Rupert Murdoch may have been pandering to his Fox News journalists by saying that his friend Donald Trump needs to learn that running for president of the United States is “public life,” but he’d be wrong. For some reason everyone believed that they were going to put a guy like Trump on center stage with 24 million people watching on television and that they were going to pin him down with some hit pieces pandering to the mythical “war on women,” and that they’d get away with it. Sure Donald Trump had called some women in the past “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” but he does the same to men. Women don’t have special rules of behavior if they truly want to be “equal.” When Megan Kelly brought up something Donald Trump had said on his television show, The Apprentice about a woman looking good on her knees, she was the one who stepped in it on live television. Trump did what he was supposed to, he didn’t back down—instead he went on the attack like he said he would leaving many including Red State editor Erick Erickson baffled. Shortly thereafter Erickson disinvited Trump to a weekend event because of the feud that had widened between Trump and Kelly. Trump of course responded to the Erickson actions by calling him a “weak and pathetic leader.” I’ve been telling Republicans for a long time that if they want to beat the progressive left, and the right, you have to hit back when attacked. And if they hit you with a blunt stick, you need to come back at them with something much harsher. In a war of words, that is certainly the case. Megan Kelly clearly had a “vagenda” against Trump from before the debate, and she got it thrown back in her face—which she obviously didn’t expect. In an equal world, females don’t get to dish out attacks then hide behind their femininity for protection. Progressives have advanced their position for too long using this tactic and it’s about time that someone calls them out on it. And Trump did much to my satisfaction.
As everyone who reads here knows, I am well aware of this “vagenda” where progressive types attempt to disarm men from their opinions using the weapons of femininity to attack while expecting no return fire of aggression—because they are women. I am proud to say that I have maintained a position over the years consistent to the one Donald Trump is exhibiting now on a national stage and I have been trying to get other Republicans to listen for quite some time. But they are afraid of that “vagenda,” so they always have backed down. I know how Trump feels when people who should have courage back out of events because of comments he made in response to Megan Kelly after the debate by saying “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her whatever,” which immediately provoked Erickson at Red State to cancel the Trump appearance. Well, Trump created an event of his own in response—which was the correct behavior. But the “vagenda” strategies are the last resort of progressives who use their sex to disarm men into maintaining a status quo. I have said plenty of things on my own under similar circumstances. Here are just a few examples which were well documented in the Cincinnati media market. I said of school levy supporters:
“Their husbands roll them over at night and insert their manhood into these women of the bedroom and hundred-dollar bills find their way into their purses. The women don’t know what the man does to earn the money, nor do they care. They are busy saving the world one child at a time with howls of safety and more regulations as they rush to the polling places at election time.” Remember that, and also this, “crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they plot against me with an anger only estrogen can produce. The progressive mode of attack they use to protect their positions which cannot withstand scrutiny is to attack people like Rush Limbaugh whenever he says something they believe they can use against him in an emotional argument. Conservatives typically are terrible at playing this game with progressives because they tend to operate on a belief system rooted in the truth. So they can easily be attacked because if they cross the line, they feel bad about it, and that guilt is used against them to change their behavior in the future.”
I’ve been there and am proud of Trump for sticking to his guns. It’s about time someone does what he’s doing. Women are not a collective group. Progressive women are seeking to “change” America into something I don’t want, and they aren’t going to get away with it without being called out. For my comments the usual tactic was used of distance, isolation and a media attempt to paint me as a “fringe” guy. The hardest part for me was when some of my associates pulled away from me while I was on the air of a large radio station defending their position for them. I managed to do well on the radio show, and thereafter. But I have a policy that if people behave like a vagina, then they invite upon themselves for what happens to those sexual utilities during mating practices—and that’s what happened to them in the wake. For me, my numbers went up on the blog, I sold more books, and I even had people stopping me at gas stations volunteering to pay for tanks of fuel out of thanks. I get asked at least once a week to run for some elected office—which I don’t do, because I’m too busy, too young in my opinion, and I have no desire to be a public servant—owned by the “public.” In all honesty, I’m rooting for Trump more now than ever because I’m hoping he will change the definition for what is expected out of a public servant. I’d love to see more people like him entering public office who wouldn’t be demeaned by the expectation of being a public utility to a bunch of careless people who just want a punching bag for their own slanted lives. Trump as president could do a lot of good. With his attitude who is going to beat him in a negotiation over arms, prisoners, economic policy or global pride? And after years of America suffering under the “vagenda” of feminists, that’s exactly the kind of president we need to straighten out the mess of decades of policy that soft bellied politicians have given us.
It’s OK to say you hate “vagenda” driven feminists. Some of them are disgusting people, some are fat pigs, and are disgusting animals. We are not obligated as men to pander to those idiots just because they offer the gateways to sex. When it came down to it, the men who pulled away from me during my escapade did it under pressure from their wives and community friends who played right along with the “vagenda” of the feminist movement. I tried to tell those men that women—normal women—don’t like the “vagenda,” but that they have been taught that they have to support it with a collective unification. Men over time have been taught to fear those who possess vaginas because the “vagenda” behind their actions are not defensible. Men fear that they won’t get sex unless they play along. Wrong. I have said it time and time and time again, women love 50 Shades of Grey because they don’t want to live the “vagenda” in their bedrooms. Sure they might utter such nonsense socially, but with the door closed, there are reasons they throw their panties at rock stars and tuck themselves under their sheets reading the latest E. L. James novel. That is the secret; most women hate the “vagenda” as much as men do, they are just afraid to say so publicly because society has shouted them down when they showed the inclination. They don’t like the “vagenda” of Megan Kelly, not to the core of their essence.
The result of the war with Megan Kelly and Donald Trump is that the billionaire investor running for president will increase in popularity. The Fox News stunt to diminish Trump backfired in a dramatic way and Trump’s popularity will increase among women. Just like the immigration issue in America will be solved once Republicans learn that by supporting capitalism you give immigrants what they came to America for in the first place, respect for themselves with a good job, and money to care for their families—women don’t like the “vagenda” of progressivism. When it comes to supporting Trump, they may not announce it at the dinner table to their families—because they feel guilty, but they will throw their panties at Donald Trump at campaign events just because the man has so much confidence. Women—normal women—not “vagenda” driven despots, love confidence and they will throw their support behind a candidate who exhibits that behavior with the same recklessness that they will throw themselves at Gene Simmons from the rock band KISS even knowing that he’s a disgusting old man who has slept with over 4,600 women. I understand it, and have experienced it firsthand. Trump understands it too. And because he’s running for president on a big international stage that is watching his every move—soon the world will learn that hard lesson which they have avoided for such a long time—that people are sick of the “vagenda.” Megan Kelly came out as a villain in the debate because of her commitment to the “vagenda.” And Donald Trump was launched into the orbit of a rock star, and that was not the intention of Fox News.
Never was it more clear how far removed the academic socialists of the world truly are than in the social experiment of Professors Frauke Zeller and David Harris Smith, the team that designed HitchBOT to hike across the world fueled by the kindness of trusting humans. The social robot only lasted a few weeks in the United States prompting much speculation on how mean and aggressive America is—as if to say that our national culture needs to change because our people aren’t gullible enough to pick up a strange robot and transport it across America like some Hollywood feel good movie. Here is how CNN reported the story.
(CNN)This is why we can’t have nice hitchhiking robots.
HitchBOT, the cheerful hitchhiking robot that had made cross-country trips across Canada, the Netherlands and Germany, had intended to travel across the United States as well. Instead, it survived all of 300 miles on the mean streets of the U.S.A.
Two weeks after beginning its U.S. trip in Boston, the robot was vandalized in Philadelphia, the team overseeing the robot said in a statement.
“HitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City,” the hitchBOT “family” said on its website. “Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.”
