The Cincinnati Freedom Expo will be an excellent chance to get the new book well before anyone else in the country and the money raised for the raffle tickets will go toward a good cause announced at the event. Beck’s new book is timely, and very important. It’s all about the real story behind the progressive push for gun control.
When our founding fathers secured the Constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” they also added the admonition that this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It is the only time this phrase appears in the Bill of Rights. So why aren’t more people listening?
History has proven that guns are essential to self-defense and liberty—but tragedy is a powerful force and has led many to believe that guns are the enemy, that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that more restrictions or outright bans on firearms will somehow solve everything.
They are wrong.
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. In doing so, he takes on and debunks the common myths and outright lies that are often used to vilify guns and demean their owners:
The Second Amendment is ABOUT MUSKETS . . . GUN CONTROL WORKS in other countries . . . 40 percent of all guns are sold without BACKGROUND CHECKS . . . More GUNS MEAN more MURDER . . . Mass shootings are becoming more common . . . These awful MASSACRES ARE UNIQUE TO AMERICA . . . No CIVILIAN needs a “weapon of war” like the AR-15 . . . ARMED GUARDS in schools do nothing, just look at Columbine . . . Stop FEARMONGERING, no one is talking about TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY.
Backed by hundreds of sources, this handbook gives everyone who cares about the Second Amendment the indisputable facts they need to reclaim the debate, defeat the fear, and take back their natural rights.
To prove that the government is involved in a coercive monopoly with labor unions both private and public, examine the evidence, and the path of behavior which delivered us to the conditions of 2013 where much is made over the size and ambition of virtually any company or financial entity endeavoring to make money. The landmark case of the government against private business establishing the terms of what “the government” considers a financial monopoly can be seen in the United States v. Alcoa case from 1945.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law. Judge Learned Hand‘s opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Justice Department charged Alcoa with illegal monopolization and demanded that the company be dissolved. Trial began on June 1, 1938. The trial judge dismissed the case four years later. The government appealed. Two years later in 1944, the Supreme Court announced that it could not assemble a quorum to hear the case so it referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the following year, Learned Hand wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit.
Alcoa argued that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies.
Learned Hand J held that he could consider only the percentage of the market in “virgin aluminum” for which Alcoa accounted. Alcoa had argued that it was in the position of having to compete with scrap. Even if the scrap was aluminum that Alcoa had manufactured in the first instance, it no longer controlled its marketing. But Hand defined the relevant market narrowly in accord with the prosecution’s theory. Hand applied a rule concerning practices that are illegal per se. It did not matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one. In Hand’s words,
“
It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.
”
Hand acknowledged the possibility that a monopoly might just happen, without anyone’s having planned for it. If it did, then there would be no wrong, no liability, and no need to remedy the result. But that acknowledgement has generally been seen as an empty one in the context of the rest of the opinion; because of course rivals in a market routinely plan to outdo one another, at the least by increasing efficiency and appealing more effectively to actual and potential customers. If one competitor succeeds through such plans to the extent of 90% of the market, that planning can be described given Hand’s reasoning as the successful and illegal monopolization of the market.
The basics of the case were that Judge Hand decided that Alcoa Aluminum was guilty of operating as a monopoly because their superior manufacturing techniques had deemed them so much better than their competition and they had to be stopped so that other companies could compete. This case set up the history for which much of the modern business landscape has been established for the worse, and is the direct example of “the government” sticking its nose into the business of potential revenue generation to micromanage Alcoa into become less threatening to its competition so that other, less productive companies could gain a helping hand from the government to stay in business. These days we would call this “wealth redistribution,” as wealth and potential profit were stolen from Alcoa through the court system and delivered to its business rivals. Many today have long forgotten about these antitrust laws allowing the government to behave in such a fashion. Most people assume that things have always been as they are now. But the government intrusion attacking capitalism with Karl Marx inspired socialist tendencies began roughly 40 years after the Communist Manifesto was published for the world to read paving the way for that collective based philosophy. In Russia, the communist movement came on the heels of World War I and through the seductive words of Lenin in 1917. In The United States because of the independent nature of the average American, it came subtly through government regulation beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which was the measure used in the Alcoa case.
Sherman Antitrust Act, basic federal enactment regulating the operations of corporate trusts, passed by the U.S. Congress in July 1890, through the efforts of Senator John Sherman of Ohio. The act declared illegal “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Criminal penalties were provided for violators of the law, and aggrieved persons were entitled to recover three times the amount of losses suffered as a result of the violation. The Sherman Act has been amended and supplemented by several subsequent enactments. Most notable among these enactments was the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. See Monopoly; Trusts.[1]
A few years later with the rise of progressive politics in America following the aggressive behavior of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but never learned to make any real money of his own, progressives applied antitrust laws against “big business.” The Clayton Antitrust Act was passed in 1914. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time and represented the most aggressive push in history where academic intellectuals attempted to gain power through regulation, as their theories could not compete head to head with the titans of industry. So they used the government to perform coercive monopolies against any organization who thought they were too big to bow at the feet of the political class. Wilson and the Roosevelts both Teddy and Franklin a few years later were deeply in love with European politics and were inspired by the works of Karl Marx and used progressive action by government to further strengthen the Sherman Act.
Clayton Antitrust Act, legislation passed by the Congress of the United States in 1914 to prohibit certain monopolistic practices that were then common in finance, industry, and trade (see Monopoly). Sponsored by Alabama congressman Henry De Lamar Clayton, the Clayton Antitrust Act was adopted as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Designed to deal with new monopolistic practices, the act contained provisions covering corporate activities, remedies for reform, and labor disputes. Unfavorable court interpretations weakened the act, however, and additional legislation was required finally to carry out its aims.[2]
Fair Trade Laws, in commerce, legislation permitting manufacturers to set minimum resale prices for their branded products sold by retailers to consumers. The proliferation of chain stores prompted attempts to introduce such legislation in the 1920s to prevent the price-cutting policies characteristic of the chains, but passage of regulatory state laws did not occur until California led the way in 1931. By the 1940s all but three states had enacted fair trade laws governing intrastate transactions. Although the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited all price-fixing agreements in or affecting interstate commerce, it was amended by the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937. This new act permitted resale price maintenance agreements on trademarked commodities sold in interstate commerce in states where contracts between manufacturers or wholesalers and retailers were sanctioned by state legislation. A 1951 Supreme Court ruling released all merchants who had not signed such contracts from the requirements of this act. The McGuire Act, passed by Congress in 1952 , reestablished the requirement that nonsigners abide by the same terms as signers of contracts. Although subsequent Supreme Court rulings upheld price fixing, the laws were challenged in state courts and enforcement became increasing difficult. In 1975 President Gerald Ford signed in law an act repealing the Miller-Tydings and McGuire acts, again making all resale price-fixing agreements affecting interstate commerce a violation of federal antitrust laws. Most states subsequently repealed their fair trade laws.[3]
This of course brings us to the modern age where companies terrified of being accused of a monopoly status must send lobbyists to Washington to pad the pockets of politicians with riches hoping to avoid the dreadful designations and court proceedings which can come out of an antitrust case. Now, before anyone states that the events so far discussed are “ancient history” and not relevant to the modern age, let us examine the most recent example of government trust busting where it used The Justice Department to prosecute Microsoft for being too big using the Sherman Act to do so.
The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating systemsales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer(IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft’s position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies.
It can be argued that Microsoft has never been the same company since that case. A few years later, Bill Gates retired to philanthropy to become a guilt ridden ex-capitalist attempting to further expand the government education empire of which he rejected as a youth to wash away the sins exposed by the government prosecuting him for his lack of business altruism. Microsoft prior to that case did not effectively use lobbyists in Washington to pay off the trolls of legislation, which is something they remedied after that case and many companies followed. The message to business in America was that if a company decided that it wanted to corner the market through competitive superiority, then they would be punished—unless however a company sent representatives to K-Street to grease the wheels of politics away from prying eyes.
