocities on the nightly news and seek collective activities of association to protect their fragile minds from further imposition. The intention of global communists during the 40s and 50s were to bring to the next century in America a nation that had no moral ground to stand upon allowing communism to penetrate the borders of capitalism and destroy it forever. Capitalism is an economic system where the morally good tends to succeed over the bad, so judgments of value must be removed before communism can be accepted by mass society. The intention of Plank #16 was to achieve this eradication of value so that communist driven economies could flourish in the open with no other options of acceptance available and the path to that behavior has been paved through the open attack of value through American civil liberties by organizations like NAMBLA.
I find that an important observation for the simple reason that within ten years there will be a dramatic shift in public sentiment toward the traditions of public education, especially the benefit of extra-curricular activities like football and cheerleading. As the college bubble busts, millions of kids realizing they are not going to get a scholarship to a school that will only waste their time will not submit to the age-old scam of public education funding. When the youth of the current generation, the age of young people who are rushing out to purchase the latest Fantasy Flight Game offering, there will not be sympathetic ears to future levy requests and the type of tripe offered by the Lakota school system shown below attempting to sell the benefits of Common Core instruction to a gullible public.
Common Core is a statist education system, and those who support it typically see big government solutions to family problems. They envision the school stepping in to a family to save the child from a future their parents are not qualified to provide—at least as defined by the statist. The pro and con selections above are clearly in favor of preserving the present education system—which a year or two ago might have upset me greatly. But there is a trend forming that the supporters of Common Core and public education in general has not yet identified—the trend that can be seen in gaming circles where young people from age 15 to 30 are gathering to play games like Magic the Gathering, X-Wing, and War Hammer. Those gamers are not raising families as their predecessors did many years ago, the types of people who attended the Cherokee Elementary meeting about Common Core shown in the above documents. Those previous generations loved the social activity of public school, the bands, the cheerleading and the football. The next generation doesn’t care so much, and it shows. There’s nothing in a Friday night football game for them when it is far more exciting to play a war game with friends over pizza.
When I was a kid, only remote pockets of people did these kinds of things, playing games and indulging in “anti-social” behavior which was the typical stereotypes of Dungeon and Dragon players. Most everyone else craved to “be seen” at the football game parents and students alike. In this way, the school was the center piece of a community, and the labor unions took advantage of the social addiction with high taxes for wages that were clearly inflated. Increasingly, the demographic group who plays Fantasy Flight types of games and video games is changing the marketplace. Speaking with these people increasingly with my experiences playing X-Wing there is a noticeable rebellion against school centered activity. I do not see today’s X-Wing, and Magic players sitting in a future meeting of Common Core education and listening like mindless drones to the diatribes of big government school board types. I see a rejection of state centered education in favor of alternatives.
Jaden Smith represents well this new emerging public school sentiment from the upcoming generation. Jaden might be best known as the star of the remake of “The Karate Kid” and for his lifelong role as the son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, but the 15-year-old is also starring in his own online controversy after sounding off against America’s education system, calling school a brainwashing tool. And guess what………….It should come as no surprise, but as a 45-year-old man, I agree with the young fellow. He’s dead right.
Jaden tweeted to his more than 4.5 million followers on Sept. 12, “School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth” and “If Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth.”
Jaden, 15, is considered Hollywood royalty, being a friend of Justin Bieber and dating a sister of the Kardashians, Kylie Jenner, but some people say he is setting a bad example with his comments.
Jaden Smith’s opinion is rather typical of the gaming crowd—a crowd that is growing rapidly. Again, when I was a kid, nobody spoke the way Smith did. Nobody wanted to be considered a “social outcast.” But increasingly, it is cool to be against statism, and to play table-top war games and World of Warcraft late into the night. Those people once they become property owners of their own and get married are likely to plug their children into a computer and homeschool them so that they can save the expense of paying for fees at a public school for typical sports programs, and transportation costs. The parents of tomorrow won’t be whisking their children off to soccer games to satisfy some silly social imposition of public opinion—they will be playing games with their kids at their dinner tables and staying home to save the money so they can buy more games from Fantasy Flight Games.
I bought a new B-Wing fighter over the weekend from the Wave 3 release of Star Wars: X-Wing. The store owner told me that his shipment of 50 arrived on Thursday and were gone by Sunday. I bought his last one. Ten years ago, I along with a handful of others would have been the only ones to make such a purchase. Today, there are at least 50 in three days. Ten years from now, it will be commonplace, and high school sports will be the rarity. The social gains made in public school that were so important to previous generations are dying on the vine, and Common Core, with all the cheerleading by statists for it, is an education system that is currently on the life support of extraordinary high taxes paid by a sympathetic generation who still sees public schools as the center of communities. But at Yattaquest in Mt. Healthy on a Friday night, or Gamestop any day of the week, an entirely new voting bloc is emerging, and they feel about public school the same as what Jaden Smith does. When they grow up and have property and their own families, they won’t listen to the kind of Common Core presentations that Joan Powell and company performed at Lakota with the above documents.
Public education may win a victory here and there, but the nail is already in their coffin. The youth of today will not support it in the future the way that other generations have because they have seen the scam firsthand. The statists who advance the myth that public education and society in general are the pillars of a community are going to learn in the very near future the folly of their beliefs. To see the future, visit a war game store on the weekend and study the type of people who are so passionate about those games. Society may call them nerds, but they are smart, because their hobby demands they use their brains, and they see through the veil of statist education programs like Common Core—and they won’t bite on the bait thrown into the tax increase waters. They won’t care if the statists call them names such as selfish, greedy, or anti-social. Because all they will care about is having enough money to purchase a new pack of Magic the Gathering, or X-Wing Miniatures. To them, the schools can rot away into oblivion and free the children who are imprisoned within their clutches of unthinking tyranny.