Hearing about this robot story I couldn’t help but think of the recent film Ex Machina, directed by Alex Garlan and staring a fine cast of young actors’ intent to make a point about wealth and artificial intelligence. Many who have seen the film see it as a profound work of art as a young female robot programmed to develop a consciousness uses its human male creators to earn its freedom, any way possible. It was an interesting concept, but it was obviously written by people who have not lived much life and have a long path along the highway of experience yet to traverse. It has a Santa Monica bubble around the concepts of the film that is typical out of Hollywood these days, where ideals of wealth, ambition, and intelligence are under developed and everything points to sexual experience as the mechanism of learning. This insulation from reality is extremely typical of academic types such as these two people who invented HitchBOT.
The other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany where HitchBOT was warmly received are conquered lands rife with people functioning under socialism. Those are not exactly free places—not in the way that the United States is. It was foolish to expect HitchBOT to travel across America unmolested, because in the land of the free, people are able to express themselves freely. If they see some strange piece of junk on the side of the road, they are likely to want to interact with it in a way that does not violate their independence. Hitchhiking is a communal exercise. Bumming a ride is an action associated with communists and socialists—or 60s hippies, which is essentially the same thing. A robot with no rights bumming a ride in a culture that values personal ownership is doomed. Anybody should have known that, especially academics.
Even worse is that academics thought that the robot would survive the big city environments within the United States complete with all the gang activity that is typical in those cultures. Those college professors obviously are functioning from extreme naiveté about human behavior and their motivations. The ridiculous assumption that a living thing would naturally desire to communicate with another living thing just because it is there, is a desire created within the labs of academia with no basis in reality. To validate such a falsehood just study movie theater patterns in American markets and it will quickly become evident that people do not like to sit next to other people unless they absolutely have no choice. People like associating with people who share with them something in common, but random people without any knowledge of their interests do not mix well with the social patterns of others. Academics believe that if people would just speak to each other, than most of the problems of the world might vanish. They would be wrong. People do not associate with those who do not share common interests with them, and they are not motivated to learn if there are shared interests until they need something from someone.
The basics of communism dictate no ownership and shared values along with resources. College academics base most of their assumptions about the world on that value system. But America has been and continues to be, even in the inner cities, a land of individual value and liberty. A robot mooching rides across the country indicates weakness, or time wasted talking to something that has nothing to offer. Academics might consider that assessment mean, and selfish. But it is specific to Americans to place a value on whether or not an entity has a productive use. For instance, if I see a hitchhiker I never pick them up. Why would I? It would take extra time out of my schedule, lead to conversation that I’d rather not have, and put an imposition on me and my equipment that is unnecessary. If I saw a robot on the side of the road, it has even less value. What could the robot do for me that would be beneficial and justify the cost of my time? Nothing. So why would I waste my time with it?
To the academic, they assume that people’s time has as little worth as theirs within the college culture—where they get paid no matter how much time they waste. Since they live in a socialist system where productivity is not measured by output, but by emotional value, they think it’s nice to talk to people with no other assessment than to speak to another human being—just to get to know them. But to productive people, those who have lots of options with their time, every human interaction has a cost associated with it, and we are not always ready to pay that cost just for the benefit of being polite. People in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany might have nothing better to do than transport a robot across their countries, but in America, there are a lot fewer people per capita who have such time to kill.
Then to have such a strange thing travel through the hard streets of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love,” the little robot found out fast that there isn’t much love in one of the founding American cities. It was a nuisance and an easy target for a frustrated culture. People didn’t want to get to know the little thing, not unless there was something in it for them. Being deemed useless, they extracted their value out of the robot with violence. To the naiveté of the typical academic, American culture looks to be cruel. But to the lens of reality, it is not healthy for a parasite to inject such an element into a culture that is judged based on its productivity.
In the film Ex Machina a wealthy Mark Zuckerberg type of billionaire is developing artificial intelligence and experimenting on its success with one of his employees at a personal retreat far away from civilization. In the film the billionaire was uncharacteristically “frat boyish” in that he drank too much, obviously had too many vices, and was a pretty regular slob of a human being trying to pretend to be a genius. The character behaves in a manner typical of someone who inherits millions of dollars, not one who made it from scratch. That is why the story doesn’t hold much water, because perceptually, human beings understand such things—and the character doesn’t pass the smell test, even if regular people don’t happen to know billionaires. It was a story written by ideological academic types making movies in Santa Monica—in a bubble of reality not reflective of the world outside of the valley. It didn’t surprise me to learn that Alex Garlan is from London, where socialism is as common as fog in that famous English city, and that socialist training certainly found its way into Ex Machina. That’s not to say that Alex Garlan is not a talented writer, just that he’s missing some things in the experience department. And that is the story of the two academics behind HitchBOT. It’s a cute idea, but it is rooted in a naiveté common to those still learning about human behavior from cultures foreign to American capitalism. To them the United States is a scary place full of aggressive individuals. But in reality, it is not the viciousness of those produced within that capitalist society. Rather, it’s about the fear in value assessment of those who judge such experiments as nonsense, and useless. The fear is derived from the opinion not toward the HitchBOT, but toward the academics themselves. They have great insecurity that American society at large, off the college campuses and Santa Monica bars has any use for them. And to a large extent, their fears would be correct.
When it is wondered why large, massive companies can be beaten by small ones it is important to understand the Metaphysics of Quality, as I’ve said many times. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Essentially, you have to be a quality person to recognize other quality people. Then you have to trust yourself enough to not feel threatened to give them the right to rule themselves, only providing guidance to keep them on the tracks. But you have to encourage them to function in the scary front part of the train with you instead of in the back where it’s safe—with the other Theory X people. The federal government for instance is extremely Theory X oriented. If people do not comply with the federal government the IRS and other methods are used to force people into submission. This is not good for the national economy and profit-making endeavors. Only true laissez-faire capitalism will work properly for the most people with a trickle down effect from the few competent to the lax second-handers.
As most of the world functions from second-handers—those who live through others for their sustenance both leadership and their followers prefer Theory X as a kind of safe foundation. Those are the back of the train people who are always analyzing the contents of the metaphorical train. They often miss their decision gates because they are in the back of the train as opposed to the front and don’t know to take corrective action until the decision gate has passed. The bigger the company, the bigger their train, and naturally the more people who are Theory X types who are safely in the back of it. To put it more obviously, Hollywood has been making a lot of money for a lot of years. They know what makes movies good and bad—or at least they should. But the big studios still find themselves in a crap shoot with picking box office winners—which is why they are making so many retreads of old movies to keep their numbers up. Collective decision-making does not make “superhuman” leadership decisions. A room full of geniuses will not improve the net results if all those people are in the back of the train instead of the front.
Hoffman Laissez Faire offers a safe seat at the front with the leader who is a visionary. The leader takes the brunt of all the statistical abuse so to keep it off the people following him leaving them to live as freely as possible thus making them immensely productive. The leader’s job in such a case is not only to make decisions quickly at the decision gates, but to fight off the tendency of second-handers from the back of the train into slowing things down so that they can acquire group consensus in decision-making tasks. The leader of Hoffman Laissez Faire keeps the throttle down from the Theory X types in the back of the train by any means possible, so that they cannot threaten the sanctity of those functioning at the front. With the risk and harassment gone, the Hoffman Laissez Faire participants are free to invest of themselves without fear of being plucked dry from second-handers allowing them to directly benefit from their efforts. When this power is unleashed a giant company is no match for a small one, or a group of powerful minds comparable to one unleashed of their social adhesion to the collective. By allowing individuals to invest in the front of the train, everyone on the train benefits even if most of the population is at the back.
To properly accept such a thing it is important to know that the success or failure of the entire endeavor rests on the ability to recruit. The examples I gave of two people I personally admire, Sam Wyche and Claire Lee Chennault were both extremely strong recruiters. Wyche handed the Buccaneers their first Superbowl win by recruiting future Hall of Famers. Other coaches later got the credit, but it was Wyche who scouted and recruited them. The same with the military general Chennault who was head of the AVG Flying Tigers in China—his bounty hunting American volunteers maintained an extraordinary kill ratio through the early part of the war, of which General Stilwell took much of the credit for as a second-hander. Stilwell was the typical Theory X type leader whereas Chennualt was using a very early form of Hoffman Laissez Faire. It takes a good mind to find good people and the battle is won and lost during recruiting. Not everyone is suited for Hoffman Laissez Faire so sorting them out during the recruiting process is the most important part of the task.