The government established itself as a crusader for “the people” in an attempt to create a “fair” business environment, as defined by socialists, communists, progressives, and other Karl Marx fans. Yet their attention only gazes in one direction—toward money making enterprises. They ignore however the antitrust of the labor unions who hijack business labor, especially in the public sector with excessively aggressive examples of coercive monopoly. Unions avoid the ridicule because the antitrust laws have been designated toward the bourgeoisie producers of products to use Karl Marx’s term and ignores the actions of labor which is inserted as a competitor within any organization dealing with labor unions. This action is most evident in the public sector unions of education where their behavior prevents competition, deliberately drives up the wage rates outside of market parameters, and is the grossest modern example of a coercive monopoly. As defined by the government in their cases against Alcoa back in 1945 and Microsoft in 1998, teacher unions and education institutions in general are the absolute worst forms of coercive monopoly in existence. Based on their behavior, they may be the worst to ever exist in the history of the world. Education unions steal tax money by striking, preventing competition through force, protest, and lobbying having a sole purpose of maintaining a labor monopoly by excluding entry into their markets with “force.” In this way, modern unions are far, far worse than Alcoa ever was as a monopoly power, or Microsoft ever came to be, yet no politician thinks to attempt prosecution against the labor unions in a way that Senator John Sherman of Ohio did back in 1890 toward business or Henry De Lamar Clayton did in 1914. But why?
We have seen in Ohio and Wisconsin what happens when legislators attempt to apply such rules to unions; the unions use their coercive monopoly to apply physical harm to legislators who attempt to designate their actions in such a fashion. CLICK HERE FOR AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE BY THE SEIU IN OHIO. Businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft didn’t act in such a fashion. That is why they were picked on by the government. Government like the labor unions of which both are products of socialism, achieve their goals trough coercive monopolies and they use their power, and desire to use force to extort from those too placid to fight back. In the case of businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft, they were producers who have everything to lose; the government has nothing to lose since its sole function is to steal from others to fill itself. In a conflict, this gives the government the upper hand. This is the cause of the lobby influence in Washington to this day. The goal of the lobbyists is to keep the government in their offices and away from prosecution using the Sherman Act to attack their companies with antitrust violations. Yet the same doesn’t work the other way as it should. Legislators fear applying the same antitrust terminology to a firefighter union, a police force, or any of the teacher unions even though they engage in exactly or worse antitrust violations than have ever occurred—anywhere, because the unions operate through fear, intimidation, and extortion. Legislators instead of confronting them, attack people like Bill Gates, a computer geek who became wealthy inventing the computer industry from his garage as a college dropout. No threat there. Or they attack Alcoa for simply being too good at their business.
The hypocrisy is obvious, and demands serious analysis. Labor unions in The United States are parasitic entities that only exist through coercive monopoly status. They are the cause of continuous tax increases and unmanaged local budgets. They don’t get paid based on the quality of their work, but from the fear they inspire into the political machine. They, unlike Microsoft or Alcoa are not the best in their fields of endeavor, they are simply willing to use force to achieve their desires—and that means they should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law with the same gusto that The Sherman Act was created and for the same reasons. The only reason they are not is because legislators are afraid to put such words into the public for fear that they will be examined by history for taking away the “rights” of such people. What those politicians don’t know because they lack a study of history is that such rights do not exist—except in the mind of Karl Marx, where the labor unions were born using tactics that have built the worst coercive monopolies in the history of mankind—all on the backs of the American taxpayer, while the innocent are hung like thieves by the murderers of capitalism—labor unions and their government conspirators with their coercive monopoly which involves the legal system.
“Even with these cuts, Lakota schools are still worth “cheering” for. We are not part of a losing team, but our children and grandchildren could lose out on future opportunities if there isn’t more financial support. So, let’s drown out the Rich Hoffmans of our community by making the next levy a successful one. If that happens, we all win.”
“GO TEAM GO…….HURRAHHHH”
The above statement was written by Lakota Levy cheerleader Laura Sanders, who responded to my Letter to the Editor in the Today’s Pulse April 14th edition. The letter she is responding to I have placed below for ease of review. As to Laura’s fantasy that she will drown out the Rich Hoffmans of the community, I have very bad news for her. I can swim longer than anybody she knows and I can shout louder—far louder than I have so far displayed. So if that is the path she and her levy cheerleaders wish to follow, I am looking forward to it. I have also placed below the letter she put in the paper for analysis. I will answer her assertions following her text.
First the letter I submitted:
The Lakota Levy Cheerleaders
Combined with the Lakota Superintendent’s articles here in the Journal, the “Community Conversations” program, along with a few pro Levy speeches, and I can’t help but feel that I’m watching a football game where the home team is losing 45 to 0 yet the cheerleaders are still on the sideline with their pom poms in hand completely oblivious to the events happening on the field of play still reciting the “cheers” they learned in practice.
Much to their dismay, the “Levy Addicts” who are pounding the drums for another tax increase this year and are attempting to soften the resistance with new strategies, the score up on the board is not in their favor. Lakota as a district is about to see an influx of income from the Liberty Way Development, the Carriage Hill Development, and the continued growth of the Union Center corridor. All the tax revenue coming in from these activities will be more than the previous year. Combine that trend with the 10 year projection of declining student enrollment due to the number of homes in Lakota without children increasing–balancing the budget without a tax increase should be easy.
The old mantra that education is for the “kids” is old and worn out. Nobody believes it any more just like nobody believes the home team is going to win when the score is so lopsided yet the cheerleaders are still on the sideline saying the same mindless drivel that they have the entire game. What the levy supporters want with tax increases is simply a glorified community babysitting service. What I have learned about public education these last couple of years does not lend credence to any kind of education quality even for so-called great schools like Lakota. For the 18,000 people who have turned down these levies over the years for multiple reasons, we have no choice but to support the product now, which is currently too expensive. It is simply unfathomable to ask for more, especially when the score is so lopsided—in spite of the mindless cheers.
Rich Hoffman
Now, Laura Sander’s response:
Lakota Schools Still Worth ‘Cheering’ For
Here we go again:”……levy addict…glorified community baby-sitting service.”
Wasn’t Rich Hoffman already discredited by the media one year ago because of phrases like this and previous comments such as “…crazy PTA moms and their minions of latte drinking despots with diamond rings the size of car tires and assess to match…”
Maybe Mr. Hoffman thinks its clever using metaphors comparing levy supporters to mindless cheerleaders (another attack on women). Unlike his approach, I prefer to use facts.
Mr. Hoffman claims that Lakota will “see an influx” of tax revenue after new developments are built. That sounds great, but it’s not reality. Commercial property contributes very little to school funding and has not kept pace with residential growth. Gov. John Kasich cut $1.8 billion from schools over the last two years and his current budget increases funding for charter schools and proposes additional vouchers on private schools, once again depriving public education of money.
Ohio’s charter schools received $775 million from the state last year. That amount of money could fund numerous public school districts.
Lakota Treasurer Jenni Logan predicts the district will face a $1.8 million dollar budget deficit by 2014. This is after $35 million in cuts over the last three years, which has resulted in minimal bus transportation; larger classes; fewer days for art, music and gym; no reading specialists; a dismantled gifted program, etc.
Even with these cuts, Lakota schools are still worth “cheering” for. We are not part of a losing team, but our children and grandchildren could lose out on future opportunities if there isn’t more financial support. So, let’s drown out the Rich Hoffmans of our community by making the next levy a successful one. If that happens, we all win.
Laura Sanders
Now to address Laura’s points:
I never said the cheerleaders were women or girls. Isn’t it sexist and presumptuous of to assume that all cheerleaders are “women?” Just because they are traditionally women does not mean that cheerleaders are not men too. They have men sometimes, especially in college. Whether there are men or women, cheerleaders have a job to do and that is to engage the audience with positive entertainment no matter what the actual conditions of the game. That job is more difficult if the score is so bad that it is obvious the team they are cheering for is going to lose. It helps the cheerleader’s task to not pay too much attention to the facts on the field and just repeat what they have been taught in practice, no matter what the reality on the field displays to them. It is a proper metaphor for what is going on at Lakota with the cries for yet another levy. Laura and a handful of others have behaved very similarly to the metaphor I used. But I never said the cheerleaders were women.
(C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, no board of education shall use public funds to support or oppose the passage of a school levy or bond issue or to compensate any school district employee for time spent on any activity intended to influence the outcome of a school levy or bond issue election.
(2) A board of education may permit any of its employees to attend a public meeting during his regular working hours for the purpose of presenting information about school finances and activities and board actions, even if the purpose of the meeting is to discuss or debate the passage of a school levy or bond issue.
