Tag: Teachers Unions

Meryl Streep and the Poop Particles of Doom: The progressive attack against sanity

After listening to Meryl Streep attack Walt Disney while honoring Emma Thompson’s rabid feminism, it does not surprise me that many men these days seem to prefer the stinky exit of the human body’s digestive system as opposed to a heterosexual relationship with these modern “man hating females.”  But I am not one of those guys.  Even the vilest feminist is a better option in my book.  As progressives would label such a position “homophobic” I would call it sanity, clarity in thinking, and the best option available.  Some people have phobias of spiders, some of snakes, some of heights—mine has and always will be that of the poop particle.  I have one real fear out all possible fears and that is of the remnants of material left over after the digestive process.  I have never liked seeing cow patties on my grandfather’s farms, I hate watching dogs defecate—and worse yet—eat it—and I have absolutely no desire to ever pursue an orifice that creates such matter in pursuit of sexual pleasure.  With that hatred of poop particles in mind, this educational film from the late 1950s reflects my impression of the “homosexual.”

The same people who have communicated this same-sex type of lifestyle are the same people talked about in my article yesterday attacking monogamous marriage.  They have an agenda and from my vantage point it is destructive—and disgusting.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  It’s not that I want to return America to the 1950s.  For me, that period of time was too liberal.  I’d prefer 1750 to about 1790 myself, but that’s just me.  In that video shown above, I wouldn’t even tell a kid to inform a teacher—as the parent is the last and only line of defense that matters in a child’s life.  But in the video at least the film makers addressed the kind of threats that might come to a child so they could learn to defend themselves from the vile acts of adults who are clearly screwed up in the head.

We live in a society where declaring that sex which involves fecal matter is healthy, proper, and naturally good.  If anyone disagrees they are called a “homophobe.”  This behavior has paved the way for the child raped by his teacher in Michigan.  CLICK TO REVIEW.  Likely, that teacher wouldn’t have even been a teacher in the type of society ran by those who made the homosexual video above, as that society would have spotted his antics in the light of day.  As things are today, nobody is comfortable calling out any kind of homosexual behavior that might lead to abusing children, because they don’t want to be attacked by progressives calling them “homophobes.”  In 2014 that is nearly as bad as being called a “sexist.”  If you don’t support feminism, you are a “sexist.”  If you don’t support poop particle sex, you are “homophobic.”  Both carry a social stigma created by a progressive establishment and those types are directly at fault for creating scenarios where teachers like the one in Michigan have the ability to destroy the lives of his students.  The fault is squarely on their shoulders.

As much as progressives hate the naivety of the 1950s and all the times that came before it where tradition and family value paved the way for strong healthy lives—the world they have created is far, far worse.  Can anybody in their right mind declare that feminism has worked?  Can anybody declare that the Michigan teacher was not mentally insane because of his sexual prerogative?  Can anybody think that Meryl Streep would be a fun date?  Progressives have created these problems, and they suppress a value judgment against them by calling sane people names for trying to identify the problem.  At least there was a time in America where bad behavior was identified and a warning to future conduct was attempted.  It may have been fear based, it may not have encompassed the entire enormity of the homosexual complexity—but at least a social norm identified for the benefit of a majority of the population was considered.  At least children were getting a warning of what to look out for among perverted adults.  Back in the “old fashioned” days, such people hid their behavior.  Today they run labor unions and make decisions right out in the open.

The way society is today people who might otherwise warn children away from parasites like that Michigan teacher keep their mouths shut because they don’t want to be called a “homophobe.”  But is that such a bad name?  Is it really a negative to be told that a person doesn’t enjoy poop particle sex?  It isn’t to me.  It states that my mind is not confused into behaving like a dog but would prefer even a feminist over a homosexual.  I may feel sorry for the person attracted to such things, but that doesn’t make them superior to the biological structure that was bestowed on mankind for the sake of mating rituals and human evolution.  The warnings of the 40s, 50s, and very early 60s were valid even if they were rooted with fear and religion into conforming society around a set of values that were being recognizably lost.

As despicable as Meryl Streep’s political views of men hatred are, she would still be a better dinner date than the eventual peril of the poop particles in a man’s hairy ass.  That to me is the gauge of sanity in our modern time where such judgments are forbidden to even be discussed, let alone dealt with.  In my family we have a couple of dogs and I watch often in horror when one sniffs at the other after urinating, or defecating and becomes quite excited about the occasion jumping around as though they just found out they won a million dollars.  We also have a cat, and sometimes that animal will puke right in the middle of the floor and the dog will come and lick it all up clean. This behavior is disgusting by every measure of human value judgment—except the homosexual leaning beings.  For them, this behavior has appeal, and from my point of view—is reminiscent of an illness of some kind.  Such illnesses could be treated if they were identified, but instead they are promoted.  That lack of proper danger recognition is what lead to the kind of rape case that happened in Michigan between a union president—teacher, and his student.  In a society that called such behavior bad, the rape and abuse likely would have been averted.

We’ve all been told that we need to be open to other ways of thinking and embrace the “progressive” view of the world which states that feminism is more important than traditional value, and that same-sex practices are equal to traditional heterosexual practices.  But they are not.  One involves poop particles and the other doesn’t, and poop particles are not good, healthy, or delightful……..unless one considers themselves a dog.  And that would be an insult—and nobody wants such a thing leveled in their direction.  So what do we call such people?  For all the faults pointed out by progressives toward films like the training film against homosexuality in the 50s, nothing has been offered as a modification or replacement to the attempt to at least identify bad behavior that might truly endanger children.  Instead, we are told to look the other way and ignore the faults that progressives have brought to us all in pain, suffering and misery.  And not even the fine acting of Meryl Streep can disguise her cover of a truly disgusting premise behind the progressive platform—that of the poop particle and the terrible expulsion of human waste that propagates from such unions in a sexual ritual centered purely on pleasure like a mindless animal—instead of the continuation of the human race.  At least in the 50s they considered the impact that such behavior would have on children.  The modern progressive does not—instead they seek to use children for their own pleasure and attempt to excuse the behavior as a “learning” experience that will pave the way to adult behavior that will never be able to relate to traditional value—which was always the real goal of their maniacal strategy.

I will give credit to the gay community and the progressive in general for one aspect of their strategy which is brilliant–the use of Meryl Streep as a growing advocate of feminism, erosion of Second Amendment rights, and general liberal causes.  Many men who do not find such revulsion toward fecal matter as I do are choosing the gay life than a life shared with a feminist man-hating radical which substantially bolsters their numbers. The way to make more people turn toward homosexual behavior among men is to provide them with Meryl Streep as a spokesman for feminist causes…….brilliant.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Monogamy is Unnatural: A college professor reveals the goal of modern education institutions

Look around………………do you see all the problems around us?  Of course you do.  We all do.  But how did all those problems get there?  Who created those problems?  And how in the world do we solve them all.  As readers here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom know, I point directly to our education industry as the root cause of much faulty thinking which is causing those problems.  For years now I received hate mail, and critics of my blog postings attempting to convince me to think the way they do………which is a flat line concession………..a surrender to the animal impulses of life.  The origin of the hate is that they resent having their faults pointed out and placed before their eyes to read.  I typically write around 2000 words per day, much of it ending up on these pages.  I don’t offer these works as published material.  The polish that would typically be accompanied by such work is not there; instead I present them as though I were giving a stump speech in a city square.  The goal is to get people to think and perhaps question the nature of things that are currently accepted as reality.  However when opponents who love flat-line thinking want to attack these works, they sound much like the critic featured below attacking Matt Walsh.