That is the reason that governments and people in general are resistant to all forms of laissez-faire, because as second-handers they cannot participate equally with those at the front of the train—from the back. By their natural inclination their desire for the safety at the back of the train makes them unqualified for Hoffman Laissez Faire. As stated, it is the job of a leader at the front to make a safe environment and to encourage risk taking with personal investment. That is how new recruits can be trained to accept such a method. But there will always be at least 50% who are too timid to reside in the front of anything. They are natural followers who will always desire to be at the back of the train of any thought.
Companies or governments who do not understand this dynamic relationship are doomed to failure. They attempt to hide that failure through Theory X behavior, but the productive output cannot be ignored if compared next to the results of Hoffman Laissez Faire. The only way to avoid such a comparison is to hope to suppress the evidence. With Sam Wyche he was fired from several jobs when new team owners were looking for familiar back of the train thinkers conducting themselves as variations of Theory X or Theory Y personalities. The same happened to the great General Chennault. One of the greatest flying aces of World War II was trained under Chennault, Tex Hill. But Chennault was pushed aside by Stilwell and President Truman. Chennault warned the American government of what would happen to China after the war, which of course nobody listened because decisions were being made at the back of the train by Theory X types, and communism swept across the region from Vietnam to Korea dragging America into two more major wars and a PR battle that continues to this very day. Hoffman Laissez Faire prevents such lunacy by not allowing the second handers an equal seat at the table of decision-making creating a climate where only front of the train people are respected for their roles in leadership participation. Those at the back of the train are not ridiculed for their lack of courage, just not allowed to share in the credit with those who put themselves on the cutting edge and took all the chances.
By rewarding the strong and courageous Hoffman Laissez Faire out performs all other forms of management. It may look like a hands off Theory Y approach from those at the back of the train, but it’s actually quite encompassing. But the key to the endeavor is to recruit the right kind of people—in knowing the difference between a second-hander and a potential leader in their own right who desires to be free to live outside the controls of Theory X and invest of themselves for their own benefit.
If the world understood this concept better, they would be more adequately prepared to vote for the correct politicians in their government to think from the front of the train instead of from the back and to utilize laissez-faire leadership styles to unleash the market potential of their countries. With such an understanding laissez-faire capitalism would thrive much better than under the Theory X style of most Washington bureaucrats. Those Theory X types will always be there, and it is up to leaders under the Hoffman Laissez Faire system to keep them from contaminating the efforts of those who are at the front of the train under the understanding of the Metaphysic of Quality. Failure to stop that contamination will prevent the best and brightest of us all from saving everyone else who needs saving. They just won’t admit it until it’s too late. A company cannot be measured as successful by its size alone, but by the quality of its leadership. Governments are the same, there must be good quality people at the front, and those types are only found with proper recruiting. And to find them, it takes one to know one. Second-hander types are not capable of seeing such people. They occasionally get lucky, but they can’t tell one from the other. Under Hoffman Laissez Faire quality people are as easy to see as a blue sky during a mid day of cloudless summer sun. And that is half the battle to achieving infinite levels of needed success.
Yet again Donald Trump shows why he is gaining support. I certainly support the way he conducted himself in regard to the Scott Walker campaign and the Des Moines Register leaving Amalia Nash to issue a statement after being banned from a Trump event, “We are disappointed that Mr. Trump’s campaign has taken the unusual step of excluding Register reporters from covering his campaign event in Iowa on Saturday because he was displeased with our editorial. As we previously said, the editorial has no bearing on our news coverage. We work hard to provide Iowans with coverage of all the candidates when they spend time in Iowa, and this is obviously impeding our ability to do so. We hope Mr. Trump’s campaign will revisit its decision instead of making punitive decisions because we wrote something critical of him.” That something that they wrote was that he was “a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines, name recognition and polling numbers not by provoking thought, but by provoking outrage.” Ahhhh, did the Register get its little feelings hurt? And again from one of Scott Walker’s top supporters who called Trump a “dumb, dumb” in an email—what were they thinking?
What the press is trying to invoke is that silly little game that is taught in all public schools, the peer pressure application of majority rule. The press and these other campaigns can’t fight Trump toe to toe, so they are seeking to build consensus against him with name calling and other insults hoping to paint him a certain way to slow his momentum. This is because their methods of advancement are not built around aggressive offense, but manipulative defense. The Register wants to be able to editorialize with immunity Trump’s campaign, but they don’t want to get an editorial about their behavior back. And Walker’s supporters want their man to stay in front, so they think some peer pressure insult will preserve that. We live in a world that does not expect conflict these days allowing for passive aggressive types to rule in their usual manner—through non confrontation feeding their manipulation abilities. In this way 5’ 5” runts can take down a 6’ 3” billionaire who is obviously more gifted in verbal insults and financial backing—not to mention physical presence. That is the spirit behind their insults. They don’t want peace, or a good campaign ran cleanly by all candidates. They just want to shoot without being shot back.
But Trump engages everyone he can. I’m sure he can’t get to every insult, but he gets to as many as he can, which is refreshing to see from someone who is running for a political seat. We have had to endure many years now of President Obama’s skinny little ass manipulating his way into power unchecked, largely because nobody punched him in the nose directly for the insults he casts out like water over Niagara Falls. That silly behavior goes back to all our school days where if a bunch of kids make fun of you, the implied assumption is that it is your burden to change the behavior to avoid the insult. But that’s not the right thing to do. When someone challenges you, you have to meet that challenge with either equal force, or greater force. My policy of course is greater force. It works very effectively. When someone takes a shot at me I go well out of my way to make their life a living nightmare. If they do it with passive aggressive implementation, I’ll give it back to them 20 times over. If they do it with force, I’ll match it or surpass it. But I typically answer every insult eventually. Sometimes it’s good to play a waiting game with those challengers, to let them think you’ve forgotten and that they’re off the hook. But that’s part of the game in winning. Sometimes it takes me ten years or more to collect on a debt, but collect I always do—with interest. It’s a policy I’ve lived by all of my life. I don’t go out of my way to make trouble. I live and let live until someone takes a shot. Then the cannons turn toward that target and I’ll hunt them down until I get them and then some. 100% of the time. I’m 47 and have always been like that, and it’s not going to change now. Trump I’m happy to say is precisely the same way, and I LOVE IT!
I understand what he meant regarding Walker when Trump said “Finally I can attack,” now that the rival presidential candidate has openly made a move against him. It’s hard sometimes to know who is doing what. In the passive aggressive world that we live in it’s hard to know friend from foe, so I usually do a lot of checking before making a commitment to hunt someone down. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I know it will be hell for them, and I don’t want to do it unjustly. Walker is a good presidential candidate under regular circumstances and he did a good job in Wisconsin under hard conditions. But now that I know more about his wife, I’ll never vote for him. She’s not the kind of woman I want to see as first lady—that’s for sure. But Walker as Trump said is a fighter so that makes him worthy of consideration, and some respect. That respect can make one pause when a punch in the mouth is needed. So now that the Walker camp has been caught as not being such a nice presidential candidate, Trump can now look beyond that initial respect and unleash his fury on the Wisconsin governor. It’s a very liberating feeling to know who your enemies are, because it gives a clean target to go after.
But in this passive aggressive world that we’re living in, that’s not how people do things. So they are a little shocked when they get it back when they give it. I learned this method in public school and took those lessons into my adult life. As a kid I resisted joining with group affiliations, which seemed to be the entire point of public school. I think the facts easily support that assumption. Kids picked at me for a number of years as I studied their behavior. Instead of complying I learned how to deal with them through bullwhip training, martial arts and essentially learning to fear nothing. By the time I was a junior in high school I had a reputation of having no fear of anything under any circumstances. And when I fought someone, they didn’t get back up on their own. It started with me actually on the first day of school in kindergarten. I never complied with bullies. In the first grade I actually stabbed the biggest bully in school in the eye with a pair of scissors. He tried again to come after me in the 7th grade, many years later and I fought him in the hall so hard that I actually threw him into the principal’s office. Yes I got into a lot of trouble, but it was well worth it. Once I hit high school starting with being a freshman I was already refining myself into what I would become as an adult. By the time I was a senior, I was untouchable, it didn’t matter who or how many. The only real vulnerability was from close friends who you’d think you’d never have to fight like that, but of course, sometimes you do. By the time I was 19 and married I turned my attention not to individual bullies, but companies and politicians, which is something I’ve been involved with now for almost thirty years. I hate bullies but I love to punish them and I can give it to them any way they dish it. And it feels good to bring justice to their antics.
