Tag: Stupid in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imageRich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


image Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Giant Megaliths On Mount Shoria, Russia: The importance of Archaeology and deficiency of modern education

According to a site called The Truth Wins:

An incredible discovery that was recently made in Russia threatens to shatter conventional theories about the history of the planet.  On Mount Shoria in southern Siberia, researchers have found an absolutely massive wall of granite stones.  Some of these gigantic granite stones are estimated to weigh more than 3,000 tons, and as you will see below, many of them were cut “with flat surfaces, right angles, and sharp corners”.  Nothing of this magnitude has ever been discovered before.  The largest stone found at the megalithic ruins at Baalbek, Lebanon is less than 1,500 tons.  So how in the world did someone cut 3,000 ton granite stones with extreme precision, transport them up the side of a mountain and stack them 40 meters high?  According to the commonly accepted version of history, it would be impossible for ancient humans with very limited technology to accomplish such a thing.  Could it be possible that there is much more to the history of this planet than we are being taught?

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/newly-found-megalithic-ruins-in-russia-contain-the-largest-blocks-of-stone-ever-discovered

Well, I’ll answer that question, proposed by The Truth Wins; it is factually evident that there is a lot more to the history of the earth that is just now becoming obvious after only 100 years of archaeology, geology, paleontology, and anthropology. Any thought about mankind and its history that has so far been taught in schools has been grossly premature. The taught knowledge of history is comparable in scope to the knowledge of a kindergarten student fresh from their mother’s arms compared to a triple doctorial post-graduate of three major universities. Unfortunately, those same universities in competition for academic respect have published too much theory too fast as fact and attempted to ignore the vast amount of evidence which continued to pour in from scientists in the field. The result has been a catastrophe in understanding human history which is turning out to be nothing like what was taught in public schools and colleges for several decades now.

The greatest hindrance to proper archeological understanding of our planet comes from two primary sources, politics—such as in Iraq where so many ancient cities reside but are impossible to properly excavate due to the political volatility that is ever-present. What caused such poor contributions from Russia during their heavy communist years under Stalin was a political system that suppressed information to the outside world. Because the country was closed off to the West, university archaeologists were not able to do any excavating in Russia, so a vast span of that part of the world has been ignored scientifically. Siberia for years has been ripe for a raw look into mankind’s past, because it is so remote from civilization and provides an accurate looking-glass into our past. This recent discovery of the megaliths in Russia is just the tip of a culture which easily evolved around the Pacific Rim and has been building megalithic structures well before documented history.

Archaeologist John Jensen was quoted in the article from The Truth Wins, and is primarily concerned with ancient canal builders chronicling the many harbors built all around the North American continent well over 7000 years ago which defies any notion about earth’s history previously entertained. His comment about the Russian megaliths state:

“These megaliths reach well back into the mists of pre-history, so far in fact, that conjecture about their ‘builders’, methods, purpose and meaning is pure speculation, and as such, I would hesitate to offer any observation at all, other than to say our pre-historical past is richer than we ever dreamed.” John Jensen as an archaeologist also acknowledged something that a few years ago was quite controversial alluding to the topic of the number one article posted at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, the article “Giants in Ohio.”

    1. talei kayehall April 21, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Anyone with a brain and eye can see that these megaliths are man-made. They are everywhere even under water. The truth is, we don’t know how they did it but my guess is HUGE PEOPLE built it. Let’s just stop listening to people paid by the Smithsonian Institute and use our heads to search out the real truths. From Fiji.

John Jensen April 21, 2014 at 7:39 PM

I tend to agree in general terms. We have substantive proof in the geological column that super giants lived on the earth at some time (at least several Epochs) ago. They ranged in size between 26′ and 35′ tall, or at least that is as large as we have hard evidence for. (A 5′ footprint in a granite stone in South Africa)

More can be learned about John Jensen at the following link:

http://www.ancientcanalbuilders.com/

The other major hindrance to proper archaeological study is religion. For instance, there is not a proper study of the current Temple of Solomon because of the perpetual anxiety between Christians, Jews, and Muslims over the Temple Mount location. In spite of the evidence that both Muslims and Jews and Christians have Zoroastrianism as their origins, and even further a reverence for the philosophy of Aristotle. Presently, the religions do not get along and are fighting over whose version of Biblical history is correct. Zoroastrianism arose in the eastern region of the ancient Persian Empire, when the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[3] into two opposing forces: Spenta Mainyu (Progressive mentality) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Mentality) under the one God, Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom). Zoroaster’s ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.[6]

 

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

Because of these religious conflicts proper archaeological investigation does not happen. Even worse, because many wish to believe the text of the Holy Bible and Koran as sacred—and historical, they ignore any evidence which is contrary to their religions doctrines. The result has been that many different races of people have existed on earth over time, some of them likely were giants 10’ to 20’ feet tall, some even larger and have given rise to the many mythologies which speak to us presently from the past. There is more truth to many of the ancient stories than fictional fantasy—which is confirmed by archaeological evidence. Yet that evidence is ignored because the information requires an adoption of religious viewpoints to accept—and because many people function from a primal, infantile grip on the reality of life and death—they cling to these religions like people caught in the middle of an ocean hanging on to a life raft lacking the ability to swim. It is not inconceivable that giants walked and worked the planet earth before the species of Neanderthals rose to form what we think of as humans, two-legged creatures between 5’ to 7’ tall.

