The biggest weakness of the Obama Presidency is his hatred of the wealthy, which was an undeniable fact concluded upon after the presidential debate with Mitt Romney on October 16, 2012. Obama has a real problem–that no matter how much he says in an election year that he loves the free enterprise system, and the art of business—his actions speak otherwise. The gist of Obama’s debate performance against Mitt Romney was that Romney was evil because he’s a “rich guy” and that he only paid 14% of his $13.7 million dollars made during 2011 to federal taxes. Obama painted a picture of Romney as a mean, evil, corporate executive that isn’t paying his fair share. The insinuation from Obama is that “fair share” is determined by some mysterious intelligence of a mythical “middle class” and Romney has a moral obligation to pay taxes at the level determined by that mob of democracy. If Romney tries to pay less tax money through deductions and oversea investments with tax shelters, he is in some way disingenuous—even crooked.
Repeatedly during the aforementioned debate Obama stated that Romeny was paying a tax rate that was less than the average person in the middle class. What Obama declined to mention was that Mitt Romney paid in 2011 $1.94 million in taxes to the federal government. The average “middle class” person would be lucky if they even broke paying $10,000 in federal taxes and around 49% of all American citizens don’t pay any federal income tax. So the comment that Mitt Romney and other wealthy Americans owe more tax money—far more than other people who are equal people in the eyes of the law, all use the same roads, the same government services, yet the wealthy are supposed to be happy about paying over $1 million in federal taxes while many Americans simply don’t contribute equally, is preposterous. Obama thinks that by feeding that fire of guilt Romney should feel guilty and inclined to pay even more than he does now which is absolutely laughable.
I have pointed out on many occasions that the root for this kind of thinking comes philosophically from Karl Marx and is by the most fundamental definition communism. Of course Obama doesn’t call himself a communist, but should not be surprised when people call him a communist, because when an argument is made that the “rich” owe the “poor” parts of themselves, their property, and their livelihoods, it is communism behind the mask of progressivism. It continues to be baffling how and why the media and society at large lets politicians like Obama get away with such criticisms. In the scheme of things Mitt Romney is a much more important person than the average “middle class” union stooge who works 9 AM to 5 PM and expects to be paid six figures to do basic labor work. Those ideas are the fantasies of communists, not capitalists, and America became a great country because of capitalism—not crony capitalism, but laissez-faire capitalism—the more pure, the more powerful the economy. Such statements are beyond dispute, and cannot be refuted by a logical mind not seduced by machine politics and half-baked philosophies.
Obama whether consciously or unconsciously is behaving as a communist because of his severe hatred of the wealthy. I’ve always suspected it, but for me the information was 100% confirmed when I realized that Obama and other political progressives were saying the exact same kinds of dialogue sentence for sentence as was used in the great novel called We The Living covering the events of the Red Revolution in the Soviet Union in 1917 through 1926. We The Living was published in 1936 and to this day is one of the most vivid examples of what life behind the Iron Curtain in Russia was in the beginning days of communism in that very large country destined for economic failure. These events brought to America what was called the Red Decade starting with intelligentsia from 1930 to 1940, which was a period where communism was offered to America as an offering to future economic growth. Out of that communist pressure came The New Deal and Social Security from President Roosevelt. The names were changed at the time to reflect the independence of America but progressivism in America has very few differences from the communism of the early Soviet Union. Is it any wonder that Obama is referred to a “socialist” or a “communist?” People who say such things understand the definition of communism and know they have at their philosophical roots a severe hatred of the “rich.”
Obama’s biggest failure is that he shares with world-wide Marxists, communists, socialists and progressives a lack of understanding of the value of money. Keynesian economics reflect this lack of value in their economic models and the same disconnect can be seen in the Obama Administration. This is why the debt has increased in such an out-of-control manner under Obama’s watch. This is also why he thinks it’s fair that Romney pay millions more in taxes than the average everyday person, even though technically Romney is no better or worse of a person than anybody else. The only difference between Romney and the average “middle class” person is that Romney makes millions of dollars each year. Obama views such money-making ability as though Romney is just luckier than everyone else and the money he made is part of some ridiculous finite resource like fossil fuels, water, or air. To people like Obama, money is a mystery to them, so they believe that Romney has a disproportionate amount of it because he’s greedy. It is completely foreign to communist minds that America could support millions of Mitt Romney’s if all Americans worked as hard and were as creative with their money-making opportunities as Romney has been. That is why in America under laissez-faire capitalism we term acquiring money as “making money,” because it is wealth that is created under capitalism, and money is not viewed as a limited resource. It can be made.
Obama clearly doesn’t understand this, and his anger at Romney for being a “fat cat” is obvious. It is no wonder the American economy is faltering, the President of The United States doesn’t even understand the basics of money or the value of it. All he seems able to do is recite the historical communist argument of his party platform as a progressive from the early days of the Russian Revolution. It is too bad that history is so easily forgotten, because the argument at these presidential debates could be elevated if only people knew what the President truly represented as a politician instead of hiding his hatred of money, and the people who make it, behind what is sold as legitimate politics accepted blindly by the types of people whose knowledge of history is as deep as a dried up-stream in a scorching desert. The hatred for the wealthy is the key to why America has a faltering economy, and is becoming more akin to a mob of fools addicted to government services demanding free money from the gods of productivity, and that people like Romney owe the rest of the world the gains of their investments as a selfless testament to existence for the end result of the destitute.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them. Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:
For my national and international readers, you might be confused by this article, but be assured; the contents of this essay do affect you. My conflict with the Lakota School System, which is my home public education institution, has been robust and much discussion has occurred at this site about it. So it must be discussed now that the State of Ohio has issued the report card for public schools over the more than 600 districts, what the intentions and results are of the report. The timing of the report card of course is to help schools who have a November levy on the ballot pass their tax increases, which is the political band-aid expected to perpetually kick the can down the road of public education sustainability. The report card in essence is a complete scam, and does not even begin to tell the story of why public schools need higher taxes on property in order to provide a baby sitting service for thousands of district parents at the cost of tens of thousands to generate the revenue.
The Lakota School District achieved an Excellent with Distinction rating yet again even after tens of millions of dollars have been cut from the budget and dozens and dozens of jobs have been removed from the work force. Superintendent Mantia knowing that I would point out this issue made a public statement, “When someone says we cut the budget by millions and the results are still just as good, we need to remember these results are from last year. We had many teachers who helped our kid’s learn this material who are not here anymore.” She knew that I would say………”see—I told everybody so.”
The reality is that Mantia is caught between a rock and a hard place. She is paid by the residents of the district nearly a quarter million dollars to play whatever political, and economic game she needs to in order to ensure that Lakota gets whatever rankings it needs, and to preserve a strong bond rating. But she is alluding to her statement that Lakota may be downgraded in the future because of the layoffs—which at some point she will need to do if she wishes to pass a school levy, because people like me will always point out that there is no reason to pay higher taxes if the district is getting more for less. However, if she allows that to happen she will be a failure as a superintendent, so she is literally caught in a perilous political position between letting Lakota become downgraded, or continuing to prove that Lakota can cut, and cut, and cut without losing the quality of its institutional education power.
Cincinnati Public Schools was downgraded by this same report card and they have spent increasingly more amounts of money on their schools, and they are currently selling their November levy as a fix for returning back to the column of a good school. However whether or not a school district is successful or not has almost nothing to do with the teachers or the school as an institution, but rather the schools are a direct reflection of the community. The myth of higher paid teachers’ equally improve schools has officially been busted. If the situation concerning Lakota didn’t prove it to the world, or the lack or performance in places like CPS or Lockland who was recently caught cheating on their performance ratings to maintain their statuses, money spent on education has virtually nothing to do with the end result of good student production.
I have said often that all the teachers at Lakota could be fired and replaced by clamoring idiots who know virtually nothing of the world around them, and the kids of Lakota would still be good, and the district would still be rated Excellent with Distinction. The reason is simple, at Lakota the demographics mandate that successful children will become somewhat successful adults because per capita, there are more homes with two parents in them who care about the quality of life for their children. There are more children not living in poverty. There are not very many apartment dwellers in the Lakota district allowing residents to move into a nice district without having a direct financial stake in the taxes paid. There are fewer welfare recipients per household. There are fewer homes that have step children co-habiting with mixed marriages. In other words, many of the parents at Lakota take an active interest in their children’s lives, they take personal responsibility for the child’s behavior more so than other school districts with much more chaotic family structures, and the average income of the residents of Lakota are higher, meaning the children have a higher quality of life to grow up in. Districts who have the opposite of the above mentioned qualities will tend to have declining results in education performance standards no matter how much money is spent on the school, because the school is only the tail that is wagged by the dog—the parent. The process does not work the other way around as the unionized teachers would advocate. For clarity on this issue all anyone need do is remember the teacher’s strike in Chicago during the summer of 2012. Virtually every school in America that has a teaching work force that is unionized has the exact same problems as shown in Chicago. The reality is that the teachers of these schools have sold the public a “pet rock” making their services sound better, and more valuable than they really are.