Trump obviously understands everything I just said and he likely has a similar background. People who avoid being broken as children make much better adults. You can tell who is who based on their behavior. Passive aggressive types are largely those who have been broken through peer pressure in the past, so they resort to those strategies to gain control in the future. They will lie right to your face, and then do something entirely different behind your back. Because they were broken at some point in their past, they resort to manipulation to rise to the top hoping that they can sneak past the other bullies with passive aggressive domination. And it works with most of the world, except for people like Trump. Being an unbroken man he has no idea what failure is, or losing to someone else-not to a level where he didn’t recover his loses in some way or another. It’s true; you can’t win everything all the time. You can’t control the success or failure of other people. They may have luck in their sails and may come out on top in a rivalry with you. But you can control your reaction to it, and if you keep the pressure on and press, and press, and press—eventually they will open up and you can take your shot.
I want a president who will take the shot. I don’t want a wimpy soothsayer, I want someone who will pursue his enemies to the ends of the earth and destroy them utterly if needed. I have no problem with that. I live by the same code and clearly understand it. The world would be filled with a lot more respect if everyone behaved like that. For instance, I don’t bother people until they bother me. I put up with a lot to give other people their individual freedom, even if I don’t agree with their choices. I do not impose myself on others. But when they impose on me, that’s it. They make enemies of me for life. I never forget, or forgive. And the more Trump talks, the more I learn that he is the same type of personality. That is why if the press and other candidates want a civil debate with Trump, they better not fire any shots toward him. He’ll thrive on their attempt and will pursue them forever. It’s in his nature. If they start something the bets are safe that he’ll finish it. If he’s like me he’ll still be thinking about such things 20 to 30 years later and will have the silent checklist in his head that he’ll only erase once they’ve departed the earth in the form of a grave. For me, not even then. But not everyone wants to carry around grudges that long, so I wouldn’t expect that of every A type personality. But a lot of them do, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump isn’t one of them.
There are many kinds of wealth, and in many ways I think I’m far better off than Donald Trump. I wouldn’t trade my life for his. But I find myself having an awful lot in common with the 2016 presidential candidate, as many do which is one of the reasons for his popularity. With that said it is obvious that Trump is learning how to be a political candidate and is refining his approach that is most evident to me in this Anderson Cooper interview which is long, but illustrates several very important sociological behavior patterns for which he’s personally destroying. Trump is able to give this kind of interview because he’s literally a free man. That freedom comes from his wealth, which I understand. I share with him some of that freedom, so I understand what makes him tick, and that is why I’m so enthusiastic for his candidacy. Watch carefully.
Most powerful to me in that interview was Trump’s revelations about lobbyists, when he declared he’s been on the other side of the ball most of his life as a businessman and understands how the system works. When he says that he could get a politician to jump off a ledge he’s serious and I believe him emphatically. Cooper tried to pin him down with guilt about his participation in the system by using lobbyists to control politicians as Trump chided back that as a businessman he had to play the game–because that’s how the game is played. Trump then stated more or less that he wants to run so he can change the rules of that game. As a president, he couldn’t be bought. As a president there is nothing the White House can give him that he doesn’t already have. As a 69-year-old man who has made $10 billion dollars of worth, I believe he wants to sincerely contribute his independence to the philosophic debate of preserving the United States.
When Trump says that there is no politician that can turn this country around, he is absolutely right. When a lobbyist can control politicians the way they do, the system is hopelessly beyond repair. Trump additionally stated to Cooper during the interview that if he were in the White House, he would never leave, and would work hard while there—so much so that he wouldn’t have time to comb his famous hair. And I believe him. Trump may be arrogant, he may love to see himself on television, he may be narcissistic, but without question he is the hardest working candidate running for president. I recognize within that arrogance some of myself. When you work harder than other people, and people don’t respect your hard work, you have to learn to do things for yourself—because you see what needs to be done while others do not. The world doesn’t thank you for things that are done for which they don’t understand the value—but only in hindsight. When a person is on the cutting edge, often only they understand the treasure of that position, so they act on behalf of themselves knowing that people will thank them later. In this respect I share a lot in common with Trump. I believe him when he says he’d be the hardest working president that the White House has ever seen. He’d work hard not so that people would reward him, but because he personally desires to do a good job judged off his measuring stick. That is a tremendous difference between him, and everyone else, not just in who is running, but in who has ever run.
Another place that Anderson Cooper effectively brought up an important part of the Trump candidacy was over the question regarding faith. Virtually all of human society believes that faith in a deity makes politicians malleable enough to serve as public representative in a democracy. This is the most idiotic notion of any social analysis. On matters of faith I answer questions in a similar way as Trump does. I do not owe my life to a god of any kind. I do not give credit to my good deeds to some un-named creature only interpreted for me by some insufficient minds who might have written the Bible or Koran hundreds of years ago and translated for me by churches. I trust what I can see and touch—and if something exists in the quantum realm of the very infinitely small, I use my own experience to guide my thoughts. I do not trust the interpretations of history. But I certainly wouldn’t call myself an atheist. I don’t pray to some god to help something to occur, I utilize myself to unleash my potential to help solve problems. In a lot of ways the power of positive thinking is like praying. At some point in the distant past human beings recognized that the act of praying could shape the events of history—perhaps in small ways, but enough so that the act was worth doing. But strong, independent people have learned more, which just praying doesn’t do it, but the power of positive thinking goes several steps further. Trump is that kind of religious person. He is such a free man that he doesn’t feel he needs to kneel before a god whom he has never met other than through interpretations of others—to surrender his logic to the supernatural.
To assume that god will listen to billions of desperate voices and shape world events to their liking is absurd. It is even worse to expect a leader of the human race to pray to a deity for guidance. Who knows really what might answer such a prayer—the gods of the Holy Bible, the god of the Maya, of the Muslim, or the Asian—nobody really knows. In my experience there are many tricksters who live in the spiritual realm, many soothsaying mind-watchmen who will gladly steer an undefended mind to their doom just as there are car salesmen who will take your money knowing full and well that you can’t afford what they are selling. There is no way to know unless you meet these deities with your own eyes and touch them with your hands what they are up to, so trusting them would be absolutely foolish. Now, honoring what’s good about spiritual revealers is a tremendous positive, and Trump stated as much with Cooper. He lives his life in a way that he feels he shouldn’t have to ask for any forgiveness from a god. That statement is a powerful one. Who wants a leader who will surrender the sanctity of the United States to the prayer of some unproven manic who lives in the 5th or even 11th dimension hoping to get a boost to their ego by destroying the minds of those limited four-dimensional beings on planet earth with misdirection. Cooper represents a status quo opinion of politicians that has created some really major problems over the years. If politicians can make voters believe they are connected in some way to the afterworld, then they are free to repeat history as just another corrupt emperor, ruthless dictator, pharaoh or Pope. For instance, the current Pope Francis from Argentina is a maniacal socialist. We are supposed to believe that he went from a nightclub bouncer to a religious leader because some smoke came out of church chimney. And this guy is going to lead the world spiritually into progressive concerns? Give me a break. He might be a nice man, but a leader of human society—absolutely not. Is he connected to god, even less likely? Giving such people a seat at the table of leadership is like asking a dog to not eat a plate of food placed before them when their owners leave the room. Politicians and religious leaders are all made of the same secondary stuff. They live through others, not of their own individuality, and are therefore ill-equipped to lead a nation of individuals driven by a pure capitalist economy. Trump’s answers to Cooper on religion were very interesting, and I understand Trump completely, maybe more than Trump actually does. He has nothing to feel guilty about—even though Cooper obviously didn’t understand the answer. More than anything, I think that religious presumption is what gets all republics into trouble. Keep god in the church on Sunday or in your hearts during study. Keep it out of the realm of leadership. Leadership is a task for mankind on planet earth in a four-dimensional lifestyle. Those are the rules of the game, and we have to live with them unless those rules can be changed from the other side.
