It is sad that there are members of our American Republic who are so naive that they cannot see the mechanisms of evil that work behind the masses of collective rule. Even though publicly there appears to be great differences behind the recently deceased Hugo Chavez who was the socialist dictator of Venezuela and President Obama, the big differences are in the checks and balances in The United States with the Constitutional power given to individual people and the House and Senate. Idealistically Chavez and Obama might as well be identical twins, as Obama if left unchecked would undoubtedly run America in the same fashion that Chavez ran Venezuela—which appears to be Obama’s intention. Progressives believe that if they don’t name an evil, that it doesn’t exist so they expect Obama’s actions to go un-noticed because the public façade is named to be conducted under the umbrella of goodness.
Yet real reporters like Bill O’Reilly are just now beginning to arrive at the dark place that many of us in the Tea Party movement have been declaring all along only to be shrugged off as conspiracy. Is President Obama intentionally attempting to harm The United States through economic collapse? I have stated that I believe Obama is doing just that and the evidence is stacking up in my favor. But even mainstream reporters who might lean conservative, but attempt to be as fair as possible are starting to catch on that there is something really wrong with President Obama. This led to one of the most explosive, and frustrated interviews that O’Reilly has had in many years when the liberal talk show host Alan Colmes attempted to defend Obama’s fiscal failures with the lure of conspiracy.
Colmes as a progressive knows that the way to diffuse a question he can’t answer is to attack the interrogative with wild accretions such as daring O’Reilly to say that Obama is deliberately attempting to harm Americans—which in the court of public perception would appear to be too extreme for believability. Even though the facts point to such a reality, O’Reilly didn’t fall for it and turned the issue around on Colmes which became a violent exchange that I wish more conservatives would do. When conservatives buckle under accusations of fascism, racism, or conspiracy theory, and dance around the issue without getting angry at the strategy they find themselves losing to the Alan Colmes type progressives nearly 100% of the time. They end up like O’Reilly’s former back-up host John Kasich who is the current governor of Ohio as watered down versions of their former conservative selves. Even when people like Kasich win in polling and elections, conservativism loses to the Progressive who is the architect of madness. Colmes deserved what he got from O’Reilly and I would hope that more people would begin to defend themselves from the tyranny of the Progressive—because their work is sinister, deceitful, and disguised with smiling faces. Their evil is well documented and can easily be seen in countries like Venezuela who operated without the checks and balances of a Republic like The United States.
In that context the actions of Rand Paul should be common place in the Senate and not the exception that it was. America should function with the enthusiasm that was shown in the great old movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Jimmy Stewart filibustered the senate in a very similar fashion that Rand Paul did in his 13 hour standoff. Government is not supposed to be like a mound of insects serving a collective cause of unity, they are supposed to be a group of representatives who hash out their differences in verbal combat for the good of the country, and display that nobody is above the law—not even a President of The United States. America does not have a king, or a dictator, so they are not able to make decisions without accountability to other representatives of the Republic having an input. The facts and behavior behind President Obama show that he has a willingness to act without respect to these checks and balances, and this should raise concern among every American. Thankfully, Senator Rand Paul acted as a proper representative under tenuous conditions, and justice has been pursued in his filibuster to the benefit of all no matter what political persuasions may be. Right is right, and Paul acted in accord with the pursuit of truth, and justice—and the American way, which is truly unique on the world stage and should be the model every country across the planet uses for their own government. The spirit of that government is often confusing and mired in controversy, but the intention was captured so wonderfully in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the Rand Paul Filibuster. The rest of the world should take notes.
The Emperor is coming to the biggest Star Warsparty in Europe, July 26-28, 2013 in Essen, Germany.
Ian McDiarmid, the actor who unforgettably played the evil galactic mastermind and the ultimate villain of the Star Wars Saga, will make a rare convention appearance at Star Wars Celebration Europe, appearing on-stage and signing autographs.
This summer’s event will mark the first Celebration in Europe at which the highly sought-after actor will appear to sign autographs and chat on the Celebration Stage, offering attendees a rare opportunity to hear about the making of Star Wars from his perspective.
In 1983, McDiarmid embodied the full depth of the dark side as the Emperor in Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi, his face hidden under intensive makeup and his eyes concealed behind yellow contact lenses. When his true face was revealed as the apparently kind and helpful Senator Palpatine in Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace (1999), he projected a different kind of evil – a subtle manipulator of galactic events, a villain hidden in plain sight. As the prequels progressed, so too did Palpatine’s plans until finally, in Revenge of the Sith (2005), McDiarmid got to play evil at its fullest, and revealed the true power of Darth Sidious.
Star Wars Celebrations bring fans of all ages together, from all points of the globe, to celebrate the pop-culture phenomenon that is Star Wars. From its young fans of Star Wars: The Clone Wars to die-hards fueled by the nostalgia for the original Star Wars trilogy; curious, casual followers; gamers, readers, costumers or collectors — there’s something for everyone at Celebration.