On his blog site, Matt Walsh has been creating quite a stir.  The stir has been so intense that he has attracted negative attention—which is a sure sign of success.  On this is the topic of manhood which Matt often writes about and tries to define what makes a good man.  Surprising nobody a college professor took exception to Matt’s views on relationships, manhood, and sex.  The college professor became angry when he discovered that his students were beginning to quote Matt, so he wrote in to complain about it.  I have received hundreds of these kinds of letters, some of them I have published to show just how stupid the people who write them are. Matt, nicely omitted the college professor’s name, but the letter was so good that I am going to included it below along with a link to Matt’s site for the origin. Needless to say, I agree with Matt emphatically, and I won’t do his words injustice with my own musings about the topic which I have covered in other ways with voluminous content.  So please do enjoy the back and forth that follows…………….the future of mankind is at stake.  If you have a child in college, or even high school, there are excellent chances that they have a teacher who thinks just like this guy:

Monogamy is unnatural

Posted on January 7, 2014by The Matt Walsh Blog

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

 

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence. Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

 

[Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement]

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me. It wasn’t until your name came up for a fifth time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it. But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism. Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family.

 

The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth. Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths.

 

Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity. The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life.

 

You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman. Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage. Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies.

 

Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor.

 

I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets.

 

Good Day Professor,

And this was Matt’s response:

It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect. Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class. But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart. You should be proud.

In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like “monogamism” out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist.

Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion.

Monogamy.

Monogamy is “unnatural,” says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose. A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread. What you people — you socially “progressive” academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological. The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick. You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears.

But there is SOME truth in what you say.

Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either. If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural. It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard. I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor? Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are “biologically fitted” to do? I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things. But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case.

I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes. Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage?

It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us.

If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders? That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence.

You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float. Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices.

If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business. Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you. Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles? No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise.

All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/07/monogamy-is-unnatural/

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Carcass of West Chester: Silverman and Company Inc., try again

In a lot of ways fighting a developer who has invested many thousands if not millions of dollars into a parcel of property which was initially turned down by residents complaining about the change of use in zoning considerations is no different from fighting a school levy.  Both involve government and utilize the standard process of beating residents into the ground until they submit to social pressure.  This has never been truer than the re-emergence of the Kroger Marketplace proposal in West Chester, Ohio.  According to the Pulse Journal, Blue Ash-based Silverman and Company Inc. recently resubmitted a request to change 35 acres zoned for residential use to Commercial Planned Unit Development to include a 133,000-square-foot grocery store at the intersection of Tylersville and Princeton Glendale.  This was the same parcel of land in contention during 2013.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.

The first phase of the Crossings of Beckett shopping center would include a Kroger grocery store, a bank, a pharmacy with drive-through access–a Fred Meyer Jewelers, a small medical clinic, a Kroger fuel center, an additional 15,000 square feet of retail space alongside Kroger and three additional out-parcels along Ohio 747.  Basically, it’s just another strip mall with gas stations that are already just one mile further to the south.  And there is nothing in the Silverman proposal which helps fill the massive vacancies of the old Biggs retail center just two miles to the south—which to this very day is mostly empty.  The old Biggs center is comparable in size to a Kroger Marketplace, yet Silverman and Company Inc., do not own that property—so they aren’t interested.  They’d rather build on their property of course, at a location of their choosing and if the residents pose resistance—they’ll strategically wear them down the same way school levies from public schools have.

To try to take the edge off the community battle which took place the last time this endeavor was proposed and Tom Egger led the community to resist and suppress those plans the developer made changes to the plan to eliminate the three parcels on the north side of the site.  The new plan also calls for the creation of a buffer zone for residents to the north, according to Tim Burgoyne, Silverman and Company Inc.’s director of site acquisition and development.  This tactic is common for developers so that they can give the illusion that they have compromised.  It is the same stupid thing the local public school of Lakota did when they put their last levy on the ballot.  They spent hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to essentially convince the community that they “listened.”  But in reality they just imposed their government backed will upon the voters wearing down resistance.  The developer in this case is performing the same task—but showing the community that they are “compromising.”  They hope to take the edge off Tom Egger’s case and earn the zoning commission’s support of their endeavor with a kind of rigged election process.  Likely the deal was cut with zoning officials before Silverman and Company Inc made their recent announcement.  These guys always dip their feet into the pool before they jump in.

As stated to the media by Burgoyne, “The residents wanted nothing along there, so after meeting with the community and staff members and getting everyone’s input, we believe that we have substantially addressed their concerns and we’re excited to move forward.”  What Burgoyne means is that they moved around the architectural drawings from the original proposal, which deliberately asked for too much knowing they would get resistance from the public—then backed off to their original design so to show that they compromised.  Of course that is speculation, but I’ve been down this road many more times than once—and if that’s not exactly how the situation played out, then I have swamp land on Mars to sell you.

http://www.todayspulse.com/news/news/developer-submits-new-plan-for-kroger-along-ohio-7/ncjpD/

This is supposed to be why we have government, and zoning should look at their vacant properties at the old Biggs Center and evaluate that if they allow this Kroger Marketplace into the empty field of the proposed location, they can forget about ever filling the much more lucrative location at the corner of Union Center and 747 where there are already stop lights, double lanes of traffic and an artery directly into Fairfield, Beckett Ridge, Tri County and I-75.  At the Silverman property all those things will have to be built, which makes developers happy, but will erode away the lives of Tom Egger and hundreds of families in the area.

This of course puts the Trustees of West Chester into a difficult position as they will have to vote upon the zoning recommendations—which will likely fall in their lap this time around.  If they vote against the proposed site they vote against a developer who wants to bring something truly good to West Chester.  The trouble is—it’s in the wrong location.  If they vote for the developer then they doom the lives of many tax payers looking for protection from government—and they will doom the Biggs location.  Prospective businesses for that location will choose the new corner of 747 and Tylersville because it will be the latest and greatest development in the West Chester area.  But 15 years from now, it will be old like the current Biggs location is today, and homeowners like Tom Egger and his family will still be looking at an older building bringing tons of traffic and unseemly elements to his back yard once the media has moved on to the next new thing.

I’m all for developers making a few bucks off their investments.  But the West Chester zoning board said no once before, and here come Silverman and Company Inc., with some market up drawings to give the illusion that they give a damn about what’s best for the West Chester community.  Surely they are counting on the local residents to scratch their heads and declare, “hey–they listened.”  But they didn’t, they just think the people of the community are suckers who will buy into a scam that is as old as time—and they expect to use government to protect their investments.  When Silverman and Company Inc purchased the plot of land in question, their investment was a risk.  There was no guarantee that they would convince West Chester zoning into allowing their proposal to come to fruition.  But with the many games that go on behind the scenes, they use government to protect their investments, even if it goes against the will of the people.  That is what this second proposal is—it’s very disrespectful, and ultimately damaging to the West Chester community.  But Silverman and Company Inc., won’t care.  They’ll make their money, and move on to the next location like vultures picking clean the carcass of road kill.  And within two decades the corner of 747 and Tylersville will look like modern-day Route 4, and replacing the homes of people like Tom Egger will be section 8 designations as government picks up those properties because nobody wants to move into an area that looks down into a Kroger parking lot.  The only people who will want to move to a place like that are future economic despots and people looking for government checks and a nice corner of that parking lot to sell drugs to other treacherous characters and scumbags.  Only the carcass won’t be road kill that time—it will be West Chester.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Leia Display Systems: The future of science fact inspired by fiction

The reason I provide so many comparison articles about the influence of Star Wars on our modern society is because it is unique in the history of the world.  As much as many would assume that it was just a series of movies made years ago and will fade away in popularity in the years to come are grossly mistaken.  Star Wars in the future will have more influence on philosophy, science, art, history, politics, religion and virtually every aspect of culture than ANY other influence from the 20th Century.  If books like the Communist Manifesto had the ability to change the world with massive collectivism and wealth redistribution sentiments, Star Wars will dwarf that small little book in its ability to reach the hearts and minds of virtually every corner of the globe.  This was never truer than the present age where a new company in Poland has invented a holographic projection system that will revolutionize all forms of communication in the next decade.  It is the new hot thing and will soon make iPads and iPhones look clunky and archaic.  It is very difficult to understand how many astronauts, how many NASA scientists, how many bio tech engineers, physicist, and computer programmers journeyed to those fields because of Star Wars.  But it is quickly becoming apparent in vehicle design, political trends, and social patterns where their influence has come from.  As of this writing the first Star Wars film came out 37 years ago, and now that the kids from that age are in their 40s–the impact of their imaginations stirred in those stories has become obvious.  This has never been truer than the new company called Leia Display Systems created because the Polish entrepreneurs wanted to recreate the holographic message Princess Leia gave to Obi Wan Kenobi in the first film A New Hope.  With that basic premise in mind they worked out the problems of implementation while at European night clubs and the rest is………….the future.