The biggest villain of the entire process is the trend (legal requirement) to only hire as Superintendents of these public schools former teachers who were members of the union in the past, and remain loyal to the teachers union even as members of management. Teachers with more than 15 years or more experience tend to become radicalized by their extensive time served in a labor union, and Superintendent Mantia has been shown clearly, and her comments reflect it, that she is willing to toss infinite amounts of money at teachers’ wages, which are the real drivers of tax increases on private property. The situation becomes simply a loaded scam designed to pay teachers for a job that is grossly inflated with value.
Who says that a teacher is worth $60,000 a year, and who says that they must have a Master’s degree to teach a 1st grader when home schooled children perform better than the public educated one in most every instance? Who says that a teacher should be paid so much for fewer than 8 hours of contracted work and summer’s off? Who says that districts should be required to pay for all this nonsense when the real value actually comes from the families themselves and not the school? The school is simply the benefactor of a good community not the driver.
So keep in mind all these facts when you go to the polls to vote for your local school levy. Understand that the school is simply a parasite to the good deeds of your family. And if your family sucks, your child will most likely grow up to suck. Paying more money in taxes will not change whether or not a child grows up to be a low quality person. Success cannot be purchased with a more expensive teacher. It can only be acquired through hard work, family love, and personal dedication toward the art of success. The correct thing to do would be to take away the money that feeds the radical labor unions behind the teaching profession and force them to come back down to reality. It is irresponsible to pass school levy issues for public education and not force the hypocrisy to the surface with the grim measurements of reality. And that reality is it is not teachers who make a student successful, they are only supplements to the work a parent do. The reality is that if the parent does not do the work of raising a child, no amount of money spent on the teaching profession can save them. And with that said, virtually every statement made by public schools is a bold face lie. For the proof, just look at the Lakota School District in Southwestern Ohio and everything else will be confirmed without effort. Click here for a review.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them. Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:
PBS received $445 million dollars of the $3.8 trillion dollar deficit in outlays during 2012 and because there has been discussion over cutting that aspect of the budget, this has progressives up in arms, since it is their belief that by taking away that $445 million dollars it would mean the end of PBS. Michael Bellavia, 43, an animation executive from Los Angeles, and Chris Mecham, 46, a university student in Idaho, have responded to such a suggestion by separately coming up with the idea for a Million Muppet March on the mall in Washington D.C., just three days before the election to protest the cuts.
This exhibition of progressive ideology is exactly the kind of thing that has ruined America, and you know you’re in trouble when it is not possible to attack the $3.8 trillion dollars applied to the 2012 deficit by dealing with the easy stuff like Public Broadcasting. Rather than have PBS commercialize like everyone else to allow the marketplace to determine winners and losers, progressives insist with the same vigor that they advocate for public education that somehow, some way Sesame Street has a right to be on television, and that the programming done on PBS is of such importance that it be beyond competitive refute.
I personally like PBS. I occasionally watch documentaries and I do listen to the various radio stations since many of them play classical music, which is about the only kind of music I listen to on a regular basis. But the danger is that PBS has become, as it has always been intended, a mouth piece for progressive politics that directly feeds an expanding government. Taking for instance the issue of Sesame Street, which has been relatively creative in how they attempt to teach children, they have made themselves cultural mainstays among America’s youth, is not necessarily good when studied contextually against the back drop of results.
I don’t believe it is good for children to be exposed to the kind of fairness, and socialism that is displayed on Sesame Street even though the intentions are innocent. Big Bird is a social mediator in the lives of the Sesame Street neighborhood in a similar way that social parasites who push school levies and more regulation pry into the lives of their friends and neighbors in reality, and for many of these cellulite infested panicky parents of the future, they received their first impressions that such behavior was okay from Sesame Street where their busy parents plopped them down in front of the TV to watch instead of doing the parenting themselves. Oscar the Grouch is certainly a representative of the poor and downtrodden—after all he lives in a garbage can. Is it not the intention of Oscar to give young people an altruistic view of the poor so they will grow up and accept socialism as the primary driver of fairness in the economies they will contribute to? Is it not true that Bert and Ernie is a homosexual couple living together in complete neurosis and emotional dysfunction? How many young people before the age of 5 have set in their minds that they might want to be homosexual like Bert and Ernie when they grow up, instead of finding a wife or husband of the opposite sex to marry, and have children? Sesame Street is only 43 years old, so it is hardly a staple of American values, tradition and an advocate of self-reliance. It was a concept born out of the hippie era of the 1960’s and reflects many of the values of those gray-haired flower children who were bra burning scallywags in their youth.
All that is fine for First Amendment free speech, and if mothers wish their kids to see that kind of soft core progressivism, it’s certainly an option for them. The question is, if parents had an alternative, or if Sesame Street had to compete with other programs to gain hold of their share of the PBS operating budget coming from the $445 million dollars–would Sesame Street have survived for 43 years? Most likely not, because the product they are producing would have been crushed by competition, because the message they advocate would have been rejected by the public. But because PBS received tax payer money, just like the post office, just like teachers and their public sector unions, just like the deodorant saturated BMV workers, none of them care about market value because they are living in an entitled world where the money just drops out of the sky by mother government, and the content they produce reflects this anti-capitalist trend advocating socialism openly.
Isn’t there a connection between how screwed up and uneducated the youth of today are with the rise and popularity of Sesame Street? Have parents allowed Sesame Street and public education to do the job of parenting, because it was available, and surrendered their authority to the chaos of serving a career that led to splits in the family since the two spouses put their time and effort into values outside of the home? Hasn’t this left young people vulnerable to more government employees in the form of school teachers away from the home, and public employees on their televisions, because that’s what PBS workers are—they are public employees getting a check from the government.
Sesame Street has toys and a whole marketing wing designed to appeal to children, and if the money they generate is not enough to support their product, there is something wrong. I would happily see Sesame Street move from PBS over to Nickelodeon or The Learning Channel if for no other reason but to teach the filmmakers of Sesame Street that it is capitalism that rules in America, not socialism. The tax payers should not be forced to give a public television station propaganda money to work against traditional American values, and for PBS the temptation will always be to advocate for more and larger government, promoting young people to take part in government programs displaying the values established by progressive politics—because that’s where their money comes from.
Like all socialist and communist supporters, progressives when they want something protest in the same collective, squeaky wheel manner that labor unions employ to show democratic consensus. This is what Michael Bellavia, and Chris Mecham, age 46, a university student in Idaho, are doing. Consider the plight of Chris Mecham, a 46-year-old student—what the heck is he studying at 46 years old? When is that bird going to hatch and move on into the big scary world beyond Sesame Street and become productive? Unfortunately, there are a lot of grown adults like Chris Mecham who are not comfortable in the world of capitalism, since all their lives they were taught socialism was good, and they arrive at adulthood only to become professional students—afraid of the world around them. And when they can be students no longer, they cling to the teaching profession because it’s the next best thing to being able to live in the socialist imagery created by Sesame Street where everyone is singing, and playing well together in a world of bright colors and pixy dust. What they forget to notice is that the entire world is made up of puppets, just like the politicians who advocate socialism in the real world. This is what is behind the march on the mall by the advocates of PBS funding. This is also why the public money should be removed, so that the people desiring to advocate progressive policies using tax payer dollars should be eliminated from doing so. The kind of programming the money is spent on may be a drop in the bucket from a financial aspect, but the social damage done is far greater when plotted against the direction society has taken since Sesame Street first aired over 43 years ago. As innocent as it might appear, it would seem that Sesame Street planted too many seeds of socialism in the young fertile minds of children that stays with them well into adulthood only to be rejected when that same mind reaches their middle years and upon the first signs of gray in their hair begin the long process of becoming more conservative as maturity has finally instructed them with experience, the error of their progressive thinking—and the billions of dollars of potential economic damage they have instigated by supporting indirectly socialism which weakens American society through PBS funding.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them. Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:
Only in America starring Larry the Cable Guy filmed an episode that will be shown on August 7th 2013 on The History Channel with my friend Ron Johnson who runs tailofthedragon.com. Ron took Larry on the ride of his life in his Mustang down the Tail of the Dragon and back again in what will surely be a hilarious episode of that upcoming television show featuring unique places and people of America. The Tail of the Dragon, which is the featured location of my new novel of the same name, captures this same spirit only in a literary format that is part of a trend pointing Americans to their cherished landmarks in a rash of patriotism that has only recently been appreciated due to the threat of modern politics to eradicate it.