Rand Paul was one of only 7 Senators who voted against the NDAA Act a few years ago, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. So it should come as no surprise that Paul is filibustering in the Senate over Eric Holder’s comments about the right of President Obama to kill American citizens on American soil with the drone program. Below Harry Reid attempts to end the filibuster with a frustrated effort about 9 hours into Rand’s marathon talk. But he failed, and Rand continued on with his filibuster. Watch the attempt:
It is very refreshing to see a representative in the Republic of The United States who finally has the guts, and sincerity to match those of us who were outraged by the NDAA Act and the idea of a government that has shown a desire to gradually move itself toward tyranny. Thank goodness for Senator Rand Paul. I wish there were about 300 more politicians just like him on Capital Hill.
It’s nice to see a real life Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Look familiar!
Hanging in my home I have a painting of two ships firing canons at each other on Lake Erie during the War of 1812. I have found that the old sea battles from the romantic era of naval combat reflects modern politics in many ways. Like politics, wind speed is important as well as the direction from which it comes. Politicians often allow themselves to blow where the winds of public opinion take them, so the metaphor is a proper one. The old mast driven battleships were very much victims of circumstance, so maneuvering in position at a speed of 8 to 12 knots in order to fire upon an enemy was difficult. Even then gaining a tactical advantage over an opponent meant that one ship would have to outlast another in broadside combat at close range, because that is often what it came to. One ship would have to absorb the damage of another and hope that their ship wouldn’t sink to the oceans depths before their enemy. I see in modern politics that Republicans have constantly been outmaneuvered by the pirate tactics of the Democrats who attack not just with one spectacular galleon, but many small ones. Republicans often utilize such magnificent ships by displaying lots of guns and massive sails in a fashion that was typical of the British during their imperial rule. The Democrats use smaller, faster vessels that can overtake larger ships with mass and dirty tricks to take down their superior foes—and such a metaphor describes modern politics clearly.
Many of the tactics seen in modern politics were long ago used on the high sea battles of early naval combat, before engines and modern firepower allowed technology to trump bravery. In the picture I referred to of the 1812 conflict, I often think of the do or die nature of the ship crews who knew if they lost the fight, there would be no quarter given, no rescue from the enemy–there would be only death as their ship sank becoming their collective tombs. So it is in this spirit that I love naval conflict from the period of world history where such things occurred, which is so wonderfully rendered in the Assassin games.
Personally I love the violent combat that is required in Assassin’s Creed III to even get to the naval battles. Many game players over 35 years old might find themselves turned off at having to assassinate so many Redcoats to play through the story mode. Some of my Tea Party friends who are history buffs and are inclined to spend their spare time building model trains and ships in bottles would love the naval combat graphics engine in the game, but they would find the brutality required to play the main character difficult to get their minds around. That is the only weakness of the Assassin games. The cost of the game is worth buying just for the ship battles, but that option should be available right out of the box to the advantage of the history buff—not the seasoned video gamer who loves the violent game play—like I do.
But that aside, it was bewildering to engage in combat with several schooner style ships in the choppy seas off the coast of North Carolina where the waves were 10 to 15 feet high and pitching my ship to and fro in a very violent manner. I found that I had to time the cannon fire to these rough waters so that the cannons would reach their targets and not nose dive into the water short of their mark. I have never seen such realism in a combat simulation of any kind, and it is just incredible to look at, let alone play.
The Assassin games are bringing history to life in a way I never thought was possible. Needless to say, I am incredibly impressed. As I write this the Horseshoe Casino has just opened in downtown Cincinnati and many adults my age converged upon its opening to spend $10 dollars per game on bets they are likely to never see a positive result. The gaming that goes on in places like Vegas and casinos like The Horseshoe are consuming exercises that do little to give the players any kind of rewarding experience except for the occasional jackpot. For my money, I would rather spend my gaming time on a $60 investment into a game like Assassin’s Creed III so at least the time spent playing can put the player into the seat of history and see and feel what it was like to stand on the docks of Boston in 1773 climbing aboard a ship to sail into the open sea blasting canons into the hull of an enemy in a rip-roaring wind attempting to turn ships over as sea water washes over the decks in a bubbling froth. The ship battles are a heck of a lot more exciting than a casino slot machine that simply is designed to eat money from hopeful treasure hunters dressed to kill, but often losing the shirt right off their backs. Games like Assassin’s Creed give back where a casino gaming experience can’t.
I more heavily than ever support the Tea Party efforts of my friends in the Liberty Movement and there have been some intense discussions of late over beer, chicken wings, and flat screen televisions in dark corners of dank local pubs that have reminded me of how the Liberty Movement started in Boston during the years of 1750 to 1773. I see the same thing happening once again in America in these dark corners under hushed voices. Being a lover of Alan Eckert novels especially The Frontiersman, and Wilderness Empire which cover American development from 1720 through the early 1800’s from the East Coast to Illinois I have a love of information that covers that era. To date only The Last of the Mohicans really jumped into this time period successfully as Walt Disney attempted on several occasions to tell stories from the period without coming out like stale bread. The period of 1680 to about 1840 in America is one of the most violent, liberating, and exciting times in American history, yet it has been watered down by modern education to reflect through academic collectivism only the concerns of the Civil Rights debates of the 1850s to 1970s which were only the tail being wagged by the dog which began in the period of the First Great Awakening, roughly 1730 to 1770. So it was with some excitement that I placed Assassin’s Creed III into my Xbox to play after looking at it on my book shelf for nearly 4 months unopened, as I had other tasks to attend to over that duration.