Biblical history tells the story of a group of descendents emerging from Noah who formed a tribe of Jews that rose to prominence in Jerusalem. In the context of history, these events only took place a few thousand years ago. Yet the stone structures discovered in Siberia are far, far older and could not have been built by any known method from any period prior to the present. It would be difficult to build them today with all the power equipment available—let alone in a time when ropes and rocks were the only reasonable tools known. The builders at the site in Siberia had very advanced technology indicative to the many megalithic structures common around the earth untold years ago and they were audacious enough to build them in the largest fashion recorded throughout the world.

Based on my observations, sometimes in person, but collected from readings projected from every corner of the world, specifically now from Siberia is that mankind has moved through several cycles of rising and falling such as what happened with the Roman Empire. There was a glorious period of human thought and technological development in Rome, which fell eventually to the barbarian hoards. Immediately thereafter was a period called the Dark Ages of Europe where society regressed backwards to tribal villages and small-minded kingdoms leading to the kind of plot lines that Shakespeare wrote about in his stage plays. China went through a similar cycle around 1410 AD to 1430 AD, then declined in power living off their grand breakthroughs around the cited period. The United States is currently going through this decline period and if left unchecked, cities like New York could wither away into empty shells within a few hundred years, and erode away into nothing within 10,000 years leaving no memory of their creation except for some very obscure archaeology. The human race has over time risen and fallen and was not always of the same height or species. The Neolithic cultures all around the world including the new Siberia site had in common either extreme size and strength completely foreign to modern human beings—or they were extremely advanced technologically and that technology has been lost to time. What we do know is that the large stone structures seen in Siberia and elsewhere the world over were made by thinking hands and are a mystery that will endure so long as religion, academic stagnation, and regional politics hold back thoughtful inquiry into their origins. It cannot be argued that they were made by something similar to a human being and were not random acts of nature. There was a period on earth where a mysterious race of people from every corner of it built large structures of stone and they did it with precision—and that time period does not fit into our known—or acknowledged history.

This evidence is a warning that with all the bells and whistles modern society believes it possesses, such as the iPhone, the Internet, and McDonald’s restaurants—it can all be wiped away if the education establishments get into the practice of protecting their theories instead of letting knowledge carry society perpetually forward. Once the human being accepts such practices, that society will begin a decline into ruin and will be forgotten within a century or two. Many believe that Siberia is a no mans land of nothing—but it was not always such. There was a period where Siberia had a thriving culture that cared enough about their presence on earth to build something out of stone that could not be easily forgotten or decayed away with the pages of their previous history. Even in modern times, CDs, books, all the creations of mankind can decay away into nothing within 10,000 or 100,000 years lost forever. The Neolithic cultures may have understood this, and decided to build their structures out of one of the slowest decaying substance on earth—stone. It is entirely possible that they were more advanced then than we are now and their culture had its time in the sun and died away for whatever reason. It is that reason which should concern us presently. If we conduct our lives in the same fashion as they did, and allow politics and religion to steer the evidence to places we feel comfortable, then a similar fate will befall the modern human race. At that time 200,000 to 1 million years from now—which is nothing in geologic time, visitors whoever they may be might arrive on the east coast of North America and see large mounds covered with grass and mistake them as hills. With a little archeology they may dig into those hills and discover the remnants of Washington D.C., New York City, and Atlantic City and wonder if there was ever a society as intelligent as they are. Their inventors for the first time might learn how to build a car out of combustible materials, and how to heat homes with energy oared from the earth. Their conspiracy theorists may think of us as giants, or as aliens, but their academic institutions and churches will proclaim that such things are heresy and will steer society away from such theories, and within a few thousand years they too will become extinct—again and again until the earth is consumed by its sun and destroyed forever.

The human race has had its chances and failed each time—we are currently in a time of one of those periods and it will be how we handle the information discovered that will decide our perpetuation, or our doom. Because it is without question that the untouched archaeology of Siberia is about to unload upon the world knowledge that it is likely not prepared to handle—intellectually.   Consider what we know about the dinosaurs which have been deduced based on the study of discovered fossils. We assume that we know all there is to know about dinosaurs based on 5 or 6 T-Rex skeletons partially constructed and hundreds of other prehistoric species found through the fossilization process. However, fossilization is a unique process, complete decomposition is more the norm and there is no way to know what type of species of living creatures inhabited the earth—so there is no way to say that such a large structure in Russia was constructed by any living beings other than giants, or a technically superior civilization long forgotten from any written record. Their evidence is filling the archaeological achieves in the back rooms of museums and universities with academia not sure how to deal with the introduction of new information.   But one thing is clear—quite clear—our present education system is useless because they feed the faults which prevent proper understanding instead of dispelling the long-held grip into religious mythologies and political territories suppressed from proper investigation because of constant turmoil from failing governments, like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, China, and the entire Middle East. When the evidence is difficult to uncover in a free country with great wealth to spend on excavations, it is nearly impossible to perform the work in war-torn countries where science is frowned upon due to fear that it might shatter their religious outlook.  This is how the world’s mysteries remain hidden and entire people disconnected from their real past in the long drama directed by the human race.

