When you hear your local school state that they need more money for a tax levy, remember what you heard Melissa Harris-Perry say. When your local school states that children need a better eduction remember that most of those educators are not thinking of mathematics, literature, or history, but of indoctrination into a progressive ideological utopia that is as nutty as the Jim Jones massacre. Public education professionals do not think like you, they are not like you, and they do not want your children to learn from you. They see your children as “their” children. They see your house as their house. They see your life as their life. This is what kind of mentality has infested public education. They are collectivists and are intent to destroy everything of value in the traditional sense of America…………especially the parent/child relationship. The proof is in their own words.
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on April 2nd 2013 to create the first treaty regulating the international arms trade, a landmark decision that imposes new constraints on the sale of conventional arms to governments and armed groups that commit war crimes, genocide and other mass atrocities which sounds delightful from a distance.
The vote was hailed by arms-control advocates and scores of governments, including the United States, as a major step in the global effort to put in place basic controls on the $70 billion international arms trade. But the treaty was denounced by Iran, North Korea and Syria, which maintain that it imposes restrictions that prevent smaller states from buying and selling weapons to ensure their self-defense.
In short, the new United Nations treaty is step one in an international gun ban intended to spread across the world to disarm private citizens under the guise of the generally agreed upon measures of preventing the sale of conventional arms to governments or terrorist groups. The treaty is simply lip service as even The United States will violate the treaty within moments of having signed it. After all, these types of events are precisely what led to the arms debacle occurring under the Obama White House with Fast and Furious and apparently the Benghazi tragedy – so even the largest supporters of this new United Nations Treaty will openly break the terms then lie about it later leaving the only conclusion about the treaty intentions to be revealed, the actual intent of the United Nations is not to regulate the sale of firearms to hostile groups, but to establish in the mind of the world that 1. The United Nations is a powerful group with global influence, and 2. That citizens all over the world will find they can be brought together on common ground to take steps of disarmament surrendering their personal sovereignty to the “wisdom” of global government. Such an audacious declaration from The United Nations justifies a response, and for me it comes in the video below. I would like to introduce The United Nations to my good friend the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum, the most powerful production revolver in the entire world. It delivers an astonishing 2600 ft/lb of muzzle energy and has enough kick upon firing to dislocate a shoulder by the sheer power. The gun is designed to stop elephants while on safari and can be effectively used to hunt the largest of big game animals, but more than that it is a wonderful self-defense weapon for protecting private property, should the tragic circumstances ever arrive. The .500 Magnum can split the body of an attacker in two if wad cutters are used, and disable a get-a-way car by penetrating the engine block with a well placed shot into the valve assembly. The bullets are so big they can sheer away the lug nuts that hold a tire to an axel making a rolling car’s wheels pop off upon impact leaving the escapees sitting ducks awaiting justice. I would bet that not a single one of the pin heads who make up the United Nations General Assembly could fire the .500 Magnum with only one hand and hit a target square in the heart like I do in the video below, and it is due to their lack of skill, strength and logic that is the real motive behind their desire to ban firearms in the world is revealed.
None of the U.N. Assembly members would disclose in the light of day without the benefit of drunkenness their desire to ban firearms in the world is because they wish to be the governing force the world bows to, yet their actions deceive their intentions. They know that so long as people like me have access to .500 Magnums that no military force, no policing force, or authority on Earth could force me into compliance to their socialist leaning tendencies. So they must remove such tools from human civilization so that they can implement their further plans of global conquest.
In The United States this is why we have a Second Amendment, because it keeps governments from packing up in a Humvee and showing up on our doorsteps to arrest rebels who plot against United Nation mandates, fight Common Core implementation of socialism into schools driving a “Global Marketplace,” or desire to protect their private property which a vast majority of the United Nations General Assembly desires to banish from human practice so that Mother Earth can live fruitfully till the sun eventually blots out destroying the planet in roughly 500 billion years. When guns are taken from private citizens, they have no defense when organized governments decide they wish to grab power for themselves, and global governments like what the United Nations is attempting to become will not be tolerated by me in the United States due to this hidden intention. The United Nations will never declare that they wish such things as a strong central government in charge of everything. They simply wish to believe that they are making the world safer, just like the school teacher wishes to believe they are making children “better,” in American schools. But the reality is that they are all servants to the evils of collectivism and nothing more. The byproduct of collectivism is personal tyranny.
That is why in America every home should have their own .500 Magnum. Ideally every household would have at least one human being under its roof that could fire the weapon one-handed, because such strength is needed to protect families from the perils of evil which do reside in the minds of man. Such a threat is the only governing force that works in a civilized society, something the global academics have been terribly naive in understanding. They believe falsely that words on a paper will change the course of evil, but it has only fed it throughout history. Academics believe falsely that if they construct one more paragraph of legislation that evil will be banished from the Earth forever, but what they miss is that such evils grow with every legislative word constructed in the minds of a bureaucrat.
The truth is easy to see when visiting a gun range like Target World in Cincinnati, Ohio which is where I was in the video above holding the most powerful handgun in the world. With the gun it is realized that even aircraft could be brought down with such a weapon and drones would have no chance if spotted. The .500 caliber bullet could shatter such aerial surveillance with one shot because of the extreme size of the ammunition. Upon that understanding, the mind is brought to peace as it is realized that those who hold a .500 Magnum in their hands and have learned to use it have nothing to fear from any assailant in the world, and that is freedom from tyranny—even the tyranny brought on by good intentions from pin heads and bureaucrats. It is also realized that the true intentions behind the gun bans advocated particularly among socialist leaning politicians is that they are physically and mentally weak human beings to start with, and hope that they can be made to rule over the strong with the stroke of a pen, or new law built behind collective ambition. The .500 Magnum would shatter the arm of the frail boned weaklings who make up the United Nations General Assembly, so they are naturally terrified of such weapons—and they should be, because they have the power to call armies to their disposal and put down rebels who stand against their Common Core education proposals and Agenda 21 schemes. So for people like me, the .500 Magnum is the great equalizer. I know as long as I have it that no government in the world even through collective force can organize against my property and my rights to protect my family. I would never surrender such a task to the bureaucrats of The United Nations, The United States or even my local police department. Instead, I entrust that task to my own two hands and the awesome power of the .500 Magnum which can decapitate an attacker upon demand. It is within the 2600 ft/lb of muzzle energy produced by the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum that freedom thrives, and the sovereignty of The United States can continue on into the next centuries well beyond the twenty-first. The .500 Magnum is the tool with which freedom is obtained from the academic intentions of the dainty minded United Nations politician and their naive world view reflected in appalling constructs such as their first treaty regulating the international arms trade which is step one in a global gun ban they hope to enact within the next three decades. With that in mind, please get to know my friend, the .500 Magnum. And if I were you, I’d become intimately familiar and make friends with your own so that together the aims of The United Nations can be beaten back into submission from their intentions to rule over the affairs of life in America and every household within its borders.
Why is the Tea Party always fighting for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets? Why is the Tea Party categorized by thugs, goons, government looters, despots, scum bags, rent-a-cops, union leaders, progressives, Fabian socialists, communists, school teachers, scandalous judges, kangaroo courts, money grabbing attorneys, left-leaning reporters, Obama supporters, and greenie weenies as being a terrorist organization? Because the Tea Party wants to do the right thing in government, they want to stop the corruption and otherwise scandalous behavior that normally is associated with government and return America to a time of mythical honesty conceived by The United States Constitution. Thus begins the story of Donna Campbell, one of the founding members of the Lebanon Tea Party, entrepreneur of the Liberty Tax Service for 7 straight years and area developer who has been so successful that her aggressive marketing strategies have allowed her business to out produce her local rival H&R Block which has been in business for more than 50 years and is a much larger company. Donna has found herself in court on and off for over the last year not because she robbed a bank, or urinated on a police car—but because she has been successful, and there are powers in the City of Lebanon who wish to see her put out of business and crushed because she’s a threat to them.