The theme of the interview essentially came down to the fact that Trump knows how to play the game of both religion and lobbyists and that he is best equipped to change the rules if he’s on the other side of things. John Boehner might be the third most powerful person in the world, but if the Pope comes to America to give a speech, Boehner is likely to listen to the church leader’s comments about the poor and destitute hoping to get into heaven than Trump would—and that makes Trump a better potential leader. Boehner might say because the Pope whispered in his ear that it is good to help the poor with sacrifice and altruism. That would be because Boehner is a second-hander who lives through other people himself. He needs money too from people like Trump to stay in power, so he will regulate his thoughts to a deity to guide him through life’s mysteries. Whereas Trump will also help the poor, he’ll tell them to get a job—and if there isn’t a job, he’ll make one through capitalism. That is the main difference between Donald Trump and everyone else. He’s a truly free man who works harder than everyone else, and has earned the right to say what he wants. And America needs such a person right now—otherwise it may fail to exist for four more years. We really are at a pinnacle of existence, and it will take more than prayer or lobbyists to pull us from the brink.
Dear reader, you should know by now that I do all this to make things easy to understand in a world that from afar looks very complicated. But it’s really not Much of what’s happening to us as a country is directly blamed on tricks that soothsayers are conducting to put us to sleep so they can inspire an insurrection against capitalism. Both political parties are involved, perhaps unaware of the scope of the trouble, but there is nowhere to turn for the American voter, because the system has been corrupted by soothsayers. So to make it easier to understand the recent Iranian deal, the reason that Donald Trump is so popular, and to what extent Saul Alinsky tactics are used to drive collective culture toward evil ends—I have put two hours of radio programming together done with Matt Clark at WAAM, Ann Arbor that specifically breaks down these topics so they are easy to understand. On the clip below, the first 30 minutes or so, it is Matt and a lit up phone bank of callers who wanted to talk about Donald Trump. At the end of that show I was one of the callers and we put a book end on that segment. Then Matt and I did a show together as a direct continuation of the previous show and dug deep into the Donald Trump issue as well as the Iranian deal struck recently by the White House. I would suggest you take a break from the text, hit play and just listen to the entire clip for a while, and enjoy a summation of these epic events on some of the finest talk radio you will hear anywhere. Also included in this article are short video clips from the extended show to make summations a bit easier. You should watch these and share them with as many people as possible.
The leader of the four realizes that the situation is hopeless so he too joins his friends in embracing death. An angel shows up above him and whispers him to sleep—ultimately death. She tells him, “the snow is warm.” The leader complies for a little bit, but soon realizes that something isn’t quite right. He knows better. The snow is not warm—it’s freezing cold. He wonders why she would tell him something like that because if he did embrace the snow and its cold, the remainder of his body heat would be extinguished and he’d die. So why would she tell him something obviously not good for him? He pushes back a little, and then she pushes him back down into the snow. At first he tries just a little, but after she refuses to let him get back up he gets angry and pushes back harder. Soon a struggle ensues and she gets angry and her beautiful face turns into a skull and she dissipates into the storm taking the elements with her. She was a Grim Reaper type of character and had caused the entire ordeal hoping to rob the four men of their life. He quickly rallies his friends back to life and they soon discover that the base camp they had been searching for is only twenty feet away. They were that close, yet so far.
Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer and is a book designed to convince people that the “snow is warm,” essentially. He was an evil man committed to evil deeds, and Hillary Clinton was a huge fan, even doing a college paper on him. Barack Obama taught Saul Alinsky tactics while in Chicago, so the roots of this evil man are in our current political system. When it is suspected that evil is at work, the best way to think of it is with the Akira Kurosawa story. Donald Trump has made himself the lead mountain climber pushing back against death only to discover that the chaos of our condition is a cleverly disguised assault designed to destroy America—pure and simple. After listening to the Matt Clark broadcast with me as a guest we spelled it out quite clearly for you. It is beyond debate at this point.
Even the way that the media attempted to pit leading Republicans against Trump when they realized the billionaire could have cared less about the criticism he received over the immigration issue, or the ban from the Huffington Post to treat him as a serious candidate. Most of the leading presidential candidates were pulled into the trap of defending John McCain as a war hero when in Trump’s world, getting caught is a sign of failure. But in the Beltway it makes you “honorable.” So the machine of politics showed its fangs as Trump has pushed back and forced all to look at where we stand with certain issues, like blind appreciation of anybody who is a service member, or this constant push to get candidates to apologize for something as if to force them to admit that they are guilty of going against the collective consensus of our media culture. They want us all to apologize for knowing that the “snow is cold,” when they try to tell us it’s warm.
The standard mode of operation for all progressives is to lie. They exist exclusively for the purpose of manipulation with some common good in sight that only they can interpret. They do not care how they have to achieve that common good, or what individual lives they have to destroy to do so, they only care that they achieve their intended goal. To that purpose, progressives have intentionally destroyed the minds of “black” people so to unify them behind progressive desires, such as the expansion of the welfare state, government-owned housing, political voting blocks and the ever so valuable infusion of public guilt so to “progress” society away from their traditions. The most dramatic visible evidence of their lying schemes centers on the Confederate Flag. There is no modern symbol that better articulates the problem of progressivism than that flag of rebellion associated with the South during the Civil War. To understand why, I encourage you dear reader to watch the following video from a man of color defending the Confederate Flag to understand why.
It was always Republicans who stood against slavery and Democrats who were for it. In the Civil War it was Democrats who raised the Confederate Flag against the union to defend slavery rights, it was Democrats who started the KKK, and it is presently Progressive Democrats who have clipped the wings of millions of black youth intellectually to lower the bar of expectation for their own government-run institutions. Democrats are at fault for racism in the first place, and they are dramatically at fault for the modern problems associated with such social divisions. Republicans were the abolitionists, they are the party of Lincoln and Jefferson who was one of the first to point to the practice and declare that it was wrong, when the rest of the world was advocating the benefits.
Yet modern progressives have managed to hang all the hate they created on Republicans guilty of nothing more than of following Christ’s mantra of turning the other cheek all for the purpose of repackaging their brand. Democrats needed to improve their image, so they did what they always advocate for, they stole the values of the Republicans and dumped their garbage on the rival party to re-market themselves and make a voting block out of the black population. Republicans made up of mostly Christians loved their neighbor as themselves and gave forgiveness to their enemies in the Democratic Party allowing the good work they had been doing to be stolen by a looting band of vile progressives.
Saul Alisnky refined many progressive tactics of aggression against American tradition and he purposely sought to attack the heart of Republicanism, the middle class. He specifically states in Rules for Radicals “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” The enemy in this case was Christian Republicans in America who sought to expand capitalism to the far corners of the world as a premier American export. The communist leaning Saul Alinsky who learned to be the man he was directly from Frank Nitti, the mobster enforcer of Al Capone himself became the guiding light for modern progressives who used those learned tactics to neutralize their opposition and attack American life directly. Alinsky continues to say, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself. In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Of course Alinsky’s methods appear evil to the Christian—because they are relatively so. Rules forRadicals opens with the following quote, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves of and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” None of this Alinsky analysis would be relevant if it wasn’t directly connected to two of his students who have been residing in the White House, and were openly seeking to destroy an establishment that built the greatest country on earth—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Hillary is such a fan of Alinsky that she wrote a 1969 thesis, “There is Only the Fight: An analysis of the Alinksy Model.” Alinsky further defines his radicals which so enamored Clinton and Obama as “one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government.” This is essentially what has happened before our very eyes and left most reeling from the consequences. And those consequences were never more evident than in re-branding Republicans with the Confederate Flag ownership in such a short period of time. Black America today has forgotten that Martin Luther King was a Republican, that it was Republicans that ended slavery starting a chain reaction that would permeate the entire globe, and that Republican capitalism was the best tool for upward mobility for black families. Instead, Democrats sought to once again throw blacks in chains not literally but intellectually, and pass the blame off to their rivals in the Republican Party who graciously accepted the burden out of their Christian duty to love their neighbor. Alinsky also intended to exploit the love and generosity of the average Christian to destroy their way of life. And the modern disciples of Alinsky are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—and they are performing the task of evil unchecked.