Watch the videos included with this article for more information and further contemplation. And be sure to educate a friend by passing this along.  Also, read the link below to learn more about Russian archaeology and some of the mysteries coming out of Siberia that are far less published in the West:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/viktor-sarianidi-russian-archaeologist-struck-gold-in-turkmenistan-20140117-30zd7.html

 

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

28 Years of Bad American Presidents: The cause of a nation’s fall from grace

Let’s make something clear since Jay Carney brought it up on his last day as the White House spokesman—the Bush administration was not a good 8 years for America. And certainly, Obama has been bad for American just in even worse incompetence. There isn’t a competition between the Republican loser in office and the Democrat—they both were terrible. At the end of Obama’s second term, America will have seen 16 years of terrible presidents and America has suffered terribly for it. America will be well over $18 trillion dollars in debt and will have virtually everything that has been taken for granted–good jobs, a flourishing economy, food, power, and medical help in question as Obama leaves the White House. However, the folly doesn’t start there—Clinton was a terrible president, and Bush the senior wasn’t a cup of tea either. It is then no wonder that America is a shell of its former self as the political leadership has reflected a society on the decline. The people who have elected these losers are of less quality than previous generations and the result has been horrible leadership in the White House that has had a detrimental effect on America’s quality in every category.

 

Nobody will argue that Dick Cheney was far from the best vice president—just as Joe Biden appears to be a complete buffoon in the same position. Jay Carney’s reference to the poor Bush presidency as a defense of the Obama presidency is like saying that thunder is better than lightning in a rain storm—as they accompany each other in the grand scheme of things. It is best to not have a storm at all if no damage is desired—and in politics, it is best to avoid terrible presidents—so to avoid damage once they leave.

Yet is it clear now why America went to war in Iraq? It was to prevent the spread of terrorism, not because of “oil.” It was to keep wealth and resources out of the hands of diabolical terrorists. Does everybody now understand why there must be a border between Mexico and The United States that is secure—because all the impoverished countries from the south in Central America are flocking to the border hoping for relief from their circumstances? The cause of those circumstances is the socialist and tyrannical policies of their corrupt governments giving America the obligation to protect itself by imposing freedom on those places. When such strength is not present—there is no reason for tyrants to oppress their people with no option but to flee those lands of terror in pursuit of opportunities for freedom.

America never should have to concern itself with the affairs of other countries, but when it is the only good place in the world beholding freedom—and immigrants flood our boarders looking for freedom from oppression, America has a right to defend itself by helping those countries have freedom on their own. But if those countries do not have a philosophy that allows for freedom, then it won’t last, like what has happened in Iraq. It is not enough to give a country a set of laws and turn them loose in pursuit of democracy. If most people in the country are corrupt by bad, collectivist thinking, they will not be able to maintain freedom under any circumstances.

For over twenty years now bad presidents have led America on a chase mimicking these bad global governments instead of standing for what was right in defense of freedom. At least Ronald Reagan as an actor/president understood that America had an obligation to help oppressed people so that freedom would spread around the world instead of tyranny—his presidency was a strong one that left the entire world a better place. There were presidents before Reagan who were also pretty good at defending that basic premise from both political parties—but as for the last twenty years, representation for freedom from the White House to the world has been terrible.

Many of the problems experienced presently in the American nation are due to weak leadership and foreign policy vision. Bush and Obama have very little understanding of economics and abandoned capitalism under their terms. Clinton was simply a socialist who defended his corruption with his legal skills as a diabolical lawyer. Without question, he is likely enjoying these current problems as they fit his open border philosophy where the value of America is diminished in favor of a new global government.

The premise that every time Obama is criticized for being a complete idiot, which he is, a defense for his stupidity is not to point at George W. Bush and say “he did it too.” They were both idiots, and they have both left America worse as a nation than it was when they took over as president. But for context, the Pentagon moved the Aircraft carrier George W. Bush off the coast of Iraq to show the terrorist insurgents that America is nearby. That brought forth the thought that it is now unimaginable that a future aircraft carrier would be named, the “Barack Obama.” Such a carrier would be a laughing-stock, and certainly would not incite fear into the opposition. It is in that reality that the quality of the presidents can best be determined. For as bad as Bush was for the free market, he at least understood how to project strength in the military—even if it was at times overreaching. It is better to reach too far in foreign policy than to not reach at all—like Obama has. Lack of American projection of strength to the world leads every cockroach to come forth as a potential tyrant and ruthless dictator—which is what is happening from Russia to the Middle East. And in the end, that is why Barack Obama will forever be known as the worst president in the history of America, and make the top ten list of worst leaders of all time the world over. Obama will own that designation on his own and no deflection to George W. Bush will cover his ignorance from the responsibility of that title.