I sat on the story because the owner was terrified to come forward in fear of losing her business. Well, guess what, she lost her business a few months later. I took the story to The Enquirer—who didn’t cover it and I took the story right next door to the Pulse Journal who wouldn’t touch it. With the kind of power the business owner felt was against her, she asked me to sit on the story, which I did. Surely all the Levy Cheerleaders know all about it. That kind of behavior is extortion, and is an attempt to win elections with coercion which if this wasn’t a government school would be considered criminal activity with jail time attached. Because it’s a school with a tremendous public relations budget, no court would attempt to enforceOhio Revised Code ORC 3315.07 (C) (1) and (C) (2).I find stories like that one appalling, and made even worse because they are done behind the cover of children. I consider anybody who would engage in that kind of activity to be morally bankrupt and a detriment to society. You are lucky I held back my tongue on that comment because a lot more descriptive dialogue was on my mind. Now, for the other case which I have document release, CLICK HERE to view.
As to my being discredited let me shed some light on that little topic. WLW was running dry, we covered education till we were blue in the face and it was starting to drag on the ratings. They wanted to swing more toward sports talk radio; I wanted to take the rhetoric to a higher level because of the behavior by the school board after the third levy failure and the decision by Karen Mantia to not engage the teacher’s union with a pay reduction. So we were going to part ways anyway, especially after Doc Thompson left. Traditional newspapers like The Enquirer and The Pulse were stuck between pro levy people and me and they had to pick a side. After Michael Clark’s behavior with the exclusive I gave him regarding Yes to Lakota Kids, I knew where he was going, in the direction where his wife was employed—in public education. So traditional media did pull away, and I had been holding my tongue to keep them in my corner until I had a suitable network built that could sustain those loses when they occurred. Once I had it secure, I let my tongue speak. In addition apparently Laura missed this Channel 19 interview once it was announced that Lakota wouldn’t be seeking a levy in 2012. CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF. So much for discredit.
I. I knew when Karen Mantia arrived in town that she would seek to attack No Lakota Levy diplomatically and split us from the inside. That is after all what she did in Pickerington and the people from up there warned me ahead of time what her mode of operation was. In a personal meeting I had with her I got a wonderful feel for how she was going to play her hand. So I started to set up my operation independent of my partners in No Lakota Levy. If they stayed, great, if they broke, I could still proceed on as planned. They had showed signs of cracking earlier in the year, so I didn’t think they’d stay the course through a fourth attempt. On the third levy, they handled the sign delivery around the community during the last two weeks of the campaign and little else. I took care of all the media work, the blog postings, the debates and anything else that came up. If I lost them politically for the fourth levy attempt, which I felt was Mantia’s strategy—based on our meeting, I would have to maintain my ability to continue. In future levy attempts I would need the more radical members of the No Lakota Levy front to continue the fight. Many of them were frustrated that I didn’t hit the school hard enough often enough. My response was that a day would come when we would be able to hit as hard as they wanted. But for now, in the early stage of these levy fights, we had to save the best tricks for later—which we have. Most of the primary members of No Lakota Levy wanted to form Yes to Lakota Kids which I wasn’t crazy about, because they were tired of being called selfish businessmen—again by the PTA community. The threats of boycotts and other harassing measures were unconscionable in my opinion, and I couldn’t get Michael Clark from The Enquirer to cover those stories either. This left those members to strive for a public image campaign with Yes to Lakota Kids, which I felt was just feeding the monster. The sports fees shouldn’t have been put in place and even though we were raising $10,000, it felt to me like a drop in the bucket. So I wasn’t happy, but I represented their interests out of friendship. In private, on my blog, and elsewhere I voiced my opinion. Laura’s desire to make some of those comments one of sexism is a surrender on the pro levy position. They know they cannot win based on their arguments, so they played the progressive “feminist” card in an attempt to remove me from the debate. But, as predicted, there were a lot of silent handshakes and smirks about my comments from people who had been thinking the same thing. I just gave them a vehicle to vent their frustrations. A lot of the votes that the pro side wins from arm twisting, extortion, and other forms of coercion came back my way due to my controversial comments, which is what I needed to do on my side to prepare for the next try. Voters were just waiting for someone to articulate what they were already feeling.
II. Now as to facts………….I have delivered facts, upon facts, upon facts. Laura’s statement that she is dealing with facts whereas I am not is typical of the pro education debate where they ignore all facts except the ones they wish to see. It’s that cheerleader mentality again. If they look up on the scoreboard they don’t want to see a 45 to 0 score. They simply look at the clock to see what time it is. They ignore the actual score because they have a show to perform, and can’t let the facts ruin their desired reality. So here are the facts as she addressed them.
Laura ignores in her statement that Lakota has a 10 year declining enrollment projection which means that student enrollment will be decreasing. That means Lakota will have to lay off teachers, consolidate schools, and roll back their staff to accommodate the lower student levels. With tax revenue staying the same, and enrollment going down, any idiot should be able to balance their budget. That is unless they plan to give away the farm on the 2014 labor contract that is coming up with the LEA.
Laura obviously doesn’t know anybody with commercial property who has to write a check on their property values at $1.5 to $5 million dollars. Businesses are taxed at the same rate as residences, and there is a lot of business in the Lakota district. To say that commercial business does not contribute much to school funding is like saying that the sun does not contribute to sun burn. It’s a statement based on levy propaganda and a denial of the facts.
Kasich did not take money away from Lakota in 2012 and the spending on school vouchers and charter schools is a very good thing which I support 100%. Public schools need to become profit motivated and drive their costs down, not up. I want to see a chart that shows the per pupil cost at Lakota going down each year, not trending up. Education options are what drive down costs, and I am happy to see that Kasich put more money into charters. To speak otherwise is to be a stooge for the labor unions who wish to maintain a monopoly status on public education. If Kasich had thrown the $775 million dollars she discussed at Ohio’s public schools the unions would have gobbled it up like a black hole. They’d be hungry for more money the very next year. $775 million dollars does not go very far in public education. Not when the budget just at Lakota is near $200 million with undeclared costs added of course.
If Lakota is predicting a $1.8 million dollar deficit in 2014 it is because they have mismanaged the money the tax payers have already sent them. The fact that Karen Mantia cut bus transportation, dismantled the gifted program, reading specialists, has fewer days for art, only says that she did exactly what she was taught in Levy University at the OSBA Conference in Columbus point for point. If Lakota decided to cut those types of programs instead of doing what No Lakota Levy told the school board to do, and that was present a 5% reduction of wages to the union, they are guilty of mismanagement. They have let the “tail wag the dog.” They have failed to handle their labor contract, it’s that simple, and that failure is on her management style. As a former teacher herself, Mantia aligned herself with the employees of Lakota and not the community who pays the bills. That is her failure and if there is another levy, it will be due to her mismanagement of the finances provided, especially since student enrollment is on a sharp decline.
I spent a good part of this past Friday evening speaking to a reporter about virtually everything that I’ve said here. We are living in a new age; traditional media doesn’t hold the same power that it once did so creativity and innovation favor those on the side of the truth. The only thing that has held back others from jumping on the No Vote bandwagon was fear, because they have truth on their side, which is what I explained in a speech recently to a group I spoke to in Oxford. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. My hope after the third levy attempt was that I could inspire more people to step forward so that it wasn’t always Rich Hoffman doing everything, because that can only go on for so long. To have a healthy resistance, the formations have to constantly change, and new players have to be rotated in and out just like in a military engagement—because that is what we are fighting. Public education is not a nice institution that is protecting children as it’s sold; it’s a government propaganda machine and a babysitting service for parents too busy to care for their own children. I really don’t care if that makes people angry, because it’s true, and there are enough residents at Lakota who have grown children who know that it is. In the next levy attempt it is my hope that there are 20 levy fighters doing what I was doing in the first three at Lakota. I think that will be the case, and if it’s not, then I will pick up the slack……………..gladly. I’m happy to be civil if the pro levy people are, but if they wish to be uncivil—like they usually are, I will respond—as I have. Meanwhile, my advanced position on all public education is that it should be abolished as a tax payer funded entity off property tax. If Laura Sanders wants certain things for her child to learn, then she can pay for it. I’m tired of paying money for people like her to benefit, while they constantly complain that other people should pay more taxes. CLICK TO REVIEW THE KIND OF THINGS KIDS ARE BEING TAUGHT ABOUT EDUCTION FROM THE LAST CAMPAIGN. That kind of thing makes me absolutely sick. And when she states that commercial businesses do not contribute much in property taxes, she’s clearly not up to speed.