The new way of advertising

Small screen – infinite possibilities

Screen dimensions are 65cm x 65cm. Very thin projection surface (about 6mm) makes possible to project hi definition pictures. Now the only border is YOUR imagination!

Perfect for promotion, premieres, introductions and any applications when you want to draw attention and astonish your guests.

The whole new experience

Clear image on giant screen

3m x 2,5m screen is a perfect solution for event marketing, stage, fashion shows, trade shows etc. You can put your hand through it or walk through it and the screen goes back to its previous form immediately. Interactive kit allows translating it into a giant multi-touch screen or other solution based on people movement.

Leia Display System

Technology for tomorrow

LDS are the devices that allows to display images in mid-air. This unique technology makes possible to walk through the image, touch it or interact with it. Streams of bearly visible fog becomes an image carier and their laminar structure allows to display hi resolution contents. Our patented way to produce laminar airflow for very long distance from the output makes Leia Display the most steady midair screen on the market.

http://www.leiadisplay.com/

When the 1989 film Back to the Future II came out showing Hill Valley in the far away year of 2015, there were holographic images everywhere advertising products and communicating ideas.  Well, it’s now 2014, and with the Leia Display System our society is nearly on target for these kind of video interaction services.  The units seen above should be available to the mass population in approximately five years from now, but without question they will begin to show up at trade shows within the next few years.  This upcoming technology is so powerful that it will change how everything is done by way of communication.  Suddenly public venues such as sports stadiums, night clubs, shopping complexes, even movie theaters will utilize these powerful devices to bring graphic images from the two-dimensional world to the 3D world.

Just ten years ago such cutting edge entrepreneurs would grudgingly admit that they got their ideas from a movie like Star Wars.  But in this day and age where one of the most popular television shows is Big Bang Theory where geeks are the new “jocks” of society, it is now cool to make such announcements.  These guys after all named a cutting edge company that will revolutionize communication after Princess Leia.  So what we are talking about is a whole new way of looking at virtually everything that centers around human activity inspired by the limitless world created by a film series that has only become more popular as time has moved on—not less.

Just this past weekend the popular discovery show Myth Busters did a special on Star Wars and the cast had obvious fun with the topic with open—outright geeky joy.  The important thing to conclude from these activities is the way that science fact is being driven by science fiction—where an idea is communicated through a story and the minds of society seek to manifest that idea into reality.  With Star Wars this has already been a powerful force in our culture but it’s not one from the past only, but will continue well into the future.  In the case of Leia Display Systems the televisions and telephones of tomorrow will be directly influenced by a fantasy science fiction film series which will catapult to even more popularity now that Disney is the force behind the movement.  Without question these Leia Display Systems will find their way into the Disney Parks.

For me personally this new invention of Leia Display Systems means that I can have a Dejarik table within my lifetime.  Dejarik is the chess game of the Star Wars universe.  Dejarik was a popular game which withstood the test of time better than nearly any other game in that fictional galaxy. It originated as a Jedi game, though as it became much more widespread over time, many beings became unaware of its origins.

Dejarik was played on a hologame table, which comprised a hologram generator within a table-sized cylindrical base, with a black-and-white checkerboard pattern on the top surface. When active, holomonsters – full-color, three-dimensional hologram playing pieces measuring between 5-30 cm tall – would be projected on the board. The pieces all resembled creatures, real and mythic, from throughout the galaxy, including the Mantellian Savrip, Grimtaash the Molator, Ghhhk, Houjix, Ng’ok, Kintan strider, K’lor’slug, and the M’onnok. These pieces, when moved by the player, actually acted out the moves as if really specimens of their species. If the pieces were not used for a certain amount of time or the game was abandoned by both players, they would simulate boredom.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dejarik

It is only a matter of time before this game played only in the fantastic world of Star Wars will be played in homes the way Chess is played today.  It will be just one aspect of a future shaped by Star Wars influence.  It is important to understand why and how these influences do the work of molding society—and is why I’m so interested in Star Wars.  On one hand education institutions have thought that they were shaping society with a huge influence of government pulling the strings—but in reality Star Wars as a work of art has had a momentous impact that is just now being realized.  Much of the future technical innovation coming our way as a species will find the origin of their ideas in a darkened theater where Star Wars planted the seed.

One of those first very obvious seeds is the new holographic system by Leia Display Systems.  The future is here and it’s relatively on schedule.  In the past, many from the previous generation kept these kinds of technical innovations from being proposed to secure their own archaic ideas concocted from usually impure motivations.  Colliding with the compactness of modern computing power and a generation raised on Star Wars, exciting new inventions are about to explode upon the marketplace.  It was only about 7 years ago when I was seeking out the kind of compact cameras that were the size of a pin head for use in spy techniques.  Such things cost $300 to $1000 dollars at The Spy Store back then.  Now they are in the front and back of a paper-thin iPad for virtually no cost.  Star Wars is specifically a creation of American cinema, but its reach is world-wide.  In the case of Leia Display Systems, they are a European company.  Star Wars is popular in virtually every country in the world and has touched minds in those far-flung regions that only a functionally healthy mythology can perform.  And those benefits are just now beginning to come to us in the form of political discourse, technology, and philosophy that is unique to this period of time in history.  The fledgling bud from a deeply planted seed that will soon grow into a new way of thinking where once before only dark, archaic thoughts once prevailed has arrived with the very exciting new developments at Leia Display Systems.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The American Terrorists: Why Michelle Obama split up her husband and the Dutch prime minister

The really hilarious thing about progressives is their duality nature—their living lie with every breath that they take because their actions defy their philosophic positions.  Nothing more exacerbates that lie than the progressive excuses given for Barack Obama’s behavior with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt snapping selfies of themselves at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service with obvious flirtations.  That in itself didn’t surprise me, after all aren’t these confused progressive types the very people dressing in drag at gay bars, attending Fantasy Fest in Key West, or flying to Cancun to spend long weekends at the Temptations Resort.  Obama as a progressive and defender of the LGBT community obviously endorses strange deviant sexual behavior and swinging is part of that culture.  Obviously the Clintons are swingers—so it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Michelle and Barack Obama support such relationships.

But it quickly became clear that Michelle isn’t into that kind of thing because she was angry about the behavior of her husband—so angry that she made him switch seats with her—which I thought was the biggest part of the story.  But the behavior was only picked up on by a few remote conservative outlets.  Most everyone else saw that Michelle was upset and assumed that it was just a normal issue of a wife reigning in a flirtatious husband from sexual activity that would flourish without her edit.  But what is more telling is the fact that Obama’s infatuation with women who look like Helle Thorning-Schmidt should be obvious.  Most young men pick wives who are most like their mothers—it’s a natural reaction to the development of their psyches.  Helle Thorning-Schmidt in her mannerisms, in her presentation of herself, and in her skin color more resembles Obama’s mother than Michelle does.  Deep insecurities about Obama’s past seem to have come out which would threaten Michelle’s current life, and she felt she needed to interject herself for her own self-preservation.  It is this that the American people need to know about the situation which really hasn’t been discussed properly.  Obviously what is about to be reported here could only be confirmed by Michelle Obama—but since her family, and her supporters are well-known to denying facts, lying, and behaving in an underhanded manner, then good old-fashioned detective work will have to do.  The Obama family won’t be able to dispute any of these things, because if they could—honestly—they would.  But they can’t.  Silence is the testimony of the guilty.