It is not enough to simply defeat a dictator or to send military support—or to throw money at countries who are functioning from poor philosophic beliefs and collectively based cultures. When that sense of collectivism carries over into religion these countries become even more dangerous to themselves and others. What all poor countries have in common is collective based economies based on Karl Marx and Keynesian thought, and religions based on sacrifice and worship through collective yielding to higher powers. Those failures of thought are what cause hopeful immigrants to pour into the U.S. border and terrorists to believe they have a right to impose religious law against non-believers through force and terror. The failure of the American presidents of the last 20 years is that they failed to identify this root cause—and have instead let them fester unchecked until presently the world is in disarray. Money cannot be thrown at the problem of poor philosophy, and neither can lip service. People have to think differently. They have to “think” like Americans instead of just running to America hoping to be put on welfare and cared for by the tax payer in The United States for the rest of their lives. They have to adopt new philosophies that allow them to have flourishing economies and religions that don’t require the eradication of those who don’t believe the same things under the premise of social collectivism. If traceability between these two differences in thought could be made it is the difference between Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith—or the difference between Aristotle and Plato. The root cause of evil is in philosophy, and it is the philosophy of poor nations which leave people looking to escape into The United States, or to flee tyrants on their way into Bagdad that causes the trouble. The only way to really help the people of the world is to change the way those people think—and Obama, Bush, Clinton as well as many other presidents have put American value into reactive defense instead of assertive projection of philosophies born on American soil—which would do far more good than all the tanks, planes and missiles in world history of stopping tyrants in their tracks. Recent American presidents have failed to show pride in that American philosophy born of Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Ayn Rand—and that is why they are embarrassments in the context of history—all of them.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Idiotic Presidency of Obama: A fool in sole possession of his place in history

For those who thought I was unfair toward President Obama when his campaign opened an office in Mason, Ohio—history has proven me right once again. As usual, those types of people who lean in that particular political direction as Obama supporters have shown why they are so incompetent and living evidence as to why democracies will always fail. The mob cannot rule—because collectively they are too stupid to. I said so much about the Obama supporters who showed up to open the Mason office and many thought I was too harsh. Well, what does anybody think now?

Obama is the worst president in American history and may go down as one of the worst leaders in the history of the world, which is saying a lot considering Europe had some terrible kings, and the Roman Empire had a large percentage of fools serving as Emperor. Obama has proven as President of the United States that he is either a diabolical terrorist sent to undermine America as a world power, or he is a complete idiot incompetent to manage anything or anyone. I have often said that Obama was not qualified to manage even a McDonald’s restaurant—and this statement has more than proven to be true. Granted, managing a McDonald’s is not an easy task on a good day, but one would think that it should be within the management capacity of the world’s most powerful so-called leader. Obama could not even do such a thing—he is completely and utterly incompetent.

The list of scandals is growing under Obama’s care, and if there were a defining moment when Obama lost control of his foreign policy, it was Syria when he did not make good on his promise to defend a metaphorical line in the sand. This opened up the opportunity for Russia to push the U.S. in Ukraine, this antagonized aggression in Iran, Iraq and embolden terrorists in Afghanistan—as well as throughout the Middle-East. The wheels are now completely off, and are rapidly deteriorating. The world knows Obama is a fool, and they no longer respect American involvement in anything—which is the fault of the President and his administration.

Obama has in his Justice Department a common thug in Eric Holder involved in scandal after scandal from the IRS, gun dealing, open border debacles, and NSA surveillance. Obama has screwed up virtually everything he has touched in every category that he has touched it. If he has done anything right, it is in his con artist presentation—his ability to get elected and make promises—but he has not been able to make good on anything. I have often referred to him as a used car salesman—who will do and say anything to sell a car—but once you get the car—you realize it’s a lemon. What Obama gives isn’t even a lemon—it’s rather a picture of a lemon printed on garbage.