The worldwide total box office take for Disney’s The Lone Ranger was $239,131,00 which is respectable. It was hardly the box office flop that the entertainment industry has attempted to project it to be. I felt that The Lone Ranger deserved a bit of defense because it was a hack of a good movie. I heavily promoted it, I loved the film, and I am sure that when it hits the home theater market, it will do excessively well. Disney spent the enormous sum of $215 million on the production of the modern western plus many tens of millions on advertising hoping the picture would bring in a billion dollars as a summertime blockbuster. But the money wasn’t there. By the time the summer box office market hit the Fourth of July, movie goers had already spent their money on superhero pictures like Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel. Money was still spent on children’s films like Monster’s U and Disney’s Planes, but for the most part, movie audiences had run out of money leaving many studio films to fail at the box office. But when it came to The Lone Ranger, there was a hatred from the entertainment community that caused them to even turn against Johnny Depp, which I found fascinating, and I know exactly why. A good portion of the why is seen in a totally unrelated Blaze Television piece that Glenn Beck did about his experiences on a real western ranch. The entertainment community in Hollywood’s Wilshire Blvd and Broadway in New York has grown to despise the “flyover states” and Glenn Beck is part of that New York culture which is where he made his fame and fortune. But wisely, he has moved away in search for truth and discovered the America that the rest of us already know about, and he is touched by the results.
The Lone Ranger as a Disney film was about these good ol’ fashioned attributes of self-reliance and rugged individualism. The movie will be looked back upon as a success as it will become a fan favorite in the years to come once it gets away from the entertainment machine that is rooted in progressive political causes. The Lone Ranger was in fact too good for the modern film community. They did not want it to do well because they didn’t want to have to compete against it with future remakes and copy-cat attempts by other studios. Modern progressives do not want to revisit the era of the American western. They do not want western values to exist in American culture for many of the reasons Glenn Beck uttered in his short video clip above.
The movie business is changing dramatically, and industry insiders know it will not be to their advantage. They resent Disney as a family film studio and the amount of money they generate. Disney thankfully holds the rights to Marvel Comics, Pixar, their own slate of family programming and now the massive franchise of Star Wars which I’m going to state emphatically is set to change the world with “western values.” Star Wars is a modern western. George Lucas made Star Wars in the spirit of the old Saturday morning serials that made The Lone Ranger so popular and there is little that the world can do at this point to stop the explosion of Star Wars that is about to burst upon the world. Movie studios attempting fixed progressive social messages can see that Disney is positioned to get the “family friendly” message out to the flyover states for the next 20 years while they collapse under the weight of competition.
That competition is driven by union labor. The cost to make movies is too high because labor demands are too ridiculously over-rated and most studios cannot make films that will garner over $500 million in worldwide market sales which is what it takes to cover modern production costs. So many studios will drown within the next decade because they will have to produce more comedies, more chick flicks, and more small pictures that are not so effects driven, because during the summer of 2013, many of them took a bath that they drowned in. The impact of 2013 won’t be seen until 2015. In that year, Disney will become the most dominant film studio in entertainment as the rest of the entertainment establishment reels. Other studios will have to file for bankruptcy. They will not be able to compete.
Disney has their own internal marketing machine, their own amusement park revenue, and they own ABC, ESPN and many other media outlets, so they can afford to have the rest of the industry turn their back on them, which they did when The Lone Ranger was released. Critics went after the film more for the power that Disney had, than because the film was bad. The industry wanted to see Disney fail because they know what’s coming, and they resent the filmmaker Jerry Bruckheimer openly naming himself a conservative while he was promoting The Lone Ranger. That is where the real hatred for The Lone Ranger filmmakers and the film itself stemmed from. Disney is not making movies for the Los Angeles and New York markets, but for the other 48 states that are the “flyovers.”
When Star Wars hits the release phase, Lucasfilm under the protection of Disney is going to produce the most intense schedule of family programming ever seen in the motion picture, and television industry. I have read just about every Star Wars novel, and I can report that there is so much wealth in that story line that literature has never seen anything like it. When that material becomes television shows, cartoons on the Disney Channel, more novels, more movies, more video games, entertainment will be changed forever. And Star Wars is not a progressive production—it is traditional in the way that The Lone Ranger was a western set in the desert during a historical past; Star Wars is a western set in the distant past in deep space.
When it is wondered what the Huffington Post and Glenn Beck have in common, it is Star Wars. The Huffington Post covers every move of the Star Wars production with keen interest and if anybody has read any books by Glenn Beck Star Wars references are common, especially in his novel The Overton Window. When Star Wars hits theaters in the winter of 2015 after Avengers Two dominates the summer box office the world will change in entertainment. A new bar will be set, and many studios will collapse under the pressure. They know this instinctively and they took out their frustration on The Lone Ranger.
In the end, The Lone Ranger will get the last laugh. It will not be a financial loss for the Disney studio as it will easily cover its marketing budget with home sales on Blu Ray. But more than that, The Lone Ranger is one of the many influences of Star Wars. The values of The Lone Ranger are the values of Jaina Solo who will be the star of the next Star Wars film. She will go down in history as the strongest female protagonist in any movie at any point in time, and Disney will be the studio that can take credit for it. Disney will not need the New York and Los Angeles media in their court. They will have the “fly over states” and a very hungry international market that is poised to consume the intensely “western” values of Star Wars which will eclipse everything else produced by all other studios. In the end, The Lone Ranger produced by the Disney Company will ride off into the sunset knowing the part it played in the creation. Critics attacked The Lone Ranger not because it was a bad movie, but because of the values it articulated. But even their parade of insults did not prevent the film from doing respectable business. For Disney however, the best is yet to come, and for those who were afraid of The Lone Ranger, wait till the impact of the new generation of Star Wars hits a youth that is so hungry for heroes that they can think of little else. The emotional void left by our modern progressive society will fill quickly with values that were born in the American western.
And no group of progressives, Fabian socialists, or open communists will be able to stop it this time……………………………………….
The western is back. But this time the horse will be replaced by space ships, the gun and the whip by the lightsaber of Jaina Solo.
I am not a supporter of military engagement in Syria by America. If “they” do so, “they” will do it without my backing. If “my” military must engage in the long mismanaged debacle in Syria, it is due to the incompetence of our own government—driven by progressive politics that does not represent me—but has “progressed” along to do their own thing for global reasons. By saying such a thing I understand that the “establishment” will attempt to label people like me as a radical for not supporting our military—but so what. I could care less. To understand why, watch and listen to every video on this article so that you too may come to understand the real intentions, and meaning of the Syrian military engagement and what is really behind it.
Few recently have even contemplated how Syria acquired the supposed “chemical weapons” to begin with, which has set off this whole debate. As to the question as to why America must become involved in Syria the reason is that it is highly likely the weapons came from American CIA involvement to begin with. Here’s why:
As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:
“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”
“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’
“Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in 2003…
“The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the UN investigation.”