So go ahead and test me Lakota people. Go ahead and think that people are going to fall for the same old emotional arguments of the past, the accusations of sexism, selfishness, and compassion, and see where it gets you. I have saved a lot of people hundreds of thousands of dollars around Lakota and I purposely kept the budgets low in the previous three levy attempts so that the coffers would be there when I needed it. So when Laura Sanders says as she did in the opening of her letter………….. “Here we go again” that’s right. If they want to go again, they will see more fireworks than they’ve ever seen before……especially since my next campaign will be using new media, not traditional media. I don’t have to worry about offending people in the next attempt, now that the resistance network is built with fresh faces. For me this is a moral argument now, not just a financial one.
I would say this to Lakota. I am happy to do as I promised at the beginning of the deal in 2012 when it was agreed to not put a levy on the ballot. I am happy to leave Lakota alone in my crusade against public education if Lakota keeps its head down and out of the voting booth. Take the declined enrollment and ride off into the sunset, because if Lakota puts itself on my radar, it will be their own fault. That is a bit of friendly advice. Or, Lakota can listen to the winds of war from the pom poms of Lakota’s Levy Cheerleaders and see who can swim the longest and shout the loudest. And I know where the Vegas odds makers will put their money—and it isn’t on Lakota.
One of the most remarkable aspects of Lang’s comments is that he didn’t attempt to do as almost every politician has done for decades and take credit for the success of West Chester as a township due to his political leadership. Instead George Lang made it known that the success of West Chester is not because of any policies of government. The success of West Chester is not because of any law that was created by the trustees. The success of West Chester is because politicians like Lang have managed to create an environment where businesses can make money, which brings jobs to the township, creates tax revenue, and feeds the economic life blood of the community. Without jobs, there isn’t any money for anybody to spend on restaurants, shopping complexes, or on any form of charity. George Lang understands that the secret to success in any community is to keep government off businesses backs as much as possible so that a friendly commerce environment is conducive to growth.
It is very tempting for a typical politician to declare that the success of a community like West Chester is due to the construction of sidewalks, or the quality of the schools. But the truth is that communities are not built by government in any fashion, they are established for good or bad by the quality of the residents who live there. In the case of West Chester, where there is a pro business environment, investment makes sense to entrepreneurs. They come to West Chester to make money, not to serve some altruistic purpose. The only reason that a business would endeavor to set up a place of exchange where they offer goods or services is for the benefit of profit. The byproduct of that profit is in jobs provided to the community, and money to spend on other businesses. Without business, a community is a failure. There cannot be success if there is no business. If there are no jobs, there is no money for other businesses, and there are no taxes for the government to loot from. In essence, there is nothing without business.
Brian Thomas was surprised that George Lang understood this very basic economic principle, since it would appear that most of society at large has failed to come to grips with such an elementary idea. The school system Lakota in West Chester is one of the largest in all of Ohio, and they are proud of their Excellence with Distinction awards obtained for over a decade of consecutive years. The government workers at the school wish to believe that the cause of their excellence is in their wonderful skills as employees. But they are wrong. The cause is that the children who come to their schools and attend their classes are better than children from other classes in other schools. With government schools, one teacher is not better than another since they are all trained the same way and are motivated by the same profit structure. Collective bargaining in union contracts means that bad teachers get paid the same as good teachers so every school has good and bad teachers proportionately no matter what the school or the pay rates as pay is primarily dictated by years of service and not performance. This means that the elements that make one school better than another is the quality of the children who attend, and that quality starts in the home. In West Chester there are an above average number of homes with two parents, most of which have traditional families. Unemployment is low with government dependence on welfare being nearly non-existent. The children who show up at Lakota come from families that value private property and respect responsible behavior, and have parents who participate in children’s lives. As I have said many times, all the employees of Lakota could be eliminated with a RIF and replaced with employees fresh out of college from every position, and Lakota would still be ranked Excellent with Distinction. The children would perform the same, because the parents tend to care about their kids, and those parents tend to work in jobs in and around West Chester.
The quality of a community begins with the number of businesses in it, and the amount of money they can make. For proof look at any community anywhere in the world where government has stuck its nose into the affairs of entrepreneurs and it will quickly be noticed that these places have empty buildings with signs in them looking for suckers to lease them. But nobody in their right mind would sign a lease in a community that has a looting government that wishes to stick them on a cross to suck out their life in service to the altruistic aims of a pathetic name-plate addicted politician. Most of the time politicians attempt to do as all government does, especially schools–they take credit for the success and efforts of others with collective ownership. These types of politicians are like those football fans who leave a stadium after the quarterback of their favorite team throws a last second touchdown to win the game. Upon leaving these fans declare, “WE WON.” They are mistaken. The quarterback won with his individual effort. The fans simply sucked off his success to share in the glory of victory. Government schools do this all the time, and politicians are notorious for performing such social looting. They wish to believe that just because a business posts a profit after four quarters of activity that they had some input into that success because they built a sidewalk, or created some foolish zoning ordinance regulating signs and other forms of advertising. But the politician is actually worthless. All they can really do for their communities is fulfill their core competency obligations which is to protect private property. Anything more than that is theft and looting of other people’s effort.
The biggest difference between a Fabian Socialist and a regular socialist is that the Fabian believed in a long gradual, patient change to society rather than one brought about by revolution such as the method used in the U.S.S.R. to deliver that country to communism. Fabianists rather took the slow route which was the preferred method of Stuart Chase.
Fa·bi·an (fâ¹bê-en) adjective
1.a. Of or relating to the caution and avoidance of direct confrontation typical of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus. b. Cautious or dilatory, as in taking action.
2. Of, relating to, or being a member of the Fabian Society, which was committed to gradual rather than revolutionary means for spreading socialist principles.
[Latin Fabiânus, after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus.]
Fabian Society, British socialist educational organization that advocates social change through democratic reforms. It was founded in London in 1884 by a group of intellectuals who rejected the Marxist theory of class struggle but wished to promote equality through collective ownership and democratic control of the nation’s resources. Devoted primarily to education and social research, the Fabians never constituted themselves as a political party. However, in 1900 they participated in founding the Labour Representation Committee, now the Labour Party.[2]
Chase was among the dozen or more prominent members of the temporary committee which conducted the affairs of the Technical Alliance which later formed into Technocracy Incorporated, (Technocracy movement).[4][5]
Although not a Marxist, Chase admired the planned economy of the Soviet Union, being impressed with it after a 1927 visit. Chase stated that “The Russians, in a time of peace, have answered the question of what an economic system is for”.[2]
It has been suggested that he was the originator of the expression a New Deal, which became identified with the economic programs of American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He wrote a cover story in The New Republic entitled “A New Deal for America”, during the week that Roosevelt gave his 1932 presidential acceptance speech promising a new deal, but whether Roosevelt’s speechwriter Samuel Rosenman saw the magazine is not clear.
Chase supported the isolationist movement and was against US entry in World War II, advocating this position in his 1939 book The New Western Front.[1]
Chase is famous for the quote at the end of his book A New Deal, “Why should Russians have all the fun remaking a world?” — a reference to the “socialist experiment” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).[6]
He is quoted in S. I. Hayakawa‘s Language in Thought and Action as having said, “Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat.”
On pages 95 and 96 of The Road We Are Traveling, under the heading of “Free Enterprise into ‘X'”, Chase listed 18 characteristics of political economy that he had observed among[8] Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913[9] and 1942. Chase labeled this phenomenon “… something called ‘X'”.[7] Characteristics include the following:
A strong, centralized government.
An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
The control of foreign trade by the government.
The control of natural resources.
The control of energy sources.
The control of transportation.
The control of agricultural production.
The control of labor organizations.