Obama’s ultimate failure is his socialism that he brought to the American economy. If Bush ran America into debt fighting terrorism, and attacking the free market with micromanagement—Obama put a dagger square in the back of capitalism placing the American economy into the hands of complete idiots—much like himself. Whether it is the Veterans Affairs scandals of mismanagement which actually killed innocent people—it is Obamacare which is destroying the greatest healthcare system in the world. Obama has propped up unionized businesses foolishly and squandered away billions of dollars on green energy hippie concerns. He has further strangled the U.S. economy by going to war with coal, and using the EPA to halt virtually every business development in the nation with over-regulation and government enforced corruption. Before Obama it was difficult to do business with the federal government—now it is nearly impossible. Mindless bureaucrats are in charge of creativity and productive enterprise—which has nearly stopped manufacturing and new job growth. All Obama can do to solve the problem is mindlessly create more government jobs like firefighters, cops, and teachers—or even worse, IRS agents, healthcare workers, or EPA staff which are simply flow over members of the Sierra Club and PETA. He has given activists power over the productive and the productive have simply thrown up their hands and said to hell with it. It’s not worth the headache, the law suits and the pain in the ass to start a new business. Even if a company could launch a new product, their profits are confiscated by the federal government and distributed to the poor, the lazy, and the idiot—the typical Obama supporter. Productivity under Obama has stopped. Existing companies have held their own, but new growth has been embarrassingly stagnating in future development and implementation through capital assets. That is the fault of Obama and his policies of federal terrorism of capitalism.

Obama spent the first four years blaming the previous administration on the state of the world. Now, six years into his presidency, he owns the parade of follies shown daily on the nightly news. All his bad management has caught up to him and he can no longer escape it. What will turn out to be his greatest failure will be that he did win a second term—because history will remember his faults instead of giving him the benefit of doubt of the four years he would have been in office left unproven. Now, he is proven. He’s a proven fool and is simply embarrassing as a human being—let alone a manager of anything.

Obama is way over his head and is proof of what happens when you put a radical community organizer into a responsible position. America and all the trouble currently plaguing the freest country on earth is the result of putting an idiot—and domestic terrorist like Obama into a governing position. Whether Obama is a terrorist by deliberate deceit or under just being a fool is the only question left to answer. Obama will always be known as the worst president in American history and a major step backward in human development. The results of his life and times as an American politician are now beyond refute and are solely in his possession. America would have done much better if it had simply plucked a stressed out fast food manager out of a nearby restaurant and put them in The White House. The results would have been much more productive.

Rich Hoffman   www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

“Our Universe Explained by the God Rich Hoffman”: The anger of those grounded by stupidity and arrogance

When I first started this blog, it was just prior to a planned visit to a popular radio station where it was intended for me to release the salaries of the local school administration pay rates causing a tax levy increase request.  I knew the type of people working in education, and understood the people who ran the labor unions controlling those “educators” anticipating clearly that I would be a target of their antagonism.  So I started this blog as a way to attack those pretentious people and to educate those kept in ignorance by tyrannical antics.  For an example of this behavior click here see a bit of what I am referring to.   What many didn’t know was that I knew exactly what I was getting in to, and that by criticizing a local school wanting to raise taxes I was putting a target on my back which would extend right into the White House—so I had to be willing to take on virtually anyone and everyone all at the same time who attempted to use democratic intelligentsia to intimidate critical thinking of their diabolical schemes—because up until this blog in 2010—people outside of the education industry, and progressive politics behaved as though they lacked the intelligence to question these con artists of public education.

I have a long history of dealing with people who believe that they are the smartest people in the room—people who work very hard to be masters of a specific field of endeavor—no matter what it is.  I have dealt with some of the worst people imaginable—from actual killers of men hired for the task so to suppress competition—and those who just believe that they are smarter than everyone else hiding their true intentions behind a veil of confident mastery over specific fields of endeavor.  However, I have always had since the age of a very small child the unique ability to see through any level of bullshit into the soul of the perpetrator and know exactly what they are up to and why.  Some might call it a gift from God—my unique skill which sets me aside from virtually everyone.  Some people can run fast, some can calculate complicated mathematics without a calculator, some can read pages and pages of legal documentation and actually retain the knowledge—etc, but almost nobody who I’ve ever met had the ability to see into, and through people the way I do.  Some might think it a curse—but I wouldn’t trade that ability for all the gold in the world and a life of ease and immortality on a paradise island with only pleasure in the forecast—I enjoy my ability that much.

So I started this blog as a way to address the crimes that I was seeing and challenge the premise that those same crimes were committed under—specifically by a class of people who sincerely believed they could get away with harming intellectually others while hiding their maliciousness behind a superior intellect.  They can’t.  To demonstrate my effectiveness, I have now written millions of words in this blog, virtually every article is over 1200 words each, and I’ve done it every day since 2010.  It has changed the lives of many people for the better and shattered the once confident hiding places of those most vile in our society—who hope to perpetrate their ill will toward mankind in obscurity.  They have tried every trick imaginable—but have failed utterly to shake me off their scent—which to me was never in question.

The good thing about the blog is that with all those words and the public forum of it—where anybody can answer my comments and pick holes in my theories, to date they have not been able to do so.  They can certainly insult—but they cannot answer or refute my claims and they’ll never be able to—and they hate it.  The proof is in the vast swath of articles I have produced in such a short time—relatively speaking.    At this point in this blog’s history I could take all the books of Ayn Rand and Leo Tolstoy and combine them—and I have written more than they have specifically targeting the crimes of our modern age.  I will certainly not proclaim that these works are as well edited—most of the articles are raw, and from the heart, the way a writer’s notes would be when formulating an idea for refinement—but that doesn’t take away the results which are enormous, and likely only rivaled over the entire Internet by a few outlets.