The game is fun, and it’s wonderful to cut the heads off bad guys and do all the usual video game antics that make them so popular with young people. But Assassin’s Creed is more than just fun—it is deeply educational, and places the video game player in the sights, sounds, and politics of 1750 – 1773 America very accurately, much more than I anticipated. Within the first 15 hours of game play I took a journey from England to American aboard a four masted galleon that took 73 days. Life on the ship was brutally realistic, and even though I have read for years about such journeys, having the ability to walk around a ship, sleep, look-out across the water, talk to people working on the vessel and doing simple chores made the journey very real for me and gave me an appreciation for these boats and their tribulations that I have not received upon viewing actual replicas in port at Jamestown and other such places. In Assassin’s Creed III I have had the opportunity to walk the streets of Boston as they might have looked at the time and engaged in meetings in those same dimly lit taverns which reminded me very much of my present reality. I have met and interacted with Ben Franklin, William Johnston, George Washington, and Sam Adams just to name a few. I have found myself just walking around the streets aimlessly looking at all the street vendors, the ship yards, and various businesses in amazement. They have done in Assassin’s Creed what Walt Disney attempted to do with his Frontier Land in Disney World, which is recreate Old Boston with as much accuracy possible so that the essence of it would not be lost to time.
To get an idea of where Lexington is in relation to Boston and how the terrain outside of Old Boston might have looked to neighboring Native American tribes has been nothing short of stunning. The Native Americans speak in their native language with subtitles needing to be read, and I found that after a little while I was starting to understand some of the words in context to the situations without reading the subtitles. I could literally go on and on about the quality of Assassin’s Creed as a video game. It is an example of exception that has set a new high bar for video game development.
Yet I could not stop thinking that more kids have probably learned more about American history after playing Assassin’s Creed for 40 or 50 hours than they have in all their years of public education history classes—which makes the video game far more superior as an education tool than a stagnant teacher standing in front of a class writing on a chalk board. Assassin’s Creed would be a fun game if killing wasn’t even involved, but rather just interacting with the Founding Fathers and watching the slow gradual rebellion fester up against the English over a twenty year period. It is one thing to read about the occupation of British troops in Boston in 1770, but it is another to watch them patrolling the city and shoving you out-of-the-way if you walk in front of their formation to exert their authority, like what happens in Assassin’s Creed. I have caught myself saying ahhh, haaaa many times as things I’ve read in different books over the last thirty years came together for me in the video game where I suddenly had visual reference to tie it all together. The detail is immaculate, even down to the mechanics of riding horses as they splash about on a muddy street from a recent rain.
Being a history buff, I love to interact with these three-dimensional environments that modern video games afford. They complement my reading in a way that allows a very detailed picture to be painted in my mind, and connects many historical dots obtained from multiple sources. The games are made for the purposes of entertainment, but it is staggering to consider how effective they could be if they took themselves seriously as educational tools. As I examine the effectiveness of Assassin’s Creed III next to the stagnant education methods of even the best schools, it is obvious that public education is well down the wrong path, and they refuse to analyze their position in favor of something better. Not being a gambler I would bet everything that most young people today know more about George Washington not because of the books by Glenn Beck, or the efforts of 12 years of public education, but because they played Assassin’s Creed III during the fall of 2012 and winter of 2013 and had to speak to him, go on missions that he sent them on, and watch history take place in a computer game instead of a solitary, bored individual standing at the front of a class spewing “teacher breath,” (a combination of coffee and teeth in the first stages of gingivitis) toward an uninterested class that has no context to apply any information to. Video games provide that context, and to date, none better than Assassin’s Creed III. Not even the great Sid Meyer games did so well to place a player into the streets of history to interact with its authors as equals so that truth can be grappled with. That is the power of a video game to become an opportunity to improve education effectiveness.
On the day after the sequestration implemented from the federal government on March 2nd Darryl Parks from 700 WLW covered the events that transpired in the aftermath as government officials calculated that society might come to an end because of the cuts. Well, in his usual fashion Darryl brought some non-partisan, non emotional, non group affiliated analysis regarding the sequestration cuts to the light of reality. As many might be afraid of the rhetoric coming out of Washington Darryl put into the context the extent of the cuts in a fashion that everyone can understand. The ridiculous amounts that Darryl laid out in his broadcast, and that I break down below in written form are so small that they aren’t even worth discussing. Yet all the news broadcasts on television cried like infants for over three weeks along with virtually every politician, especially Barack Obama about the costs of these cuts to the social fabric of American society. So without further fanfare have a listen to Darryl’s broadcast as it was given on March 2nd at 9 AM in the morning.
Most people start to blank out when such large numbers are expressed so they cannot get their mind around such concepts. Looting politicians like Barack Obama know this, and have successfully hidden the extremity of these federal numbers behind relatable faces, like children, National Park employees, government janitorial staff and so on—so that tax payers will be inclined to vote in favor of more tax increases to help out their fellow Americans. The federal government essentially uses the same tactics that we have been fighting locally in the school levy debates—they clearly manipulate the numbers in hopes that nobody can wrap their mind around the truth. However, Darryl Parks did better than President Obama in showing the hypocrisy of the federal diatribes by putting into a context that everyone can understand the amount of the sequestration cuts that prove just how small they really are—and how much politicians in Washington and the doomsday press blew out of proportion the extent of the damage—which proves that none of them can be trusted.