Michelle was, according to Bill Ayers himself, working with his wife the Weather Underground Terrorist Bernadine Dohrn at the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin a year ahead of Obama joining.  The four got together for mutual benefit, the terrorists seeing in Obama a Trojan Horse into politics that could do what their bomb from the 70s couldn’t—destroy the evil imperial America from within.  In 1995 Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn launched Obama’s political career from their living room once the socialist-oriented New Party member Alice Palmer announced that she wanted Obama as her successor in the state senate when she stepped down to run for Congress.

Obama has had some inconsistencies about his recollection of how he and Michelle met—but what is known was that they met at the law firm and it is of no coincidence that Dohrn and Ayers helped shape the relationship by pointing the two in the same political direction.  Michelle wouldn’t be the first woman under the advice of a wiser older woman in Dohrn to grab hold of an upcoming star and ride it as far as it would take her.  The trouble with Barack Obama was that his mother was a white woman, and a rather loosy-goosy one at that who loved interracial sex and had communist leanings formed by her own parents.  CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION—WARNING, THIS LINK LEADS TO NUDE PICTURES OF OBAMA’S MOTHER ALLEGEDLY TAKEN BY THE COMMUNIST FRANK MARSHELL DAVIS.  So if Michelle was going to make a relationship work with Obama, she needed to make sure she kept the kind of women who Obama was naturally attracted to out of his life as much as possible.

At this point in his life Obama had already had several white girlfriends—which as a young man from an interracial union, was his prerogative.  Michelle would have to change that by becoming the mother in his life—rather than his lover.  Obama, understanding that he needed that kind of balance in his life to achieve any level of success yielded to it knowingly—and put his white skinned girlfriends of the past well behind him without looking back.

When Genevieve Cook first met Barack Obama in the kitchen of a mutual friend’s New York flat in 1983, he was wearing jeans, a T-shirt and a dark leather jacket.  As the night wore on, they sat close together on an orange beanbag in the hall while Cook swigged Baileys Irish Cream straight from the bottle.  They were amazed at how much they had in common: both were children of divorced parents, both had lived all over the world and had never felt truly at home anywhere.  They exchanged phone numbers. Within days, he was cooking her dinner at his apartment.  ‘Then we went and talked in his bedroom,’ Cook recalled. ‘And then I spent the night with him.  ‘It all felt very inevitable.’  For Genevieve Cook — to whom admittedly the President alludes to in his memoirs — she wasn’t the first white girlfriend in his life, nor the last.

As a young student in the early Eighties at Occidental College, a small arts university in Los Angeles, Obama developed a serious crush on another student Alexandra McNear, who was co-editor of a college literary magazine which published two of Obama’s poems.  She was a white woman and had a presence much like his anthropology loving mother.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163468/Barack-Obama-The-white-girlfriends-US-President-erased-past.html

But once Obama got serious about a political career and knowing he needed to appeal to the minority voters around Chicago and greater Illinois to do it, old flames like Genevieve Cook and Alexandra McNear wouldn’t be very acceptable to voters.  And if Obama was ever going to get high up in political office as he and Ayers planned, he’d need a nice traditional wife – like Michelle Obama to “darken” him up a bit and get people to forget about his past, his mother and connections to the Communist Party through Frank Marshell Davis.  Ayers knew Obama needed more of a Jessie Jackson type of progressive representation than the one he and his wife projected—and that was the ticket to possibly even The White House over a ten-year span.  Imperial America would never see it coming.  Jackson at the time was at the height of his power and was bringing companies to their knees with unfettered guilt from their unsubstantiated role in American slavery.  America couldn’t resist the communist underpinnings of Barack Obama or they’d be called a racist, but Obama needed Michelle to complete the public relations package.

Likely, Michelle knew from the beginning that this was her role in the whole affair.  Arranged marriages are not uncommon in the world and Obama wasn’t the worst option.  He was a genuine person who really believed things, so she could make it work.  But she’d have to keep him focused on the tasks at hand, and for the most part she has.  Unlike the Clintons the Obamas are fairly sexually conservative for progressives.  They are more about radical social reform than personal pleasure.

Fast forward nearly 20 years to Nelson Mandela’s memorial service where the Obamas found themselves seated next to a nearly mirror image of Barack’s mother, Helle Thorning-Schmidt—a woman from a very permissive Danish culture where sex scandals are not even reported.  In nearby France they are common and the topic of gossip.  But in Denmark a woman like Helle Thorning-Schmidt could have sex in the streets with a menagerie of baboons and nobody would even snap a picture.   Helle is the type of Prime Minster who in 2012 spotted Sex in the City actress Sarah Jessica Parker on the street and rushed up to introduce herself like a Catholic school girl just let out of the seminary attending her first boy band concert.  It wasn’t that Helle was more attractive than Barack’s mother, it was that she is as liberated—something that Michelle cannot compete with in the bedroom or anywhere.  So when Michelle saw her husband getting too loose with himself she pulled him together like she always does, and switched seats to make sure that the two world leaders didn’t get any ideas.  Helle not really meaning any harm in relation to her culture took the hint and pulled herself together as did Barack—who dutifully listened to his wife and swapped seats leaning forward in his chair and spending much of the rest of the time defensively crossing his arms protecting himself from the embarrassment of the world’s eyes which were now upon him.  It’s not like he intended anything malicious—it’s just the whole mother/son—husband/wife aspect of being in a relationship with an unnatural psychological mate—one that is foreign to him from his childhood years.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/12/michelle-makes-obama-change-seats-so-he-cant-talk-to-denmarks-beautiful-pm/

As much as Obama has had issues over where he’s born, how he grew up, who he knew in college, and where he actually attended, the real issues with the guy are the missing pieces from his past that he can never reconcile.  Being a dutiful socialist, Obama believes that the greater good of society is more important than his individual happiness, so he will sacrifice that so that he can have the power to redistribute the wealth of the world for the better, a plan hatched years ago under not so much cloak and dagger tactics in Bill Ayers’ living room.  But his yearnings are more for the kind of attention that a woman like Helle can provide not due to skin color—which is only reference, but mannerisms—a white woman willing to throw off the prejudice of society and sleep with a black man, and to pose nude for one of his only real father figures in Frank Marshell Davis.  The open shirt blowing carelessly in the wind from such a woman holds more lustful euphemisms than a stack of pornography books because it reminds him of his dead mother and the incomplete relationship he had with her as a single parent hopping hopefully all her life from man to man.

Michelle didn’t make her husband switch seats because the eyes of the world was watching and might think something ill of the flirtations.  That may have been the reason she presented it to Barack and Helle.  She primarily did it to protect her marriage, and all that she had invested into a life which would fulfill the terrorist yearnings of her mentor Bernadine Dohrn who with her husband actually bombed the Pentagon on May 19, 1972.  Ayers said of that day, “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.  The sky was blue.  The birds were singing.  And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.  Kill all the rich people.  Break up their cars and apartments.  Bring the revolution home; kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”  This was Michelle’s friend who worked at her law firm feeding into her hatred of America which was revealed in her Princeton college thesis illuminating her deep feelings of a race-obsessed worldview and incredible resistance to being “further integrated into a white cultural and social structure that would only allow her to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”  Dohrn directed her anger and with her husband taught the Obamas how they beat the rap during the Pentagon bombing—how to deny, deny, lie, deny, and lie again for the greater good—for the fight for social justice.

Michelle listened to Bernadine Dohrn and bedded her future husband.  She became a first lady in the process and everything and more that was planned in that Bill Ayers living room.  The promises by his wife, her co-worker came true.  They now can spend millions of dollars of looted money from those oppressors she wrote about in her Princeton thesis and laugh about it as they carve up the nation in a way that their terrorist mentors never dreamed possible.  And as far as she has come, and the sacrifices she made along the way, nothing is going to get in the way—especially a pretty Danish Prime Minister and the flirtations of her husband with a mother figure that if she were not in his life would likely be the object of his obsession.