I mostly deal with excessively smart people who universally believe they are the smartest people around at any given time.  It is my task to show them that they are not—so that their efforts do not become a detriment to an enterprise—but a contributor and this often causes resentment.  This has been my task for four decades now, so I knew that by taking on the established thinking especially in regard to politics and education, what I was getting into.  That is the history of this blog to this point.  It has evolved away from the more specific task of identifying education industry crime—and has evolved more into a philosophic analysis of mythology and how it impacts the static patterns of the human race.    Because it is within that phrase that my special gift shines most brightly—when I go into long tirades about Star Wars, or some new game, literary work, or musical effort, it is because I see the impact of those achievements well before the rest of society does.  What I say today, will become the standard of thought approximately 15 years from now.  I am so confident in my assertions that I write these things audaciously for free on the Internet for future testimony without revisionist deflection.  People may not always understand why or what I’m doing, but if they did—they’d be the ones writing about them instead of me—but they aren’t, and they can’t.

Because they can’t, this leaves critics bitterly resentful, and constantly plotting and scheming so that they can return to the safety of their cloaked behavior within society.  Most people from the perpetrators of injustice currently sitting in The White House to the local labor union leaders within the education industry spend large amounts of their time trying to stay hidden—and they despise anyone who can see what they are really about—so they plot, scheme, and manipulate any way possible to return to that status.  But in regards to this blog, it makes it impossible for them.  Readers here have taken my words and used them as tools to change behavior and flush out the pretentious thugs of their localities in much the same way and embolden their efforts at justice—which is all I want.  But those motives still elude the most dastardly terrorists of the mind and within their circles of self-imposed exile have begun spreading reference to me in the following fashion:

“Our universe explained by the god Rich  Hoffman”

On my blog I can see the site stats hour by hour of the kind of terms people use to find it online—and that phrase has been coming up more often by different origin IP addresses lately.  This is an indication of the temperament of the critics out there and how they view this blog.  It is unfathomable to them that any individual would attempt to declare that they unshakably know facts, and can see into their hearts unless those individuals were supernatural.  So this is their new derogatory term used to confront the light which shines into their lives grudgingly preventing them from hiding in plain sight.  We live in a time where information is easier to get than ever before in human history—yet people are expected to be dumber than at virtually any point since the dawn of man.  People are expected to remain stupid so to prevent inquiry into the nature of crimes that those who think they are smarter than everyone else, wish to commit upon the innocent—and genuinely good-hearted.

Referring to me as a “god” in their context is not a compliment—but I take it that way—because it shows me more about them than they wish for me to see.  At the start of this blog I knew I was challenging people who thought they were the smartest people in existence, and the shattering impact that they were not has often proven too much for them to handle—which serves them right.  It is ultimately best for them to learn that they cannot use their intelligence for evil—but should utilize it for good, productive ends—and they’ll only do that if they are not allowed to hide behind an industry that does not question their merit for what it is.

A “God” is universally accepted as one who can see everything at all times—they are omnipotent.  Does that accurately describe me?  That is for me to know, and nobody else.  But my enemies do see me that way—and that is because they have been unable to match my assertions which leaves them metaphorically stripped naked for all to witness—and the sight is not a pleasant one.  But it is one that makes society and all endeavor better—which makes me sleep better at night knowing that I did the work that was required—and if some see that as the work of a “god” well—so be it.  I may be a lot of things to a lot of people depending on the context—but one thing I am not is humble.  Humbleness is a waste of time when the only goal of it is to make others feel better about their life decisions and ultimate fall from grace.  And that is not a business I want to be a part of.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Pigs in Lipstick: Why the MEA and all education labor unions are enemies of the nation

A comment I received recently by a frequent reader regarding the latest threat by the Mason Education Association deserves its own mention—because it cuts to the heart of the issue regarding modern public education.  I can’t say that it was always this bad—there was a time when public education was something to be proud of—but the government has ruined it utterly and unequivocally.  It is a disgrace to everything that is American—ruined by labor unions and their greedy love of European culture.  What the MEA and the public relation hounds whoring themselves for the swine threatening to strike in Mason during a summer off from any concern of work are simply attempting to put lipstick on a pig.  No matter how anyone ties to shine up the labor union greed and sheer audacity uttered by the sloths of liberal thinking—that is modern education—it is still a big rolling in its own feces attempting to live off the efforts of our children toward ends born in the mind of the destitute poverty-stricken fool—Karl Marx.