Not that a rival company in Lebanon would put money into the pockets of the political machine to set in motion the story of Donna Campbell, but it wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened under similar circumstances. Such happenings are difficult to prove and most of the parties lie under oath in a court of law anyway, so there is no way to bring such information to the light of day. But the evidence speaks for itself, and is incriminating enough to paint a picture of how government colludes to pick winners and losers using their power and influence to put people like Donna out of business if they discover that she is not part of the power structure they wish to support. The unspoken rule among many business owners is that they feel they must contribute to politicians in some fashion or another through charity events or direct campaign funding so to keep the parasites off their backs in some future time. In the case of Liberty Tax Service the success of her business has caught the eyes of power in a negative way, and they have come after her in a very aggressive manner. The story you are about to read happens all the time. It has happened with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who invented a cure for cancer and has had to fight for 15 years against the FDA, it has happened to car companies who go up against the Big Three auto manufacturers, it has happened to Microsoft. What has happened to Donna Campbell has happened to just about anyone who comes up with a better way of doing something where more established organizations who contribute more money into the political machines of local, state, and national politics use their power and influence to crush their rivals because they can’t compete directly.
I have written about Liberty Tax Services before as the West Chester location was recently pulled across the coals for violating the sign ordinance in that community, a case that ended up being the topic of much debate on the Scott Sloan show with trustee George Lang defending Liberty Tax Service. The issue was that Donna’s businesses have been using human billboards to dress up and engage motorists at the roads urging them to file their tax returns at her establishments. The method worked as Liberty Tax Service has enjoyed thriving results. In West Chester the zoning commission determined that Liberty Tax Service was violating their signing regulations by using human billboards. Click the link below to review that case and listen to the WLW broadcast.
Well the same thing has occurred in Lebanon, which is roughly 15 miles to the east of West Chester, Ohio, only to a much more aggressive extent. Lebanon as a small city still enjoys the political pull of small town America as most everyone in political office knows each other, so collaborations are common in such places. It didn’t take long after Donna’s Liberty Tax Service Lebanon location caught the ridicule of the city’s “Sign Czar” after posting more tax returns than H&R Block according to IRS data, to begin to feel the heat of city government. Lebanon actually employs a retired police officer with the full-time position to regulate signage within the city complete with a car, computer and lots of time to take pictures and send out certified letters regarding violations of sign ordinances.
The Sign Czar began engaging in harassment of Liberty Tax Service by exchanging dialogue with Donna’s marketing employee who did not show the retired officer much respect, according to court documents. The Sign Czar took it upon himself to deliberately target Liberty Tax Services marketing strategies for reasons only the Czar can understand leading to the exchanges with the Liberty Tax Service employee who boasted at times how successful their efforts were. This made the Czar even more vigilant. The Sign Czar under the authority of the City of Lebanon began to confiscate Donna’s signs all over town and dispose of them.
The final straw occurred when Donna had a sign maker print up 100 signs which went out over night before the Sign Czar began his shift at 7 AM. This angered the Czar and he used the offices of politics to execute his desires convincing the City to proceeded attacking Donna with a summons to municipal court for sign violations and a fine of $500 per day. This left Donna to hire the legal services of Eric Deters to defend herself along with the support of city council member Matt Rodriquez who informed her that Lebanon City Hall was awaiting the outcome of the West Chester/Liberty Tax case concerning the sign wavers. If West Chester Township was successful in removing the sign wavers from Liberty Tax Services, then Lebanon intended to follow. But the harassment of Donna did not stop as the Sign Czar intensified his efforts without a care for the 10-15 employees who directly worked for Donna. The intention by the Sign Czar was to put her out of business, his actions made that clear. The Sign Czar over the last year determined to confiscate any sign put out by Liberty Tax Services any time anywhere. Even when Donna had permission from other business owners to put a single sign in front of their buildings, the Sign Czar determined that it went against the city code. This same Sign Czar allowed H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt and other non-competing businesses in Lebanon to have signs out that were not directly in front of their businesses as can be seen by the photos. The city has kept the case alive to monitor what Donna did for the 2013 tax season. Donna attempted to legally comply with the unusual restrictions by saying “Aaron’s Rent recommends Liberty Tax” and place the signs in front of Aaron’s place of business. The City called Donna’s attorney and stated they wanted those removed also. The city also notified Donna’s landlord in a direct attempt to manipulate the landlord’s relationship against Liberty Tax Service. The City of Lebanon appeared to stop at nothing to put Donna out of business in their city, and West Chester has shown nearly the same animosity………but why.
This is why there is a Tea Party and why they stand for the kind of things that they do. Donna should not have to butter the bread of city officials in either Lebanon or West Chester to do business in those communities. If her signage is a turn-off to her customers, then she will go out of business, it’s as easy as that. Yet her sign wavers standing in costume out in front of her businesses have worked, making Liberty Tax Service exceed the filings of her rivals which is what productive businesses should always endeavor to do. But Donna didn’t grease the gears of the political machines, and for that she has paid dearly. To her credit, rather than cave under the pressure and offer the Sign Czar some extra money on the side, free tax services, or any other type of activity that might be considered bribery, she instead helped start the Lebanon Tea Party to help combat these kinds of evils which stand in the way of free markets where better ideas like hers can thrive under a capitalist system serving as the cornerstone of the American economy. This activity has made her an enemy of government instead of an asset. The government using the Sign Czar as the public mask of civility targeted Donna for elimination for the simple fact that she did not share in the beliefs of their brand of kangaroo court justice, where winners and losers are picked by the gods of government and the puny brains of retired police officers who do the job not for money, but the thrill to impose their will of enforcement upon the lives of innocence to fill the personal void of character for which they seem to lack.
In America, people like Donna should be celebrated, not drug through court with fearful arm twisting and threats of $500 a day fines because she didn’t try to go out of her way to make the Sign Czar happy. The public servants in the case of Lebanon and West Chester against Liberty Tax Services forget that it is they who serve Donna, not the other way around. Donna creates real jobs with real worth by offering a service that her customers truly desire. The young people who dress up in costume to advertise with dances and other vigorous ambition to direct business into Donna’s establishments are paid by their performance. On the other hand the City of Lebanon can only offer a job paid for by the tax payers to create jobs that are not needed, such as in the Sign Czar who has nothing to do but collect a pension from his years as a cop, and make more money from the government by harassing independent business people whom he decides he does not like for whatever reason. It is because of stories like this one that the Tea Party exists, still—and stands strong against the kind of anti-capitalist behavior exhibited above. People do not exist for government to live, thrive and enjoy lives of liberty under the toils of entrepreneurs like Donna Campbell. Rather, it’s supposed to be the other way around. The Sign Czar if he wanted to make himself useful should help Donna put out her signs and if the marketplace decided that she did not use discretion and restrain herself, then her business would fail as a result. It’s not up to some pin head bureaucrat to decide if Donna fails at business or not, which is the case in the City of Lebanon. It is for this reason that the Tea Party is still strong, and actually growing because people like Donna are sick of being pushed around, and they just aren’t going to take it anymore. And they shouldn’t have to. Government does not dictate to the people who elect them, they are not divine leaders with infinite wisdom. They are public servants and nothing more. If they do not help people like Donna they are an immoral impediment to the health and well-being of any economy, therefore marking themselves as threats to human civilization. For that reason, the Tea Party strives to crush such opposition to capitalism and return America back to an era where freedom is enjoyed, and the best and brightest can succeed in a marketplace not controlled by government sloths, but by the will and limitations of the individual and their private ambitions to drive the engines of society ever more toward horizons only imagined in the entrepreneurial activity of Americans always looking for a competitive edge. Building a better mousetrap that can succeed where before there was nothing but an empty building and a landlord who needs to lease the space to a brilliant mind willing to forge a path through the labyrinth of red tape known as the modern age of doing business, is what makes unemployment figures decrease. It is in this that America is successful or individuals like Donna are flourishing. The City of Lebanon instead evoked The Power of Pull to determine success or failure, and that is a violation to logic that cannot be tolerated. (CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON “THE POWER OF PULL”) Thank goodness Donna Campbell has decided to fight back, because it is due to people like her that the America Flag still is red, white and blue with fifty stars and stripes instead of a red hammer and sickle evoked from a long vanished enemy that never went away after the Berlin Wall fell in Eastern Europe during 1989. Rather, they moved to Lebanon, Ohio in an attempt at a new regime against capitalism—but instead ran into an immovable force in the spirit of Donna Campbell and her Liberty Tax Service.