The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
It is clear that after watching Barack Obama for nearly five years as of this writing, he is attempting to bring to America the implementation of all 18 items on Stuart Chase’s list. For political insiders, who Obama’s title for his campaign video was a wink and a nod to their real intentions as most Americans had no idea what a Fabian Socialist was, the intentions are extraordinarily clear. Most people don’t even understand what the history of the Labour Party in England was, which was the party of Tony Blair who got along so very well with George W. Bush, so they won’t understand the subtle messages Barack Obama’s team used to communicate their intentions to the Fabian loyalists who currently make up so much of the current federal government in modern America. The American people have been sideswiped by a modern president that is clearly working from the playbook of Fabian Socialists like Stuart Chase. But the goal of the Fabians is not only as deep as Obama, but go back to the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnston. It is the Fabian Socialists who put their mark on The New Deal ushering in the era of “Social Security” and the “Great Society” which gave us Medicaid and Medicare. Those programs are now off the table of discussion as most Americans have found themselves using those socialist government concepts in some fashion, and as they will all say – “Of course I’m going to use the program. I paid into it, so I’m going to get out of it what I can.” Thus…………you can see the work of the Fabian Socialist—patient, calculating, manipulative, smug—knowing that once they made America addicted to socialism, voters would never turn it away. The same mentality has been at work behind Obamacare. The goal is not affordable health care, or even helping the poor. The goal is gaining federal control of 1/5th of the American economy so that the government can dictate what we eat, where we go, what kind of jobs we perform, and what type of relationships we conduct ourselves with. The recent endeavors of Mayor Bloomberg in New York City are just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to what the Fabian Socialists wish to do with the government of our American Republic. In the video below, Glenn Beck provides video research into more aspects of Fabian Socialist, Stuart Chase, and their connection to modern-day President Obama.
The strategies of Stuart Chase were not the intentions of The American Revolution, our Declaration of Independence, or our state and federal Constitutions. Rather, Fabian Socialists have sought a legal way to supersede our traditional governments with scams designed to erode away our sovereignty slowly over a long period of time. The success in America that built the skyline of present day New York City, or virtually any business in The United States from “old money” came from the laissez-fairecapitalism tendencies during the period directly after the Civil War. What the Fabian Socialists originating from London, England did with their version of socialism has been far more destructive than their direct attempts to destroy America in either The Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Through the progressive era just ahead of Stuart Chase’s time, they have managed with patience to put the brakes on American economic development by saddling our politics with gradual elements of socialism aimed at specific demographic voting blocs. The aims of the 18 items listed by Stuart Chase are being actively pursued through the American education system, nearly every government office, and nearly every business in America who must deal with federal audits and inspectors to whatever degree. Fabian Socialism is in the life of virtually every American in every corner of the country, and they were put there with the Trojan Horse of kindness, compassion, and manipulative schemes. They have been furthered in recent times with videos like the one produced by the Obama White House delivered with the pleasant voice of Tom Hanks and presented in a way that any logical viewer would conclude to be reasonable, and even beneficial. But what the nice voice of Tom Hanks does not tell you with Obama’s subtle nod to one of his economic mentors in Stuart Chase was that David Axelrod, and the others who appeared in the video are the modern equivalents of the traditional Fabian Socialists. They don’t call themselves such things by name for fear that the American public would reject them, but they believe in the kind of government Stuart Chase discussed in his book, The Road We Are Traveling. So now dear reader, you know as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story when you see propaganda films done about Barack Obama titled, The Road We’ve Traveled. Obama intends to say that the road mentioned in Chase’s book has already happened. In Stuart’s day America was traveling down that road, but under Barack Obama, Stuart’s goals have been obtained. That is why Obama’s public relation handlers changed the title from “we are” to “we’ve.” So observe what the enemy of capitalism is all about and their weapons which are in those 18 points. They are already here, and will stay unless they are defeated and vanquished. That is the reality of the Obama Presidency and the hidden intentions of its administration.
For those who are coming to the Cincinnati Freedom Expo and want to get pictures taken with Doc, be prepared to wear your tallest shoes. Doc stands over 6’ 4” and dwarfs most normal sized people, so keep that in mind. Doc is usually very gracious about doing those kinds of publicity things, so come prepared. The Cincinnati Freedom Expo will have a casual atmosphere where radio celebrities like Doc and 55 KRC’s Brian Thomas will be accessible which makes it unique for such a large event. Not often is such high-caliber talent able to interact with the spectators in a causal way, but that is the intention of Ann Becker’s approach to the Expo, which she describes as being essentially a giant Tea Party meeting. The early rumblings from the organizers believe that this event will become the CPAC of the Midwest, as it appears to be shaping into. Next year the talk has already evolved into making the event an all day spectacle to satisfy the intense interest. This year the event begins at 7 PM and should wrap up around 10 PM, and the content providers are filling up with the addition of Doc Thompson. FreedomWorks is hosting a booth, and The Tenth Amendment Center will also be prominently present just to name a few.
Doc Thompson is one of the most entertaining radio talk hosts anywhere on the radio today which accounts for his consistent success. His brand is difficult for modern radio producers as he tends to have an old-fashioned sense of responsible world view but mixes it with sincere yet over-the-top comedy bits laced with satire. Doc has had a colorful history bragging often about the many radio jobs he’s been fired from. He has worked in Richmond, Virginia, Lincoln, Nebraska, Las Vegas, Nevada and Cincinnati, Ohio to name a few. It was when he was at 700 WLW that he and I developed a friendship while exposing the horrors and hypocrisy of public education with dozens of broadcasts reaching 38 states and parts of Canada living to this very day on YouTube. His most recent job was with CBS radio in Detroit before moving to The Blaze Radio Network at the start of 2013 working directly for Glenn Beck. He was instrumental in some of those stations winning 5 Marconi Awards, the equivalent of the Academy Award for radio excellence.
Making people laugh is important to Doc. His medium of choice is of course radio. He dabbles in many styles with sarcasm and satire usually present. Although he is candid and forthright he loves good spirited practical jokes. And he is not afraid of controversy as can be seen the following video regarding North Korea’s recent attempts to beat the drums of war.
The Freedom Movement is not for everyone. Recently I explained to some of my extended family members who are staunch Republicans that future presidential candidates like John Kasich, Chris Christy, and other machine politicians that fall under the tent of the John Boehner types, are not desirable for my support just because they can win elections by manipulating the masses to vote for them. My picks would be people like Dr. Benjamin Carson, Rand Paul, or the skeletal remains of Ayn Rand. I explained to them that I am to the political right of the current political right. I don’t consider myself at all a radical, but compared to the current Platonic political landscape, I am a radical in favor of capitalism. Of those three candidates, one is a man of color who is being condemned by the political left—(so much for civil rights), another is a white guy from Kentucky with a tendency to filibuster in the Senate, and the other is a deceased woman who is wiser as a skeleton than the flesh and blood of all Washington D.C. put together. All those candidates would be better than what current politics has to offer. The people coming to the Cincinnati Freedom Expo know it too, which is why they are coming to be around like-minded people and hear from people like Doc Thompson who are on the front of the freedom fighting movement. It is toward that commitment The Blaze under Glenn Beck’s direction is dedicated and why Doc Thompson is now a direct employee of Glenn Beck—to advance the cause of freedom in a way that is unique to Thompson’s radio style.
Ann has told me that I will be in the press box, so I expect to spend most of my time there. Feel free to come up and say hello. I don’t get to visit with all my readers here in person very much, so this Expo will be a great opportunity to touch base. And remember, especially ladies, if you want a picture next to Doc Thompson, be sure to wear heels otherwise it will be hard to frame your head in a picture with Doc due to his extreme height. Again, secure your tickets, mark your calendar, and be ready to arrive early. Be prepared for a riveting speech by Doc Thompson who has a lot of stories to tell about the fight for freedom and the cost of that fight. It will be an evening that will resonate for many years, and start a new trend in Cincinnati dedicated to the very, very few who reject the current philosophy of political order in favor of a new philosophy that embraces real freedom for only the third time in world history.
Why is the Tea Party always fighting for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets? Why is the Tea Party categorized by thugs, goons, government looters, despots, scum bags, rent-a-cops, union leaders, progressives, Fabian socialists, communists, school teachers, scandalous judges, kangaroo courts, money grabbing attorneys, left-leaning reporters, Obama supporters, and greenie weenies as being a terrorist organization? Because the Tea Party wants to do the right thing in government, they want to stop the corruption and otherwise scandalous behavior that normally is associated with government and return America to a time of mythical honesty conceived by The United States Constitution. Thus begins the story of Donna Campbell, one of the founding members of the Lebanon Tea Party, entrepreneur of the Liberty Tax Service for 7 straight years and area developer who has been so successful that her aggressive marketing strategies have allowed her business to out produce her local rival H&R Block which has been in business for more than 50 years and is a much larger company. Donna has found herself in court on and off for over the last year not because she robbed a bank, or urinated on a police car—but because she has been successful, and there are powers in the City of Lebanon who wish to see her put out of business and crushed because she’s a threat to them.