There is nothing righteous about the lack of valor taught in public schools.  There is nothing beneficial in teaching children the communist notion of sharing when it robs them of ambition.  There is nothing wonderful in teaching sex education when it robs children of the value of romance.  There is nothing good whatsoever in teaching children math if they can’t apply it to balancing their check book.  There is nothing good about teaching history if the lessons are ignored and picked apart only to feed a liberal agenda.   Yet this is what we as tax payers are paying for.  This is what the Mason teachers of southern Ohio are threatening to take away with their work stoppage while their fat, pretentious asses sit on a couch and rot as people like pumpkins left on a porch 90 days after Halloween—forgotten by the owners, neglected in favor of Christmas and the harsh cold of cleaning up the mess outside the warmth of their homes preventing action.  Nobody cares about them, nobody wants them, and nobody likes them—except the same lard-assed despots who support school levies hoping to save 50% on their child care services.  It costs levy supporters far less to pay $6000 per year in taxes than a baby sitter or private caretaker will charge to watch their children while they build their lives around their careers.  What it ultimately comes down to is that the typical levy supporter, and the members of the MEA, and every education association under the Ohio Education Association are too lazy and thoughtless to actually teach anything useful—yet they want to be paid a king’s ransom to instruct American youth to be soft minded slugs and useless caretakers of tomorrow’s problems.

Every labor union—especially those connected to government—like the teaching profession is—are simply lipstick on a pig born in Germany where the concept of socialism was created and exported to the rest of the world.  Every labor union is connected to the “Worker’s Movement” as conceived by Karl Marx himself and cares not anything for the minds of children, but is strategically positioning themselves to attack the concept of private property in all capitalist countries.  Once the lipstick is wiped off the swine what one finds underneath is a feces covered pig trying to disguise itself as something more worthy of life than a trip to the slaughterhouse.

The labor union confiscation of the American education industry is the single most direct attack on America that there is.  It pales the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.  It is not Islamic driven terrorism, home-grown government dissidents, or crazed lunatics driven by political hatred that most threaten America.  it is the deliberate destruction of our children through public education by radical zealots of socialism and liberalism in general who wish to undermine everything The United States was built upon by corrupting the youth off extracted taxation from its property values killing two birds with one stone.  Public education is not free—it’s only free for those who own no property.  And the value of it is useless because what the teachers of the MEA are instructing are the wrong kinds of things kids should be learning.  Public education needs to be completely reinvented because its current form is utterly useless to a capitalist society.

The nightly news likes pigs in lipstick because they think it’s cute—the way a little girl might dress up a dog, or put a dress on an animal meant to be dinner.  It’s a game to them that fills air time—but they ignore the impact that the game places on American youth.  Most adults who enjoy the experience of public education think back to their proms, to the football games, to the social events born of public education and they mindlessly support the whole endeavor because of a few fun experiences.  They do so out of reverence for the show conducted by the pigs in lipstick.  They ignore the slop house where the pigs reside or the contemplation of their inevitable futures ground into bacon to be served for breakfast—they just enjoy the show of pigs in lipstick dancing on a stage of their design.

But it’s not funny or cute when the minds of young people are robed, and the economy of America is attacked, and political leaders ride the back of this social mechanism to stay in power—write more laws, and do even more damage—all at the expense of children’s futures.  Public education is the single most dangerous attribute of modern society—it is far more dangerous than any notion of global warming, or international terror, of domestic school shootings, of any civil rights issue—because public schools touch the lives of virtually every human being in a country—especially America. Their children are legally obligated to attend public school, and property owners pay the bill off an inflated value driven by a dollar value propped up by quantitative easing.  The property values for homes is not high because of their intrinsic value, but because for the taxes to be extracted there has to be value provided and that value must be artificially inflated so that the expectations of increased costs can be met.  The end game is financial collapse and the minds who must deal with that financial collapse are being taught in the public schools that two men kissing each other has more value than balancing a check book, or learning how to weld two sheets of metal together.  Kids are taught useless progressive propaganda and left unarmed to deal with the real problems caused by the pigs in lipstick.

There is no way to save public education so long as labor unions are involved.  They are the pigs in lipstick using makeup to cover up their ugly swine-like tendencies.  Public education for a time, before labor unions came into power was a noble ideal, and it worked alright during the early stages of labor union control until the Department of Education centralized education in league through the Department of Labor with the labor union desire to expand the government work force through tax backed employment rooted in communism.  To protect itself from critical analysis, labor unions and their supporters dress in lipstick hoping to seduce away scrutiny of their real intentions which are anti-capitalist and anti-economic strength.  The very concept is rooted in failure and cannot be saved because the illusion is only makeup skin deep.  What is at the core of public education is rotten and devastating to any culture implementing it—and must be abandoned if there is any hope of saving one child, let alone millions.