Rich – Your book is exceptional. The race/chase scene had me on the edge of my seat. “Tail of the Dragon” is a dynamic action-packed thriller seamlessly integrating love for America, homage to our history, and true liberty. We ‘live’ it first hand through NASCAResque race through the hills of Tennessee and North Carolina – a trip that captures the hearts of the citizens and even the President of the United States
– Justin Binik-Thomas, Owner, Conservative Media Group
His comments meant a lot to me because like Larry the Cable Guy’s fascination with the Tail of the Dragon as an actual place on the Tennessee/North Carolina border, readers of my novel understand the intent of the story without any difficulty. I didn’t tell Justin much about the book, I simply handed it to him as a gift. Justin didn’t know what to think. He was essentially in the same situation as the average Amazon.com buyer knowing very little about the book or the plot line before reading it.
Needless to say every time a new reader expresses their enjoyment of Tail of the Dragon it gives me great delight, especially when they are coming to the material for the first time. The common reaction that many new readers have is they immediately detect the feeling of Americana that I intended to portray in the story without getting particularly political. The focus of the story is to celebrate what makes an American, not to appeal to any particular political class. Another recent review that showed up on the Amazon.com site in response to another previous comment captured this sentiment.
Lucy Louise says:
I recently read “The Tail of the Dragon” and found the book truly exciting. The author takes the reader on an exciting race for justice that really takes your breath away. I could not lay the book down. My pulse raced as I read to make sure that Rick Stevens completed the race. Normally, I am not a race car fan, but this book kept me right in the car. Mr. Hoffman’s writing skill created visual reality. I hope this book is made into a movie. The ending was perfect. We are looking for a real hero these days and Rick Stevens sure filled the bill. I am buying copies for gifts. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman, for hope. Hope for real patriots that believe our nation is worth saving.
Well Lucy Louise, you are very welcome. The best part of that comment is that the reviewer intends to pass out copies of Tail of the Dragon for presents which is the ultimate compliment. Christmas is coming up and it fulfills my deepest wishes to know that fans of the book think enough of it to give as a present to others. Because the message of Tail of the Dragon is clear, and is often only hinted at in television programs like Larry the Cable Guy’s Only in America. The essence of being an American is an elusive quality that has allowed the meaning to be hijacked by foreign philosophies and it has always been my hope that readers of Tail if the Dragon the novel would find themselves understanding better that rare quality which makes Americans—Americans. By the early comments I have great hope that this task has been executed fully. The story of Tail of the Dragon whether we’re talking about the real place that Larry the Cable Guy filmed his television show at or my fictional novel which explores the concept of freedom demanded by mankind derived uniquely through American philosophy is essentially about the celebration of Americana. The source of the material is the mythical place called Tail of the Dragon located deep in the mountain hills of the Great Smoky Mountains on the western frontier. It is there, where America is as alive as anywhere in the entire country and a place where freedom cries out loudest. The battle lines of politics are as articulate and well-defined there as anyplace on earth.
If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them. Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure:
It doesn’t happen often, but I read something the other day that set my mind ablaze with a sudden revelation that is beyond dispute. I have explored at this site the idea that KGB spies during the Cold War had infiltrated intelligentsia in The United States with the idea of spreading communist philosophy to the free market country of America. (CLICK HERE TO SEE ACTUAL FACTS ON THIS) Recently when Obama poked fun at Mitt Romney for referring to the Russians with the old Cold War suspicions, it struck me as curious, then I remembered that Obama is a member of that intelligentsia group, and is marching to the party line invoked over decades to steer the shallow minds of generations into gradually accepting global communism which the Soviet Union had planned on the outset of their Revolution in 1917. Many people think that it is only their generation that matters, so they forget history and neglect to connect the dots from the past to the present. But what I read in Ayn Rand’s 75 year old novel We The Living it shocked me to my very core. One of the trends in Petrograd, Russia in 1924 during The Purge in the newly formed, U.S.S.R was to break down the traditional family structure and to encourage the youth to “PARTY” in an attempt to psychologically break the youth away from their parents and look to service of the State as their guiding light. By encouraging evasion through drunkenness, and stripping away the morality that the parents taught their children, the Soviets hoped to create through communism a society of dedicated collectivists who would put the state before anything, even family. The reason this shocked me is because the same thing has been happening in The United States, especially after World War II climaxing in the 1960’s. The Soviets were intent to spread communism to every corner of the globe—especially The United States and they planned to do it slowly over time as articulated wonderfully in this video by Bill Whittle.
I have always felt that the term “Let’s Party” was a subtle attack on America culture, but I didn’t have context to make the statement verbally. I always despised any history of The Soviet Union and glimpses behind The Iron Curtain didn’t even become possible until the late 1980’s largely due to President Reagan’s battle with collectivism that went a long way to breaking down the Berlin Wall in 1989. Today’s youth have no memory of these events, and their parents have been eroded away into caricatures of their former selves after years of “partying” designed to strip away their “ID” and replace it with “collective salvation.”
When a young person or even an adult says, “Let’s Party” they are carrying out a plan created for them in the former Soviet Union to strip away their individuality and mass their minds into collectivism. The strategy was used on their own people to unify the country behind the state through the destructive ritual of non-thinking evasion perpetuated through drunkenness. The Soviets knew that if young people slept loosely with other mates, that it was good for collectivism since they abhor property rights. Communism is not a culture of having, “my wife,” or “my husband,” or even my “girlfriend.” Communism seeks to destroy all forms of possession and much to their own demise it destroyed the benefit of ownership which contains in it the value of all things.
Without ownership there is no value and in America the neglect of ownership has destroyed the American family, destroyed our education system, destroyed our once great economy, destroyed our tendency toward innovation and it has done it slowly over a long period of time. Partying has become so accepted in American culture that if one does not partake in these mindless activities they are looked upon as “non-social” and “undesirables.” Such terms existed in 1924 Petrograd to describe people who did not “party” their way into social standing within the collective of communism, and for me this is a shocking revelation. Stunning even, because for my entire adult life I thought that the term “Party” was invented as a result of the counter-culture of the 1960’s. Now I know without question that the Hippie Counter Culture that emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s was the direct result of a massive KGB attack designed to destroy America from within.
While the world focused on nuclear weapons on both sides America used economic superiority to crush the Soviet’s by simply out-pacing them in finance. The Soviet’s however infiltrated the American education system with KGB plants to subvert the American resolve away from capitalism. The primary mechanism used was labor unions, since unions are by their very nature collective organizations seething with communism. In this way the Soviets were able to use school teachers and college professors as their primary weapons against America. This is why so many in the education industry support anti-capitalist financial policies, because they were created through intelligentsia to be advocates of Marxist communism in a KGB plot to destroy America and spread global communism that is now disguised as the “Green” oriented environmental movement.
The KGB was able to do this by implementing a tendency in education institutions to have the students “Party” and engage in collectivism through sex, degrading episodes of human exhibition, stripping away the idea of individuality to be replaced with group cohesion. To this day every block party in every neighborhood has its roots with the KGB as drunken neighbors root for their favorite college football team and save all their pennies to send their children to the school of their favorite team. Like moths we send our youth to the light of education to be incinerated not by an electric zapper in the lure of a pretty light, but the breakdown of individualism through “partying” into collective beings that no longer have the courage to act on their own without group consensus.
Ayn Rand is hated by collectivists because of books like We The Living. The book’s characters are fictional, but the circumstances are historically real, and were lived by Ayn Rand herself. Kira is simply a version of Ayn Rand as an 18-year-old girl trying to escape Petrograd and the clutches of communism that was destroying the world around her. She came to The United States and reported that the Soviets were fresh on her heels and was in fact already in our trade unions, in our government, and especially in our schools. She wrote books that people understand are truthful, and reflective of her experiences. But We The Living was written in 1936 about events that took place in 1924 through 1926. It is over 75 years old and was written well before the modern language or terminology for things we accept today were put in place. That is why it shocked me to see that the term “Partying” was commonplace in Petrograd in 1924 as the communists were using this trend to pull the youth away from the traditions of their parents in a collective grab for their very souls in service to the State. As I look around America comparing what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s through the 1980’s, The United States is on the same—exact path—even down to the terminology. And it was placed into our culture through our education system which we fund with tax dollars. The Soviet KGB implemented the ultimate weapon against America, they convinced us to fund our own destruction through an education system that they penetrated with their communist influence, and the damage has been incredibly severe.
The chances are people like Obama know that this has went on, however he is only a few years older than I am, so he may not know much beyond the fact that he has been taught to think a certain way by those KGB agents who used his professors to deliver him into his current line of thought. To him, the Russian people of today are not the communist threat of yesterday because the Iron Curtain has been lowered. But the flow of capitalism is not going into the country, as we were led to believe, but communism is flowing out through an organization called Socialist International, which has taken up the torch of spreading global communism to every corner of the earth as the Soviets in 1924 intended to do to first their own people, then the entire world. That resolve has not been reduced over time, but has only increased; switching from a quick strategy to one that is implemented over a long period of time. Collectivists do not care about decades since their identity is not individually based, so goals obtained in their lifetimes do not matter to them, since service and sacrifice to the great State are their focus. This is how they were able to do it, and it all starts with the concept of “partying.” The goal of “partying” is to get youth to practice “evasion” and to separate them from the moral teachings of their parents. It is this simple practice that threatens America most in a plot that was hatched as far back as the 1920’s in the far away land of the U.S.S.R.