“Saddam Hussein has, in effect, thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”
And then in October of 2002, he said:
“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”
“Now I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense…and you have to make your own decisions about what the President knows…is that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as is indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
“I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers…”
Read more details about this issue at the link below.
But how did the weapons get to Iraq? Well, many have long forgotten that Saddam Hussein was put in place by American desire to send Iraq into war with Iran, and the weapons likely were given to him by America, directly or indirectly, to off-set the Iranians during the Iran, Iraq war. From 1980 to 1988 Donald Rumsfeld could be seen shaking hands with Saddam Hussein openly showing support for Iraq.
Tensions between Iran and Iraq were fueled by Iran’s Islamic revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force, in contrast to Iraq’s Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq’s goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab,[note 2] the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran’s Revolution, which overthrew Iran’s Shah, who was seen as a common enemy.[4][25] It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build, but there were some cross border skirmishes, including when Iraqi aircraft bombed an Iranian village that anti-Iraqi Kurds allegedly hid in on June 1979.[31]
After this incident, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, and it was received with considerable anger in Baghdad.[25] On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.[25] When Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture by calling for Islamic revolution [17] in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed.[25] Iran’s new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the Ba’ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed.[25] Some scholars have argued that Iranian-backed attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion.[32]
However, Iraq’s regime was very politically secure, and in little danger of being overthrown by alleged plots of revolution-wracked Iran.[17] According to some sources, Khomeini’s hostility towards Saddam was actually milder than his Arab neighbors hostility towards Saddam.[33] Saddam’s primary interest in war stemmed from his desire to right the supposed “wrong” of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower.[17] Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the “leader of the Arab world” and to achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf.[34] He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation.[27] Saddam had heavily invested in Iraq’s military since his defeat against Iran in 1975, buying large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and France. By 1980, Iraq possessed 200,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks and 450 aircraft.[4]:1 Watching the powerful Iranian army that frustrated him in 1974–1975 disintegrate, he saw an opportunity to attack, using the threat of Islamic Revolution as a pretext.[4][35]
Read all about that war at the link below, which also has a nice picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein warmly greeting one another.
It would appear that once the relationship disintegrated between America and Iraq leading to two wars in two subsequent decades, the Iraq’s chemical weapons were stored across the border in Syria so that UN inspectors would not discover them leading up to the war with Iraq during 2003. America knew Iraq had the weapons because they allegedly supplied them, even if they couldn’t find them. That was because Hussein’s buddy Assad was storing them in Syria.
But years later after America had finally removed Hussein from control of Iraq, the modern progressives went to work on Assad. This is how John Kerry as a senator was seen dinning with Assad as their wives gathered to discuss all the fine shopping options in Syria. A photo is going viral (GO AHEAD, CLICK ON THE LINK) showing the Kerrys and the Assads enjoying quite the intimate dinner in 2009.
Kerry was leading a delegation to Syria to discuss peace in the region at the time. According to French news agency AFP, Assad told Kerry during that visit that America needed a “proper understanding” of issues Syria faces.
Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.
“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that
Now that all the progressive manipulation in the Middle East region has come to fruition it is time to cash in on the years of investment and wash everyone’s hands of the evidence. That is the cause of most conflicts between nations, when governments have to clean up their mistakes from the past. War is the great eraser which wipes away the sins of history—the manipulation of progressives in a region designed to advance their agenda.
I’m all for providing humanitarian aid, but the poor people of Syria are only a small group of people in the grand scheme of the world where millions upon millions of people suffer under governments not advocating capitalism. Military engagements to help rebels who are built by terrorists to help former friends of Saddam Hussein is a no win situation that will not bring about justice, but only serve to allow the current government in America full of statists, progressives, and open socialists to cover the sins of their mismanagement of the Middle East region. So I do not support military engagement in Syria. If the U.N. wants to see justice there, let them use their own troops not supported by America do so, and see how far that goes. I am not open to allowing the United Nations to believe they have authority over Syria by dragging America into a war so that they can take the credit for justice at our expense. Syria is a mistake and will only serve to allow the bad guys to hide just a little while longer, and many of those bad guys, are in the American government. They cannot be trusted to do the right things…………because if they could be, there wouldn’t be chemical weapons in Syria to begin with.
I know a great deal about human behavior and would happily argue with the most respected minds in the fields of psychology and psychiatry regarding their theories wherever they came from in the world. I learned what I know because I’ve been around the block so many times that I have every brick, and crack memorized around that block. On my blog postings I openly invite comments, but there often isn’t any. This isn’t because people aren’t reading—they are. Just watch the daily counter off on the sidebar. However, in the world of strategy, silence is the best compliment. When “they” can’t beat you—whoever “they” may be, the only tactical option available to them is to ignore you and hope that social castigation will dislodge a deep-seated insecurity taking you out-of-the-way of “their” objectives.
Over the summer while on vacation in Florida my nephews and I had an intelligent conversation about human nature while throwing football in the condo swimming pool. One of my highly educated nephews argued that human beings are social creatures and needed to be brought together in optimal ways to manage peace and harmony in society, even if those instances are sometimes coerced by government. Of course I disagreed vehemently with that statement, not because he was wrong, but because that is only part of the issue. He is right; human beings are a social species. They learn from babies to mimic others and this is how we all start in life. 99.99999999999999999999999% of all human beings continue that destructive practice well into their adulthood—so he is right, humans are a social species. But my argument is that humans are destined at some point in their life to graduate from this way of thinking as the mind takes over what the social connections cannot provide and becomes a freely functioning entity of its own. I am this kind of person. I do not need the approval of anybody to make a decision, and this is a radical concept to most. I am able to function without social input based on the product of my own thinking. I do not need to consul, collaborate, or gain assurances about my decisions about my private life. It is a learned trait that I would argue every human being should strive for—but it takes courage—like a child learning to walk on their own for the first time. Human beings need to be able to function off the products of their own mind—but often they don’t. Instead, they gather together in clumps of social organisms like our primitive ancestors around a fire and wait for some village chieftain to instruct them what to do next. This is how we get into the political messes we are currently in.