Agenda 21 has been injected into the daily business of virtually every American for many years and can be seen most directly in conservative communities like Liberty Township and West Chester Township in Butler Country, Ohio. Within one week apart the Board of the Trustees from each township met to discuss applying for a new federal grant intended for bike paths and sidewalks. Out of those two small government organizations only two of the trustees seemed to understand what Agenda 21 was even though many speakers showed up to voice their concerns and opinions. George Lang from West Chester and David Kern from Liberty Township voted against the proposed federal grants. Both men were witty enough to have done their homework on Agenda 21 which is a set of mandates created by The United Nations way back in the early 90s, at that start of the Clinton Presidency, to impose itself on United States sovereignty. When any local government takes federal money of any kind whether it is for a school or even a sidewalk what is not understood by typical politicians is that they surrender management control to the federal government which in turn answers to The United Nations. The federal grants are simply camouflaged power grabs by the U.N. to bring the entire world under their legislative influence which is the essence of Agenda 21. It starts with a sidewalk and ends in totalitarianism. For politicians hungry to do something meaningful with their political lives, the temptation of money dangled before their eyes is too lucrative. In spite of the parade of public speakers which can be seen below from the West Chester Township meeting, the vote was 2 to 1 in favor of applying for federal grants in both townships leaving David Kern and George Lang to cast the sole votes against the measure. Watch this meeting carefully. This is how freedoms have died in America for nearly a hundred years, one small grant at a time, and federal aid for public schools.
Both Liberty and West Chester Township share the same school district of Lakota and have three trustees each, all of whom would consider themselves conservative. West Chester is so conservative that it is the home district of House Speaker John Boehner so the residents unless they are radicalized school teachers or federal employees in some way or another tend to vote conservative. The trustees who voted against Lang and Kern are not bleeding heart hippies and wrung out liberals as they wouldn’t do well in the political structure of Butler Country, Ohio. Yet as could be heard in the video above, Agenda 21 is a plan from a far away land that does not directly affect the trustee’s hometown communities—or that’s what they believe. They are unable to conceive how Agenda 21 is embedded to the federal money that they wish to take, and that’s how the disease of international control is let in the back door of their community and allowed to erode away the management of their financial resources.
The typical argument given in favor of politicians wishing for such federal grants were the same as those given by Cathy Stoker and Lee Wong shown in the video. They understand that there is money on the table which the federal government took from tax payers and placed into a federal grant. If they as a governing body would like the money all they must do is comply with a few federal regulations. What Cathy and Lee do not understand is that those federal regulations were shaped by sympathizers to the United Nations, and that the members of the U.N. who created the parameters for establishing those regulations are sympathizers to a global group called Socialist International. The intent of Socialist International, the United Nations, and all governments in general is to bend to submission of collective aims by default. Since politics in any country tends to be a popularity contest, socialism is the means for politicians to retain their seats. This is why governments always migrate toward socialism—and the more government there is, the more socialism shapes the policies of that government. Local politicians like those seen in the video from West Chester are simply unable to see the big picture of how their actions help feed the monster of socialism. Typically they are short-sighted personalities who simply want to rub elbows with business interests in their communities, and generally want to do good for the people who elected them.
Lee Wong said during the West Chester meeting that he has spoken to other people in the community and they do not agree with the speakers who showed up in protest of the federal funding. Wong has a collective ideology that does not enable him to understand what the speakers were talking about, so he spoke to a few of his neighbors who thought the way he did and concluded that taking the federal money for a sidewalk was morally righteous and that the people who actually showed up to speak against the issue were wrong. He arrived at the meeting with the predisposition of evading the facts in favor of easy money. His bubble of reality is the few people on his street that he associates with, who lack a worldly understanding of what Agenda 21 is. To them the mention of Agenda 21 is regulated to conspiracy since they are too lazy to think too deeply about the inconvenient reality.
For those who have been raised in public education with confused messages of individual achievement suppressed against desires of collective ambition, they are living in very confusing times. When socialism is discussed as it is so often today, many people do not understand that all forms of collectivism are the remnants of civilization’s primitive past and that the world is undergoing a revolution that will forever advance the human mind toward individualism. In America the concept of individualism has been attacked by European influence so to bring the entire world back in line with the same type of collectivist philosophy—which is presently attempting to return the mind of man back to those of the Dark Ages, where sacrifice, altruism, and social peaking order were the primary determinations of success.
Troubadours and Trouvères, were lyric poets and poet-musicians who flourished in France from the end of the 11th century to the end of the 13th century. The troubadours were active in Provence in southern France. Written in the Provençal language, the lyrics of the troubadours were among the first to use native language rather than Latin, the literary language of the Middle Ages. The earliest troubadour whose works have been preserved was Guillaume IX of Aquitaine (1071-1127). The majority of known troubadours were nobles and in some cases kings. Troubadour music gradually disappeared during the 13th century but their impact would resonate through European culture for centuries thereafter.
trou·ba·dour (tr¡¹be-dôr´, -dor´, -d¢r´) noun
1. One of a class of 12th-century and 13th-century lyric poets in Provence, northern Italy, and northern Spain, who composed songs in langue d’oc often about courtly love.
2. A strolling minstrel.
[French, from Provençal trobador, from Old Provençal, from trobar, to compose, perhaps from Vulgar Latin *tropâre, from Late Latin tropus, trope, song, from Latin, trope. See trope.][1]
The verse forms included the canso (stanza song), tenso (dialogue or debate), sirvente (political or satirical canso), planh (complaint or dirge), alba (morning song), and serena (evening song). The musical accompaniments were generally played on stringed instruments such as viele (medieval fiddle) or the lute.
The trouvères were court poet-musicians of northern France. Their songs were strongly influenced by those of the troubadours. The northern poet-musicians eventually developed their own genre, which placed more emphasis on heroic epics. The trouvères wrote in the northern French language. The most famous trouvère was Adam de la Halle.[2]
The Middle Ages, a period of European history spanning roughly a thousand years, has not been well represented in most high school history curriculums, and indeed is frequently neglected in undergraduate history programs as well. It is because the Middle Ages are so poorly studied, even in European education, that many of the influences that shape the world today are lost as to their original meanings. Many modern students of history assume that romantic love was always the primary motive of marriage, but it wasn’t. Marriage unions prior to the troubadours had collective social concerns as the primary motive.
The way the troubadours envisioned romantic love threatened the entire family structure of organized society and the collective aims of surrendering individual happiness to the needs of a family, a region, or even a nation dominated social concerns. Yet after seven centuries in Occidental cultures, romantic love is now expected – even mandated. It is because of the troubadours that Hollywood’s most successful products are romantic comedies as the yearning in America and Europe for authentic love relationships – relationships built from the shared values of two people in “love” otherwise known as the chemical reaction produced in the brain desiring to bring the sexual organs of two people together with the added spice of common likes and dislikes in a mating partner drive the motivations of relationship forming. Sex or the promise of it is the basis behind such “romantic love” and is wholly inspired by the need for pleasurable gratification. In such relationships if the self-interest of one party is not fulfilled by the other, the relationship tends to disintegrate if more aspects of the relationship are not introduced into the more complicated union, such as children, real estate, or mature friendships which bloom from the satisfaction of shared values. Most of these relationships begin as the primary desire for sexual gratification which is not sacrificial, but pleasurable.