For confirmation of what I just said read the book for yourself. We The Living is a fantastic book that takes readers behind the Iron Curtain in a way that I can’t recall ever being done before. It is because of the experiences in this book that Ayn Rand hated communism so intently, and why her later works reflected this hatred. And she had good reason to hate it—because unlike her peers, she never accepted the practice of partying and evasion to numb her mind to the threat of communism. She saw it for what it really was, and could therefore see it clearly as it was implemented in The United States over time—very, very, slowly—starting in our schools with our own children.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my new book Tail of the Dragon along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find one at:
Except for the specific sciences, the pronouncement that a college education is not only a detrimental act against one’s own finances, but is a crime against the potential of all individuals can now be made. I say this knowing a great many friends and family members, who possess masters and doctorate degrees, yet it is clear that the value of those degrees are virtually meaningless in the context of a capitalist society which is why many who pursue such degrees consciously, or unconsciously seek to undermine capitalism and support communism.
For me the final straw was listening to the teachers of Chicago declare that they deserved a drastic increase in their pay due to their value to society as displayed by the number of professional teachers who possess advanced degrees. In fact this is heard continuously by all teachers whether it is the local kindergarten teacher of a local public school or the college professor brown-nosing their way into a tenured position at the university of choice. College as it was conceived and sold to America, and the world during the socialist yearnings of Woodrow Wilson as president of Princeton University then of The United States desired to make young men as much unlike their fathers as possible. He desired to remake America’s youth into the vision determined by the progressive elite-the pretentious Victorians of New York and greater New England. Then came Franklin D. Roosevelt who brought to America even more socialism with his learned eye toward Europe where his older cousin Teddy had carried so much prominence. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had the eyes of the world glued upon the ideas of Karl Marx, and the media in America were enchanted by this new form of government that could allow “evasion” in human nature to produce a good and fruitful middleclass—led by academia of course.Then there was the former school teacher and ever-present womanizer Lyndon B. Johnston, a president who envisioned The Great Society straight out of the orgie porgie in the great novel, A Brave New World. He brought unprecedented levels of socialism to America as KGB communist infiltrators began to penetrate the American education system paved on the backs of Roosevelt’s work twenty years prior.
The product of college is that by practicing evasion, a degree–especially an advanced one–will purchase a successful future. This is a lie. As discussed here at the OW evasion is one of the greatest failures being conducted by the human race. The idea that young people can attend college and participate in binge drinking, which is social evasion—experiment with uncommitted sexual relationships, which is relationship evasion—and can subscribe to the collectivist theories of the extremely left leaning instructors who teach because they cannot do in real life, which is a complete evasion of reality–it is no wonder that the college experience has been an unmitigated failure. Colleges have sold a lie, that people can purchase success by practicing evasion. Such a scheme only works in public sector jobs where tax payer money can be looted to supplement their financial ineptitude which is the case of the public school teachers in Chicago who are so foolish to believe that they are entitled to such outrageous sums of money because they are members of the academic elite—a promise given to them with their belief in LBJ’s Great Society that so many baby boomers found themselves seduced by.
College is a waste of money, because the products of the university system falsely believe they can evade responsibility in life with the purchase of tuition. The result is millions of young people hitting the marketplace of America with no real skills and lacking the can-do spirit that made America great. They believe they paid the price of college tuition and upon graduation arrived at success, when in fact they have done nothing to earn it. Success can only be found with hard work, and that is something that money cannot purchase. The hard work dictated by a socialist—communist loving college professor do not count in life any more than a back yard game between children matters in the grand scheme of things. The professor’s college tasks are simply an illusion to help sell the college scam. The skills the professor provides are of little use in the real world marketplace and sadly millions are finally starting to figure it out……………………..all too late.
The great lie that college will make a person successful, as it was sold to America was out of a desire to believe a human being can practice evasion and still have a successful life, and this is terribly untrue. The architects of The Great Society, such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnston believed they could create a society of government workers who would be promoted through the ranks by the amount of money they put into education, but they ignored the “quality” of the education. Like everything the progressive does, value is lost to them, so money has no meaning. How money is made is a complete mystery to them other than their ability as politicians to confiscate it legally through taxation. So their assumption has always been, the more expensive the education, the better. They also believe that the more expensive the teacher, the better. This simple thought process has destroyed education, and ruined the lives of millions of Americans, and has brought the nation to its very knees. And it was all done by design—just ask the former KGB agents who helped create these beliefs within Americas own political parties through progressivism/communism policy in the late 1940’s and 1950’s. It’s all spelled out in the old book The Naked Communist—line by line, conspiracy theory free.
Colleges only have value in a communist society where the mind of mankind has been turned off, ambition is controlled by the academic elite, and values are governed by the state. This is why so many college students and teachers at universities are open socialists who protest against capitalism. Those who have wasted their life savings sending their child to one of these socialism factories are guilty of buying into the lie that evasion can produce success with the power of the dollar. It is not true. It has never been true and it will never be true. Education must be detached from the communism aspect of teaching evasion before success can ever be obtained. Colleges in the years to come will be forced to realign their cost structure to center around the sciences. The days where most of society goes to college are over, because the colleges have failed to do what they were commissioned to do—educate students. Instead, they elected to become cogs in a wheel of communist thought created by minds who believed the methods of communism as practiced by the Soviet Union were evil, but the communist ideas of shared sacrifice and living for the common good are noble. All of communism is bad, and vile. Any idea rooted in collectivism is destined to fail as all cultures who have practiced it over time have failed over and over infinitely. And college the way it has been hijacked for the last 100 years committed themselves to the communism of Karl Marx overwhelmingly, and they are responsible for much of America’s current economic failures.
Parents who wished for their children great success by sending them to college have only thrown chains upon those young heads and shoulders. The well-intentioned parents believed they could purchase a good life for their children by allowing themselves and their offspring to mentally evade the reality of living. Yes, what I am saying here challenges most of the foundations that all of society is built upon, but it must be challenged, because society has been, and currently is wrong in its approach. Like any addict, the addicts of evasion must admit that their trust in college to create good, well-balanced, citizens is a failure. And those thinking of attending college need to hold their money and starve the beasts out of existence. Universities must be forced away from communism and into competition with the denial of tuition money, and tax payer funding. They must be forced to live in a free and open marketplace where their ideas of communism will be tested against the opposition of capitalism. Many of those evasion factories called colleges will fail, and go out of business. But time cannot stop that now. Colleges must be forced to acknowledge their true social value instead of their marketed value that is hidden behind sports programs and scientific discoveries that are only in their infancy. And all that begins by not feeding the beasts of communist thought any more hard-earned dollars and letting it crumble under its own incessant hunger.
Beware of the politician who declares that college is the answer to a good life. Beware even further the politician who says that education spending needs to be increased so the value of education will also increase. These are characters that are practicing communists even if they reject the title. Their actions define them. And in their plots of misery, served up with spoonfuls of tyranny, they have led a majority of America down a path that only a few have survived unscathed. And it is up to those few to help the others come to the realization that they have been scammed in a great Ponzi scheme that has only enriched the “education class” at the expense of future technological innovation and economic growth.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my new book Tail of the Dragon along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find one at:
Barack Obama waited until September 5th before acknowledging publicly the film 2016: Obama’s America, which is a documentary that proves Obama’s mother was a communist advocate, that his child hood mentors including his grand parents were strong communist advocates, and that Obama has an anti-imperial view of America that explains his bizarre pursuit of world-wide collective salvation. Obama waited to address the negative portrayal of his life even though much of it appears to be true. He hoped that if he ignored the film, that it would just go away. The trouble is, 2016: Obama’s America is making money—a lot of money, and it’s not going away, so Obama lashed out at the film on his campaign website. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHAT HE SAID.Obama learned to practice the progressive tendency toward evasion, which was given to his sensibilities from the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who picked pieces of the philosopher Plato and their belief in faith to explain the unexplainable. It was Kant who made so fashionable the liberal tendency to believe in things that cannot be reasoned through in reality. This also leads to the tendency to ignore the facts of reality when the mind has produced other images within its imagination.
Progressives like Obama have an idealized view of the world and think of themselves as heroes for the weak, and conquerors of the oppressors. They have in their minds a version of reality that does not exist in the real world. So when a documentary producer makes a film like 2016: Obama’s America the gross reality of what Obama really is, and what he is truly doing to the world is frightening, and beyond the measure of reality to such feeble minds as progressives tend to be. So their reaction is to ignore the material and hope that if they don’t pay attention to it, or see it with their minds, then reality will reflect their act of not acknowledging it.