The reason for this elaborate introduction is to explain this next phase in the Lakota school district levy fights and why things are the way they are. It might be noticed that the newspapers and I have very little to say to each other these days. I have thoroughly insulted the press and would not expect them to solicit my thoughts, but at this point it no longer matters. I have made my decisions based on the observed conditions, and the strategy of current was formulated on those observations. With that said, I offer this small article as an explanation for those curious. It gets back to me what Lakota administrators say when they think the doors are closed and the phone lines are secure. I know they are frustrated with me for being a “bomb thrower” and working from the outside instead of partaking in their structured manner, so this is more directed at them than my normal readers so that they can understand what is happening and why.
In past levy attempts I tried to work with Lakota in the traditional way. I came to the school board meetings and allowed compliance of their silly two-minute rule where the board members pretend to be in control of a courtroom setting by “allowing” members of the community to speak to them as though they were royal nobles of some sort. When I was acting as a spokesman for No Lakota Levy I put up with this behavior to respect the wishes of the members who wanted to see the levy defeated without fracturing their social relationships with Lakota. I did not like the social schmoozing that went on in the early days of my involvement. I also took note that as I began to go on the radio and television to argue the case of No Lakota Levy, those members did not want to sit near me at the school board meetings as they feared members of the Lakota community recognizing that we were all on the same team. They enjoyed the benefits of my tactics but wanted to maintain their social status with the same people from the other side of the political aisle. After a couple of levy defeats under my strategy, those fears began to relax a bit. People were less resistant to acknowledge their association with me as I had several victories under my belt at that time—and people love a winner. So people began to sit next to me at meetings and say hello in public. But not until then.
I went out of my way to speak with people from the other side like Ron Spurlock who was the acting superintendent until Mantia came along, Jenni Logan, the treasurer, and Linda O’Conner. I was happy to speak to them in a civil manner even though we agreed on very little. But I knew it wouldn’t last because the behavior wasn’t changing which put them in trouble. As nice of a man as Ron Spurlock was, he felt woefully slack during handshakes and he looked away a lot when I spoke to him. This was because he was in internal conflict.
At this point everyone in town was trying to advocate that I run for school board and become politically active. They still suggest the same when it comes to trustee spots and other high-profile political offices locally. Yet the strategy to the kind of victory I am after cannot be obtained in that fashion, so I never had any intention of indulging in that activity which frustrated people who want changes to the system within the system. When Mantia was hired essentially by Linda after all the discussions we had, I saw the direction that the school board was going. They hired a political divider who would come in and play all ends against the middle where Lakota would control the strategic high ground. Immediately that is what Mantia went on to do leaving Ron Spurlock to retire and stay on at Lakota as a consultant. Mantia came to a late night meeting with the key people of No Lakota Levy assuring us that she would do one thing if the levy failed, then she did another when that reality presented itself. Within a month of the levy failure Lakota was in full political mode. Mantia did not perform as a business mind, but as a progressive radical politician, and went straight to the type of levy passing tactics that was taught at the OSBA’s Levy University.
I came to one of the meetings announcing Lakota’s cuts and as Channel 19 was interviewing me in the main hallway at Lakota East, Mantia stood off to the side like she wanted to speak to me. When I made eye contact after the interview she looked away and hustled into the auditorium. It was a strange engagement that I noted for later. Then I saw Ron Spurlock who was approaching a man who was well-known at Lakota in the band circles—a popular guy who was well-respected. That man had come to the meeting with me, which I had known would cause trouble—which is why I did it. I wanted to confirm the moral position that I suspected about the school. After my television interview this “respected man” stepped next to me and Ron, who had been working his way through the crowd to a warm greeting, immediately stopped and turned away. Out of all the bad things that were said about me behind the scenes at Lakota, the much discussed Lakota Kroger Survey, the Letters to the Editor in the Pulse Journal, it was this event that bothered me the most. I liked Spurlock. I thought of him as a good man. But he was so terrified of the internal politics at Lakota, even though he was officially retired, that he didn’t want anybody of any authority at the school to see him even shaking hands with me. It was at that moment when I knew what Lakota was all about, and that the path to fixing it would not be by running for school board, or any other “respected” position. More extremes would be necessary.
A month later my group started Yes to Lakota Kids under tremendous pressure from community groups to bring No Lakota Levy away from being such a negative social influence on the community. I agreed to the charity group creation because it was a kind of checkmate against Lakota. This was confirmed when I organized a press conference. We were giving a $10,000 check to Lakota to help pay for student participation in sports. Both sides were talking and were going to be present to issue and receive the money. I brought the media. Nobody from Lakota showed up, instead excuses were provided as to why they couldn’t come. Anticipating this, we staged the press conference within walking distance of Lakota East where many officials especially from the athletic department were. Even better, the board of education was literally four miles down the road. It was a 15 minute drive for them, yet nobody showed. Channel 5 was there, Channel 19, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Pulse Journal, but there wasn’t any Lakota representatives.
This didn’t surprise me at all. It simply exposed what was already known. Lakota couldn’t take a donation from their enemy No Lakota Levy, even to help children and they knew it. They needed the extortion of children to execute their demands, and would not stand for losing that emotional leverage against the community by my group. Lakota did exactly what I expected; they went on a full court press to smear me personally because they knew they would never pass a levy as long as I was intimately involved in the process. If I had been the kind of person who needed group reassurance as the foundations of my thinking, some of the moves made against me at this time might have destroyed me for life. This appears to certainly be their intention. They did not care who they hurt, or to what extent they executed their plans, as long as they preserved their strategic objectives, which was a tax increase. Mantia and others put a lot of pressure on the other No Lakota Levy people to publicly pull away from any association from me. The reason was that it was believed that in so doing I would feel the bite of being an out-cast and either change my behavior, or be ignored by the public.
Little did they know but I was choking under the “in” crowd and desperately wanted those shackles off so that I could be an out-cast once again, to have the freedoms that come with such a position. That is where the best strategy is, and what I desired. I did not want to be a school board member and fuss with people who constantly played things both ways every day of their lives for some perceived “greater good” and at the point I had arrived at, there was no desire to see public education preserved in any fashion. It’s a bad idea that should have never been implemented, and that is the direction I wanted to argue. I did not want the burden of being a spokesman for a system I think is destroying our youth even in protest against taxation.