Not that a rival company in Lebanon would put money into the pockets of the political machine to set in motion the story of Donna Campbell, but it wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened under similar circumstances. Such happenings are difficult to prove and most of the parties lie under oath in a court of law anyway, so there is no way to bring such information to the light of day. But the evidence speaks for itself, and is incriminating enough to paint a picture of how government colludes to pick winners and losers using their power and influence to put people like Donna out of business if they discover that she is not part of the power structure they wish to support. The unspoken rule among many business owners is that they feel they must contribute to politicians in some fashion or another through charity events or direct campaign funding so to keep the parasites off their backs in some future time. In the case of Liberty Tax Service the success of her business has caught the eyes of power in a negative way, and they have come after her in a very aggressive manner. The story you are about to read happens all the time. It has happened with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who invented a cure for cancer and has had to fight for 15 years against the FDA, it has happened to car companies who go up against the Big Three auto manufacturers, it has happened to Microsoft. What has happened to Donna Campbell has happened to just about anyone who comes up with a better way of doing something where more established organizations who contribute more money into the political machines of local, state, and national politics use their power and influence to crush their rivals because they can’t compete directly.
I have written about Liberty Tax Services before as the West Chester location was recently pulled across the coals for violating the sign ordinance in that community, a case that ended up being the topic of much debate on the Scott Sloan show with trustee George Lang defending Liberty Tax Service. The issue was that Donna’s businesses have been using human billboards to dress up and engage motorists at the roads urging them to file their tax returns at her establishments. The method worked as Liberty Tax Service has enjoyed thriving results. In West Chester the zoning commission determined that Liberty Tax Service was violating their signing regulations by using human billboards. Click the link below to review that case and listen to the WLW broadcast.
Well the same thing has occurred in Lebanon, which is roughly 15 miles to the east of West Chester, Ohio, only to a much more aggressive extent. Lebanon as a small city still enjoys the political pull of small town America as most everyone in political office knows each other, so collaborations are common in such places. It didn’t take long after Donna’s Liberty Tax Service Lebanon location caught the ridicule of the city’s “Sign Czar” after posting more tax returns than H&R Block according to IRS data, to begin to feel the heat of city government. Lebanon actually employs a retired police officer with the full-time position to regulate signage within the city complete with a car, computer and lots of time to take pictures and send out certified letters regarding violations of sign ordinances.
The Sign Czar began engaging in harassment of Liberty Tax Service by exchanging dialogue with Donna’s marketing employee who did not show the retired officer much respect, according to court documents. The Sign Czar took it upon himself to deliberately target Liberty Tax Services marketing strategies for reasons only the Czar can understand leading to the exchanges with the Liberty Tax Service employee who boasted at times how successful their efforts were. This made the Czar even more vigilant. The Sign Czar under the authority of the City of Lebanon began to confiscate Donna’s signs all over town and dispose of them.
The final straw occurred when Donna had a sign maker print up 100 signs which went out over night before the Sign Czar began his shift at 7 AM. This angered the Czar and he used the offices of politics to execute his desires convincing the City to proceeded attacking Donna with a summons to municipal court for sign violations and a fine of $500 per day. This left Donna to hire the legal services of Eric Deters to defend herself along with the support of city council member Matt Rodriquez who informed her that Lebanon City Hall was awaiting the outcome of the West Chester/Liberty Tax case concerning the sign wavers. If West Chester Township was successful in removing the sign wavers from Liberty Tax Services, then Lebanon intended to follow. But the harassment of Donna did not stop as the Sign Czar intensified his efforts without a care for the 10-15 employees who directly worked for Donna. The intention by the Sign Czar was to put her out of business, his actions made that clear. The Sign Czar over the last year determined to confiscate any sign put out by Liberty Tax Services any time anywhere. Even when Donna had permission from other business owners to put a single sign in front of their buildings, the Sign Czar determined that it went against the city code. This same Sign Czar allowed H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt and other non-competing businesses in Lebanon to have signs out that were not directly in front of their businesses as can be seen by the photos. The city has kept the case alive to monitor what Donna did for the 2013 tax season. Donna attempted to legally comply with the unusual restrictions by saying “Aaron’s Rent recommends Liberty Tax” and place the signs in front of Aaron’s place of business. The City called Donna’s attorney and stated they wanted those removed also. The city also notified Donna’s landlord in a direct attempt to manipulate the landlord’s relationship against Liberty Tax Service. The City of Lebanon appeared to stop at nothing to put Donna out of business in their city, and West Chester has shown nearly the same animosity………but why.
This is why there is a Tea Party and why they stand for the kind of things that they do. Donna should not have to butter the bread of city officials in either Lebanon or West Chester to do business in those communities. If her signage is a turn-off to her customers, then she will go out of business, it’s as easy as that. Yet her sign wavers standing in costume out in front of her businesses have worked, making Liberty Tax Service exceed the filings of her rivals which is what productive businesses should always endeavor to do. But Donna didn’t grease the gears of the political machines, and for that she has paid dearly. To her credit, rather than cave under the pressure and offer the Sign Czar some extra money on the side, free tax services, or any other type of activity that might be considered bribery, she instead helped start the Lebanon Tea Party to help combat these kinds of evils which stand in the way of free markets where better ideas like hers can thrive under a capitalist system serving as the cornerstone of the American economy. This activity has made her an enemy of government instead of an asset. The government using the Sign Czar as the public mask of civility targeted Donna for elimination for the simple fact that she did not share in the beliefs of their brand of kangaroo court justice, where winners and losers are picked by the gods of government and the puny brains of retired police officers who do the job not for money, but the thrill to impose their will of enforcement upon the lives of innocence to fill the personal void of character for which they seem to lack.
In America, people like Donna should be celebrated, not drug through court with fearful arm twisting and threats of $500 a day fines because she didn’t try to go out of her way to make the Sign Czar happy. The public servants in the case of Lebanon and West Chester against Liberty Tax Services forget that it is they who serve Donna, not the other way around. Donna creates real jobs with real worth by offering a service that her customers truly desire. The young people who dress up in costume to advertise with dances and other vigorous ambition to direct business into Donna’s establishments are paid by their performance. On the other hand the City of Lebanon can only offer a job paid for by the tax payers to create jobs that are not needed, such as in the Sign Czar who has nothing to do but collect a pension from his years as a cop, and make more money from the government by harassing independent business people whom he decides he does not like for whatever reason. It is because of stories like this one that the Tea Party exists, still—and stands strong against the kind of anti-capitalist behavior exhibited above. People do not exist for government to live, thrive and enjoy lives of liberty under the toils of entrepreneurs like Donna Campbell. Rather, it’s supposed to be the other way around. The Sign Czar if he wanted to make himself useful should help Donna put out her signs and if the marketplace decided that she did not use discretion and restrain herself, then her business would fail as a result. It’s not up to some pin head bureaucrat to decide if Donna fails at business or not, which is the case in the City of Lebanon. It is for this reason that the Tea Party is still strong, and actually growing because people like Donna are sick of being pushed around, and they just aren’t going to take it anymore. And they shouldn’t have to. Government does not dictate to the people who elect them, they are not divine leaders with infinite wisdom. They are public servants and nothing more. If they do not help people like Donna they are an immoral impediment to the health and well-being of any economy, therefore marking themselves as threats to human civilization. For that reason, the Tea Party strives to crush such opposition to capitalism and return America back to an era where freedom is enjoyed, and the best and brightest can succeed in a marketplace not controlled by government sloths, but by the will and limitations of the individual and their private ambitions to drive the engines of society ever more toward horizons only imagined in the entrepreneurial activity of Americans always looking for a competitive edge. Building a better mousetrap that can succeed where before there was nothing but an empty building and a landlord who needs to lease the space to a brilliant mind willing to forge a path through the labyrinth of red tape known as the modern age of doing business, is what makes unemployment figures decrease. It is in this that America is successful or individuals like Donna are flourishing. The City of Lebanon instead evoked The Power of Pull to determine success or failure, and that is a violation to logic that cannot be tolerated. (CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON “THE POWER OF PULL”) Thank goodness Donna Campbell has decided to fight back, because it is due to people like her that the America Flag still is red, white and blue with fifty stars and stripes instead of a red hammer and sickle evoked from a long vanished enemy that never went away after the Berlin Wall fell in Eastern Europe during 1989. Rather, they moved to Lebanon, Ohio in an attempt at a new regime against capitalism—but instead ran into an immovable force in the spirit of Donna Campbell and her Liberty Tax Service.