The progressive belief that they could wish upon a star or pray to some deity for the demise of a political opponent is in the pretentious belief that they are the center of the universe. This is why such fools belief in global warming, race reparations, and other self-centered microcosmic ideologies built upon the static intellectualism of their limited consciousness. Their adult minds are not much more advanced than the typical 15-year-old, so they fail to grasp many of life’s greater truths in much the fashion that a new-born baby can’t recite the alphabet. They have not yet learned to do such, yet they believe they know everything because through the practice of evasion they ignore the evidence contrary to their world-view.
Obama used evasion to protect his own mind from the reality of the film 2016: Obama’s America. He believes deep down inside like most progressives do, that if they don’t publically recognize the movie, then the movie does not exist. This accounts for many of the media tendency witnessed where things that happen during the Obama administration are ignored, but if the same thing happened during the Bush administration it would have been covered to much greater effect. A great example of this is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that was one of the greatest environmental disasters in human history. But the media, because they tend to be progressive and practice evasion did not want to see such a thing happen under a president who represented to them a period at the end of the Civil Rights sentence. It’s not that they all conspired to lean left for a political outcome, but they do practice as much of the political left does evasion, which causes them to ignore facts that don’t fit their version of reality.
As another example on the low-end of political theater, is any public school filled with government employees. These are progressive organizations and are virtually all the same. So for this example I will use the well documented Lakota Schools that has so well be chronicled at this site. As I write this Karen Mantia the superintendent who has been hired by the school board to come into Lakota to pass a school levy is attempting to hire public relations personal who can alter the reality of the facts I’ve presented as to why the school as a $200 million plus operation per year should be able to balance their budget given their declining enrollment without trouble. The things I have said do not fit the progressive approach to public education so Mantia and those under her have chosen to ignore the facts and instead believe that they can go around me and convert the minds of the district into their version of reality.
They even went to elaborate measures to separate me from what they perceived the tax increase resistance group No Lakota Levy was. Karen Mantia believes that if she meets with members of the “business” community and gets their support, that she can divide and conquer the resistance to her tax increase and flourish as a result. She is practicing evasion of reality, just like Barack Obama. She is ignoring the reason for the budget crunch, the impact that the greedy labor unions have imposed on a good school district supported by good residents. She is practicing this evasion because her chosen reality has made her wealthy, much more so than she could have achieved on her own. She believes because of this wealth, and because she holds a doctorate that she is on the same level of intellect as the members of the business community, and can play such games with full knowledge of the chess board. But due to her evasion from reality, she is only looking at her pieces, and she does not see the checkmate coming at her because she has chosen to not see it, much to her own demise. Her belief is that her doctorate has real world value which it doesn’t. She fails to understand that I can organize a hundred new No Lakota Levy groups since it was me at the center of the resistance. Talking to other people doesn’t stop resistance. It’s like trying to put out a fire in your house while staying in a vacation hotel. In this case evasion prevents her from recognizing the static reality threatening her static intellectualism so she hopes by ignoring the facts she can have success. That’s why her budget us a mess.
Much of the evasion that Obama is guilty of nationally and Karen Mantia is guilty of locally is that they both believe they can spend money to hide reality. For America this has led to a 16 trillion-dollar deficit. For Lakota it has led to spending the enormous sum of $160,000 on public relations to help cover up the realities of public education. The only hope that these political progressives have in maintaining their version of reality is to convince others to turn off their minds and participate in evasion.
It is evasion and the tendency of it that creates so much harm and misery. If a grizzly bear is about to attack a hiker in the deep woods, the threat cannot be ignored but the progressive minded will try. They will also be eaten. Just closing ones eyes will not make the bear or the threat go away. And the bear has no use of money, so throwing money at the bear or other bears will not change reality. Evasion is expensive and every politician who practices such a thing should be removed from any position of responsibility immediately. They are harmful to themselves, and others in ways that are detrimental to all of civilization.
Rich Hoffman
If you like my work at this site then check out my new book Tail of the Dragon along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find one at:
There is only one definition that came to my mind while I watched the new film 2016: Obama’s America and that is “evasion.” Much of the contents of that film are issues that I have covered here at the OW, but there was one scene that taken in context with the rest of the film hit me particularly hard, because it is the hidden truth that reveals why people believe Obama was not born in America, why they believe he is a communist, why they believe he is trying to undo America as a citizen of the world, and not the elected representative of The United States. The reason is the evidence is all around us, we see that something is wrong, but we cannot quite put our fingers on it, because Obama’s behavior is foreign to most Americans no matter what political affiliation they are. Obama as a person, as a social parasite, as a representative of radical change and global justice is using against mankind a weapon that is one of the most destructive devices ever inflicted upon the human race—our own minds, and its tendency toward “evasion.”
The scene that I am speaking about is the one where President Obama’s long time church pastor Jeremiah Wright was offered 150K to shut his mouth in order to preserve the Obama campaign talking points to the media, and when that didn’t work, Obama personally visited Write in an attempt to quiet down the church radical where the two men had a disagreement over the value of the truth. Obama, according to Wright, told him that Wright’s problem was that he had to tell the truth. When I heard that in the context of the film 2016, I felt myself drift into the back of my seat, because it revealed to me what millions upon millions of people only suspected up until this very dire revelation—that Obama has no problem lying to people in order to preserve his version of the “greater good,” and that he executes his tactic using the human tendency toward evasion to perform the task. You can see The Blaze’s coverage of the Wright situation along with the exact dialogue of the discussion by CLICKING HERE.
But first dear reader, you need to understand what I mean by the word—“EVASION.” So here is the definition as it is presented in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. To my knowledge Ayn Rand is the only philosopher to tackle this problem up until this point, and I have read most known philosophers. To those who enjoy disguising their actions of evil against society, they hate, despise, and condemn Ayn Rand to the hells of existence with a fury that is highly irrational. But the reason is because Ayn Rand’s work is the light which ignites the darkness of which the con artists of our day use to conceal their true intentions. Below is the definition of evasion, and the cause of much evil that is committed against all individuals who allow themselves to be governed by less than honest politicians.
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”
The modern academic is privy to a secret method of attack that they know all too well, because in public education, and college study, the primary export of those institutions is the teaching of “evasion.” Evasion is what school curriculums are instructing, and by conditioning the mind of mankind to this tendency, the academic con artist—people like Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama can openly manipulate the entire population due to the lack of will society has collectively adhered to rather than investigate too deeply, anything.
Clearly the evidence as presented in the film 2016: Obama’s America is that President Obama was raised by people who wanted America in its wealthy form to fail, and he wishes to give back to the world the wealth they have “stolen” from other countries. Obama is dismantling the American economy through economic destruction, and he’s doing it right in front of a nation’s face hiding his actions behind collective evasion which he knows academia helped create.
When Obama chastised in person Reverend Jeremiah Wright for needing to tell the truth, Obama was clearly frustrated by the Reverend’s desire to not participate in the “evasion” tactics of politics, where a media who wished with all their hearts and souls to support a black president in spite of the many alarms, were willing to overlook. The information of Wright’s refusal to play along with the Obama evasion tactic of manipulating the truth for his vision of the greater good did not compute in the minds of the collective press, who have found their social roles to actually assist the tendency toward evasion. So the press ignored the story, and it is that story that is one of the most telling aspects of the Obama presidency. It shows that Obama does not have a problem altering the truth, and to what extent he expects people close to him to take a bullet for Team Obama. Wright and Obama were close, for over 20 years, and as Wright came under fire for his radical preaching’s, Obama sought to distance himself so not to alarm all the potential voters who might be startled awake from their “evasion” by the radical comparison. When Wright refused to play ball, Obama publicly denied Wright so to maintain the illusion of distance so that the evaders of society could continue with the illusion of reality they wished to see.
Obama’s evils have been done under the eyes of millions, but they have not been detected because they are so vile, so sinister, and so un-American, that voters have been unwilling to admit to themselves that Obama is the first American President who has openly sought to destroy The United States as a superpower in order to save the world from the opinion of a village fool.
Obama himself is guilty of massive amounts of evasion. He is a damaged person raised by radicals in the foreign third world country of Indonesia. He knows of three kinds of living, the derelict huts of Indonesia, the village life of Kenya idolizing a womanizing father who was deeply radical, and his communist leaning grandparents in the paradise of Hawaii where the subculture there resents being Americanized as the 50th state. Obama is a radical who through his own evasion, is not prepared to lead himself across a room full of people, let alone a whole country. And through evasion, because the consequences of being fully aware are inconvenient to lazy minds addicted to their own tendency toward evasion they don’t want to see what Obama is. And why would they, Obama won’t even admit to himself what he is.