Peer groups are learned in public schools primarily. The kids who are “in” and “out” are designated quickly. Kids who are “in” have something to bring the “greater good,” of whatever group is involved. Kids who are “out” do not. When I was in school I was certainly on the “out” group because I did not want to be in service to any group. I enjoyed thoroughly being on the “out” because there are many more opportunities for a colorful life outside of group comfort, which is what I’ve always strived for. Of course back then nobody really understood what I was rebelling against. My parents encouraged me to buy a class ring which they said would mean something to me later in life. It doesn’t. I never wore it, but simply gave it to whatever girlfriend I had at the time. They also told me I needed a school jacket, which I never wore—favoring my leather jacket instead. They also told me I needed to go to my five-year-reunion that was at Coney Island. So I did and while there they had the usual contests, who had been married the longest, who had the most children, who had the oldest children and that kind of thing. Out of the five categories in the contest I won three of them, I had been married the longest, (four years at that time), I had two children, three and two years old, clearly the oldest of the participants. In fact my children were running around playing tag around the podium where the Class President was speaking from. Yet I didn’t win a single category formally. I was sitting in plain view of everyone, my wife was there, my kids playing and screaming in delight running around the tables which everyone could see, yet I was as invisible to them all as a ghost on Christmas morning. Apparently it was frowned upon to bring children and spouses to the Class Reunion and socially I was supposed to know that. But I wasn’t about to go to Coney Island without taking my children. I never did things like that without them. So I brought them without asking if I could.
My wife and I laughed about that event for years. It was a clear example of the social need for groups of pack mentality to preserve their thinking on an issue in order to maintain a pre-conceived notion. The evidence of who had the most and oldest children was running around the podium during the award presentation, yet I did not win a single category. That was because I was an outcast even then, and very proud of it. The only retaliation they had to offer to me was to hope being castigated from their group would make me feel some level of shame, and desire to comply socially. Of course that concept is horrendously preposterous to anyone who knows me. Just yesterday I was having a nice lunch by myself taking some time to read a book and enjoy my day. Another man dressed in business attire sat down next to me, first asking if I was dining with anyone. I said no. So he sat down and started talking about the upcoming Bengal season, the quality of the food, the weather, about anything and everything. The guy was a real chatterbox. I was trying to be polite, but there was a reason I was eating lunch alone. I wanted to read my book. Nothing the guy said was of any value to me, and it was really getting on my nerves. After about five minutes I told the guy as politely as possible, “You know, it’s hard to read a book and have a conversation.” He looked at me as if I threw Holy Water upon his forehead. “Sorry, I just thought you wanted some conversation. I saw you sitting here by yourself and thought you wanted company. I guess you don’t…….right?” I replied as nicely as possible, “that’s right. I don’t want any company.” He got up in uncomfortable silence and took his food with him and disappeared into the restaurant. I was so happy that he left and for the next hour and a half I was alone with just my book, my food and the nice outside air of a late summer August day. When I was ready to leave, that guy was inside the restaurant sitting at the bar talking to the bartender and anybody nearby who would listen. Three businessmen were comparing Fantasy Football picks with him and they were all happy as sluts at a navel port gabbing at each other with much fanfare. The man didn’t look at me even though I had to pay the remainder of my bill with the bartender. It was easier not to acknowledge each other, and I was grateful that he felt that way.
That same mentality was present when Ron Spurlock turned away from me in the halls of Lakota East to preserve his position in the social structure of Lakota. Well before I called the levy supporters at Lakota “Latte sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match” in the Cincinnati Enquirer the wheels of castigation were well in place. I had tried to work with the Lakota school board and the superintendents to bring down their costs. I worked with the media nicely to give them entertainment within the context of their acceptability, and I was gloriously successful at it. I even played the charity game to make my friends happy who stood against the tax increases, but still wanted to maintain relationships with members of the Lakota administration. But none of them wanted to stand by the truth and deal with the severity of the situation in the manner it called for. They all separated into their various groups and expected me to facilitate myself to their whims, which simply wasn’t going to happen. When I didn’t, not even good people like Ron Spurlock wanted to be seen speaking with me in public out of fear that it would put him socially on the “out.” People fear more than most anything in the world being rejected from their respective “groups.”
I learned a long, long time ago that these groups are more destructive to the human psyche than all the mental deficiencies available to insanity. They are as my nephew argued part of the human condition generated upon the human mind during childhood when dependency is the only option. Good parents never allow their children to feel the bite of this dependency so that as maturity sets in, those individuals grown into self-driven entities reliant on their own thoughts and motivations and cast away group participation like a snake sheds its skin. The human race cannot survive with the mode of thinking that drove Ron Spurlock to walk the other way under the Mantia regime at Lakota, or the class president ignoring my children as they ran around playing at her feet.
When groups of people are at wit’s end and cannot strategically deal with the impact of an individual, they attempt to look everywhere that they aren’t. They attempt to ignore such people so to preserve their own thoughts and feelings without a challenger. Shortly after No Lakota Levy and I parted ways after the events described above, I received the following note from a radical levy supporter at Lakota. The contents are particularly revealing as it confirms everything stated:
That letter writer was an adult who holds a very responsible position within the Lakota school system, and provides insight into the kind of mentality that Ron Spurlock feared so much on a cold February evening at Lakota East. As mature and sophisticated the participants of the education profession pretend to be, they are still functioning human beings that are deficient of self-reliant thinking, and as far as I’m concerned, behind the evolutionary curve. The money they ask for with tax increases is to cover the gaps of their thinking and mask their internal neurosis. It has nothing to do with reality, but only the primal need for group behavior to separate social tasks into blocks of consensus building. The very foundations that they have built their institutions upon is set to sink in the sand during high tide as it has no philosophical foundation to plant roots of thought. All they can do when such a reality is presented to them is to ignore the facts to preserve their warped illusions.
That is why this next levy attempt of 2013 will be different. I will not try to solve the problem from the inside, because it clearly will not work under any condition. This is a problem that must be solved from the outside—in, because the root of the problem is on the inside and must be starved out of existence. They cannot see the problem because they refuse to look at it and nobody on a school board or through the mechanism of politics can solve the problem in that insider fashion. So my new tactic will be to launch the attack from the outside in, to famish the antagonists from within their own walls by starving out their supply chain. Such strategies brought down the rule of the Mongols in China, and it brought down the Roman Empire. It can bring down little ol’ Lakota, which is what I intend. It’s not against education that I rebel; it is the institutionalism of individual minds that I despise. I love education. I just can’t stand the process that is currently accepted, and I don’t like the politics connected to it.