So she sat between them…………………………….

Read more of this terrorist past from a CBS report in 2008—before Obama was elected, and before Glenn Beck exposed many of these things later on.  The following report came before CBS became concerned that they’d be blacklisted in the press room if they didn’t play ball with a tyrannical regime lead by the Obamas and their crusade to remake America into the image of some Chicago terrorists and a mother who slept her way around the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-bad-company-of-barack-obama/

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

‘The Desolation of Smaug’: A gift that only mythology could give–a film of GREAT importance

Until I saw the new Hobbit film The Desolation of Smaug my favorite dragon film was the old 1981 flick, Dragonslayer.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  I have been waiting for this Part II of The Hobbit series for a long time—so much so that I have avoided talking about it to keep my excitement level in check.  The reason is that the attribute of human society that I most value is mythology, and there is no better exhibition of modern mythology than the Star Wars films and the Tolkien films by the great unpretentious filmmaker Peter Jackson.  Mythology in films and novels can communicate complicated aspects of human culture that cannot be communicated any other way and are the hinge pins of modern philosophy—which is directly created by a society’s mythology.  I don’t see The Desolation of Smaug as just another fantasy movie—I see it as a functioning mythology that says a lot about the state of our modern existence.  A great storyteller like Jackson can pour so much value into a film like this that years of a similar education under an orthodox system of instruction will fail after many years of trying.

There are two basic kinds of dragons in classic mythology, the oriental dragon which is largely a symbol of rebirth, and the European dragon.  I spoke about the oriental one the other day when discussing the upcoming film Godzilla.  Godzilla is very much an oriental dragon in a modern context.  Then there is the European version of dragon, the classic villain of so many movies from Sleeping Beauty to Fantasia, dragons in a European context represent human greed, arrogance, and corruption.  If one wanted to understand the major differences between Eastern and Western cultures, their basic interpretations of dragons in mythology would be the place to begin.  In the classic 1937 novel, The Hobbit, the dragon villain Smaug is a classic European dragon, and in this updated movie version, he is the king of all dragons ever filmed and put on a screen.

I would say that seeing The Desolation of Smaug is the most important commentary on modern politics that is available to anybody on planet earth presently.  A student of politics, philosophy, and social organization could watch MSNBC, Fox News, Politically Incorrect on HBO and achieve a doctorate in psychology, history, and political science—read all the books by Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Charles Krauthammer—listen to talk radio for the next 10 years, and there would not be a more accurate summation of the state of our world than in this Hobbit film.  The simple line of dialogue between two of the elf characters in the film upon deciding if they should fight on behalf of light or let the world fall to darkness was uttered by, “when did we let evil become stronger than us.”  That is what almost every human being is facing on the very day that you are reading this—what are the consequences of living our lives away from the light?  How does evil spread?  And what do we do about it when we are confronted with it?

The Desolation of Smaug is not just a simple morality tale speaking in generalizations about an ideal existence wrapped in fantasy.  It is a commentary—a mythology of the problems experienced in our modern times.  The setting has been changed to provide context in a similar way that Star Wars removed time and history with the opening, A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away.  The Hobbit is dealing with the very nature of evil, greed, and faulty living that is at the heart of every human being.  It is literature on film, and is marvelous to behold. 

Smaug as the centerpiece of this latest story is the embodiment of the kind of individual who has taken the world’s wealth by force and sits upon it guarding it religiously.  He is the kind of bourgeois that added fuel to the fire of the communist movement where the common man wished to wrestle power back away from such dragons so that they could have their riches away from such greedy bastards.  That is why Smaug is a European dragon that sits in this movie upon a pile of gold taken from the Dwarves and their mines.  He loves it so much that he has buried himself within it so that he can worship it like a rodent burrows itself into the ground.  Many real life wealthy people like Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Warren Buffet give so much money to philanthropy advancing progressive causes because they feel guilt over their wealth.  They wish to prove to the world that they are not dragons like Smaug even though in their wealth building years they behaved just like Smaug—rolling their bodies into their confiscated wealth.  In the case of Gates, he made his money the correct way with a superior product—but discovered that the world saw him as a Smaug, just as the Dwarves in The Hobbit saw Smaug as a villain who took their wealth.  Gates wished to prove that he was not such a Smaug so he began to give mast amounts of money to the public education system in America feeding the teacher unions.  In many ways Gates became like the treacherous politicians in Laketown—living in constant fear of Smaug—scheming around the beast to carve their own way to power and wealth.  For Gates and his idealism, he became a major supporter of Common Core which seeks to centralize the education process for society.  A good intention with a sinister reality which allows corrupt teacher unions to control the kind of curriculum being taught to children—which opens the door for despots to shape the minds of society for the worst.  In the film, once the dragon was no longer a threat, the kingdoms of the world now without the fear of Smaug immediately launched themselves into a power play for control of Middle-earth.  Smaug as cruel as he was made out to be when confronted by Bilbo in The Lonely Mountain was caught between his own genius and ability to inflict cruelty, and his ability to keep the vast evil that the occupants of Middle-earth possess in check.  Only a proper and effective mythology could communicate such a complicated concept. 

Peter Jackson is such a great filmmaker.  He knows instinctively much of what I write about here because his understanding of mythology allows him to think of things in the large view.  He can make a film like the Hobbit movies with an ease that is unfathomable to most Hollywood directors—especially on the scale that this Desolation of Smaug is.  Jackson gets it—and people sense that something important is going on in the movie which is why it has made over $500 million world-wide dollars in just two weeks at this point.  When he completes the trilogy, of The Hobbit, along with the Lord of the Rings films, Jackson will have completed one of the greatest explorations into the nature of evil ever done by anybody anywhere.  Of course Tolkien started the process with his great books, but Jackson has taken the baton and ran with it in a way that few people could ever hope to do, and he does it with a lack of pretension that is simply wonderful.

People who love fantasy stories like this generally are aware that the real world does not have much to offer them.  Most of the time, they see too much, and can’t lie to themselves about the nature of reality.  So they bury themselves in fantasy where they can relate to the characters that stand for justice, righteousness, and a fight against evil.  Doing such things in the real world is considered unrealistic, naive, and foolhardy.  So they turn to fantasy and lose themselves to the efforts of gaming, movies, books, and any other attribute a story can bring to a mind hungry for understanding.  We all know a Smaug in our life—whether it is a rich uncle, an employer, or even a political power.  Most of us think that such dragons must be killed and slayed so that the wealth of the world can return to us.  But often—which is an ideal that the writer Ayn Rand was exploring around the same time that Tolkien was exploring Middle-earth—there is a need for such dragons as they prove to be more capable than the greed of the Dwarves, or residents of Laketown.  The masses may not like the dragon, but often the dragon is more capable than the masses in dealing with the overwhelming pressure of greed—thus the line at the end of this film by Bilbo—“What have we done?”  Bilbo means, we killed the dragon, but we seem to have slayed ourselves in the process.

The Desolation of Smaug is such an important film as it deals with a massive social commentary that is pertinent to our present time in such critical ways.  Smaug is one of Ayn Rand’s characters who have failed at life.  He is not an overman able to support the world without corruption who creates wealth with creative effort.  Smaug took the created wealth of the dwarves with force, not creative effort—and spent the rest of his life guarding that gold because he was unable to create more of it.  To Smaug, the wealth was finite, created by others and if he wanted to keep it, he had to hold it greedily with terror which of course everyone in Middle-earth resented.  But without Smaug, the people of Middle-earth would be at war with one another constantly.  Smaug focused their hate into a direction that only a fire-breathing massive dragon could carry.  Bilbo because of his ability as a thief was able to spot a weakness in Smaug and let the people of Laketown know about it.    Once that weakness was exploited, and Smaug was removed as a threat, the real work of Sauron, originally known as Malron the Admirable, could begin.  Mariron was turned to evil by the Dark Lord Morgoth in the early days of the world, and ever after remained a foe of the Valar and the Free peoples of Middle Earth.   We all know people like Sauron too.  In fantasy fun is made of combating such figures with magic and battles with fantastic monsters, but the content of such people can be found on a local school board, or machine politics at any level and on both sides.  The reason people flock to see these films is not an escape from reality, but to actually see reality as it is masked to us in the light of day. 