Darryl did the hard math and discovered that it was much easier to understand the 44 billion in cuts coming from the sequestration reductions that went into effect on March 1st by proportionally breaking it down against something that virtually everyone can relate to, a McDonalds Big Mac extra value meal. Darryl took the known value of 1320 calories that are contained within a Big Mac extra value meal consisting of a Big Mac sandwich, a medium Coke and a large order of French fries that normally contain 87 individual fries within the container they come in and for sake of argument gave that value of 1320 an equal value to the federal budget. Now we know that 44 billion in cuts is only 1/80th of the total federal budget, so if we apply the same reduction to the Big Mac value meal, we discover that we will only lose 2 ½ French fries from our feast
Most people eating such a meal would not notice a 2 ½ fry reduction, and in the society at large, particularly the 130 million Americans who pay nearly all the federal tax, they won’t notice any reductions at the federal level. The only people who will notice the reductions are those who have built their careers in the flimsy existence of government and find themselves jobless in the sequestration cuts. It will be discovered that many of those reduced jobs were not necessary to begin with just as many of the local schools who have had to reduce their staffs have found that they can still operate with fewer employees as they work to meet their budgets. The impacted parties are those who work for government at wages that are too high for jobs that were created by government for government reasons.
Nobody in their right mind can argue that losing 2 ½ fries per Big Mac value meal will ever be noticed and will drive down the quality of the meal itself. Just like the sequestration cuts don’t even come close to bringing our federal government into the light of reality when it comes to fiscal spending of those poor 130 million tax payers who are covering the whole bill. Yet everyone who covered the sequestration in a negative way is guilty of openly misleading the American people with radical rhetoric that belongs in the basement of old hippie flower children engulfed in pot smoke as they watch reruns of Sesame Street and think themselves sophisticated contributors of society. In reality, much, much, much more needs to be cut from our extra value meals if we wish as a nation to lose any weight and take measures to truly get our budget under control. Taking away 2 ½ French fries out of 87 won’t do the job—and is not even worth the discussion which has transpired.
Obama’s argument for increasing the debt ceiling is that “America pays its debts.” The trouble is the President won’t stop spending money, which forces America to pay for things it can’t afford. America cannot afford to be a nanny state, it cannot afford to take care of more than 50% of the nation who doesn’t work, or pay taxes. It cannot take care of senior citizens who retire at 65 and live till age 90 on the government dime as there are fewer children being born than ever before who will have fewer jobs to work in as adults so that they can continue to pay into Social Security.
The government cannot afford to give insurance to every American. It cannot afford to build the political party of one left leaning side with entitlement spending—which is what has been happening. Democrats and progressives know that their political base cannot support a voting base with their ideas, but only with what they can give away to purchase votes from the most ignorant among the American population. They like the guy in the video above when he’s told that he cannot have the money instantly states that without raising the debt limit, his wife will leave him, because if he cannot spend money to keep his wife happy, their marriage will fall apart.
So too will the marriage between young people and progressive Democrats erode away to nothing when the money runs out. When there are no free things to gain like welfare, free insurance, free education, easy government jobs that pay 40% more than private sector jobs, etc., voters will reject the party of handouts, the Democrats. Obama knows this, which is why he played the scare game over sequestration only to back pedal when he realized that Republicans like the banker above had reached their limit.
For me, that limit was a long, long time ago. I reached my limit during 2005 in the Bush years. People I know best started reading Atlas Shrugged between 2005 and 2007 and were ready to throw George Bush out of office for creating the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and other massive government programs. There were already murmurings of starting a Tea Party like organization even back then when I fought the first Lakota levy in Butler County where that government school showed a never-ending tendency to spend more money than they ever take in, just like the guy in the video above. Once Obama was elected, and the Lakota teachers showed in 2008 what national teachers all across America were really up to, many in the Liberty Movement had already reached their boiling point. By 2009 and 2010, coordinated measures to expose spending addicts like the guy in the video above were being implemented to render publicly so that voters would come to understand the unsustainable path that America was on. Unfortunately, half the country presently is just like the guy in the video above. They are like heroin addicts—in denial of their addiction to spending and they are on a self-destructive path to always spend more than they take in and they are electing politicians into office who will provide them that fix. What these politicians have in common with these spending addicts is that they too have the same problem—they can’t control themselves.
The very small cuts that Obama is bellyaching over are just as foolish as the silly amount discussed above. 2.5% is hardly worth even mentioning. I wouldn’t be happy until more than 50% of the current budget is slashed. I don’t want the government to do much of anything except build up a military, run a bit of a post office, help NASA along, maintain roadways, and that’s about it. The private sector could and would take care of virtually everything else. The people who would be left behind in such an economy are those who refuse to participate even when politicians like Obama steal from others and place the goods at the feet of the malcontent—who even then hardly picks up the food to place in their mouths. All of society should not be destroyed because the addicts of spending like Obama and his Capitol Hill thugs cannot regulate themselves, and have no understanding of what makes a human being rise in the morning to meet a day’s challenges.