As it should be clear by now, at no point in my life did I care to be on the “inside.” I have been at times when groups wanted to use my talents, but I do not volunteer to go. They come to me. And they can go away just as well, but my position does not change, as it has been built upon the foundations of logic and my personal observations. I will not surrender that position to the illogical perspective of group consensus to preserve the neurosis of established thinking if that thinking is wrong. My nephew was right from an academic standpoint, human beings are a social species. They need each other, and seek to speak, touch and interact with others of their kind. But I am right too, that such behavior is for the human race equivalent to a small child learning to walk for the first time afraid to let go of what props them up. A human mind needs to learn to walk on its own, free of emotional shackles to inferior intellects and it must grow from there perpetually over a lifetime. What Lakota does, and other institutions like them is artificially constrain thinking so to preserve political beliefs forged by group consensus, and that is a recipe for disaster that I cannot, and will not support—but will fight as though it was the most corrosive organism in existence—because it is.
Now, if anybody who has read this wish to argue with me, feel free to leave a comment below. I won’t chastise or belittle you for trying. I like the mental exercise. But if you don’t, your silence will confirm all that I have said above. So have at it……………….
Very few things make me emotional; however the words of Teri Benning at the end of a recent West Chester Buzz article nearly brought tears to my eyes. It is not often that truth is spoken, let alone written in public these days, yet Teri uttered such a truth about the upcoming Lakota Levy and I felt pride swelling upon hearing the delectable words of a Lakota tax payer.
“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”
Aaaaaaaaahhhh. I liked that so much I want to read it again…………………………
“Instead of making plans on how to spend the money that has not been approved yet and adding back things to blow the money on if approved, why don’t they make some long-range plans and keep it for a rainy day? They’re worse than a 10-year-old with $20 burning a hole in his pocket!”
Isn’t that just wonderful? Doesn’t that just make fantastic sense? Of course it does. Yet that is precisely the imagery I think of when I think of Lakota, that they are like 10-year-old kids with money in their pocket and a burning desire to spend it somewhere on something as fast as they can. They lack any real discipline, logical understanding, or desire to do what is right for the community and instead regulate their thinking to the same old failed education policies of the past—policies that do not work, are not helping children become the best in the world intellectually, and is an obvious money pit.
It’s no secret by now that I have several personal friends who are either former school board members of public education and have thrown their hands up in frustration to now fight against it, or are current school board members who want to reform the system from the inside out. One of my very dear friends is a former school board member from Lakota and has a wonderful insight into what goes on behind the scenes legally, and illegally, and could tell stories for the rest of all our lifetimes about what she has seen, heard, and read from Lakota—even school board members still active. Her stories are intense, and to the untrained ears may appear radical, and over the edge. But the passion of her statements is different from the bold logic of people similar to Teri Getz Benning. My friend has been too close to the situation for too long and knows clearly what has been wrong in public education and just how sinister the situation has been for a very long time. Her anger and passion are driven from insider knowledge that should send chills up the spine of every tax payer in the country. Recently she left me this comment about another Lakota article I had written about. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.
The public school system is in the extortion and indoctrination business. In the case of Lakota, about 67% of the taxpayers do not have children attending the schools. Yet the teacher’s union and the parents do expect senior citizens and working people to support the system to the degree of extravagance that they desire. They must have new schools, new equipment, new programs, new sports programs, new buses etc. The older schools are just not good enough.
In spite of having everything new, data seems to prove that each generation of students has not been taught the basic skills to survive. Even IQ’s have dropped drastically from those of the people during the time of the founding of this nation.
No one should doubt that any new money given to any school district will be poured into salaries and benefits. That is the clear reason why the teachers, administrators and PTA (an arm of the NEA/AFT) work so hard to shame voters into voting to tax their neighbors even more.
It is high time to put a halt to this racket. Teachers are NOT underpaid. They have the summer and bountiful days off and still make as much as architects and lawyers. STOP them now!
The only defense Lakota, or any public school has against the comments of this former school board member is to call her crazy, psychotic, or a radical conservative, just as they have attempted to call me names in hopes to deflect the ears of the taxpaying public away from the truth, a truth that was spelled out above. Public schools are indoctrination centers for the government and they are harming our children, not helping them. This is an inconvenient truth that many pray is not the case. Many supporters of public education love the social appeal of sports and other community programs that center around a school, and do not wish to see the ugly truth—but that doesn’t make it go away. The truth is the truth and cannot be made into a falsehood with wishes from Aladdin’s lamp. Public education is a racket, and corrosive scheme designed to destroy minds, rip up families, and suck the life blood out of all communities from which they reside. Public education institutions are the cockroach of the government employment family and they should be treated as foul, vile insects that must be exterminated from our communities. They lie, cheat, manipulate, and put themselves between parents and children in terribly destructive ways.
But my friend and I have seen too much of this truth to be objective any longer. I despise those institutions of learning for what they don’t teach, and what they do I find repulsive. I would like to see an end to them all and have parents take control of their children’s education completely. That is why I enjoyed the words of Teri Benning so much, because there is no radicalism, no jaded perception present—just an honest opinion rendered from observation with an appropriate metaphor. It is good to see that such people are out there and that they voice their opinions. At best public education institutions like Lakota are similar to 10-year-old undisciplined children. They cannot wait to spend money they do not have yet have, and once they do have a little, they are ready to spend it on every silly thing their immature minds can conger up. It is a relief at this stage of the game to see that new people like Teri are making their opinions known, because for every one of them, there are many dozens who sit fearfully on the fence afraid that the Lakota Levy Zombies will discover them and seek to destroy their social reputations with strong-arm tactics of peer pressure and raw emotion. But increasingly, the trend is to not fear the Lakota Levy Zombies, but to fight back against them—which is a wonderful trend. Whether the emotions range from the logic of Teri Benning, or the jaded realism of my former school board friends, the trajectory of emotion is pointing away from traditional public education and more toward a privately funded enterprise that excludes the government indoctrination, and for that I am very, very, happy!