2016: Obama’s America is a wonderful documentary because it peels back the evidence that should have always been obvious, and would have been seen openly by anyone who looked. The only reason Barack Obama is president of The United States is because much of society is guilty of practicing “evasion” under the definition shown in Ayn Rand’s definition above. 2016 forces people to look at what they have been avoiding in the light outside of a darkened theater, and for that reason is a valuable film. 2016 is not a documentary that seeks to smear Obama or his role as President. It simply does the work of a journalist who is not practicing evasion. For that reason alone, it makes the case nobody wants to face and that is that Barack Obama does not think like an American, but like a foreigner who blames much of the world’s problems on The United States. The evidence is so obvious that people have taken notice and this has led to wild speculative theories, because there are kernels of truth in the speculation. But for those awake, and not seduced by evasion, it is obvious that Obama intends for America using the power of the presidency to fulfill the anti-imperialist dreams of a father he never knew, to satisfy the whims of many radicals who helped raise him, in order to bring peace to the world that is more in line with a Muslim radical than a patriotic American.
Using the tendency of human evasion against the masses, Obama and his team of insurrection artists have in plain sight singlehandedly put America on a path to its complete destruction, a goal another one of Obama’s old friends named Bill Ayers attempted to do through the terrorist organization The Weather Underground. Obama attempted to distance himself from Ayers the same way he did with Wright. Ayers played ball because to him the end justifies the means, so he and Obama have in common the practice of mass sacrifice, the ability to lie, cheat, and manipulate by any means possible for the sake of grand ideas concocted in the world of academia. But Wright being a man of God by his own definition could not play ball, and said as much to Barack Obama who personally told Wright that he should be willing to not tell the truth to achieve a victory of great significance. It is that truth that was revealed most abundantly in the film 2016: Obama’s America. It is that truth that has been hidden by a society guilty of evasion, and completely unwilling to look at the evidence right in front of their face for all the same reasons that the administrators of Penn State refused to see the crimes of Jerry Sandusky, because they are addicted to the bliss of evasion, and the hard reality that the truth provides to minds not equipped, and too weak to grapple with it. But in 2016, the viewer has no choice. The evidence is clear, and the outcome is set, unless enough people decide to wake up long enough to throw such an idealistic thief addicted to global collectivism out of The White House.
Rich Hoffman
Visit me at Goodreads! Check out my list of top 50 favorite books.
I love rich people. The view shown in the picture to the left is from the front porch of our dinner hosts over the weekend where my wife and I had to travel quite a long way to get to. The homes on that particular street start at the lowly sum of $500K and go up to around $7 million. The neighborhood where that street resides is in a very interesting community where everything the residents could want exists on the real estate development in a self-contained community, nearly free of the outside world. In the center of all these plush streets is a mini town built just for the homeowners complete with restaurants, office buildings, a doctor, art stores, clothing stores, just about anything one might find in a regular town. In fact, the entire neighborhood has the feel of living in an all-inclusive resort. The green space in front of the home in the picture is a large park where all the surrounding homes can use for throwing Frisbees, playing on the gym set, or hosting an outdoor picnic. Such green spaces are located throughout the development and everything is within walking distance. For the homeowners of this very dynamic neighborhood their feet and bicycles will take them everywhere they could hope to go. They could if they wished never leave this self-contained paradise that is built with vast amounts of individual wealth.
What I’m not crazy about is that the developers obviously built the entire complex to satisfy the human need for community interaction. It reminds me a bit of what Four Bridges in my home town of Liberty Township tried to do with the selling points of the community being in close proximity with like-minded neighbors who could form their own mini-society. But Four Bridges doesn’t come close to this new development in that distant location. In Liberty Twp the only thing that comes close to this concept is the projected stages of Carriage Hill, which in its final phase years down the road might resemble this self-contained wonderland for the very wealthy.
I told my dinner hosts that I didn’t think I could handle living in such close proximity to so many people. I like to get my paper at the end of my driveway without making eye contact with people who might want to interrupt my thoughts with intrusive conversation of an idle nature. But if you must engage people, these are the types of people you want to speak to.
I associate with people in my day-to-day life on all economic levels, so I am qualified to speak on the matter; rich people are more interesting than poor people and are much more pleasant to speak with. It’s nothing against poor people, but their social conditions are certainly by-products of their internal mental workings, and when you speak with them, you often find out why rather quickly. With “rich” people the conversation usually centers on what restaurants they are opening, what new business ventures they are undertaking, what their future plans are for a host of new ideas. Poor people talk about tabloid issues, what movie stars are sleeping with whom, what’s on TV at 8 PM, and how they wish they were rich people. The rich people are the engines of an economy, and the poor people are the tires that the engine uses to get the vehicle of the economy where it needs to go.
Karl Marx, one of those poor and destitute souls by his own internal failures, created this modern notion that the “rich” are evil for being the way they are, and that they owe the poor something of themselves all in the name of fairness. Karl Marx and the entire Democratic Party that follows him to this current day were wrong in virtually every philosophical argument in their lives which has its foundations with Immanuel Kant. They have misidentified the value of human nature and placed it on the backs of the poor while expecting the engines of the world to give freely out of the goodness of their hearts.
Politian’s like “poor” people have the tendency to loot off the “rich” to sustain their existences. Politicians will look at the demographic numbers of the wealthy and expect donations by smoozing them with their company, and government employees such as teachers and administrators will seek through their public unions to loot off the backs of the wealthy using the politicians to falsely increase their own social values. But it doesn’t work because the government employee, the politicians, and all the little satellite groups who crawl behind the wealthy licking their shoes with praise while holding a jealous metaphorical knife behind their backs spend their personal time talking about soup operas, and supermarket tabloids because the mind of these people is underdeveloped.
The neighborhood of our dinner hosts was in many ways like Galt’s Gulch from the fabulous book Atlas Shrugged. It seemed to me that the homeowners of this very pristine community were attempting to build for themselves a private paradise so that they wouldn’t have to associate with a looting outside world. At the outdoor Asian restaurant that evening located on one of the community streets, it was crowded and flourishing with bright-eyed faces happy, intelligent and at ease. The level of comfort seen on their “rich” faces is not what’s seen when the same people eat at the same kind of restaurants in a community that is saturated with residents from government housing, with multiple demographic types created by progressive social tampering.
Progressives will declare that people are people no matter what they are or what they do. But they are wrong in that assessment. People are of the quality of what they put into their minds. Rich people, although not 100% of the time, put information of much greater value into their minds, and their lives are richer because of it. Rich people read books, watch documentaries, care for their lawns, their clothing, their food, their bodies, because the quality of their minds lead them to a higher form of living. Poor people put garbage in their minds and they get garbage out. Governments, progressive/socialists—attempt to even the playing field by trying to convince the poor that they can put garbage into their minds and can get gold out. But the gold does not come from the work and merit of the poor; it comes from robbing the rich with taxes.
The government worker—the teacher, the firefighter, the cop, who retires at 55 years old with large pensions and unused personal days might take with them from the public treasury a half million to a million dollars. But they would not be “rich.” They have money, but they are not affluent. They have money because it was given to them by a looting politician, by looting government workers, by a looting regime abiding by a progressive political platform. They are not equal to the entrepreneur, the CEO, the restaurateur, the factory owner and other ‘rich’ who are the engines of an economy. Money does not make them equal to the ‘rich’ man. Money simply allows them to shop at the same stores. Real wealth is in the mind. You can take all the money of a “rich” man and he will still find his way back into wealth because his mind is productive, and therefore he has value to the economic engine. He will never be poor.
But the people who live in the above mentioned community are ‘rich’ for the most part, and they moved to this distant location to be away from high tax cities, high tax schools, high tax townships, public housing, public busing, laundry mats, check cashing drive through windows, and street corners inhabited by kids born by welfare mothers with no fathers to raise them. The ‘rich’ want to sit on their nice porches and read their books as children with two parents guide their bicycles down the road in front of the homeowner and all that’s required is a friendly wave of acknowledgment. It was clear to me as I studied the quality of the homeowners in this immaculate community that they built the neighborhood for all the same reasons as John Galt built Galt’s Gulch in the famous book Atlas Shrugged–to be away from the looters of society as much as possible without quite giving up on The United States all together. The community has the feel of a group of people who wish to still continue to be engines of the American economy without the drag of being ripped to shreds by a society of the looting poor, who became that way not by their own misfortune, but by the quality of what they put into their minds.