In arranged marriages, or marriages where attractive females marry men many years their senior for what such arrangements may do for their career or financial well-being the woman will allow her body to be used for sex in a similar way that a prostitute sells her body, but is unlikely to enjoy the experience herself since she is not attracted physically to her mate. In Europe this led to the Victorian Era promiscuity that has become so well-known to the period where affairs were rampant, but suppressed for fear that the Church might look poorly upon the behavior. It was these same Victorians who settled New England from the period of the War of 1812 to the Red Decade Period and brought with them the work of Karl Marx and progressive politics. The ghosts of these Victorians are in every mother who says to her daughter, “Marry him because he makes a lot of money,” meaning the marriage partner will have the kind of “political pull” to bring success to her family. It is unlikely that the women in such “arranged marriages” will enjoy or sympathize with individual endeavors since they have sacrificed their will to the collective desires of other influences. These types of families tend to look toward political socialism to bring attempts at happiness to their lives. If they can’t be happy, or didn’t fight for their right to be happy in the most basic aspects of their lives which is their sexual relationships, then they will seek government that will eliminate other options of free will so that the limited choices in they have made won’t be so obvious.
Yet such advancement in individuality cannot be undone. Romantic love is here to stay and with it over many years the traces of collective oriented government will eventually fail totally as human beings come to realize that they wish in their governments the same options that they have in their sexual relationships. Currently, many people who grew up on romantic comedies are the same people desiring socialism or at least aspects of it because they don’t understand how the two things are connected. People today expect to pick their spouse of their own free will, and if the lover does not fulfill their needs, then the relationship ends and a new lover is typically found until the right fit occurs. The premise behind the “romantic love” is the alignment of values with another individual which acknowledges that the happiness of individuals is more important than the happiness of collective groups. The same debate is currently happening economically and politically; the socialist and communists are at war with the capitalists and Constitutional purists. The idea of capitalism is the “romantic love” of finance and it was invented in The United States by the mythical Americans who like the troubadours have made a move against at least 10,000 years of human history and the economical means of exchange that have occurred during that time. The result has been explosive, which is why America has so much current wealth. Just like the arranged marriages from the 13th century, there was a lot of resistance to the “romantic love” proposed by the troubadours. Capitalism like “romantic love” is opposed by collectivists and the established order of yesterday who desire communism and socialism as the way to quell threats of free will in means of government and national management. But such governments are moving out of fashion, and will eventually be as rare 200 to 300 years from now as arranged marriages are rare in the modern age. America as an experiment rocked the world with its radical new ideas regarding capitalism, and the world closed up around it hopping to squeeze it dead with progressive politics, but they are too late. Human beings have tasted such freedom as “romantic love” and now “capitalism” which are one and the same. Mankind will not be happy until the two systems are in harmony in the light of daily life where “romantic love” rules the bedroom and “capitalism” rules the means that such couples make their livings.
They are either completely stupid or openly deceitful but the new group most vocally standing against Workplace Freedom in Ohio is attempting to convince voters that the right-to-work movement is driven by communist interest. Now, if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black! The group called Protect Ohio Middle Class is putting up billboards along Ohio highways with the title Workplace Freedom accompanied by the hammer and sickle from communist Soviet propaganda to place in the minds of the mushy middle class and ill-informed that Workplace Freedom is a communist sentiment. THAT IS HILARIOUS.
That just goes to show how manically deceitful these radicals of progressive policy are willing to embark to preserve their corrosive achievements. With that said, there is no special interest behind my desire to pursue Workplace Freedom in Ohio. I have never taken nor will I ever take money to write an article favoring Workplace Freedom. I support it because it’s the right thing to do in Ohio and unlike the collective endeavors of the typical union worker who believe in the ridiculous concept of “all for one and one for all” nonsense, I think for myself. I don’t wait for a memo from some union leader to tell me how to think, how to vote, or what union revised history states. So I know the real story behind the unions in America, and they are not organizations dedicated to capitalism or freedom. They were created by communism for the aims of soft socialist introduction of governing to mass populations through union membership. Unions are not products of the free market, and their existence is a threat to freedom in America.
The union apologists will utter that they have a right to “collectively bargain,” that they are entitled to sit across the table from management as a collective unit of force and demand higher wages, and if they don’t get them then “striking” is the next option—which means work stoppage until the unions get what they want. However, striking is unproductive, and if work is not being done, then productivity is not creating wealth—therefore nobody makes any money. This union type mentality in America has crushed the car companies, steel mills, and a multitude of other businesses as frequent strikes have destroyed productivity forcing manufactures to produce in countries or states where such threats are not legal. In forced work states like Ohio, a company has no protection against a strike but to yield and increase wages whether or not it can afford to or not.
The union argument framed in the mind of Karl Marx is that the bourgeois always has enough money to “share” with the “worker” and that money will be taken by force if needed. Unions therefore developed the strike as the way to extract that money. In the private sector this has bankrupted many companies. In the public sector such as teachers, firefighters and police officers it has caused budget breaking deficits and tax increases. All this is the plan of global communists who stand against private property, and ownership of any kind. In this communist mindset which came to America through labor unions they changed the name of the bourgeois class to simply naming them “the rich,” and the proletariat class have now become called the “middle class.”
“Middle Class” is a derogatory term intended to suppress a heard of mindless human beings under the collective rule of communism. The creation of the middle class in America by labor unions is to advance the concept of the proletariat as defined by Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Union groups like the one mentioned above in Protect Ohio Middle Class knows that if Ohio becomes a right-to-work state as Indiana and Michigan now are, that they will lose the communist push to spread the efforts of the proletariat toward the progressive aims of global socialism/communism. Ironically, in the video above this group mentioned communist China as one of the countries where there are no unions—yet they ignore that the proletariat there had long been defeated by the communist push coming out of the biggest union in the world at the time, the Soviet Union. The future of Ohio and of The United States is in what happened to the Soviet Union under union membership, and it can be seen in any community that once had strong union presences in companies that are no longer there. Their arguments in favor of unions are typically as follows with my rebuttal in blue. (If you are a union member reading this, the word “rebuttal” does not have anything to do with butts, asses, anal orifices, or any semblance of passing gas. It is a term used to offer the other side of a debate.)
On Union Membership…(as found on the Protect Ohio Middle Class website)
Since 1935, Congress has guaranteed the rights of workers to collectively bargain, and since 1947 has protected the rights of workers to refrain from union membership if they choose.What the unions don’t say is that Congress passed this law under what was known as the “Red Decade” where influence from the Soviet Union was heavily affecting policy in America during the Great Depression. The pressure to cave under communist influence was intense, and this is how collective bargaining began in America. When it comes to forced membership, it means that teachers, auto workers, steel workers, etcetera must be in a union or not take the job. It’s their choice if they want to work in a union job or not—which really isn’t a choice. It’s deceptive marketing of the union product.
Unionized employees are 19% more likely to have employer-provided health coverage than non-union employees. True, and because of the crushing costs of health coverage many employers under union rule have elected to go out of business. In Southern Ohio drive through towns like Middletown, Hamilton, Norwood, Dayton — anywhere where large union manufactures have dominated and empty buildings will be seen everywhere. Those empty buildings are no longer providing health insurance—at all.