Like the banker we should run Obama out of our offices and take away his credit cards. We should not feel bad about it either, because it is him who has mismanaged his own life, and built a party around debt and theft. So the fault of a failing economy falsely propped up by government expansion will be his alone. The loss of jobs created not by demand, but by whim are the fault of Obama for not measuring need against desire. The fault of the days to come will fall squarely on Obama’s shoulders and Republicans would do well to close the door and let Obama and his party fall completely into disarray by their own recklessness. Because the current debt is abysmal—I personally support nothing that contributes to those debts. I do not care about government pensions. I don’t have one, and I never will—so I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s pension. I don’t care about public schools. I’d rather pay for private tutors and instruction. I don’t care about Social Security. I have no plans to ever collect a Social Security check and would consider the money dirty if I did. I have no need of Medicaid, or Medicare. I manage my own health and well-being under my own funds, and I have no sympathy for those who cannot, or refuse to. I pay roughly $20K a year in personal taxes when I add up all the little things, and I get very little in return for that money. Nearly 1/5th of that number goes to public schools alone which I think is a complete waste of money. I may use $2,000 of that $20K, and it’s been that way for over 15 years, and that is not a good ROI. When congress messed up the Social Security tax this year, I notice immediately that I was paying $80 more a month in just Social Security tax from December 31st 2012 to January 1st 2013. Congress allowed those taxes to fly in under the radar while everyone else was looking at the fiscal cliff negotiations. I don’t get a damn thing for the $80 lost dollars—nothing. It’s just more looted money lost in the pit of a government being run by money addicts that are just as in denial of their social imposition as any rampant drug user.
More than ever I want to push the government out of the finance office for their unreasonable requests that are every bit as foolish, and animated as the idiot who wants to raise his personal debt ceiling in the video above. It is astonishing that politicians like Obama can even stand in front of people and ask for more money when $80 dollars here and $80 dollars there fly from our pockets like pennies on a roller coaster. The arrogant politician has no concept of what they ask, and are just as ridiculous in their demands as displayed in the above metaphor. And it has to stop. It has to stop right here, and right now. The money addicts have to be driven from office and their parties destroyed for the good of America. Nothing less is acceptable.
The number one reason that more people do not come forward to stand up to these bullies who run public education are the same reasons that people do not stand up to the mob—self preservation. Most people fear the retaliation that often comes, and the social stigma that has protected public education for years. I could write an entire book about my personal experiences alone. Many residents like Kim said are afraid that the school will take out their wrath on the students, so they do not make public statements at school board meetings and they certainly don’t go on record in the newspaper. Also, many parents know at least one person whether it be a mother, a sibling, an aunt or uncle—somebody who works for a school system somewhere, and this makes Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners especially difficult—I have in my family four that I have to speak to a few times a year—and I know how hard it is for me, so I can sympathize how it is for most people. Many parents just keep quiet to save the peace in their families. I have even had people who directly supported my efforts with thousands of dollars wish to keep their activity disguised for fear that they might run into the opposition at their local church, or have the teachers union minions—the “latte sipping prostitutes” as I call them, boycott their businesses with revenue shattering collective withdrawal hoping to crush them out of existence. Further parents are afraid that if they come out against public education that their boss or co-workers might retaliate against them in the workplace. The incentive to keep one’s thoughts to oneself is very high even when they see many wrongs happening around them. The need to protect ones career, and social status often takes precedence over righteousness. These are the grim realities of public education, and it is no wonder that children aren’t learning anything and growing up lost and confused about their roles in the world. They watch their parents cave under the pressure of this massive machine, and they seek to rebel against it for a while, but in the end, they become part of the machine themselves only to walk through life in T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland.
Public education is a terrible scam that is not helping kids at all in its current state. It needs a complete overhaul, and time will reveal that to everyone, as more and more stories like the one in Kings is told publicly. The issue is not isolated to Kings by any stretch of the imagination. Every public school has these types of scandalous abusers within their walls—and to some extent it is human nature to have such personalities. But the job of the administrators and school boards is to remove those people from employment in defense of the children—and that is not happening in almost every case. Instead, the school as a collective unit rallies behind the evil to suppress it from view, and this is what children have been learning in public education and our society will pay gravely for it. There are not enough Kim Grants out there fighting on behalf of all children and their cowardly parents are too fearful of being targeted as a “reprehensible” for stating the obvious. Until there are, public schools will be palaces of evil and factories of fear. In their current state they only serve the employees at the expense of children, and that is a folly that needs to be corrected without concern for personal reputations, or internal family politics. Thank goodness at Kings at least Kim Grant did the right thing which began with a public records request. The same could be done at every single school in The United States with a simple request by a bold district resident—which in the end is the best thing for children that any grown adult can do for their educations—expose them to goodness, and the system of checks and balances that they see lacking every day, so that they can trust that the world does contain justice and people with the courage to wield it.