I noticed as I scanned the dinner crowd in the town square a few among them who are openly progressive types, people who were former public employees who have cashed in their chips and wish to pretend they too are just as valuable as the rest of the ‘rich’ people in that unique community. But they are easy to spot, you can see it in their eyes—there isn’t much going on in their minds but gossip, happenstance, and collectivism. No question those are the types of idiots who will attempt to embed themselves on some type of homeowners committee in the neighborhood. But for the most part I would place my bets on the table that at least half of the thousands of homeowners in that particular community have read 20 or more books within the last year. I would also bet that at least a third of those wealthy people have read the classic book Atlas Shrugged, and were thinking the same thing I was, that their neighborhood was a kind of Galt’s Gulch. For them it is the last step before taking the plunge that was described in the video above, by the author of Dollar Vigilante. You can read the Dollar Vigilante at the following link:
The progressive vision for not just America, but the world is an evil one rooted in collectivism. The poor do not need to be looked down upon, or ridiculed. I would say to any of them that they too could become wealthy or “rich” simply by changing the kinds of thoughts they have in their minds, the types of films and television they watch, the music they listen to, and the books they read. If they improved that one simple thing, they would find that their lives would greatly improve. Progressive Democrats and even Progressive Republicans are simply looting politicians buying votes from the poor with stolen money from the ‘rich.’ Much of what the Democrats represent on their political platform is based on legalized theft, justified by being the facilitators of compassion, and they are completely wrong. The wealthy have done everything they can to move away from these looters by taking their money far out into the suburbs, away from the high taxes of city councils and county commissioners who seek to steal it, and disperse it to those who pour garbage into their minds by the bucketfuls and expect gold to come out in return. There are all across America many such Galt’s Gulches and the ‘rich’ are chastised, for being “anti-social,”“elitist,” and too “high brow” in showing their desire to live in such places, away from the government trolls and strong-armed government statesman looking for a hand-out of looted money through taxation.
I would say to the wealthy, especially those moving out of America to giant platforms at sea, to communities like the one the Dollar Vigilante spoke about in Argentina that you can’t run forever. I would encourage you to not yield to the mobs and allow them to continue pushing you all over the globe in retreat of governments. While some of the wealthy attempt to buy-off the looters of government with huge campaign donations, it only exacerbates the situation and allows them to believe they too are valuable to society because their propped up value has been artificially inseminated by your money. The best thing to do is to keep your money from their hands and let them starve on the vine. Force them into one term office runs instead of career posts, but keep your money to yourself and let them wither away by the quality of their minds. Don’t flee them! Vote down their tax increases, vote them out of office, and stop apologizing for being “good.”
The people I visited in that pristine neighborhood aren’t planning to run. In the wake of the NDAA act signed into law by President Obama on the first day of 2012 my dinner hosts showed me their collection of newly purchased AR-15s with thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition. In fact, much of our dinner conversation centered on the topic of just how it would feel to resist the military when they came to seize our property under martial law by the NDAA provisions. What would be the trigger that would cause one of us to be the first to act against our own tax payer funded military. We all agreed that it would be a hard decision, but holding those collections of AR-15’s I could see that the thought process was already beginning. And as I learned at dinner, most of the people living around my hosts were all arming themselves in the same manner. And they have a right to. They have done nothing wrong but work hard, make money, and try to live their lives. It is the progressives who believe wrongly that they have a right to the money of the wealthy, and that they will seize it with a legal system created by looters, for the benefit of looters, to the ends of the looters till all the money and the people who make it are depleted from planet earth casting mankind back into the shadows of the Neanderthal primitive and their hairy, smelly deodorant free bodies.
Rich Hoffman
Visit me at Goodreads! Check out my list of top 50 favorite books.
I waited a couple of days to calm down before stating my opinion of the Eastwood speech at the RNC Convention just prior to Mitt Romney being officially nominated as the Republican nomminee for President of the United States. The panicked Romney aide behind the stage at the Convention who said cringing as the speech time on stage exceeded the 5 minute mark and was way off-key from the typical stuffy Republican stage setup, “You don’t edit Clint Eastwood” was absolutely correct. You don’t “edit” Clint Eastwood. Eastwood is one of the most recognizable names in the world not because he sat quietly while others told him what to do, but because he has often embarked on wild chances and taken great risk upon himself and others in the building of his international persona. He has an elevated level of understanding of what audiences want to see, and his speech certainly reflected it. His knowledge of what an audience wants to see far exceeds the knowledge of the typical 30 to 40-year-old PR specialists handling Romney’s campaign, and they are not qualified to “edit” Clint Eastwood.
I knew what to expect when Clint Eastwood took the stage because I have watched the film icon give hundreds of interviews over the years, and most of them are just like that. Eastwood does not like to use notes, Teleprompters, or come across with flattened authenticity. To understand what Eastwood thinks deep down inside all anyone has to do is watch some of his most personal films, like White Hunter Black Heart, and Bronco Billy. Nothing Eastwood said on stage just minutes before the heavily scripted acceptance speech of Mitt Romney came as a surprise to me.
I was impressed to learn that Mitt Romney personally invited Eastwood to speak. It shows that Romney as a manager can identify talent thinking outside the box and will likely surround himself with good people like Paul Ryan when he gets the presidential job. But Romney was not giving Eastwood any kind of break in letting him speak. Unlike the speeches by Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Marc Rubio and many others that were carefully scripted, Eastwood was not, and the Romney people wouldn’t dare ask the legendary actor to do such a silly thing. Romney like all politicians sought from Eastwood credibility, and to show that prestigious members of the Hollywood community supported Republicans, and that not all Hollywood was in the corner of Barack Obama. That message was so important to Romney that he had Eastwood give the last independent speech before his own introduction, and he got what he wanted in Clint Eastwood. To me, that shows great vision and instinct even if the Romney handlers were dumbstruck by the performance.
I was however baffled by the criticism, many saying that Eastwood looked like a stumbling fool on stage, a senile old man. Eastwood’s hair was a wreck, his manner seemed unorganized, and he was crude and insulting. But the biggest criticism of all is that he sucked all the air out of the room and had people talking about his speech the next day instead of Romney. Well, news flash, I could have told the Romney people exactly what Eastwood was going to do. I was so unsurprised by his speech that my wife and I hardly noticed it because in the Hoffman house, Clint Eastwood is the closest thing to a religious icon anyone will find. Over my dresser are two pictures of Clint Eastwood carefully framed and I look at them every day. My DVD collection has every single Clint Eastwood movie ever made, and they have been watched, and watched, and watched again. I even have the T.G. Sheppard album that features a duet with Clint Eastwood called “MAKE MY DAY.” For many years my family has ushered in each New Year by watching all 5 Dirty Harry films on New Year’s Eve and New Years Day. No football games, no parties, just Clint Eastwood movies with him playing Dirty Harry. Every young person in my family who has had to drive around in a car with me has had to listen to me playing that song while we drive. I simply love the man. I admire his grit and ability to age well every bit as much as the toughness he exhibited in his youthful movies that made him an international star. Eastwood has not been afraid to piss off people before, people he had admired greatly, specifically John Wayne when that cowboy icon was up in arms over Eastwood’s film direction, and acting in the movie High Plains Drifter, which Wayne felt was an insult to the American Cowboy image he helped to craft. Eastwood’s portrayal in that film as a “hell hound” returning from the dead to punish an entire town for the betrayal of their sheriff crossed many established lines of thinking in the early 1970’s. It is so refreshing to see that the 82-year-old Clint Eastwood is still not afraid to take a chance to make his point and is much smarter than the people around him. Even after a lifetime well lived, Clint Eastwood is still authentic to his own personal beliefs and cannot be swept up in the tide of politics. Eastwood showed up as a favor to the Romney Campaign and at no point did he get wrapped up in the glitter. To Eastwood, he knows just him being there helps Romney. But Romney does not help Clint. The sacrifice was purely on Eastwood’s end.
When I give public speeches and other presentations I do not use notes because I learned it from watching the many lectures of Joseph Campbell, and interviews with Clint Eastwood. The reason is that carefully prepared speeches come out sounding fake. It is much better to speak from the heart. Now on the downside, a public speaker without notes sometimes rolls through sentences while stringing together thoughts. People expecting Eastwood to give a polished performance like his younger speakers at the Convention have simply become used to the well oiled machine that has become the political norm. When Clint Eastwood went on stage, I know he was thinking he had to hit all the marks the Romney people told him to hit, but he was going to do his own thing as he usually does. Knowing Clint Eastwood, he went up on stage with a metaphorical idea he came up with while listening to the other speeches of the evening, and he wanted to use the “empty chair” to convey how we all feel about President Obama and politics in general. Most of the directors at the RNC failed to grasp the metaphor, and that is their problem. Eastwood figured that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, so what the hell. Everyone in the room wanted somebody to take a shot at President Obama that was stylish and worked on any levels, and Eastwood had the guts to do it.
When people say “if I were to die tomorrow” they mean they would do things differently if they knew they did not have to live with the consequences which implies that they would be willing to live with little lies in their lives if they know they have to wake up tomorrow and face the music. In Eastwood’s case, he has lived his life this way for a long time, and now that he’s 82, he could die tomorrow. He could die at anytime, and he knows it, and is comfortable with that knowledge, but he’s not about to leave this earth being a stooge for a political looter, who simply wanted to use Eastwood’s image to prop up his own credibility.