In the video below Rush Limbaugh breaks down the mentality of the typical liberal nicely. By his use, the word liberal covers everything from moderate Democrats to radical communists. Between those book ends are socialist, progressives, race baiters, feminists, public school advocates, and statists of every kind, some of which have the term Republican next to their names. Limbaugh’s conclusion is one that I have been beating the war drums to for many months now as I have discovered and reported on these pages what he is saying. Liberals cannot in any kind of debate rely on facts to win their arguments. The only way they can win anything is by applying emotion so that they can create an anti-concept for which logic can be distorted and manipulated to their liking. In this way, liberals have re-shaped the world into the mess many of us have observed and felt regulated to shaking our heads at in hopelessness. Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s very good summation of a liberal here:
I have been arguing for a while now that these liberal types must be treated as enemies against traditional America. It has become fashionable to treat them with respect, honor, and civility because conservatives tend to be kind, religious, and never-the-less willing to display public humility to prove that they are not all the nasty things that liberals say about them. In the school levy arguments around Cincinnati I have argued every level of logic there is. In the winter of 2012 as I watched my district of Lakota proceed with cuts to their offered programs after three failed levies and a whole lot of charts produced, public arguments made, and meetings attended I saw firsthand the festering threat that the liberal represents, a parasitic existence that uses sentiments of kindness as a military maneuver against righteousness. I learned that under no circumstances would liberals ever look at the facts that logic presented to them because solving problems is not what they are after, and it has never been. The number one objective of the liberal is to destroy traditional America, the type of America that could be coined exceptional. Liberals wish to destroy America by undoing its philosophy of self-reliance and reacquainting it with the philosophy of dependence known for centuries in Europe. For the liberal the Revolutionary War never ended. They are still trying to connect North America permanently to the European Union and they will stop at nothing to get there.
In my levy fights, as others all over Ohio have now done, I proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the tax increase requests for public schools was 100% caused by unreasonable and unsustainable wages for the government employees. At Lakota I told them as a representative of the 18,000 people who voted against the tax increases that they needed to take a 5% cut in wages to meet the standards of budget that the community approved at the ballot box. Instead of complying, the government school collectively like an ant colony of mindless insects went on a public relations campaign that contained not one single fact about what caused them to run a budget deficit. For anyone who stood in their way, they attacked without a care in the world for reputations, participated in friendship severances, boycotts, and any vile form of manipulation they could gather under their wings. But they did not deal with a single fact even when pressed to the extreme. This is because of what Rush Limbaugh stated in his broadcast—because they can’t. They never can, and they never will.
This is why it is important to stop viewing liberals as equals on the battlefield of ideas. To be equal, they would have to produce ideas—and they don’t. All they ever advocate is collective re-distribution of wealth that someone else creates. They are typically lazy specimens who do not like the act of creation, so they want what others create by proclaiming fairness. In the case of my public school example, the teachers and administrators at the school have convinced themselves that they are an important social role to the construct of America even though what they teach children is mindless drivel and social collectivism setting students at an emotional deficit at an early stage of their adulthood of which many will never escape. When it all comes down to it, those employees fear actual productive existences which is why they work for a government school. They fear getting up in the morning and creating something at their job. They just use the government to extract wealth from those who do all the creating and offer back emotional reasons for their lack of productivity.
There is no fair fight with a liberal. They do not participate in the battlefield of ideas, because they can’t. Their only strategy is to move every debate away from facts and logic and to replace them with emotional pleas. It is time to end this practice in America. It is time to view these strategies for what they are, maneuvers against traditional America for the purpose of destruction of our way of life. It is time to treat the liberal as an enemy for the sake of self-preservation as a free nation. Limbaugh is 100% correct, liberals are not for freedom. They may in the short run advocate public nudity, open sex in every direction, drunkenness, mind altering drugs, godlessness, and the absolute destruction of the American family, but they are not for freedom. They are only for the destruction of human values because they are too mentally and physically lazy to measure up.
Liberals do not want peace in that a deal could be struck with them to “live and let live.” It is time that traditional America took the advice of the old Paul McCartney song, “Live and Let Die” and come to grips that the liberal can never be reasoned with, they can never be appeased, they can never be treated on fair terms because they are not about any of those things. They simply want to destroy America as it was constitutionally built, and remake it into the land of Europe, the slums of Paris, the box houses of England, and the dinky housing shacks of Spain. They want nothing else but destruction. This is why the liberal must be seen as the enemy in a second revolution. A distinct difference is needed to disassociate those types with the minds of reason before any problems can ever be solved and before that can happen it must be realized that the liberal has nothing to offer but more destruction and emotional chaos to camouflage their parasitic nature as a social organism more akin to termites than anything else.
“The trend adds to the nervousness of Southwest Ohio school officials and school parents who await the state budget’s unveiling later this month. Smaller enrollment often means less school funding in Ohio’s biennium budgets. And fewer state dollars mean districts often ask voters to pay higher school taxes.”
You can read the rest of that hilarious article at the following link.
As Lakota continues to decline in enrollment, it may well be possible that Lakota could reduce its staff and administrators by up to 50% by the time 2020 arrives from what it is now. For the tax payers of the Lakota school district that is wonderful news. For business owners looking to invest in the community, that is wonderful news as well, as tax increases should not be needed. It’s also good news for the family of two who have lived in the Lakota district for twenty to thirty years and has been considering selling their home to avoid the property taxes by retiring to Florida. Now those empty-nesters can remain in their homes as the tax burden at Lakota should not increase.
Yet the administration at Lakota did not see this good news. Instead they somehow translated that information as meaning they would need a tax increase…………..and that is HILARIOUS! Do they believe that the same staff level will be maintained when the student population drops down to 11,000 students, or even 10,000? Are teachers going to be teaching in classrooms of only 5 to 10 kids? Is that what they think? Well, apparently………they do. Such a statement about tax increases when enrollment decreases just goes to prove how terribly out-of-touch those types of government employees are, and what little management actually goes into making business decisions in public schools.
The right thing to do at Lakota would be to have a reduction in force every year that there is student enrollment decreases and make sure that the most highly paid employees are either forced to leave, or reduced in force to dynamically supply the student needs. But public education is never interested in doing what’s right. After all, they are “progressive” organizations. They believe they exist to give away jobs like Santa Clause at Christmas time, and they actually entertain the idea that they might have to raise taxes to keep all their employees on staff. That is what was suggested in the Enquirer article, which is absolutely preposterous. Such thinking is the construct of idealism and has no basis in reality.