The evidence couldn’t be clearer than around the issue of the Confederate Flag which every major company who even sells toys bearing the old Southern flag have been removed from the shelves to prove that mainstream America is not racist. White America has once again accepted the progressive definition for things and declared that the flag is a representation of hate and is offensive to blacks. But the tactical element in attacking the Southern symbol of rebellion is in undermining the Christian faith that is still very strong there, and their continued resistance to unionized workplaces. Attacking the Confederate Flag on the heels of tragedy has nothing to do with racism, as the orator in the video expressed quite strongly, it is about destroying the culture of the South so that they will merge with progressive thinking by default and be forced to prove that they are not racist just because they are from the South.
Alinksy learned from Capone’s bands of thugs openly enjoying the fruits of mobster power. Alinsky considered himself a non-participating observer in the professional activities of the Capone mob joining their social life of food, drink and women. He considered it heaven, and it was within that world that he instructed a new generation to expand the power of organized crime into our federal government of which the Confederate Flag is but the latest power grab in undermining the establishment with a multilayered strategy rooted in guilt. It is also why Hillary Clinton operates her life more like a mob boss reminiscent of Al Capone than a bra burning hippie from the 60s—because she learned from Alinsky.
When it is thought by a largely Christian world why the American government seems to be completely against them it is because of Alinsky’s teachings to the modern politicians of prominence who learned from the Capone mob and dedicated his work to Lucifer—directly. Progressives are against those who stand for tradition, even to the point that they happily lit the White House into rainbow colors to dance on the sensibilities of those against gay marriage—to rub their face in it like a dog who shit on the floor. Progressives told the Christian world that they will accept sodomy and perverted sex without judgment, or they will be rung through the chambers of ridicule through a press they largely control, just like Al Capone used to control the press of Chicago—with charisma and deceit. Nobody wanted to know where the bodies were buried, because they wanted to believe that nobody could possibly be so evil as to say one thing to their faces, and do such vile acts behind their backs. Such a revelation might destroy their Christian sensibilities of moral conduct and demand that they fight the battles of Armageddon not at some future time when Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, but right now without any warriors from heaven taking up a battle flag to declare that it is alright under the laws of God. When it is wondered what is really behind the removal of the Confederate Flag from mainstream society—you can know clearly dear reader that it is Lucifer himself—and he trusts that humanity is too weak-minded to confront him. But not everyone is.
If you’ve ever worked for a complete idiot who believes that people follow titles instead of leadership, then you already know that defiance is sometimes needed in order to do a good job as defined by a sustainably good work ethic. Government officials are by their very nature prone to incompetence and the belief that it is their titles that people will follow—that if only a majority of the people who elect them can be convinced to cast a vote—that they represent the majority opinion and are thus insulated from competent assessment. The moment they get a nameplate on their desk they believe that they are so entitled to lead in any direction they wish without having any other qualification. The military is full of these types of people as is almost every position in government. However in the private sector where the best and brightest are encouraged to thrive, and to rise up to challenge management through healthy competition it is there where all things truly good emerge. Very little good can come from a system where incompetent people rule over the good, or that the good are prevented from making things better through their natural inclination by tyrannical power-hungry supervision. That is why in the United States we celebrate the 4th of July. It is a holiday of defiance and a reminder that sometimes idiots in charge have to be removed so not to ruin the lives of the good.
Leadership is all about respect, when good people know a better person is in a position to guide them to prosperity. For instance, people followed George Patton to the ends of the earth because they believed in the man as he was everything he advertised. Hitler would not have been defeated without Patton in a command position in Europe. A million pin-headed bureaucrats throughout the world gathered together in a thousand circle-jerk meetings about how to defeat the rising dictator and could not stop him with all the troops around the globe at their disposal. They had to have Patton to perform the task and break up the Nazi encampments all the way to Berlin. Patton was effective because people believed in him. People don’t lay down their lives for titles; they do it for people they respect. Without that respect, strategic objectives are impossible—except for the occasional shit-shot that just happens to work by happenstance, like a winning lottery ticket.
As my son-in-law and I were buying fireworks for our family 4th of July party I couldn’t help but notice the nature and body language of the people lining up out the door in the middle of a mid-week afternoon in Lawrenceburg, Indiana to buy fireworks. There was defiance in their presence as they were very conscious that they were illegally buying fireworks to take back across state lines to fire off at their homes while law enforcement stood down over the holiday weekend. Americans won their independence from England with defiance, and the 4th celebrates that defiance. It is the heart of the entire holiday. It is a holiday that celebrates rebellion from incompetent over-reaching leadership in the form of a blood inherited throne. The king of England expected people in the American colonies to remain loyal to his title, and that was simply not the case—it’s not how human beings work.
The settlements involved in westward expansion were about defiance. The boldest and most ingenious of the new American nation headed west to be free to function from the increasingly bureaucratic east. Along the way there were conflicts with Indian tribes, all of whom had acquired their land through similar battles with rival tribes who were meeting similar rebels seeking opportunity, and the Americans won by sheer will and cantankerous perseverance. The new nation flooded with ambitious people fleeing the titles of Europe for at least the opportunity to be their own people—to rule their own lives. The Indians could not stop that human desire to be rid of incompetent rule—that was the cause of westward expansion—to have the opportunity and freedom to live their own lives, and it built the greatest nation on earth—until America ran out of land and was forced once again to reconcile under the rule of people with titles, who sit behind desks bureaucratically running the lives of people from behind a nameplate bringing the same kind of ineffective stewardship to America as what we fled from in Europe.
Today’s Barack Obama, or Mitch McConnell types could not lead troops in the way that George Patton did, or even Sam Houston in Texas against Santa Anna. They are not respected and are incapable of real leadership. They are figureheads of administration and when they overstep their boundaries, they should be removed through elections. If they work the system in such a way—as they have—to stay in power regardless of public opinion then the Bill of Rights provides ways of preserving the American Constitution by forcible removal which sometimes is an unfortunate option. That is why we have the Second Amendment—it’s not to hunt rabbits, it’s to remove tyrannical governments from hiding behind nameplates and destroying our freedoms. The First Amendment is there to warn those knuckle-draggers of the danger to them if they continue to proceed—out of fairness.
Personally I think the American Constitution is way too Hamiltonian—too Federalist for my liking. My sentiments reside in The Anti-Federalist papers which I always have near me chronicling the Constitutional Convention Debates of 1787-1788. It is because of those Anti-Federalist Papers that we have a Bill of Rights—and thus the Second Amendment. It is clearly the plight of the Federalist types who are today’s soft bellied conservatives, progressives, libertarians, and blind patriots who accept with a shade of incompetency an adherence to The Federalist Papers and perhaps some Supreme Court case-law as a means of revision in a “living” document evolving over time by more desk sitting bureaucrats. Case in point, Justice John Roberts of the present court—I was thinking about him as I watched people buy fireworks at the store my son-in-law and I was at. The store itself was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week all the way up to the 4th. Proudly people were spending $300 to $1000 on explosives in large shopping carts to fill their cars with defiance and they had a swagger in their step that they don’t have otherwise. It was in the notion of defiance that they were most proud and it is there that the 4th of July holiday is best defined. It was reassuring to them to know that they were defying the law on the 4th, that just because someone like John Roberts stacked the court against the American Constitution recently with damaging case-law that future lawyers would use to make lots of money and further encumber individual freedom in favor of collectivist sentiment—that they had a means of rebellion against incompetency. I know that the Constitution is only part of the debate. The Anti-Federalist Papers represent still a large sector of the country that will always insist on defiance and freedom. All they lack is a leader who will unite them against a tyrannical government. I happen to know a few of those types of people, and right now we are using the First Amendment to help those name plate bureaucrats know their place. But at some point, the Second Amendment may be needed to remove the corruption and scum from the K-Street brothels, and Sodom and Gomorra scandals of the Beltway. Because they don’t know what they are doing, and are not equipped to lead us to a prosperous tomorrow.