Ohio Senator Shirley Smith (D-Cleveland) recently introduced Senate Bill 18, drafted to ban all “assault weapons,” broadly defined as any firearm capable of carrying “ten or more” rounds of ammunition. In a February 12 release, the Senate Democratic Caucus listed the legislation as one of its ten priorities for the current session. In a wonderful discussion on 55 KRC recently Brian Thomas challenged the premise of Senate Bill 18 with one of the supporting senators in what became a rather vigorous exchange that articulated the gun argument in modern politics very accurately. Have a listen.
If passed, the bill – co-sponsored by Edna Brown, Eric Kearney, Michael Skindell, Charleta Tavares, and Nina Turner, all Democrats – would also create a government registry to track all gun and ammunition purchases in the state, maintained by the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The Bill as proposed is the result of overly emotional legislators who are responding to the lobby power of overly emotional voters, who spend much of their time afraid of their own shadows. This tendency alone does not make them dangerous to the pursuits of freedom. However, as voters, the fearful are represented in a republic just as much as the brave, and from the political vantage point of the progressive—and their most ardent champion—the Democratic Party, fear is the way they advance their causes of liberalism.
Progressives use fear to expand education spending without results, they use fear to expand government such as what has been seen over the sequester cuts, they use fear to pass police levies, fire levies, and virtually every government program where a legislator writes words into law to appease the weak and small-minded. It can be argued accurately that the trouble of our modern society is that we have allowed the frailest minded to dictate our path toward socialism through their lack of personal courage.
Senate Bill 18 is driven by these fearful forces. Their historical accomplices might have been the Mayan society who cut out the heart of a captured enemy to appease the God’s so that their crops would manifest and their city residents would not starve from lack of food. The advocates of gun control wish to believe that if they impose upon society a weaponless culture that human beings will be forced to embrace each other with intentions of peace. But they are wrong, terribly wrong. Their folly is rampant with voodoo like superstition that has no basis in reality and simply settles in their minds the illusion of security.
For a long time the courageous in society have yielded to these panicky politicians and voters so not to hurt their feelings. It was out of compassion that the American brave shook their heads and treated these law driven entities like children afraid of bolts of lightning that streak across the sky. But that time has closed, as the brave in America have seen the result of such capitulation. American society is on its way to becoming just another third world country reeking with rule by superstition instead of bold logic, and we don’t like it. This realization has given rise to the Tea Party and other liberty pursuing groups that are putting the arguments on the table for discussion in some instances such as in the Brian Thomas discussion for the first time.
Brian Thomas on 55 KRC has stood up for Second Amendment rights for many years—well before there was ever a Tea Party movement. But the discussions were often categorized as radical conspiracy theory by a far right fringe mentality. But the viewpoint of gun rights is not a political ideology of the right or the left. It is of the bold and the weak. Gun advocates wish to be in charge of their own lives and not trust their life or death to the devices of government. Government can’t even get public education correct, let alone show up at a home at 2 AM to prevent the robbery of a family defending their property from a villain.
After listening carefully to the words of the senator in the Brian Thomas interview I am convinced that progressives seek to hide their natural cowardness from society with a blanket of security provided by government. Progressives wish to think themselves equal to the courageous, without being actually brave. Therefore the cost of government is so great in 2013 because the trend in America is to grow up as soft minded overly emotional, individuals that conglomerate like animal herds to celebrate their lack of courage. Government expands to provide security to the masses who have allowed their minds to be fearful of every possible tragedy, and to hedge their lives against those threats not by their own actions, but those of collective security.
I wanted the opportunity to vote for Herman Cain in the 2012 election, so what I am about to say has nothing to do with Civil Rights advances, or even politics. The game that is being played is clear in a society that ridiculed Herman Cain ruthlessly, yet celebrated Barack Obama even though they are both African-Americans. The performance of President Obama during the last week of February 2013 before the sequester deadline, which was set by his administration two years prior, proves what many have all along feared about Obama, and I am convinced that history will remember the current presidency as not just an appalling failure, but a horrendous blip on the radar of American prosperity. It will be revealed that all along, Obama was a domestic terrorist at war with The American Constitution with an aim at radical destruction of prosperity in The United States to redistribute the wealth of America to the rest of the world, only to destroy the global economy in the process. There is no other explanation for the reckless campaigning Obama engaged in trying to evoke fear in federal workers ahead of the sequester deadline. What he has failed to report in his campaigning to federal workers is that even with the sequester cuts The United States is still spending more this year than it did last year pushing our national debt on a path toward $17 trillion. Obama is either a complete idiot, which is possible—or he is a domestic terrorist intentionally attempting to wreck the American economy forever. There really isn’t any other option, and that makes the situation in Washington a perilous one that may be the greatest threat to our Republic since the War of 1812.
If Obama proves in historical context, once the emotions of the day have quelled, to have been the later of the feared motivations, it would not have been the first time such a thing occurred. In Biblical history, Obama’s current path might most parallel the actions of Jeroboam who advanced his rule over Israel by means of perpetuating the division of the southern Kingdom of Judah. Obama like Jeroboam has spent his reign doing nothing but perpetuating war so that in the division would defeat his enemies so they could not rise up against him directly. Obama has no interest in controlling costs or leaving America better of a country than when he found it, and he seeks to destroy all opposition to him through the kind of antics that history has seen time and time again. But these mechanisms are invisible to the modern television viewer who believes that Obama’s presidency is about proving America has overcome its follies in a post Civil War America. But the strategic intent is much, much more sinister.