Unionized employees are 25% more likely to have an employer-sponsored pension than non-union employees. Again, this is why companies go out of business. Not all employees are “good” and employers are forced due to the unions to compensate all employees “equally.” This is a stupid idea that only communists would construct. The value of one worker over another is completely ignored in union shops and this strategy kills competitive enterprise one way or the other bankrupting businesses, or forcing tax increases in public sector endeavors.
On “Workplace Freedom” states vs. free-bargaining states…
The average annual pay for workers is 14.1% higher in free-bargaining states than “Workplace Freedom” states. This is because the value of worker pay is artificially too high, as market forces cannot be driven down through union coercion.
The average employee in a “Workplace Freedom” state takes home over $5,000 less per year than their counterparts in free-bargaining states. This is the same as the topic above; the extra $5,000 on average comes out of the true value of the business in question. Over time the extra amount is like a slow bleed of blood out of a body. The body will die when the blood runs out if the body cannot manufacture new blood to replace the lost blood as quick as it runs out the body will die. This is why businesses die. Their profits cannot overcome their legacy costs and other aspects of running a business.
Workers in free-bargaining states are 4.5% more likely to have health coverage and a pension than workers in “Workplace Freedom” states. Unions are so good at saying the same thing over and over again to make something sound better through repetition. Health coverage is the decision of a company. If they can afford it, they will provide such coverage which is an incentive to get the best workers. The problem with communism is that ALL workers are treated equally, so there is no attempt to figure out if one worker is better than another, so everybody gets great benefits. This is like a football team trying to put the best team on a field of play without ever trying to figure out who the best players are. Good companies who are profitable and desire the best employees will offer health coverage. Those who can’t afford the coverage will simply cash in and abandon a business because the operating costs are too great.
Due to the inability to negotiate for workplace standards, construction industry fatalities are 40% higher in “Workplace Freedom” states than free-bargaining states. Yet another faulty claim. States with Workplace Freedom have more economic activity meaning that their rates of occurrences are higher because people are actually working. So of course they have more accidents. A full building with employees working in them will have more accidents than buildings that are sitting empty because the unions sucked the life out of the business.
Most of the states with the highest unemployment rates in the country are “Workplace Freedom” states. Many states that have accepted Workplace Freedom have to recover their faltering economies due to union activity in the past – such as Michigan and Indiana. Michigan has the tragic situation of absorbing the cost of Detroit which has been decimated by unions. Their decision to move their state toward a right-to-work status is due to their need to recover from their cancerous labor unions. Their high unemployment was caused by the unions and poor economic activity from companies not wanting to deal with the threat of union workforces.
Workers in “Workplace Freedom” states make less money, have fewer benefits, and suffer more on-the-job fatalities than workers in free-bargaining states.This again is the way unions repeat over and over and over and over and over and over again the same thing over and over and over and over and over saying the same thing again and again and again and again like mindless drones hoping that voters are too stupid to see through their charade. The value of a worker is determined by the employer. The employee sells their services and the employer decides if they wish to purchase. Unions take away the idea of value from one employee to another which is why they always fail. Unions are a communist idea rooted in collectivism and does not work anywhere in the world.
I could go on and on forever arguing against unions but needless to say, the organization called Protect Ohio Middle Class is a wolf pretending to be dressed in sheep’s clothing. Unions are communist ideas and every union worker who rides a Harley Davidson with an American flag on their riding vests are hypocrites because they do not know the history of their unions. Their unions are working against the American capitalist system, which is the blood of the economy that made The United States the most powerful country in the world. Unions came from Europe and have destroyed everything they have touched. It is because of unions that states like Ohio are seeking to free themselves from them with Workplace Freedom.
The Protect Ohio Middle Class group has been deceitful in attempting to label Workplace Freedom as a communist idea. They count on voters to be just as “educated” as they are, which is equivalent to most 2-year-olds. Just as ridiculous is the idea that the push for Workplace Freedom is driven by “special interest.” It’s as stupid of a statement as the idea that the Tea Party would support anything resembling a communist idea. Workplace Freedom is being driven by logic and understanding of what market forces are needed for Ohio to have a thriving economy, not one supported by federal Medicaid dollars, Teacher unions demanding more federal money to fulfill inflated labor contracts to teach progressive education to innocent children, or money from FEMA every time a shingle blows off the roof of a homeowner by a springtime tornado. Government has not shown a will to do the right thing, so Workplace Freedom is a citizen initiative driven by logical, well-informed people. The perceived villains of the proletariat – the infamous bourgeois are not behind Workplace Freedom in Ohio. Workplace Freedom is the creation of people who really want jobs in Ohio, and not lip service from a governor who has been consumed by a pussyopolis.
One of the great themes of this site is to highlight the many ways that progressives have attacked traditional American culture. Progressives have an intense desire to wean Americans away from all forms of self-reliance so that national collectivism and addiction to government services are provoked. This has never been more evident than in relation to The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution. In the good ol’ days when a criminal nut-case broke into a home to steal a loaf of bread and was shot dead by the homeowner on the front porch of their property, the sheriff might come out—make a record of the case while enjoying some corn whisky brewed from a room in the back of the home. The homeowner would be treated respectfully and with honor and the assumption of guilt would be placed squarely on the character lying on the porch stiffening up due to rigor mortis. However, not any more—as progressives have seeped like viral insects into every aspect of American culture, legal, media, education, elected office, etc. The homeowner shooting intruders on their property have become saturated with panicky analysis and over-zealot gun grabbing politicians who want to build careers off their suffering. Progressives directly and indirectly have destroyed the very concept of individual rights in America for which The Second Amendment seeks to protect. In 2013 if a homeowner shoots a criminal nut case on their front porch the homeowner will be arrested aggressively and thrown into the back of a police car. Their computers and personal possessions will be confiscated and scrutinized and the property held by the state until prosecution of the shooter is concluded. The shooter will be charged with murder as the attacker wasn’t inside the home. The situation will be made worse when it is discussed that the attacker was only armed with a knife deeming no immediate threat to the homeowner who could have avoided opening the door and hoped the attacker would move away on their own. Progressive groups would then attack the homeowner in court through testimony stating that the attacker was simply hungry because they lost their job and needed food. Media outlets will then broadcast the story all over America about how the attacker had a “collective right” to the possessions of the homeowner and that if the shooter had only been willing to share his assets with the attacker both would be alive and free today saving the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs. When the frustrated defendant proclaims on the stand that “it’s not fair that a nut-case trying to attack their private property had more rights than they did,” the prosecuting attorney would simply respond, “how do you know the slain victim was a nut case? Are you a psychologist? Where did you study? What degree do you hold that enables you to proclaim that the victim was a so-called nut-case? These are the kind of things only professions are qualified to answer.” This is why George Lang along with a fistful of other patriots has started a new legal group called Second Call Defense.
In fact that was George Lang playing the hypothetical role of a homeowner defending his property from an attacker. In the video several examples were given about real life tragedies where the homeowner used a gun to defend their life yet found themselves in financial ruin because of the legal aftermath where parasitic entities sought to capitalize off progressive gun legislation that is entirely too aggressive. Lang knows a lot from an insider’s track about how the legal system can be just as much of a parasite attacking personal liberty as an intruder in a home. He is a trustee of West Chester Twp, in Ohio where the community pays its police department better wages than any place else from Pittsburg to Indianapolis. George has seen firsthand many cases similar to the example above cross his desk not just in his home town but all across America. This is the primary reason that Lang and his group have teamed up with The Buckeye Firearms Foundation to offer gun owners, supporters of The Second Amendment, and property owners’ legal help through Second Call Defense. They also offer preventative measures against the progressive encroachment of a legal system gone mad.