For those who have been raised in public education with confused messages of individual achievement suppressed against desires of collective ambition, they are living in very confusing times. When socialism is discussed as it is so often today, many people do not understand that all forms of collectivism are the remnants of civilization’s primitive past and that the world is undergoing a revolution that will forever advance the human mind toward individualism. In America the concept of individualism has been attacked by European influence so to bring the entire world back in line with the same type of collectivist philosophy—which is presently attempting to return the mind of man back to those of the Dark Ages, where sacrifice, altruism, and social peaking order were the primary determinations of success.
Troubadours and Trouvères, were lyric poets and poet-musicians who flourished in France from the end of the 11th century to the end of the 13th century. The troubadours were active in Provence in southern France. Written in the Provençal language, the lyrics of the troubadours were among the first to use native language rather than Latin, the literary language of the Middle Ages. The earliest troubadour whose works have been preserved was Guillaume IX of Aquitaine (1071-1127). The majority of known troubadours were nobles and in some cases kings. Troubadour music gradually disappeared during the 13th century but their impact would resonate through European culture for centuries thereafter.
trou·ba·dour (tr¡¹be-dôr´, -dor´, -d¢r´) noun
1. One of a class of 12th-century and 13th-century lyric poets in Provence, northern Italy, and northern Spain, who composed songs in langue d’oc often about courtly love.
2. A strolling minstrel.
[French, from Provençal trobador, from Old Provençal, from trobar, to compose, perhaps from Vulgar Latin *tropâre, from Late Latin tropus, trope, song, from Latin, trope. See trope.][1]
The verse forms included the canso (stanza song), tenso (dialogue or debate), sirvente (political or satirical canso), planh (complaint or dirge), alba (morning song), and serena (evening song). The musical accompaniments were generally played on stringed instruments such as viele (medieval fiddle) or the lute.
The trouvères were court poet-musicians of northern France. Their songs were strongly influenced by those of the troubadours. The northern poet-musicians eventually developed their own genre, which placed more emphasis on heroic epics. The trouvères wrote in the northern French language. The most famous trouvère was Adam de la Halle.[2]
The Middle Ages, a period of European history spanning roughly a thousand years, has not been well represented in most high school history curriculums, and indeed is frequently neglected in undergraduate history programs as well. It is because the Middle Ages are so poorly studied, even in European education, that many of the influences that shape the world today are lost as to their original meanings. Many modern students of history assume that romantic love was always the primary motive of marriage, but it wasn’t. Marriage unions prior to the troubadours had collective social concerns as the primary motive.
The way the troubadours envisioned romantic love threatened the entire family structure of organized society and the collective aims of surrendering individual happiness to the needs of a family, a region, or even a nation dominated social concerns. Yet after seven centuries in Occidental cultures, romantic love is now expected – even mandated. It is because of the troubadours that Hollywood’s most successful products are romantic comedies as the yearning in America and Europe for authentic love relationships – relationships built from the shared values of two people in “love” otherwise known as the chemical reaction produced in the brain desiring to bring the sexual organs of two people together with the added spice of common likes and dislikes in a mating partner drive the motivations of relationship forming. Sex or the promise of it is the basis behind such “romantic love” and is wholly inspired by the need for pleasurable gratification. In such relationships if the self-interest of one party is not fulfilled by the other, the relationship tends to disintegrate if more aspects of the relationship are not introduced into the more complicated union, such as children, real estate, or mature friendships which bloom from the satisfaction of shared values. Most of these relationships begin as the primary desire for sexual gratification which is not sacrificial, but pleasurable.
In arranged marriages, or marriages where attractive females marry men many years their senior for what such arrangements may do for their career or financial well-being the woman will allow her body to be used for sex in a similar way that a prostitute sells her body, but is unlikely to enjoy the experience herself since she is not attracted physically to her mate. In Europe this led to the Victorian Era promiscuity that has become so well-known to the period where affairs were rampant, but suppressed for fear that the Church might look poorly upon the behavior. It was these same Victorians who settled New England from the period of the War of 1812 to the Red Decade Period and brought with them the work of Karl Marx and progressive politics. The ghosts of these Victorians are in every mother who says to her daughter, “Marry him because he makes a lot of money,” meaning the marriage partner will have the kind of “political pull” to bring success to her family. It is unlikely that the women in such “arranged marriages” will enjoy or sympathize with individual endeavors since they have sacrificed their will to the collective desires of other influences. These types of families tend to look toward political socialism to bring attempts at happiness to their lives. If they can’t be happy, or didn’t fight for their right to be happy in the most basic aspects of their lives which is their sexual relationships, then they will seek government that will eliminate other options of free will so that the limited choices in they have made won’t be so obvious.
Yet such advancement in individuality cannot be undone. Romantic love is here to stay and with it over many years the traces of collective oriented government will eventually fail totally as human beings come to realize that they wish in their governments the same options that they have in their sexual relationships. Currently, many people who grew up on romantic comedies are the same people desiring socialism or at least aspects of it because they don’t understand how the two things are connected. People today expect to pick their spouse of their own free will, and if the lover does not fulfill their needs, then the relationship ends and a new lover is typically found until the right fit occurs. The premise behind the “romantic love” is the alignment of values with another individual which acknowledges that the happiness of individuals is more important than the happiness of collective groups. The same debate is currently happening economically and politically; the socialist and communists are at war with the capitalists and Constitutional purists. The idea of capitalism is the “romantic love” of finance and it was invented in The United States by the mythical Americans who like the troubadours have made a move against at least 10,000 years of human history and the economical means of exchange that have occurred during that time. The result has been explosive, which is why America has so much current wealth. Just like the arranged marriages from the 13th century, there was a lot of resistance to the “romantic love” proposed by the troubadours. Capitalism like “romantic love” is opposed by collectivists and the established order of yesterday who desire communism and socialism as the way to quell threats of free will in means of government and national management. But such governments are moving out of fashion, and will eventually be as rare 200 to 300 years from now as arranged marriages are rare in the modern age. America as an experiment rocked the world with its radical new ideas regarding capitalism, and the world closed up around it hopping to squeeze it dead with progressive politics, but they are too late. Human beings have tasted such freedom as “romantic love” and now “capitalism” which are one and the same. Mankind will not be happy until the two systems are in harmony in the light of daily life where “romantic love” rules the bedroom and “capitalism” rules the means that such couples make their livings.
When I was writing Tail of the Dragon I envisioned that I was working on a populist oriented novel that would be a throw-back to the kind of films I enjoyed as a youth like Smokey and the Bandit and Hooper complete with wild antics, car chases galore, and nonstop action. I can proudly report that those elements were successful. Yet while I was writing Tail of the Dragon the thought did cross my mind I was doing something unique that wasn’t quite so populist resulting in early reviews comparing my work to that of Ayn Rand which prompted me to go and read her novels to understand why. It was my publisher that made those first comparisons and informed me that my title wouldn’t be listed under general fiction, but philosophy due to the nature of the story. In hindsight I understand what they were getting at. Tail of the Dragon essentially does with car chases what a book I greatly admire did as a work of philosophy called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance did as a travel story—it explores concepts of philosophy in the context of events occurring on the back of a motorcycle. In Zen, the author Robert Pirsig traveled with his son on a cross-country motorcycle trip to discover aspects of himself that were otherwise obscured by day-to-day reality. In my Tail of the Dragon Rick and Renee Stevens do something similar except they find themselves locked in a liberianesque type battle for their very lives at speeds of over 200 miles an hour in the greatest car chase ever told. I suppose that if I had just wrote a story in a populist fashion that my results might have been as intended—a modern homage to The Dukes of Hazzard or virtually any Burt Reynolds film. But I did extensive research in writing the novel putting my wife and I on several long distance road trips to scout out the locations I would write about in telling the story of Rick and Renee Stevens and their super human struggle to live their lives authentically against a rules based society locked in sacrifice to the many systems of existence. For the many readers who have read Tail of the Dragon and wondered how many of the locations mentioned in the novel were real, I invite at this time for you to ride on the back of a motorcycle as we did the research for the book and see for yourself how Rick and Renee Stevens came to life by watching the short documentary style video below. Part I is a series of videos retracing the steps that put life into the Tail of the Dragon novel and made it a story more akin to Ayn Rand’s Übermensch novels than Burt Reynolds classic action/comedy, which turned out to be a natural byproduct of motorcycle riding in harsh weather conditions.