The second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug is a movie that everyone should see; its great cinema, wonderful story telling, and a visual art of the highest order.  Nobody makes films better than these films, except for possibly the upcoming Star Wars films which deal with the same basic content, only in a future/past kind of way.  On a scale of 1-5 I give this Hobbit film a 100.  It is that good—but only if viewers enjoy exploring the hidden aspects of a society that is not so far away in Middle-earth, but right in front of us all—only not seen because of our educations, and prejudices–a world that can only be revealed to us through mythology.

To understand more fully how powerful mythologies are to all societies, CLICK HERE.  

To read more about what I’ve said about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, CLICK HERE. 

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Why Teachers Have Sex With Students: Lauren Harrington-Cooper five times in one week

If the intended goal of public education is to spread a message upon the earth of equality for all, then they have failed miserably—especially when it comes to interaction between the sexes.  For decades now, public schools have advocated equality for women, homosexual acceptance, and frequent sex with other students so long as it’s “protected.”  Progressives noticing that things were not going well on that front have sought through public relations to lower the bar of expectation because practice in the real world has not been good.  When men and women, boys or girls are brought together in any kind of interaction, they attempt to have sex with one another.  Education institutions have failed to even put a dent in this kind of behavior.  If they’ve done anything they’ve made it worse because churches are no longer allowed to govern human behavior of a primal nature in any public place leaving the mind of millions undefended and functioning from their primal desires—eating and finding sexual release.   Just ask Michael Obama regarding her husband’s behavior at the Nelson Mandela memorial where the President was openly flirting with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Young men have two particular modern-day problems—they are always on the lookout for who is “top male.”  They do this through games that prove who is smarter, faster, wiser, stronger, or have the ability to win the most females.  The other problem they have is embarking on some sort of male ritual proving they have evolved from children to adults.  In our modern society they do this through sexual conquest.  These days, if a young boy can have sex with a female at 13 to 14 years old—he is considered a stud and will be considered among his peers as a top male.   Most young men by the time they reach 23 to 24 years old—if not sooner negotiate with themselves where they fall on this pecking order mentality.  Most will live their entire lives comfortable in knowing that they are not at the bottom of the social pecking order among men, but that they are far from the top as well.

Females in spite of all the feminist attempts to make them equal to men are still functioning from their “goddess” power.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  If women are placed in a fox hole with a man, or a group of men in the military—she will be having sex with somebody if not all of them. She will never be considered one of the guys so long as she has breasts, differently shaped hips and other seductive female features opposite biologically from males that want to stick parts of their bodies in those strange shapes.  For Christmas I attended several end of the year parties—for the first few rounds of drinks anyway—and if females were present that were over a rating of 5 or more—somebody was trying to have sex with her—no matter if the woman was married, divorced with 20 kids, or whatever color she was.  It does not matter to a guy—if the woman has the female parts, she will be pursued as a release for the male’s desires in the same way that the man will look for a restroom when he needs to use it or a restaurant when he is hungry.  No rules or blending of the genders through legal intimidation has proven successful—only forced layers of repression.  If the woman is over an 8 or more, or is the wife of an important man, she will be pursued for sex by the males who are fighting for a top of the male pecking order food chain.  If such a woman is “bagged and tagged” the male will earn respect from his peers.  The husband of such a wife will typically lose his status as a top male and will find himself divorced and begging for custody of the children on weekends.  If he is a successful person he will then likely seek sex with a woman half his age thinking he is paying back his ex-wife, but really he is simply returning to a compatible mate that is intellectually equal to him.  Because he has lost his top male status he seeks to return to the time of selection and be reassessed by the other males using his money and power to steal away from all the young bucks a potential sex partner that would deliver him to a higher pecking order rank once again.

The insult that many have today is that public schools are sold as palaces exempt from this kind of behavior.  In these schools this kind of primal conduct is supposed to be replaced by intellectual pursuits—at least that was the intention.  Instead, sex, sex and more sex is the dominate activity occurring in public schools—and this mentality is going with the students and teachers back into the mainstream world with great emphasis on personal pleasure.  Because of the great equality push to hire women in teaching positions there is no shortage of sex stories between the sexes in public school between student and teacher.  The male teachers want to have sex with the hot young girls—the girls who could elevate their pecking order status among the other males—and females want to deliver all the potential “bad boys”—young men needing the love and nurturing of the females “goddess” power to her sexual tools.  The more government-run institutions have attempted to assimilate males and females together by stripping value judgments from human activity the worse they have made the sexual interaction problem between the parties—because value judgments often instruct a mind not to engage in destructive behavior.  This is obviously the issue with Lauren Harrington-Cooper (you always have to watch women with hyphenated last names) a teacher who found herself having sex multiple times with one of her students.  For the boy, he was elevated among his peers for having sex with their teacher—the symbol of authority in their classroom.   The teacher is more desirable over the other girls his own age because having sex with the teacher is equal to mastering an authority figure—so this elevates the male in the mind of other males as being closer to a top male.  Here is the story as reported by the WND.com

A Pennsylvania English teacher is charged institutional sexual assault for allegedly having sex five times in the past week with an 18-year-old male student.

Lauren Harrington-Cooper, 31, from Plymouth, Pa., is an instructor at Wyoming Valley West High School.

She’s accused of performing oral sex on the senior three times and having intercourse with him twice.

A probable-cause affidavit indicates the sister of the alleged victim told her brother that Harrington-Cooper said he was “hot” on Dec. 13. The sister subsequently gave him the teacher’s phone number.

Harrington-Cooper and the student began texting each other later that day and agreed to “hang out.” She began to pick him up in front of his house or around the corner.

The parents of the alleged victim discovered their son had a “sexually explicit conversation” with a teacher after he borrowed his mother’s laptop and used the free texting website Pinger.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/woman-has-sex-with-student-5-times-in-week/#YsZgO7ELpWfdWkOS.99

In my Spanish class at Lakota many years ago we had a teacher nicknamed Senorita Slut by her students.  On my scale she was about a 5 or a 6, but many of the males in my class thought she was hot because she was 26 and weighed about 110 pounds.  I didn’t care for her because she always smelled like coffee and had too many freckles.  But she would often call young males up to her desk to ask if they needed help understanding her Spanish class.  On such days prior to these private conferences she would visit the rest room and come back looking perky and sit down at her desk with her bra missing.  Most of the time you could see the bra straps under her cloths from the back, but after returning from the bathroom, those straps were gone.  And she’d casually unbutton two buttons and sit forward in her chair as though she were being attentive to the words the students were saying.  Going to her desk and speaking with her, it was impossible not to notice her nipples exposed as she’d lean forward letting her shirt drop forward giving a clear view of her breasts. She’d not make eye contact so not to discourage anybody from looking, but would measure the reaction of your face once she leaned back—all the time pretending the whole ordeal was about teaching Spanish.  I suspected then, and in hindsight am sure of it, that she was looking for some male to take her up on her offer—earning her the reputation as Senorita Slut.

Public schools are cease pools of this activity.  If you have a mildly attractive daughter she is running a constant gauntlet of sexual advances by not only other students but by teachers as well.  If you have a confident, ambitious young male son—he is being pursued by females age 18 to 50—because women want to have sex with males who still are trying to work at being “top male.”  They don’t enjoy sex with males who are happy to roam in the middle of the pack in the male pecking order.  They want to use their goddess power on males who are at the top of their game—which is why hot chicks always fall for rock stars. The rock and rollers may be physically disgusting, but they are confident because it takes a lot of courage to go out in front of 30,000 people and sing—thus women routinely take off their panties and throw them on the stage advertising themselves for sexual fulfillment.  Women want males who still work at being the “top male” and men want women who will elevate their peeking order standing with other males.  Public schools are wasting billions of dollars in education funding trying to dance around this fundamental problem sending adults into the world more poorly prepared for real life than ever.