Progressives wish to believe that government has all the answers and can 100% of the time be relied upon to correct social debaucheries. Do-gooder politicians like Senator Diane Feinstein have built their careers injecting their progressive beliefs into every tragedy that strategically seeks to focus legal analysis away from individual liberty toward collective salvation. For well over 100 years now this gradual eroding of personal liberty has shifted the focus of behavioral studies away from any form of property ownership toward collective necessity. In court shooters will be grilled on the stand as to “how did they knew the attacker was a threat if they were simply on the porch and not brandishing a knife?” The burden of proof falls on the homeowner and not the dead victim as progressive legal interpretations have given the attacker the right to do as they please on the homeowner’s front porch. The homeowner has an obligation to call the “authorities” who will then inject themselves into the business of the homeowner and supersede their authority on their own property. To the progressive, the issue is not about guns, or the rights of the shooter, or even the dead body on the porch—the real villain is their hatred of private property and a sinister desire to erase the concept of it from the minds of Americans.
Second Call Defense was created to provide some help with these types of gun related cases. Once an attacker decides they want whatever it is that a property owner has, only one threat has been contained if the property owner uses a gun to stop that threat. From there an entire legal system of progressive activists, deal making politicians, morally deficient law enforcement, and presiding family members who may not have cared one ounce for the life of the defeated attacker, but in death through civil lawsuits and the promise of easy money the life of a typical scum-bag suddenly becomes worth a king’s ransom. A shooter protecting their property in 2013 America not only must protect themselves from attackers in the middle of the night as shown in the video above, but from the legal parasites who wish to make their careers off the backs of tragedy which is often the real threat. It is that second threat that Second Call Defense seeks to protect its members from. No other organization offers such a service in all of America. Second Call Defense offers training and education on legal firearm use, emergency resources such as a 24/7 legal hotline and upfront cash for attorney retainers and bonds. Insurance coverage for criminal and civil protection that is backed by the NRA endorsed insurance program is also offered. Most people can’t afford to put up thousands of dollars to get up to $10,000 upfront for an attorney retainer, immediate cash for a bond up to $250,000, up to $500 per day in wage compensation while in court, up to 40 sessions of psychological support, and up to $250,000 accidental shooting protection, $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement, unlimited civil suit defense protection, and $250,000 civil suit damages protection. Second Call Defense does all this and more. The first defense is in the property owner defending their life with a firearm. The second defense is from the parasites who seek to make livings off the misery left in the wake. From those, a gun cannot protect anyone. But now there is a group that can, Second Call Defense.
For more about Second Call Defense check out their website:
March 26th 2013 will forever go down in history as the day Atlas Shrugged Part III was announced with a green light for production making it the last film in the epic trilogy following the novel by Ayn Rand published in 1957. The novel since that time has been consistently ranked as one of the best-selling books in history behind only The Bible and is the unique product of American philosophy which is exceptional any place in the entire world.
The point of the entire book–which critics of the previous two films who are not fans of Ayn Rand do not understand—is to meet the long discussed John Galt, who is in essence the perfect man. Galt’s Gulch is the creation of the main protagonists which fans have not had a chance to see until this upcoming film. The producers promise to begin filming in the fall of 2013 on the East Coast so to save roughly 20% of the production cost imposed on them from the previous two films shot in California.
The Atlas films are not for everyone, so most of the movie going audience will not be sure what to think about the translation of the Ayn Rand epic to film. For those who enjoyed the recent History Channel presentation of The Bible, the approach to the Atlas films is very similar. At the end of Part III when watched from beginning to end in one large 6 hour presentation, the Atlas Shrugged films will be much more satisfying to the casual audience.
For the millions who enjoy the book, they will enjoy the movie. For those who find Ayn Rand’s novels life shattering, they will hate the movie. They will absolutely hate what John Galt represents when they meet him and they will do everything in their power to stop viewers from seeing the film when it hits theaters on July 4th 2014. The best explanation for why some people, particularly on the left hate Atlas Shrugged and its author Ayn Rand so much can be seen from that same Bible series on the History Channel. The reaction critics have toward Atlas Shrugged is the same that the Pharisees had toward Jesus Christ. The message of John Galt is dangerous to such people, and they despise John Aglialoro for putting into film a book that is considered to be a menace to society by politicians like Barack Obama and his gang of collectivists. For that reason, it is a small miracle that the production of Atlas Shrugged Part III is going to happen at all, and thank goodness it is. There are people in the world that are desperately hungry for its message, and now more people than ever will have access to a masterpiece which is uniquely a product of American philosophy. The reason America has been the greatest country on Earth is what Atlas Shrugged is all about, and the definitions are unquestionably uttered by the words of John Galt. In the summer of 2014, the world will learn just Who John Galt is. Many viewers will like it, and many more will hate it, but the philosophy will side with the minority as history will chronicle the victor. The truth is indisputable and is contained within the words that John Galt will utter in an epic masterpiece in the making, Atlas Shrugged Part III which is coming soon to a theater near you.
Out of all the figures of military genius and political strategy that have so far graced planet Earth it is the pirate Henry Morgan that I most respect and understand. I see him as the father of the liberty movement in America as his exploits in the book The Buccaneers of America launched John Locke and many philosophers to follow a path that would eventually become The Declaration of Independence. Welsh buccaneer Henry Morgan, at age 36, captured Panama City in violation of Anglo-Spanish treaty. Morgan stood trial held for the crime in the Tower of London but King Charles II of England forgave him, and then knighted him. The King then made him lieutenant-governor of Jamaica in 1674. [1] When people ask me why I honor a much darker version of the Tea Party flag such as the one displayed on the bottom of all my postings and is flown at every meeting that members of Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom conducts it is because of my fondness for Henry Morgan and his brilliant strategies which launched mankind to create the first democracies human kind has ever seen. His exploits chronicled so well in Alexander O. Exquemelin’s classic controversial book are nearly as grandiose as those shown in the marketing videos for the Captain Morgan Rum Company who routinely explores Morgan’s life in mythologies built upon his legends as seen in the video below.
I see the modern Tea Party struggling with nearly the same problems in 2013 that Henry Morgan struggled with in 1659 when England under King Charles II through Tortuga Governor Elias Watts gave Morgan Privateer status. A privateer in international law is a term applied to a privately owned armed vessel whose owners are commissioned by a nation to carry on naval warfare. Such naval commissions or authorizations are called letters of marque. Privateering is distinguished from piracy, which is carried out without enlistment by a government. The practice of privateering preceded the creation of national navies. During the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), European states having few or no warships hired merchant vessels for hostile purposes. Privateering was carried on during the American Revolution (1775-1783) and the War of 1812 (1812-1815). During the American Civil War (1861-1865) the Confederacy engaged in privateering. At the Hague Conference of 1922 to 1923, participating countries issued a joint declaration against the use of privateers in aerial warfare.[2] The modern Tea Party was given by the Republican Party a kind of letter of marque to attack the establishment of the Democratic Party in much the same way that England wished to conduct war with Spain in 1670—without actually declaring war against a rival country that was actually engaging in public displays of civility. Once Spain had seen the hardest lessons of Henry Morgan’s swashbuckling antics all over the Caribbean they pleaded with King Charles II to reign in the charismatic buccaneer. This is what Republicans have done after the election of Barack Obama just prior to the fiscal cliff negotiations in December of 2012, they turned their back on the Tea Party as Republicans attempted to get their “privateers” in the Tea Party movement to fall into line of party rule. In short, they expected Tea Party members to do as the King commanded. The king in the modern case for Ohio was John Kasich, and at the national level John Boehner with Karl Rove trying to noticeably carry the Republican Party to a more progressive position to win votes away from Democrats in the next election.