So who was Jeroboam? Here is what Wikipedia offers:
While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the “burnden”, i.e. the bands of forced laborers.[5]
Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39), he began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he remained under the protection of pharaoh Shishak until the death of Solomon.[6] On the death of Solomon, Rehoboam assumed the throne. However, the ten northern tribes revolted against his rule and invited Jeroboam to become their king. The conduct of Rehoboam favored the designs of Jeroboam, and he was accordingly proclaimed “king of Israel”.[7]
He rebuilt and fortified Shechem as the capital of his kingdom. He at once adopted means to perpetuate the division with the southern Kingdom of Judah. He erected at Dan and Bethel, the two extremities of his kingdom, “golden calves,” which he set up as symbols of God, enjoining the people not any more to go up to worship at Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, but to bring their offerings to the shrines he had erected.
Thus he became distinguished as the man “who made Israel to sin.” This policy was followed by all the succeeding kings of Israel.
According to 1 Kings 13:1-6, while Jeroboam was engaged in offering incense at Bethel, a “man of God” warned him that “a son named Josiah will be born to the house of David” who would destroy the altar (referring to King Josiah of Judah who would rule approximately three hundred years later). Attempting to arrest the prophet for his bold words of defiance, Jeroboam’s hand was “dried up,” and the altar before which he stood was rent asunder. At his urgent entreaty his “hand was restored him again” (1 Kings 13:1-6, compare 2 Kings 23:13-16); but the miracle made no abiding impression on him. This “man of God” who warned Jeroboam has been equated with a seer named Iddo.[8]
He was in constant “war with the house of Judah”. While the southern kingdom made no serious effort to militarily regain power over the north, there was a long-lasting boundary dispute, fighting over which lasted during the reigns of several kings on both sides before being finally settled.
In the eighteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign, Abijah, Rehoboam’s son, became king of Judah.[9] During his short reign of three years, Abijah went to considerable lengths to bring the Kingdom of Israel back under his control. He waged a major battle against Jeroboam in the mountains of Ephraim. Biblical sources credit Abijah with having a force of 400,000 and Jeroboam having 800,000.[10] The Biblical sources mention that Abijah addressed the armies of Israel, urging them to submit and to let the Kingdom of Israel be whole again,[11] but his plea fell on deaf ears. Abijah then rallied his own troops with a phrase which has since become famous: “Jehovah (God) himself is with us for a captain (commander of the army).” As per the Bible His elite warriors fended off a pincer movement to rout Jeroboam’s troops — killing 500,000 of them.[12]
Jeroboam was crippled by this severe defeat to Abijah and posed little threat to the Kingdom of Judah for the rest of his reign.[13] He also lost the towns of Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephron, with their surrounding villages.[14] Bethel was an important centre for Jeroboam’s Golden Calf cult (which used non-Levites as priests),[15] located on Israel’s southern border, which had been allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin by Joshua, as was Ephron, which is believed to be the Ophrah that was allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin by Joshua.[16]
Jeroboam died soon after Abijam.
Bill O’Reilly as a journalist is someone I respect tremendously. He attempts to call things as straight as he can, which is why he is one of the most trusted news sources around today. I don’t always agree with him, but he really works to get to the truth of an issue. O’Reilly recently tackled the view that history might take upon gazing at Obama’s Presidency, and it was very good. O’Reilly covered the topic on one of his Talking Points Memos heard during the same week of Obama’s campaigning during February. O’Reilly uses less colorful language than I do, but his essence is much the same and is worth reading for just the statistics alone.
How will history view President Obama:
By Bill O’Reilly
In just a few days automatic federal spending cuts might kick in. That is known as “the sequester”, a word we don’t like here at The Factor because it’s a word few understand and it’s largely meaningless.
The issue is very, very simple. President Obama does not want to cut federal spending without another tax increase. Republicans say no way, they are not going to continue to feed the federal spending colossus as can be seen clearly by the following quotes:
OBAMA: Most Americans — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE IN BUDGET HEARINGS: I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: So it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU: I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which, by the way, is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News.
O’REILLY: Senator Landrieu and others are simply wrong. The federal spending is certainly out of control. The debt is approaching $17 trillion.
Here is how bad it is. In 2003 the U.S. spent just above $2 trillion. This year, the estimated spending will be $3.6 trillion, a 75 percent rise in spending in a 10-year period with no inflation.
And what do we have to show for all that spending? The economy is not much better. The poverty rate is about the same as it was 50 years ago. And salaries for working people are going down.
So why are we spending all the money? For what reason? I’ll tell you why. Take a look at this chart put out by the Pew Research Center. It says 48 percent of Americans want smaller government and fewer services. But among Hispanics, only 19 percent want smaller government and fewer services. A whopping 75 percent of Latinos surveyed approve of bigger government and more entitlements. That’s why President Obama is spending the money because he knows that a coalition of African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, organized labor, and committed liberals will overwhelm the Republican Party.