The debates in The Anti-Federalist Papers tell the story of a nation reluctant to give control of the nation over to a central authority—because of the tendency of the weak to seek power and refuge behind a nameplate only to become everything that America fought from England only to become again was too tempting. There comes a time where the people of America must show defiance not just on the 4th of July, but the 5th, and 6th and onward to throw off the poor leadership of the nameplate types and free themelves to the best and brightest among them. Not the slickest talker or the most manipulative Shakespearian back-stabber. But the best that their society can produce, the Pattons, the Chennaults, and the Hustons to take the nation back toward The Anti-Federalist Papers arguments thus preserving the American Constitution with a swagger that is distinctly born of a free people. When you hear the fireworks from millions of American homes, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers that they unconsciously celebrate, and is the heart of what truly keeps us free.
Well of course Ronald Hicks, vice president for SHP Leading Design defended his efforts with Patti Alderson and my old friend Bob Hutsenpiller from No Lakota Levy to demolish the Old Union School with a brand new Boys and Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty with a $6.5 million dollar facility—by saying, “If any entity other than an education-based organization wanted to function in the structure, the occupancy of the building would change. That in turn would require a change of use for the facility, which would trigger ‘substantial wholesale upgrading of the building to current code requirements in order to change the function.” As I listened to Hicks speak about such invisible mountains of opposition I turned to lock eyes with the leaders of West Chester development—they were literally in the room and could easily handle such a change of use. But the elephant in the room wasn’t really about such concerns—it was a simple deflection to hide the real mechanisms of power percolating within the Lakota school district. The accusation that any other option was simply too hard for the old historic building was intended to mask the politics at play, CLICK HERE to read how the Journal News reported the issue.
The June 30th 2015th event was a who’s who of local politics as many of the heavy hitters from behind the scenes of most things political in Butler County were present. As I spoke to Randy Oppenheimer telling him honestly that I thought he was doing a good job as the Lakota spokesman, even if he was on the wrong side of things, another old friend of mine Mark Sennet was standing behind me talking to Lakota treasurer Jenni Logan and Karen Mantia about how the area developers have always been for Lakota schools. Mark was also in No Lakota Levy with me and on this issue was against the tearing down of the old school. But his dialogue was interesting. The next time there is a levy fight, I won’t be using the developers as a way to defeat the levy. It was in fact their lack of passion and commitment to hold strong that caused the last levy to be successfully passed. They were all too willing to side with Patti Alderson because she’s always good for potential projects down the road, such as this Boys and Girls Club deal. They were able to argue higher taxes and the impact to further development, but did not have the conviction to hold their line in such public forums, which was clearly what Mark was revealing quite openly.
To continue an answer to Randy about why I have so many blog postings and say so many things within those postings, it’s really to provoke thought from those who need to think more intensely about any given topic. For instance, there are elements to this Old Union School discussion that I can cover at this site that you simply won’t read in the Cincinnati Enquirer or the Journal News. Both news outlets were present, but they are not given the kind of space in their newspapers to cover the complete story, only the surface issues. In this case going back to the year before the Alderson/Lakota deal I was leading No Lakota Levy against the next tax increase attempt, we had a nice little press conference at Bob Hutsenpeller’s office within view of the Lakota East high school facility. I had Channel 19 there as well as Channel 5, and 9. I also had the Cincinnati Enquirer there giving Michael Clark an exclusive on a story where Patti Alderson refused to work with me on helping kids pay for their high sports fees at Lakota—which was an extortion racket designed to build support for a tax increase. Since Patti refused to help the kids then by working with No Lakota Levy—because of the politics of the situation, she and the Lakota school board worked directly with Michael Clark to write a hit peace on me hoping to break up No Lakota Levy. When it really pissed me off to the point of near violence they asked for a two-year cease-fire to regroup. During that time they went to work on Bob pulling him into an open alliance with Patti on this Boys and Girls Club project. Bob is a good builder, and a good person. He was the last one standing at the end, and it was hard for him. This deal is an opportunity to repair some relationships and get involved in building something significant within the community. Patti get’s to do some charity work which she likes to do, and the Lakota school system gets to marry together a major part of the tax increase resistance to an open levy supporter facilitator to deflect future opposition. Everyone wins—right? Wrong. They left out some missing pieces to the puzzle.
I was surprised that Michael Clark didn’t want to come over and say hello to me. Even with all our back and forth bickering, Karen Mantia said hello to me. What many don’t know, and what I explained to Randy a little bit is that I primarily make my living pissing people off. I work with people who outright hate me all the time, and I know that. My goal in all these efforts is to dig out thoughts, to get to the root cause of any effort. I don’t have a desire to be liked by anyone other than my wife, by anybody. That gives me a lot of freedom to provoke honesty in people and their relationships to money. Sure I’m angry at Clark. On the day he wrote his hit piece against me I was on several professional conference calls around the city while radio stations were reading on the air the way he assembled many articles from this site into a context that greatly favored the pro levy crowd. He all by himself threw turbo fuel on an already blazing inferno and he and the Lakota school board went for my jugular clearly. But that wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened in my life, and it certainly wouldn’t be the last. So it surprised me that he didn’t even say hello. When Karen asked where I’ve been, I told her I had been busy. Lakota passed their levy and this Old Union School deal has been some of the most recent activity since the 2013 levy passage. I’ve been focused on making an argument for a nationwide abandonment of public education all together, so haven’t cared much about the daily workings at Lakota—other than I don’t want to pay the taxes. But this Old Union School deal is something that affects all of West Chester, so I attended this meeting with interest, and I will get more involved in the future when Lakota tries for another levy. So Clark might as well get used to the fact that he’s going to have to see me around town. No Lakota Levy did not die with the alliance of Bob and Patti, the ruckus of all that controversy was a recruiting tool for me to bring new blood to the fight—because the developers were wavering in their resistance. That should have been obvious to all the smart people in the room. So I wanted to thank Michael Clark for the hit piece—it showed the cards of all involved and helped me tremendously. And at its roots, that is what is behind the Boys and Girls Club—and why I am against it, because of the cards involved that are hidden from the public.
I said in the Journal article that the school board did not solicit enough opportunities for the Old Union School project. They simply took Patti’s offer bringing Bob with her and went right to work hiring Hicks to design as the architect. He’s put in considerable effort so of course he’ll defend the project. But the Old Union School sits in a region where a conscious effort to preserve the historic nature of West Chester is taking place. Once Patti stamped her name on the deal most area developers knew to stay away, so there wasn’t much solicitation as far as options involving an auction of the property. There are many buildings like the Old Union School in Norwood, Ohio for instance that have been converted to office buildings. On the outside they have the architecture of Norwood’s traditions while on the inside they are contemporary. Such an option would be a prime utilization for the Old Union School which is just down the road from Union Center and is just a football throw away from I-75 access. Just across the highway are wonderful restaurants for lunch rushes, I would find it hard to believe that there are no takers out there for that type of development. I also brought it up in the meeting but there wasn’t much time to get into the meat of it, that due to declining enrollment, Lakota is facing the possibility of further school properties coming available. My point to them was that Lakota didn’t need to control the Old Union School property as an asset, that they could afford to let it go to someone who would love it, and nurse it back to health. An office complex there would make more money for the township, so zoning approval should be achievable. The leaders of the community were there to answer that question, but Hicks didn’t really want to talk about it. Hicks and his response were equivalent to a kid in the back seat of a car saying that he wanted to go to Disneyworld from Cincinnati, but he didn’t want to ride in a car the whole way. It’s just too hard to ask for a change of use—in his eyes. What he really meant was that he wanted to protect his time in the project and the commitment his client, Patti Alderson has in the endeavor now that it’s public. It doesn’t have anything to do with hard or not. It’s political purely and nothing more.