Well, that wasn’t acceptable to modern Tea Party members just as it wasn’t acceptable in Henry Morgan’s time. When word came down to Morgan’s ears that England had made peace with Spain he chose to ignore the information. He had other plans, and he had maintained a small pirate army in Jamaica at the city of sin called Port Royal which he kept perpetually starving for gold by encouraging the pirates there to blow all their earnings on massive amounts of liquor, wild sexual orgies, and lifestyles that put the fuses of their lives out by age 32. I do not agree with the way the pirates conducted their lives with lawless morality. I do not like the constant pursuit of didactic human pleasures common with a pirate’s life in 1671 Jamaica. I do not support intoxication of the mind in any form, so in regard to Henry Morgan’s strategy of nurturing the entire town of Port Royal into a pirate haven of debauchery I disagree with him vehemently. But he had a very good reason for keeping the pirates perpetually hungry…………he wanted them to be ready for battle to pillage more military targets on a moment’s notice, and if they were fat, dumb, and happy, they would not be willing to risk their life and limb to serve under Morgan’s command. As a result, democracy was born on the decks of Morgan’s pirate ships.
For the first time in human history sailors from the King’s army served in closed quarters with slaves recently escaped landing from Africa. All men were equal on the deck of a pirate ship including the captain, and the philosophy that would shape American government was born. Such a thing is easily taken for granted in hindsight, but before this period no human being anywhere on Earth valued personal freedom more than the pirates who raided with Henry Morgan. They were an invention of his personal strategies. I would give Francs Drake and Francos L’Olonnas equal credit if not for the added ability of Morgan to gain the ear of King Charles II by making the England sovereign extremely wealthy. Morgan managed his fate from the lowliest prostitute of Port Royal to the highest office in the world at the time and he did it across an ocean that took over three months to cross one way. Alone, Henry Morgan brought all of Europe to its knees and eating out of his hand with swashbuckling antics that are shockingly brilliant even by modern standards. A small sense of Henry Morgan’s impact on history can be seen in the below short documentary by a group of underwater archeologists who believe they have found Morgan’s sunken 22 gun flag ship The Satisfaction. The documentary is funded in part by Captain Morgan Rum to research their iconic namesake for the benefits of capitalism. Without such funding, archeological exploits like this simply do not happen.
The King of England had negotiated peace with France and Spain and withdrew their “letters of marque” in an attempt to gain control of the rapidly escalating chaos of Jamaica. The amount of money that was flowing through Port Royal, primarily into the pockets of prostitutes were nearly equal to the national incomes of most countries, so Charles II had to get it under control. Now the privateers who had been operating under Morgan’s leadership with privateer status were considered pirates across the world since no nation would back them. But the freedom that such men tasted as privateers in Morgan’s military antics for England—without the formality of naval discipline–had shown itself difficult to suppress. Men and women of all ages, races, and financial backgrounds had declared themselves equal on the decks of pirate ships for nearly 50 years after Morgan’s time. This became the period explored romantically in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean ride and films. This freedom movement would be further refined by Thomas Jefferson a hundred years later in his Declaration of Independence. While scholarship served as the swords of America’s Founding Fathers the idea of freedom had been captured on paper by John Locke, with the severed heads of many Spanish soldiers by Henry Morgan. The grandsons of such pirates settled into legitimate businesses in Boston, New York and Philadelphia to start the Sons of Liberty who would use similar tactics as what Morgan employed to rid themselves of English rule.
Long before the Republicans in the modern age abandoned the modern Tea Party—which was created by The Sons of Liberty back in 1773—I saw the writing on the wall. Republicans were preparing to abandon the Tea Party by withdrawing their “letters of margue.” This is when I started to use my own variation of the black, “Don’t Tread On Me” pirate flag, instead of the standard Tea Party Gadsden flag. The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike. Positioned below the snake are the words “Don’t Tread On Me.” The flag was designed by and is named after American general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. It was also used by the Continental Marines as an early motto flag, along with the Moultrie Flag. Gadsden also presented a copy of this flag to the Congress of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. This was recorded in the South Carolina congressional journals on February 9, 1776:
Col. Gadsden presented to the Congress an elegant standard, such as is to be used by the commander in chief of the American Navy; being a yellow field, with a lively representation of a rattlesnake in the middle in the attitude of going to strike and these words underneath, “Don’t tread on me.”[7]
History does repeat itself and once understood courses can be changed. Henry Morgan understood history, and the minds of man, and was able to use them to shape the craving for freedom that would eventually free slaves in The United States and pave the way for the greatest nation on Earth. I credit Henry Morgan with much of that responsibility because if not for him, human beings may have quickly allowed themselves to become suppressed under the foot of ruthless and greedy monarchs as they had for all of human history up to that point. Even the simple, peaceful process of electing Presidents in America was started by pirates following Morgan’s lead of electing ship captains to head up each voyage. If the captain proved to be insufficient, the pirates un-elected him and a new captain was put in place. As barbaric as the pirates were in the start, the shift in human philosophy had seismic ramifications that would percolate throughout history delivering us to the struggles of the modern age. The pirate is so important to the idea of freedom that even Ayn Rand had a very important pirate in her great classic novel Atlas Shrugged with the dashing Ragnar Danneskjöld. Ragnar was a philosopher who became a privateer under John Galt’s strategy of choking off resources to parasitic socialism returning America to a fictional era of freedom. Alone Danneskjöld defied the might of the United States Navy and of all the People’s Navies of the world to be, as he famously said, “the friend of the friendless.” Like the fictional Ragnar and the actual Henry Morgan, the pirate flag flown at the end of my postings, and off my front porch is a “friend of the friendless.” The friendless are those who have been spat upon by the Republican Party and other orthodox political machines. The black flag calls out to them and lets them know that philosophically speaking, there is safe harbor within its borders. It also means that when it comes to defeating the enemies of freedom, unconventional tactics are useful, and needed. Like Henry Morgan’s time, politicians will turn on a moment’s notice and work against privateers casting them into piracy by simply withdrawing their endorsement. What actions might have been done under orthodox government one day might be called piracy the next—but what is consistent is always the desire for freedom in a human being. It is in understanding this very simple idea that Henry Morgan was a genius who went from destroying the impregnable Spanish city of Panama, avoiding jail for war crimes, winning the first libel lawsuit in history and making the King of England rich beyond his wildest dreams becoming an official “knight” of the English crown in the process. But Morgan’s greatest feat of all was in planting the seeds of liberty in America through the pirates who traveled on his ships and would bring an idea to mankind that no country, no individual, no organization had ever contemplated—the idea of real and true freedom for all men and women everywhere.
The next time dear reader you have the opportunity to sip on a bottle of Captain Morgan Rum, take a swig and think of Henry Morgan whose likeness graces the label. He is the father of freedom as any human being who has ever tasted it understands it. It is because of Morgan that there is a United States at all, a nation born from rebellion and the greatest threat to dictators currently the world over. My black flag is the message to the threats of freedom that imposition will not be tolerated whether functioning under a letter of marque or under the rogue status of pirate—the loyalty that the Tea Party movement stands for is not loyalty to any party—but to the idea of freedom that was invented in Port Royal, Jamaica in 1671 by Henry Morgan and his wild and woolly band of swashbuckling pirates. Take a drink and toast the black flag declaring to the world, “DON’T TREAD ON ME!”