When it came to Senorita Slut I went to church all the time and had a value system that told me that it was wrong to sleep with the teacher—or even flirt with her to advance the cause.  Not to mention that I have always worked to be top male, and such a woman wouldn’t take me where I wanted to go.  She would have been a concession, and that wasn’t appealing.  But other males who didn’t want to do all the work of being a “top male” were happy to stare at the breasts of Senorita Slut and take her up on a bit of sexual initiation into manhood.  For Senorita Slut—an average girl who couldn’t find any men in her age group still working to be a “top male” the young high school kids still had hope of being “great.”  They did not yet have that defeated look on their faces when she’d go out to dinner with them.  The high schoolers still had hope, and that made them “hot” to her.

There is absolutely no question in my mind why Lauren Harrington-Cooper found the young 18-year-old student so “hot.”  The men in her age group were already well into buying homes, establishing themselves in a career, and having children—and once men arrive at this age they know where they are in the pecking order chain of command with other males.  Likely, Harrington-Cooper didn’t like where those males saw themselves and she wanted a male not yet defeated for sexual gratification.  Public schools employing such women and men are not equipped to deal with this problem in any way—since the “state” has taken away all value judgment from education—and only value judgment tells a young man to stay away from the horny teacher hungry for love that she can’t find among men her own age.  For that reason alone, public schools are some of the most dangerous places on planet earth.  Sex is not a harmless enterprise.  It may seem like only physical pleasure is the byproduct, but human beings have an added dimension to their sexual experiences—they have memories and feelings—and such actions have consequences whether or not they get caught, lose their jobs or even go to jail.  Human beings establish their entire lives off these basic foundations and the young man who lets the teachers in their lives limit their pecking order potential with an easy “bag and tag” are harmed intellectually just as the male destroys a female by swooping in as a man twice her age and branding her his own among other young males who might otherwise be interested in her.  The older man is living a destroyed life, the other young men, not so much—and she loses opportunity because of the older male teacher. And public schools have no measure of dealing with these problems because they are in denial of their very existence.  It is in this denial that all their problems spring forth—and why they are a menace to society instead of the saviors of it.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Scott Sloan on 700 WLW Supports ‘Kinky Boots’: The Peter Griffin Syndrome

Scott Sloan from 700 WLW reminds me of Peter Griffin from the popular Fox cartoon, Family Guy.  Sloan is much thinner, and less grotesque, but his mind seems to work in much the same way.  He lacks firm convictions and comes across as a guy happy to be less than perfect.  This became most noticeable when he did good work with me on the No Lakota Levy arguments—but then turned around and called me a sexist because his Realtor wife wanted to take a pro levy position to help sell homes around Mason.  He knew what was going on and why it was going on, but he made his decisions based on the pressure of the typical school levy supporters—people who make their livings using passed school levies to sell homes to neurotic thirty something child factories insecure about their parenting skills.  (I say child factories because these typical school levy supporters only produce children, they don’t often take an active job in parenting them.  They leave that to the public schools.)  I’m sure 700 WLW is struggling to deal with the numbers in his time slot as listeners like and respect people with conviction—but their strategy with Sloanie was to appeal to the “middle of the road” voter listening to talk radio, which isn’t very attractive to most people.  If people want to hear opinions like that, they’ll just strike up a conversation at the water cooler with a co-worker.  Because of Sloan’s lack of beliefs and conviction I have stopped listening to 700 WLW all together committing my time to The Blaze where Doc Thompson is now my preferred talk radio entertainment.  I have listened to 700 WLW since I was 5 years old when I received my first AM radio as a Christmas gift—but now I never listen unless someone tells me to catch a podcast of their recordings—which is how I came to learn about Sloan’s coverage of the controversial Macy’s Parade in New York on Thanksgiving Day.  The topic was the segment featuring the dancers of the popular Broadway Show; Kinky Boots and Sloan’s opinion was painful.  Listen to it below.

His guest came on Sloan’s show expecting to speak to a conservative audience understanding why they were outraged at the Kinky Boots presence on a family program.  I was watching the Macy’s Parade and was enjoying it until the Kinky Boots bit.  My wife and I turned it off once it came on because we thought it was bad.  I watched the Macy’s Parade to see the SpongeBob float, the Mickey Mouse tributes and other popular culture references.  The Kinky Boots thing was too much—it reminded me of The Rocky Horror Picture Show which I despise because both are progressive productions intent to erode away family value.  I don’t believe there should be some protest to Kinky Boots or Macy’s, I believe in freedom of speech and I voted by turning off the television—just like I turn off Scott Sloan’s Show these days.  I vote for things with my participation in them.  But listening to Sloan’s articulation of the Kinky Boots defense was astonishing.  In the cartoon Family Guy Peter Griffin is the dunce of modern fatherhood.  He’s not very thoughtful about anything, and is perpetually accident prone.  Yet because of his intellectual handicaps, he often imposes on the world his brand of stupidity which ruins things for everyone around him—and that was what I thought about listening to Sloan’s analysis of Kinky Boots.

I wouldn’t go to see the play Kinky Boots if someone gave me tickets and back stage passes.  It is not art I support, it is not representative of traditional America, and I have little interest in ever wasting a few hours of my life watching a play about a topic of drag dressing guys exploring alternate lifestyles.  The progressive movement uses this kind of entertainment to advance their political platform and within that platform is the acceptance of alternate forms of raising families—which does not work. Many of the failures we are seeing socially in 2013 come from the infestation of progressive value where traditional beliefs were perfectly adequate.  When progressive film makers, financiers and actors made the film—The Rocky Horror Picture Show with catchy songs and sexual deviancy which was an easy sell, the plot of the film was the break down of the main protagonists who were straight average Americans.  Over the course of the movie the young traditional couple newly married are converted by the end into gay loving, lesbian kissing Susan Sarandon’s.  The film was a cult classic that still plays on many college campuses with special midnight showings where attendees dress up in drag and throw popcorn at each other and yell at the top of their lungs with mass celebrations of collectivism.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show was designed to sell progressive ideas by ridiculing conservative ideas—and I hate it.  I don’t support it—although I have seen it to understand what all the fuss was.  My reaction to the movie was that it is one of the worst films ever made, although it has catchy songs designed to get people humming the tune.  The result of the film is to plant seeds of sexual deviancy into traditional America and destroy the concept of the family unit as the strength behind individuals.  For proof, just speak to the producers of the film and it becomes clear.  The producers intended the film to be a gay rights activism endeavor—and were openly blatant about it.

Kinky Boots is just a modern spin to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and the intentions are the same—the desensitizing of Americans from conservative values to progressive beliefs—namely sexual tendencies—sexual equality, and an anything goes mentality.  I watched about half of the Kinky Boots Macy’s Parade segment, and found the images grotesque—so I turned it off.  I didn’t think it was funny.  I didn’t see any social value in it.  And I saw it as an attack on my way of life in the same way that progressives would find it repulsive if I paraded my lifestyle in front of them—where my wife brings dinner to my chair every day, cooks all our meals, does all the shopping, changes all the diapers, and makes crafts for all the family members throughout the year–blankets, sweaters, and country decorations.  She gets out of the arrangements a man who puts her on a pedestal, frees her of producing income, and takes care of any trouble that might come toward her family.  People like the producers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show are very intolerant of the way my wife and I live our lives—so it’s only fair that I show the same intolerance for theirs.  This live and let live crap is for pussies, and it hasn’t worked.  It never has, and it never will.