Clint Eastwood detests–especially in politics–over grooming, too much make-up, and cardboard cutout people. Oddly enough, some of the appeal of Paul Ryan is that he represents an Eastwood style of politician, no-nonsense, fit, smart, and practical. When he first took the VP position his own hair and clothing was a bit sloppy, and that is appealing because it shows that Ryan cared more about his work than his appearance. But in two weeks once the Romney handlers began to “manage him—Ryan received a nice $300 haircut and is getting a taste of the “looters life” and it is obvious that he’s starting to like it. You can see it by the way he scowled at Eastwood’s speech looking at his watch in quit protest. I would offer to Ryan not to forget who he is, and to not get too wrapped up in images. When Eastwood, one of the greatest film directors of all time went on stage with his hair a mess—without a single speech note—without a care about his future and how the Romney people might scowl at what he said—he did every bit of it on purpose. Clint Eastwood had a very good idea that what he was about to say would be analyzed heavily, criticized, and belittled. He knew that the finger-pointing politicians would run for cover and attempt to distance themselves from him within seconds. Eastwood’s intention in his speech was for one last time in his life on a big stage to show everyone viewing just what is wrong in politics, and why people have lost faith in the two-party system. Everything he did was on purpose to be analyzed, and talked about for years.
Eastwood’s goal on stage that night at the RNC was not to be liked. He was already liked. Mitt Romney simply wanted to show the world that movie stars like him too. That was the entire purpose of bringing Clint Eastwood to the RNC convention. Nobody gives a damn about the crap a politician says. And it should come as no surprise that a movie actor could show up and take all the attention from the other looters in the room. And nobody gives a rat’s ass about what the media thinks, because those are the same idiots who “made” Obama. It’s the heart and soul of America that Clint Eastwood was speaking to and that is why the people who enjoyed his speech did, and the people all caught up in the wrong aspects of politics called it “strange,” and like “an episode of Twin Peaks.” Even Glenn Beck belittled the Eastwood speech, which really lowered Beck’s grade in my book. I was planning to go see Beck when he comes to Cincinnati in a few weeks, but based on his comments over the Eastwood speech, I don’t think I will value what he says. I might listen to him every now and then on the radio, but I won’t go out of my way to see him in public like I did when he came to Wilmington. Beck like Ryan, Anne Romney and Scott Walker based on their comments and behavior over Eastwood is looking too closely at the established order of things, and it is that order that people are sick of. Beck has done a good job asking for courage among politicians, and out of all people, he should understand what Eastwood was trying to do. But even he is too wrapped up in the “established” thinking to see what’s really going on, and that is disappointing. Like Ryan, Beck is becoming too big, and his concern over his own legacy is starting to overtake his reasonable assessment. Politics should not be so well rehearsed, it should not be so scripted, and it should not be praised as royalty. When Eastwood took the stage he did so as a rebel who didn’t comb his hair, and was going to speak from the heart. That should be honored.
The drifting from sentence to sentence that Eastwood was doing, especially after the 5 minute mark was because the red light was flashing, telling him to wrap up his speech. When I speak in public, I get told often to wrap it up, because if people let me, I will talk all day. But in Eastwood’s case, he knew that the directors of the RNC event were not happy with what he was doing, and that what he was saying was going to hurt. But he had to do it anyway, and he controlled his emotions very well, picking carefully which thing to say next so that it was right at the edge of acceptance, without crossing the line. It was not that Eastwood was a senile fool on stage, but a man walking a tightrope, and he was in no hurry to fall. He took one step after another to deliver one of the most scathing rebukes of a sitting president ever delivered on such a large public stage, and he did it with all the bravado that made him one of the biggest movie stars in the world. Mitt Romney got what he wanted whether he was consciously aware of what he was asking for or not. As I said before, Romney is showing a good instinct for hiring the right kind of people for the job, and bringing Eastwood to the convention was a brilliant idea. But I would caution those same Republicans not to distance themselves from what Eastwood did and said. Clint Eastwood did the Republican Party a tremendous favor at his own personal risk. The politicians involved should accept it at its value, which is great, and not distance themselves from him. To do so is to betray what they proclaim they are fighting for.
The American public is sick and tired of contrived, plastic, politics. They want to hear things told from the heart, and they like to see the soul of the person speaking. Glenn Beck is a great public speaker, and even he writes down notes in outline form so he can deliver punctual presentations to the public and not bounce around when he gets stuck in front of 60,000 people like Eastwood was doing. But notes are still a crutch, and it takes great courage to stand in front of so many people with only your intellect as your alley, which is why Eastwood does not speak with notes. It’s also why he’s 82 years old and still able to speak with such authority as he did at the RNC convention. His wits were clearly about him, as he delivered a speech that worked on many levels, not just a superficial, visual one.
If I was disenfranchised with politics before the Eastwood speech, I am certainly more so now, based on the political response to it. The Republicans are the good guys in my book and even the good guys are deeply tainted. I can see where the next line of battles will occur in the years following the buffoon Obama, and it will not be with the professional politicians in the room at the RNC convention or their handlers. I stand with Clint Eastwood completely over anyone else from the RNC event. It’s not that the man can do no wrong in my eyes. I can think of a few times he has let me down, as in making the film Tightrope, and a few others, but I trust that Eastwood makes every attempt to be honest with himself, and his intellect has benefited from his honesty. So when he says something, I trust what it is. I may not agree with it all the time, but I know there was a thought process that delivered the thought, and it didn’t come from some snot-nosed speech writer fresh out of college who doesn’t have a lick of experience in real life. I don’t want to hear Romney deliver a carefully controlled and well-orchestrated speech given to him by a hundred such handlers. I want to hear the authenticity of what a man is, not what kind of image he can conger up for himself. It is a sad state when it is an actor who is the most real person in a room, and at the RNC convention, Clint Eastwood was the most honest. Anne Romney should still be grateful that a person like Eastwood is supporting her husband and not make sly comments about how there should have been more contrived video of her family instead of the Eastwood speech. Nobody gives a shit lady. Don’t even think about turning into another Washington princess before the seat from the previous fat ass duchess has left it.
It should say everything to everyone watching the Eastwood convention speech that an “empty chair” was the most interesting thing that happened at the RNC convention. The empty chair worked on many levels of psychology. It obviously represented President Obama who has spent his entire presidency running for re-election, and not doing the job he was elected to do. But it also represented the emptiness present in politics. I would not put it passed Eastwood that the idea came not while on the plane from California, but while the Romney people where giving him their talking points to incorporate into his speech. The idea for the chair was meant as a warning not just to Obama, but to the Republican Party to not just become more empty minds in empty seats holding public office. It was a warning not to be afraid to shake it up a little, and be unpredictable, because that’s how you get the media eating out of your hand instead of the other way around—and that is a lesson that the Republican Party hasn’t been able to achieve since Ronald Reagan was president, who like Eastwood knew all the tricks of the trade because they are actors who have mastered public image. The Eastwood speech was not a debacle, it was a brilliant metaphor intended for minds too dim to see it. But the resonance of Eastwood, in what felt like one last public performance was a potent one that sadly shows how bad our political system really is. It revealed that even people I thought “got it” still don’t and I won’t bend over backwards ever again to listen to what they have to say, because the mind behind the thought is still in its infancy.
Yesterday Romney came to Cincinnati. I was invited, but I did not go, mainly because of the ill feelings I have after listening to the controlled finger-pointing after the Eastwood speech. In a couple of weeks, Glenn Beck is coming to town and I was planning to attend, but won’t be now. I’ll still support both people, and in Beck’s case I enjoy 80% of his work most of the time. But to jump on the Eastwood bashing bandwagon tells me a lot about these people. When it comes to picking and choosing, I’ll stick with the “Man with No Name” over the “Name” of a politician or political commentator. Because there is far more value in the man who arrives at 82 years of age and has not been seduced by the glittery lights of politics over the men who are enamored by it and became that way in a much shorter span of their lifetimes. I will not go out of my way to see those first people speak in person. But if Eastwood announced that he was coming to Cincinnati tomorrow to eat a hamburger but would not be giving any public statements I would drop what I was doing and attend, because there is more manliness in the authenticity of sticking to a set of beliefs than the person who follows the trends of belief. The world is so full of the later, and is in desperate need of the former. The value of a wordless bite into a hamburger by Clint Eastwood holds more merit than a whole string of convention speeches by polished politicians and their puppet handlers of orthodox opinion. The aide was right, “you don’t edit Clint Eastwood.” His brand is proven, and if you ask him to speak, you take what you get. In the case of politics, a movie actor is much more important than a roomful of politicians, and that sad fact is a reality that cannot be covered up with fancy lights and balloons, but is exposed by the presence of a simple–empty–chair.
The Overmanwarrior 