The decline in enrollment has nothing to do with the three defeated school levies which took place from 2010 to 2012. It may have in a small way prevented the very rare type of real estate purchaser who would be attracted to the Four Bridges type of housing developments, the affluent latte sippers who buy half million dollar homes then expect the community to give their children a free baby sitting service complete with an education. But what has been lost in real estate sales from those types has been gained in retained businesses that have not had to flee the community due to high taxes, and proved conducive to affluent home owners who enjoy living in a community where the children do not run the entire town. Rather the decline in enrollment is part of a natural process, and is the byproduct of a society that does not value the building of families but instead promotes the value of single status lifestyles which last well into young adults thirty something years. If every home in the Lakota district had a mom and a dad, (which most do) yet only produce 1.7 children per home, then the population not just of Lakota as a district will decline, but the nation as well.
Because the district of Lakota is considered affluent, and there are barriers to entry, not quite as excessive as there is in Indian Hill, but is moving in that direction, this means that fewer families can qualify to send their kids to the Lakota school system. Those that can have probably already raised their families and are looking for the kinds of social offerings that come with developments like Carriage Hill Homes, or the upcoming Liberty Center shopping complex. The face and nature of the community are changing, and that change does not center around the neurosis of a local school system, but on quality, and affluence by people who can see through the tantrums of Lakota schools and the bottomless pit of tax increases they wish to impose hiding their lack of management skills, and gross negligence of proper head-count maintenance.
It was funny while it lasted, not its just sad………………………………..
It is an absolutely appalling joke that Bill Clinton has been named Father of the Year by the National Father’s Day Committee. I would consider the former president who was impeached by congress during his term, to be the anti-father compared to many of the fathers who were celebrated during the 2013 annual Father’s Day recognition ceremonies. Clinton like the typical notion of a progressive “anti-concept” represents the undoing of fatherhood much more than a pillar of strength that most children wish for in the male portion of their parenting role-models. Clinton is virtually everything a good person is not—so naming him “Father of the Year” is equivalent to calling the stupid family on the old Fox television Married with Children the family of the year. Read more here:
The National Father’s Day Committee, an entity of the Father’s Day/Mother’s Day Council, each year confers Father of the Year Honors on contemporary lifestyle leaders of our culture whose lives are dedicated to family, citizenship, charity, civility, responsibility and reverence. The funds raised by our Annual Father of the Year Awards Presentation are directed to the support of worthwhile concerns affecting men, fathers, and families. The objective of our program is to enhance the meaning of Father’s Day and encourage universal observance.
Apparently the National Father’s Day Committee has no idea what a good father is, otherwise they would have never put Clinton on the list, let alone giving him such a perceived honor. I know something about fatherhood, and I am a fantastic father. Saying that Clinton is an exceptional father is simply an insult. Fathers are not habitual liars, womanizing punks, or call out hits on political opponents. They also don’t eliminate whistle blowers, or have women who are the same age as their daughters perform oral sex on them in the Oval Office. Good fathers are the opposite of all those traits, yet the NFDC named Clinton anyway.
Back in the 90s when Married with Children was on the air, and Slick Willie was in the White House, my wife and I refused to watch that show, even though it was very popular. We watched a few scenes of it here and there just to see if we were missing the great wave of popularity that the show garnered, but I never completed a full episode. The show was incredibly demeaning to traditional families and helped pave the way to a lot of the terrible attitudes people have toward their families in this more contemporary age.
Of course the cat is out of the bag now as to why shows like Married with Children were made in the first place getting money while programs like Little House on the Prairie went off the air, and weren’t being invited back on traditional networks. The progressive age was in full swing and presidents like Bill Clinton were committed to finishing the task that Woodrow Wilson started making sons as unlike their fathers as possible. The progressive statists entered politics, founded and ran the Department of Education and immediately created curriculums that degraded traditional parenting which paved the way for audiences to desire programming like Married with Children and electing the Al Bundy of politics, Bill Clinton. Most of America during the 90’s could not relate with the old-fashioned ideas of John Wayne westerns but rather Oliver Stone through his cocaine trips of left leaning films. America had lost its moral compass through its public education system, and shows like Married with Children reinforced the insecurities taught to them by government schools. Politicians like Clinton simply brought to the real world the kind of characters millions of Americans had grown familiar with in Married with Children.
It would seem that the criteria for judging Father of the Year by the NFDC is in comparing all candidates to Al Bundy from that old Fox comedy. With that as the criteria, I am proud to not be a part of the judging process because fathers like Bill Clinton and I are on opposite ends of the earth, as apparently the morally lost souls of the NFDC committee are too. Their award to Bill Clinton is just further evidence of how treacherously lost our society has become in identifying good from bad, and right from wrong. Anyone who can see what is wrong with the world will quickly see what a terrible father Bill Clinton is no matter what poor little Chelsea Clinton thinks. She’s stuck with being born to such a low-life, so she’s not the best judge of character—no fault of hers.
Next year when the NFDC decides that they want to award another Father of the Year I would suggest that they not look in the local strip joints, lobbyist back rooms, and married women’s bedrooms for the sacred honor of a father. The first step would be to look outside the political scene of New York and Washington D.C. There is a big world outside of those very small places, and in it are a lot of fathers who are truly great, and their families love them for it. They are Father’s of the Year not for the fanfare, the political spot light, or the social status gained from some trivial social recognition. They are great fathers because they truly love their children, and their families know it with the greatest honor that can be bestowed upon a man, the recognition from his family that they appreciate all that he does without a single outside soul knowing anything about it.
As for my own father’s day, my wife and kids treated me to a nice day at our local amusement park of Kings Island to visit the Dinosaurs Alive exhibit with my new grandson. They gave me as gifts a picture collage of some of our past adventures together and personal notes of fond recollection. They also gave me the soundtrack to the new Superman movie which meant a lot to me. As I loaded the soundtrack onto my iPod I thought of what the music was saying to me………………….and it doesn’t bring to mind images of Bill Clinton, unless of course the musical theme is that of the villain. I doubt Chelsea thinks of Superman when she thinks of her father, the supposed Father of the Year!
The Overmanwarrior 