This is why the teachers of the MEA are pigs in lipstick and all their supporters enemies of the our nation.  Where is that GM parts plant now from the strike in 2o07?  Gone, just like public education is headed funded off tax money and liberal instruction.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee: The criminal Eric Holder tries to define criminal behavior

 

Without question I am part of the new focus from the Eric Holder’s Justice Department on an “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists within the United States. A new task force was announced this week to target threats to American safety as perceived by the current criminal class of politicians occupying the modern White House. Every day members of this Justice department likely monitor my every word and movement from one GPS setting to the next. This has been going on for a long time. However, because the administration continues to make mistake after mistake in domestic and foreign policy strategies—the pressure to silence their critics is becoming overwhelming. I’m certainly not alone, they are now watching more intensely than ever thousands of similar voices who find the current administration reprehensible—for fear that some rebellion might be born from the words uttered by such people.

The task force will chiefly comprise leaders from the FBI, the Justice Department’s National Security Division and U.S. Attorneys. Called the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, it is a recreation of a task force formed by former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The task force fell into disuse after 9/11.Holder promised that the government will continue to fight terrorists abroad, but added “we also must concern ourselves with a different type of threat. We face an escalating danger from self-radicalized individuals within our own borders,” he said. “Now — as the nature of the threat we face evolves to include the possibility of individual radicalization via the Internet — it is critical that we return our focus to potential extremists here at home.”

NPR adds that:

“The threat from al-Qaida is much more diffuse after Sept. 11, and the threats posed by a single horribly misguided citizen or permanent legal resident in the U.S. is in a sense as great as what core al-Qaida posed before Sept. 11,” says Neil MacBride, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-03/eric-holder-announces-task-force-focus-domestic-terrorists

In short, “THEY”–meaning the Justice Department–guided by President Obama don’t want people to think or question their reality. They want anonymity from justice and are primarily concerned with maintaining their control over the mainstream media. Yet that same media is under tremendous pressure to compete with the numerous blogs, radio shows, and Tea Party oriented groups still very strong all around the country who no longer accept being spoon feed complete fabrications of reality from the modern political class. So the only thing a criminal who wishes to hide can do to stay hidden from the lights cast upon them is to get rid of them. To that effect, I am at the center of many liberty movements and this site inspires hundreds of leaders all across the nation. Surely, the FBI has the statistical data of the IP addresses which visit every day, so they already know. People like Holder hope to cut off the intellectual maintenance of such movements by stopping the source. That is the reason for their resurrection of the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee.

However, one might wonder if I am worried. Of course not. Do you know why dear reader? My lack of concern comes from the name itself more specifically the word—“committee.” As I said before, the U.S. Government and a whole room full of Barack Obama types are incapable to perform effectively any management endeavor because committees do not work. They don’t work in business, and they don’t work in politics—yet every institution of higher learning is teaching that they do—which is an extreme folly. I do not worry about those watching me, because they are not able to organize well enough to implement a strategy of any kind. All they can do is provoking suspects through harassment so their targets turn to anger prompting them to break the law which “they” control.

I’m on my second decade of this type of watching. I am now well aware of the white service vans parked down road collecting intelligence on me, listening to everything I do and say hoping to connect the dots of some patterned behavior. I know of the listening devices that no longer have to be physically planted in a home because they are now so sophisticated. I see the lurkers online trying to piece together the IP addresses of my readers and determine a pattern of behavior that they can pin to my name so to stop my online columns. And I could recite word for word the kind of dialogue uttered by Holder and his gang in these “committees.” They are lucky if they can order lunch for 10 people—let alone catch a domestic terrorist. The real terrorists are the ones who look back at them in the mirror as they plot with every breath of their being to destroy the American Constitution. When criminals are in charge of the law, they feel they have the right to define criminal behavior and turn the world of right and wrong on its head—and so long as there is a Constitution—they cannot perform the task.

So worry not about the drones taking pictures of you having sex with your wife in the backyard. If they get an eyeful, it will ultimately serve your strategy—but don’t be fearful. The people watching the images are perverts about as sophisticated as an average ground-hog, and we have a family of seven of them in our yard—who I pay equal mind to. Worry not about what they record, because if you are truly good, they may learn something and collapse under their own guilt. I have seen this happen many times. I have found that such opportunities teach the bad guys how to be good, and they turn against your enemies helping you more than they can hurt you. One thing that is common to most people is that they desire to do right. Often people think they know the definition of good as someone like Holder might define it. But through contention, they learn otherwise and today’s enemy can become tomorrow’s ally once they learn from you how to be good after being assigned to listen and watch all your movements the way a child does to form their basic static patterns of social conduct.

But make no mistake about it, Holder and his gangs of government thugs are looking to suppress opposition to their social philosophy of general Marxism. They are radicals hoping to change the world toward socialism, and will see any threat to their desire as an extremist position—so if you are a Christian, you are likely on the list, if you attend Tea Party activity—you are on the list—if you write blogs, give public speeches against the government, or even write books they would consider you incendiary to their authoritarian position. You can then be assured that they are watching your every move and plotting your demise. But just remember that as they try to figure out your doom—they struggle to order pizza—so keep that in perspective as you think of who is on the other end and how serious a threat Eric Holder is in the grand scheme of things.

Rich Hoffman 

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com