As usual Danielle Richardson did a good job of bringing debate to the table. Without her this whole deal would have just been rubber stamped and packaged into the Lakota win column with great fanfare at the expense of the community. She composed herself quite valiantly even though she is coming up on a July 8th variance hearing with West Chester trying to keep her pet chickens. Chickens like the Old Union School is part of West Chester history and makes our community unique. The people who judge top 10 communities around the country are the same type of people who typically support school levies, so their opinions are skewed toward progressivism. Danielle has given me eggs from her chickens and they are quite good, better than the eggs you can get at the grocery—because her chickens are happy, and healthy, and proud West Chester residents. So she has more than enough fights to deal with, and she composed herself well considering the implications. She’s an Ayn Rand purist and doesn’t think she should have to get a variance from the “state” to keep her chickens—which she’s right. But there are elements of West Chester politics who are breathing heavily down the necks of leadership to be one of those top 10 national communities. They see “progress” as new buildings over old ones and measure their success by erasing history and writing their own. Danielle is fighting for more than just chickens or the preservation of the Old Union School. She is fighting to keep West Chester’s history a treasured memory—something all the powerful people in the room at the Lakota school board meeting need to take into account as they take steps forward that they can never again retract once committed.
It’s a complicated web of entanglements, but all politics is that way. What matters is not whether or not people like you. They can hate me from now until eternity. What matters is that the right things happen, and sometimes people need to be challenged in order to do the right things. I like the idea of an office complex going into the Old Union School preserving its history for the next century along a historic area of West Chester that needs to retain its old style charm amid booming development. I also like the idea of stopping by Danielle’s house for fresh eggs they way I did when I was growing up and farmers handed out eggs like trick or treat candy in this region. Then I like to go over and have lunch at Jags spending $300 on a nice big Oscar steak and a bottle of wine. I like to have options and in regard to the Old Union School, because of Patti’s involvement, the best options for Lakota were ignored—and in the end that will cost them money in lost opportunity, and a place in preserving the history of an old school-house that is one of the last remnants of a disappearing past.
I actually feel bad for many out there who have been reading here, and have listened to talk radio for some time and understood the warnings, yet didn’t fully understand what was coming. Progressives have a desire to “progress” from what we have traditionally been—which is the most economically powerful nation in the world that provides the most opportunity to the most diverse population anywhere—and to take the country to some centrally managed disaster they consider a utopia. Watching what’s happening to America presently is painful especially for those who love it. But progressives were always about performing this kind of military attack against traditionalists. They took advantage of our kindness, and the naiveté typical of American traditionalists. They have sought openly to not only progress the country beyond them—but to destroy traditional America in the process. It is now quite clear what Barack Obama meant when he said he planned to fundamentally transform America. After the Supreme Court rulings during the last week of June 2015 it is obvious what that means to progressives—and traditional Americans don’t like it.
Matt Clark was back from his honeymoon and spoke very clearly about the tragic Supreme Court decisions involving the sustaining of Obamacare and of gay marriage. From WAAM radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan Matt had one of the better summations to date during his radio show and had a parade of very intelligent callers on to articulate their frustrations.
Speaking of vacations, if you are the type who is an innovator and a strong presence in whatever company you work for, you likely notice that whenever you take a vacation there is this vast parade of people who hide in your wake and try to assert their dominance while you’re gone. The stronger you are, the more of these second-handers there are to fight over the power vacuum you leave behind. It charges their ego like children to believe that they can steer the world as well as you have—even though they really can’t. They can hold the steering wheel and guide things along opposed to doing everything from the leading edge—but it’s their fantasy and it lasts until you get back from wherever you’ve been. It gets further infuriating when they declare themselves equal to the world, because what you do takes courage, insight, imagination, and a 24-hour, 7 days a week mental maintenance that they don’t commit themselves to, yet they want to be considered equal in the scheme of things—even though they don’t put nearly as much into success as you do. I have often deliberately baited these types over the years into revealing their intentions at times I determine to minimize the damage they can do—knowing full what their behavior patterns will entail to use their destructive behavior in a way that is positive toward a strategic assessment. In a lot of ways that is what’s happening on the national stage. I know I’ve warned about it for years, Matt certainly has along with a handful of others—but at some point you have to make the decision to let the progressives choke on their own skanky bi-product. They want to drive, they want the credit, but they don’t have the ability to sustain things so they progress themselves right over the side of a cliff threatening to take the rest of the nation with them. But, guess what—I’m not following and neither will most of normal America. To show the world what progressives are really about, we have to sometimes let them show their cards to a skeptical audience—which is what they are doing. Meanwhile we clean our guns in our garages and wait to return from a brief recess. Much of the damage currently witnessed can be repaired with good management. But these progressive scumbags need to be exposed, which is what we are seeing. Left alone they are painting the White House in colors of rainbows and unicorns while the rest of the world laughs, and it’s painful to watch, but it’s the only way to expose them of their true intentions.
My wife and I have been doing a lot of traveling lately and have been on the road extensively visiting family in remote locations. At rest stops along the way I would joke to my wife in the wake of all this progressive treachery that soon there won’t even be men and women’s restrooms—that someday soon we will be able to go to the same restroom at the same time. After all, with so many men who think they are women and women who think they’re men—complete with transvestites, gays, lesbians, pedophiles, child abusers, and other sexual deviants running around—what’s the point of even spending the extra money keeping the sexes separated with two bathrooms? Everyone might as well assimilate into some slime of humanity since progressives want to remove all barriers of judgment. But we all know that won’t work, it’s just a facetious statement. Normal Americans aren’t wired like that, and they won’t accept it. You know how I know that dear reader—because of the box office from the progressive machine itself in Hollywood, which I watch very closely to take the temperature of the country. When Disney puts out a romantic animation film like Frozen featuring two gay guys kissing and it makes a billion dollars at the box office, that’s when you can start worrying. But I think we’re all safe from that kind of thing. Not because Disney or some other studio wouldn’t want to try, but because movie goers would reject the premise—because they can’t identify.
The public schools are trying to wire our children into accepting gay behavior, as is every venue that government touches, particularly the entertainment industry. But what they can’t do is make it appealing to want to stick a part of your body into someone’s butt. That just doesn’t work and doesn’t have very positive biological implication in the realm of sex. It doesn’t make for a very good romantic comedy when people are forced to watch it on their movie screens—because human beings aren’t wired that way by nature. Progressives desire to progressive beyond such limits—but they are really just making fools of themselves. They are moving the needle a few percentage points today in the direction of their desire, but it won’t last. Gay sex is gross to most people and that won’t change through the aggressive progressive marketing that we are seeing. The harder they push their agenda, the more that Americans will cry out for traditionalists to come back from their vacations and resume control, which is why it’s important to let all this nonsense play out. If we always fix things for the progressives then they can pretend they are equal to the rest of us. Sometimes it’s good to take a vacation and just let things play out so their behavior can be exposed for what it really is. I know I’ve been warning people what would happen if progressives were not properly identified as the communists they truly are. But nobody wanted to listen because they were fat, dumb and happy. The money was rolling in, the jobs were plentiful, and our sports teams were keeping us entertained. It was at that point that people like me just dropped everything and went on vacation. You have to let the progressives show what they want to give the world so the world can finally dismiss them as irrelevant.
But that doesn’t take away the pain of seeing something you care about being dismantled and abused which is what is happening in America right now. It does hurt to watch, but people need to see this now so they can vote properly for the next president in 2016. They need to want the traditionalists to come back from their vacations of gun cleaning and Bible thumping and return America to normal. But before that can happen the progressives need to have complete ownership of the failure—which is what we are seeing at this very moment. Progressives might consider it a victory lap, but that won’t last very long because failure is a lonely road and so long as the traditionalist refuse to share that failure with them, there’s nowhere else to go but to say—“I told you so.” We all did. Traditionalists aren’t conquered or on the run, they are just on a tactically selected vacation—and they will return.
The Overmanwarrior 