“Do they not realize that this is war?” These are the kind of “pro-education” advocates that Ohio Education Association representative Becki Villamangna corresponds with on her Facebook account. Becki is the Communications/Political Action representative for the OEA and she has targeted my friend Kelly Kohls who is the school board president of Springboro for attack many times. Due to the success of that school district in driving down their labor costs without impacting the tax payers, Becki’s arm of the OEA has aggressively attacked Kohls with all the fury of any combat maneuver in war. CLICK HERE to read about one of Villamanga’s radical attempts to harass Kelly which I have covered here at the Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom before. The OEA is clearly frustrated that they have lost many of their battles in Southern Ohio, particularly at the Lakota, Mason, Springboro and West Clermont school districts. Kelly Kohls has become the focus of the massive Ohio public sector union because she has had the most success in doing what radical progressive educators fear most—management of their financial resources. However in Northern Ohio where there hasn’t been as much pushback against the unions as there has been in the south, schools around Cleveland are still using the extreme extortion tactics that the OEA are so famous for. (I say OEA because most teacher unions in the state of Ohio fall under the umbrella of the OEA.) To education professionals who are COMMITTED to progressive agenda items they are in education not for children, but because they are at WAR with the public who leans toward traditional values. Such Ohio Education Association tactics that have been attempted on a smaller scale against Kelly Kohls in Springboro are being done on a larger scale in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb as shown in the video below where teachers are on strike and retaliating against the substitute teachers the school has hired to keep the schools open for kids. Watch this!
The striking teachers feel so entitled to their jobs that they have been posting flyers to neighbors of those employees attempting to apply peer pressure by using the classic “SCAB” terminology against the replacement workers. The idea behind such a derogatory term is to use collectivism to impose a union will on individuals who simply want to make a living, so that labor leverage can be maintained by the striking employees. The OEA members who are striking are firmly committed to communism, and are caught in their belief of turning the capitalist society of America into a socialist state-run by the education elite. They of course don’t call their ideology “communism” by name, but their practice reveals their intentions.
I don’t ask you dear reader to take my word for these accusations. I simply ask you to look at the facts. For such proof, as the OEA is locked in their labor dispute in Cleveland trying to push replacement workers out of their jobs before the uselessness of their real teaching value is exposed as a fraud, Becki Villamagna was posting the below comments on her Facebook page during February of 2013. Becky had just returned from a training class with her members where she received some push back as she attempted to do on the microcosm what the OEA is attempting to do on the macrocosm of Cleveland. She openly complained about the resistance she was getting from her own members who found her Saul Alinsky strategies too “radical.” Becki knows what she is doing; she is attempting to apply peer pressure on her OEA members by letting them know about her disapproval seeking other like-minded opinions to build up a consensus against the dissidents. It’s a variation of The Delphi Technique done on a much smaller scale using Facebook as the Change Agent. Have a look at her exact dialogue and a couple of responses she obtained.
Recent Becki Villamagna Facebook posting
This morning I gave a training session on electing and working with school board members. Many of you will be shocked to hear that one participant didn’t like me because some of my suggestions were too subversive and were only “dirty tricks.” Share ·
February 4 at 12:55pm via mobile · 2 people like this.
Patty Ray do they not realize this is war? February 4 at 12:58pm
George Bozovich Some folks just don’t get it! February 4 at 1:05pm
Patty Ray’s response to Becki Villamagna’s posting says wonderfully what the OEA is all about and how education professionals truly think in their hearts. The OEA is at WAR with the rest of society which is why they are attacking replacement workers in Cleveland, and why they are attacking Kelly Kohls at virtually turn. They are at war with anyone who stands in the way of their social advancement of progressive causes and the proof is in the dialogue they use with each other when they think nobody else is looking. Of course you’ll find no newspapers that will cover this issue, because they are in on the deal.
Many, including teachers trained by Becki Villamagna are beginning to see that education is not about teaching kids with the OEA, but is about WAR. They are just now learning what I have known for many years now. That realization is the primary reason I named this site what I have…..Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom as opposed to something more conventional………more press friendly. We are at war with the OEA because they started that war against those of us who value traditional American principles, particularly in education. People like Becki Villamagna, Patty Ray and the nut cases harassing substitute employees in a Cleveland suburb are villains in that war to those of us who want to see goodness being taught to children, and social stability advocated by education institutions. It is a war by their own declaration, and actions. I have watched their behavior for many years and decided that if they wanted war, then they’d get war. They would be beaten intellectually, they would be beaten with radicalism—if need be, and if they wanted to get violent, they would receive it back twice for what they issued. I prefer the intellectual debate, but when they run out of emotional bullet points and they attempt to attack personal character and toy with violence as their method of coercion they have received it back in return.
Wars are not won with kind words and placation. The OEA members are some of the worst people I have ever had to deal with as to radical social behavior. They have the destruction of America in their minds and they are terrible people because their ideology makes them corrosive. They openly use children to execute their maniacal plans for social progressive changes at the expense of society, and this defines their essence. Wars are won by taking away from the other side the will to continue fighting. This is what the OEA does to people like Kelly Kohls and the poor substitute teachers in Cleveland. The OEA attacks them directly hoping to rob them of their will to stand opposed to the union’s progressive agenda. This is why Patty Ray said on Becki’s Facebook, “Don’t they realize this is war?” She says it because to the OEA radicals they are at war with the taxpayers. The answer to Patty is that some do know it, I know it, Kelly knows it and thousand upon thousands of other tax payers know it now, and we are willing to engage. The effects are already evident within Becki’s own organization. The teachers in her union are beginning to question her methods and are fighting back against her kind with polite resistance, as Villamagna complained about on her Facebook page. This dissension in their ranks will only widen over the coming years, and the strength of their movement will be shattered eventually.
I knew this would be the ultimate ending for the OEA union when they first came after me in the fall of 2010. My critics might call my anger and behavior the results of “thin skin” because they expected me to take their personal attacks with the maturity of a “civilized” “white man,” as defined by progressive strategists and their view of the typical conservative American. The hero of the OEA–Saul Alinsky described his plans in 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across America. The necessity of that project became his book Rules for Radicals which Vicki and the OEA unions certainly gobbled up nearly word for word in their activist practices. Alinsky believed that what PresidentRichard Nixon and Vice-PresidentSpiro Agnew called “The Silent Majority” was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and were ripe for a turn to radical social change. Alinsky desired to create social mechanisms to entice The Silent Majority into becoming politically active citizens. Even if Vicki Villamagna does not have Rules for Radicals on her book shelf, she has been taught the concepts instructed in that book under different names by her labor union—who widely adopted Alisnky as their prophet for radical change in America. This is what progressive labor unions have done in our public schools, and what their part in the “WAR” is all about. Saul Alinsky feared that the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint if progressives failed in their task, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” So thus, my strategy is now clear and its effects are beginning to be seen as the secret is no longer strategically necessary. I have read Rules for Radicals and studied Alinsky, so I know what Villamagna is up to when she protests my friend Kelly Kohls. I know how to beat those enemies of traditional America. They will be beaten because they were the ones who declared war against traditional America and deserve what is coming.
There is nothing that beats a progressive villain better than giving people the freedom of choice. Progressives HATE choice just like the socialist/communist hates capitalism. Choice destroys their order of tyranny. By supporting Workplace Freedom you allow the teachers who told Becki Villamagna her tactics were too subversive and were only “dirty tricks, the chance to leave Becki’s organization completely which will cut off the money that supports the WAR on the progressive side. This is how we can beat the evils of progressive advancement—simply by taking away the money they use to attack us. In the meantime, I will continue to be that guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. I will do it because I believe it. But I will also do it because it is the surest way to destroy the attack of the progressives into the roots of America from which they seek complete destruction. And I will enjoy every, single minute of it. Justice one way or another will be obtained—it will prevail as sure as these words are written. Yes we are at war and to answer the question of Patty Ray we do know it, and we are coming to claim the victory and enjoy the spoils of war—that was launched against us under a banner of peace.
I participate in this war because I want to be that guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday and I don’t take a dime from anybody to do it. I do it because it’s the right thing to do.
“If they attack first………..blast em’!”
March 26th 2013 will forever go down in history as the day Atlas Shrugged Part III was announced with a green light for production making it the last film in the epic trilogy following the novel by Ayn Rand published in 1957. The novel since that time has been consistently ranked as one of the best-selling books in history behind only The Bible and is the unique product of American philosophy which is exceptional any place in the entire world.
The Overmanwarrior 