So in essence, the President is putting party politics above the good of the nation. History will record that and a few years from now when President Obama’s administration is evaluated historians will not care about his charisma, his co-opting of the press or his demeanor in general. No. History will look at the facts. And the facts are that the USA is on the road to bankruptcy. And when that happens, if it does, President Obama will be blamed.
Previous presidents like Van Buren, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all got hammered because of perceived bad economic policies. The fact is that right now Barack Obama is in that historical category. And that’s a fact.
And that’s “The Memo.”
– You can catch Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com.
Obama’s forgetfulness of his sequestration deadline, which was set by The White House, reminds me most of the Popeye the Sailor character of Wimpy, who was famous for saying, “I’ll pay your Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Well, Tuesday is here, and Obama doesn’t want to pay for his hamburgers. Instead, he wants another loan for more hamburgers to be paid on many future Tuesdays, and it is hard to believe that anybody could be so stupid, unless they have deliberate intentions of collapsing the American economy.
Historically speaking, it appears that Obama will be viewed equally as Jeroboam, an intention divider of The United States for aims of power and wealth redistribution using Saul Alinsky tactics to execute the aims of Cloward and Piven. Unlike the times of Jeroboam, armies are not on hand to fight in hand to hand combat as factions meet on the battlefield to keep people like Jeroboam in power. These days’ armies are congregated in board rooms and banks. The new arrows of combat are check books and debt. The intent of battle and war in general is to force an opponent into concessions through violence, sanctions, or political manipulation. Obama is not even trying to work with Republicans, instead, he is attacking, and attacking, and attacking at every opportunity while running up a tremendous debt with the recklessness of Wimpy, except he never seems to have a desire to even pay on Tuesday. The intent appears to be complete fiscal collapse and that would be considered domestic terrorism which is something all Americans should guard against. Trying to invoke fear into political opponents and the masses behind them can be termed in no other way, and in this case exceeds the parameters of normal political theater. The level that Obama is attempting to carry the divisiveness of modern politics appears to have the same aim as Jeroboam, and will be remembered as such. The evidence is clear, and cannot be ascertained in any other fashion, unless of course Obama is just a complete fool that is as reckless in his designs as an intoxicated gambler on a Saturday night. Either way, history will not be kind to Barack Obama. The only question is whether America survives such a parasite as sixteen years of progressive rule on top of another eight that have severed half the nation from the values they had always held before the election of 1992. It is easy to see the demise in historical context over decades. But not so easy to see in the immediacy of the moment, which is the strategy of war played in modern politics, and seems to be the motivation of Barack Obama, the modern version of Jeroboam. The severed tribes of Obama are Hispanics, women, African-Americans, union leaders, the poor, the un-ambitious, and the government worker being paid extraordinary sums for a job the tax payer does for nearly half the same market value money. It is war that Obama is conducting and in order to continue that war, he needs more irresponsible spending and a government that will grow by another 100% in the coming years till America is no better than Europe economically. The slate of the world will then be wiped clean for Socialist International to step in and rule us all through the United Nations. That appears to be the intentions of America’s modern version of Jeroboam.
Many enemies work behind a cloak of good intentions, but most of them have other ideas concealed deep in their social plots. Evil is sometimes a point of view, and what might be evil for America might provoke sainthood among the advocates of global government. A rival team might be considered evil if they score a touchdown beating the hometown favorite—but the actions behind Obama are much worse than these kinds of trivial competitions. He is attacking every single American for seemingly ideological reasons, either through reckless stupidity or deliberate sabotage. But History will grade Obama a failure either way and a menace to all of civilization as they attempt to dig out from underneath the years of Obama with more than shovels. History will place Obama with the terrorists Jeroboam and the worst of the Roman Emperors. Such a legacy will outlast the political whims of the modern age, and will forever be viewed with the same kind of sinister sentiment as our current times view Stalin, Mao, and every tyrant who has so far breathed and walked the Earth. Obama will forever be just another brick in the road to tyranny that threatened the freedoms of every individual in the entire world with soul crushing debt recklessly applied to achieve a military victory long ago hatched in the living room of college Marxist professors in the glory days of being a “community organizer,” where the weak hearts of the great American enemy was discussed over mixed drinks and cigarettes to great effect and long-term strategy.
Government is not supposed to be like a mound of insects serving a collective cause of unity, they are supposed to be a group of representatives who hash out their differences in verbal combat for the good of the country, and display that nobody is above the law—not even a President of The United States. America does not have a king, or a dictator, so they are not able to make decisions without accountability to other representatives of the Republic having an input. The facts and behavior behind President Obama show that he has a willingness to act without respect to these checks and balances, and this should raise concern among every American. Thankfully, Senator Rand Paul acted as a proper representative under tenuous conditions, and justice has been pursued in his filibuster to the benefit of all no matter what political persuasions may be. Right is right, and Paul acted in accord with the pursuit of truth, and justice—and the American way, which is truly unique on the world stage and should be the model every country across the planet uses for their own government. The spirit of that government is often confusing and mired in controversy, but the intention was captured so wonderfully in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the Rand Paul Filibuster. The rest of the world should take notes.