Rick and Renee began their journey as a middle-aged couple with a grown child and an intense desire to do some of the things they had suppressed for many years. The novel essentially starts at the hotel Park Vista in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. In the sequences leading up to their arrival at the hotel, the descriptions of them arriving at the hotel in the pouring rain can be seen for their origin. When my wife and I visited this site looking for a plausible way to get the main characters into the action of the story with proper motive, it rained on us the entire time. In the video the unique features of the Park Vista can be seen clearly—and the views out every window are extremely dramatic, each complete with their own balcony.
Leaving the Park Vista for the actual Tail of the Dragon which is over 70 miles away by road, but less than 30 miles as a crow flies, it is impossible to arrive at the mouth of The Dragon in North Carolina without climbing the mountains nearly a mile above sea level putting us easily in the clouds. This is essentially the same route that Rick and his wife took in the novel their first time to the Tail of the Dragon which is a mystical road located on the western frontier of the Great Smoky Mountains. The road and terrain changes from Gatlinburg, Tennessee where the Park Vista resides to the Cherokee reservation town in North Carolina are some of the most extreme on planet Earth. In a very short distance particularly on the back of a motorcycle in the pouring rain like we experienced it, the plant life and atmospheric changes were extreme. As seen in the video once we crossed through the mountains and arrived in Cherokee we were able to pull off at a rest area and cross a unique suspension bridge that extended across a small river that runs through town. We sought shelter from the rain for a bit in a gift shop before resuming our journey just a bit more to the south then directly west for our destination.
The Crossroads of Time is a motorcycle resort residing at the corner of what has become known as the Moonshine 28 and the Tail of the Dragon respectably RT 129 and RT 28. This is where Rick Stevens has the race with the Lamborghini and makes the bet with Killboy to make a speedy run up the dangerous and winding road known world-wide. By the time my wife and I arrived at The Cross Roads of Time we had been on our motorcycle for many hours in the pouring spring rain and were freezing from the chilly air of late April. In the video my wife could be seen drying out and eating chicken strips at the bar and grill located at the Crossroads. It was from that seat where the first elements of the novel began to come together in my mind as I scribbled notes on my hands since all the paper I brought with me was soaking wet. Later back at the hotel I would more formalize my observations after the hard day of riding around the entire national park of The Great Smokey Mountains ending our long journey much later from the Crossroads at a wax museum at the very start of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. Since the rain was so intense I kept my camera packed away and didn’t get much footage while riding the motorcycle, a situation that I was able to correct in my Part II video coming up in the next article.
Motorcycle riding in the Smoky Mountains is a uniquely American thing to do especially under adverse conditions. In my novel Tail of the Dragon, it was the perfect backdrop for my story of two people who decide that they are going to rebel against a system of living that has threatened to crush them mentally their entire lives—and dare to break away from the invisible chains that bind us all day by day slowly from cradle to grave. I did not intend to move away from the populist plot I had worked out in my head, but when on a motorcycle pushing your own limits and stepping out of all personal safety zones, stories begin to tell themselves and as an author the task becomes in plucking such events from the air and capturing them in a bottle for others to enjoy—or learn from. Thankfully, many have which is all I ever wanted. Every time I get the reports from my publisher of the book sales I enjoy knowing that readers are sharing in that captured magic residing in that bottle discovered on trips like the one seen above. I am happy to share a little bit about how the book came to life in reality with footage collected during the research phase of the novel, and provide nourishment to the inquisitive minds of the book’s growing fan base. In Part II, I will get into a bit more footage as my daughter and son-in-law were able to join me which provided the opportunity to capture some rather spectacular footage on the back of a motorcycle and show how the words that ended up in my novel Tail of the Dragon came to be the work of the Übermensch (overman).
The White House dismissed the alien bodyguards as too costly in this era of budgetary austerity. “I can’t confirm the claims made in this video, but any alleged program to guard the president with aliens or robots would likely have to be scaled back or eliminated in the sequester,” Caitlin Hayden, the chief spokeswoman for the National Security Council, e-mails Danger Room. “I’d refer you to the Secret Service or Area 51 for more details.”
The White House in response to the sequester cuts has been toying with other highly visible social inconvenience measures so to convince the public that they need tax increases to keep the government growing, just like public schools do. Isn’t that amazing? It never occurred to anybody that the federal worker may be making too much money, which currently stands at a $130,000 average in compensation. Instead The White House chose to cut self-guided tours in The White House itself taking a page out of the book of Saul Alinsky to manipulate the public with nuisance, stating:
“Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours,” the White House said in an email.
These strategies are endemic with anything involving government. The employees of government cannot be trusted to manage their affairs properly and if left alone, they chose to give themselves outrageous raises off the public dime. There are very few jobs in the federal government worth six figures, yet it’s the average. It is no wonder that the Washington D.C. area is one of the richest in the world as far as real estate values. Its entire economy is built off the looted money of the American tax payer for jobs that have little, if any value. When it comes time to engage in management of their financial resources as is customary in anything involving payroll, the federal government chooses to cut White House tours, blame Marine accidents on lack of funding, and even jokes that the Alien Secret Service program has been cut because tax payers don’t want to fork over any more money.
The compensation level with all government positions is never analyzed, just as they aren’t in public schools. It is just assumed that wage levels will never be an issue. No wonder so many people are willing to work for big government, and support big government politicians—because the pay is so outrageously high. There are no management mechanisms in place to keep the wage levels reasonable in government because virtually everyone is ripping off the system. And when they get caught, they chose radicalism over logic as seen in the belly aching over sequestration cuts. The behavioral characteristics are common from the local school all the way to The White House and at every level in between.
Why should any American have to pay for sports fees at their school because teachers refuse to have a “normal” salary? Why should Americans have to be denied access to their house because Secret Service agents had to be cut due to sequester? With the tax rates that Americans currently pay for virtually everything why should it be acceptable to ask for more money so that an average compensation package of $130,000 can be maintained for federal employees? Yet, it is expected by all members of government from the school teacher to the President himself, that taxes should be raised so that federal workers can continue to live in a fantasy land of employment compensation where they almost always tend to vote in a representative republic for the elected candidate who supports more government expansion, higher wages for meaningless jobs, and will cancel the alien Secret Service details before asking overpaid federal workers to take a hair cut of 30% to 50% of their compensation packages to bring the value of their jobs back to reality.
The very fact that the government doesn’t expect to be managed says everything. They expect run away budgets and tax increases to constantly flow in their direction as though the American people should live in slavery to the level of comfort the federal employee enjoys. And when taxes are not increased and cuts are demanded, like children the first thing the government does is attempt to close National Parks, White House tours and training supplies to soldiers in the same fashion that public schools cut sports, busing, and band electives. All government workers are using the same radical handbook to make their case for outrageous salaries, and ever-growing government with no accountability at all to reality. And they expect it audaciously by making jokes as though everyone outside the Beltway should understand. Instead of offering a reasonable explanation for the alien looking agent discussed The White House chose to make fun of those who were left to speculation, and blamed their explanation on the sequestration not wasting even that opportunity to promote their radical behavior. The situation we are left with is a dire one, where the eventual management that must come will be painful as Americans appear to have finally hit their limit leaving the greedy federal employees who have never been told “NO” to wonder what to do next, as their lives have been constructed upon an eroding beach and their jobs are in a sand castle that is being whipped about by an encroaching tide. By the time the tide recedes, there won’t be much left standing so the pain for the federal worker is just getting under way. The scam is no longer working……………thankfully. But the time for painless management of tax payer resources has already passed when the first thing that goes are things the public truly values teaching them to despise the entire system, like what has been happening in public education all across the country as those thresholds have been reached.
“If they attack first………..blast em’!”
Doc Thompson from 
The Overmanwarrior 