I expected a lot of the trouble I had when I called the levy supporters of Lakota Latté sipping prostitutes………….I knew there would be push back, and I laughed about it with Scott Sloan and his producer off the air the night before I was set to go on the air and talk about it with him.  I had worked with 700 WLW for a few years on school levy issues and had thought Sloan was a man’s man, and actually valued his man card.  After the position he took with me not just on our interview, but later that day, I had the feeling that I had misjudged Sloanie.  He wasn’t a tough guy who was willing to take on the teacher unions with me—like he sold himself—he was just another guy trying to appease the women in his life hoping to keep peace in his household by any means necessary—and I was very disappointed in him.  Like Peter Griffin from The Family Guy, Sloanie put his finger to the wind and took the position he thought the majority of people believed.  I tried not to hold the incident against him and continued to speak to him through email for months after.  But over time it became obvious that we were two different kind of men, and people can’t be friends or otherwise if they don’t share common values.  The same person who calls me a sexist for distinguishing that there are dramatic differences between men and women and that traditional America had more right than wrong on the matter is the same person attacking a conservative advocate who found Kinky Boots appalling.  Sloan took what he thought was a libertarian approach to the Kinky Boots issue stating that it was harmless entertainment that people can take or leave.  But when it shows up on a public street, on a public broadcast, or on a largely watched family holiday program during Thanksgiving, it’s not just about fun and promotion of a Broadway play.  It’s about advancing a progressive agenda—and in the defense of traditional value—men are needed, and there are too few of those these days to do the job.  Men these days think it’s better to be open-minded and slap-stick stupid like Peter Griffin than rugged tough and rooted in conviction like John Wayne—and that is disappointing.

During Halloween this year a kid was dressed in drag, he had on very high heels, a super short skirt and a long blond wig.  From a distance he looked like he belonged in a Whitesnake video played by a Victoria Secret model.  He passed as an attractive woman until we came closer to him and heard his voice. He was very disruptive going door to door pretending to be a woman and giggling about the negative reaction he had from the homeowners after they had closed the door.  He obviously lacked a strong father figure in his life and as a result filled his thoughts with progressive influence, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Kinky Boots.  What kind of father would this kid grow up to be—what honor is there in such a life where pictures of him will show up many years from now dressed in drag as he is trying to raise a family? The answer is not a very good one—and that is the real cost of this kind of recklessness.  When a man or confused boy dresses in drag, they are surrendering their man card, and in doing so; they surrender their authority to ever be a “father knows best” type of family man.  Any off-spring he may have will want “a father knows best” type of person in their life.  Daughters grow up and almost always have reverence for their fathers, and sons almost always grow up to become like their fathers and if that kid has two or three kids of their own later—those children will be denied a person in their life who sets the bench marks of acceptable behavior high enough to be proud of.  And that is the cost of living a life lacking conviction.  The cost of being a Peter Griffin dad is that you get a lot of laughs, often they are the life of a party—but when it really matters, they are a let down to their families and to themselves—and will end their lives being embarrassing disappointments to their off-spring.

Men like it or not are the pillars that hold up a family. Women often provide the love and nurturing that is needed, but men provide the needed reliability that gives a family roots to grow in.  Progressives despise this ideal, as they wish to make the world need government services to equalize the world of the inequalities that exist.  Not all moms are good ones and not all dads are honorable, so the progressive solution was to destroy all good dads and good moms so that everyone is equally penalized and let public schools do the child-raising.  What productions like Kinky Boots are really up to is letting men know it’s OK to be a floor tile inside a family home instead of a pillar of strength that holds it up—walked on and discarded as useless.  Dads are belittled routinely in popular media, and the effects are starting to show in mainstream attitudes.  People like Scott Sloan have bought into this concept and many others who have grown up watching shows like The Family Guy featuring Peter Griffin as the bumbling fool of a dad setting the bar so low for their ambitions that they are walked on by society instead of holding it up. Kinky Boots is about finding your passion, overcoming prejudice and transcending stereotypes—and one of those stereotypes is that a man must be straight-laced, strong, and a pillar of strength in their family.  And when a man can’t live up to that lofty height and stand by a set of convictions that their family can honor, and depend on—they call those traditional types of men a sexist—and hope their wife gives them a piece of ass two weeks after their last period, and consider themselves lucky for getting it.  And in the quiet moments when they think nobody is looking, they dress in their wife’s clothing and pretend to be the authority of the house by wearing her pants—then they by a ticket to Kinky Boots.

You want to see hypocrisy, let a traditional family group put a float in the Macy’s Parade full of house wives and home schooled children……………and wait for the violent storms of rage from the gay community, and other progressive groups……….and the result of all their strategies will become very, very clear.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The American Romeikes: If only the United States Supreme Court will protect them

State run schools have proven to be detrimental to the human psyche and should be abolished as a form of education.  Yet in the world today, it is the most dominant forms of education there is.  The danger in them is not so much the quality of the teachers, the pay, or even the aspects of volunteerism they tend to use as a mask for their real activity within communities—but it is what they teach.  There was a reason that China sought a partnership exchange program with Lakota schools in my local community.  CLICK FOR REVIEW (Read the comments of Dean Hume from the Spark Magazine on that article, and the situation becomes extremely clear).  The reason is that both country’s schools are run by state government—China is a communist country, Lakota is a state-run school in freedom loving Ohio within The United States, but both education institutions teach essentially the same type of thing to students—submission to the state and the authority that constitutes government structure.

The Romeikes, a German family who are devout Christians, alarmed about what their children were learning in German schools decided to come to the U.S. to homeschool their kids. In Germany, homeschooling is illegal, so the family was granted asylum in the United States during 2010. But the former teacher and labor union supporter President Obama and his administration of doom decided to appeal that ruling and the family lost their protection.  The case marks a remarkable move by a sitting American president—a direct attack upon a family that represents most of the type of people who settled America as immigrants in the first place for the same reasons—in an attempt to flee the destruction of their hopes and dreams for their children.  Obama does not care about the many illegal aliens coming into America and the crimes they generate, or their trend to become attached to government subsidy, and other destructive byproducts—but he took the time to single out a family that wanted to flee Germany to homeschool their children in The United States.  To even latte sipping prostitutes, school levy supporters, and mild-mannered progressives—this should send out alarm bells.

The Romeikes could lose custody of their kids if they go back to Germany because of the Obama administration. Thankfully the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up the case as the Obama administration was quick to declare that the Romeikes are not eligible for protection in America because homeschoolers are not recognized as a social group eligible for protection.  This Romeikes case has within it the heart of most of America’s modern problems—that individuals are not recognized by government as relevant—only groups of people—and that is fundamentally wrong, misguided, and destructive to everything it means to be an American.  The Romeikes under the American Constitution through granting asylum should have more power or at least equal power to the SEIU or AFL-CIO unions, but the argument that White House lawyers are making in defense of government schools all over the world is that the Romeikes are required to yield to the collective opinion of the masses, because they are not affiliated with a group.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2013/12/03/all-star-panel-german-familys-fight-homeshool-kids-us

This is why public schools are vile temples of terror as they encourage collective submission to democracies ran by idiots—instead of instructing the value of individuals to take charge of their own lives for the betterment of entire civilizations—public schools teach subservience, collective welfare, and yielding to authority—not American traits.  It is not enough to drop a child off at school and hope they learn something—because often what they are learning is vile, evil, and disgusting by the standards of people who still have them.

Most reading this are the products of public education.  There are surely good memories associated with the experience of their “school days” and bad ones.  When I was a kid there was a song that was pretty new called “School’s Out For The Summer” or something to that effect by Alice Cooper.  I used to play that music so loud that we had to roll down the windows to keep from blowing out our eardrums when my friends rode in the car with me.  I specifically remember a time on the last day of school at Lakota when I realized that I was free of that place for an entire summer—I had a car, a job, and a whole future ahead of me, and I was traveling 110 MPH down the Old Beckett road which is now Union Center Blvd with that song roaring at full blast.  The residents up on Beckett Ridge could hear the music coming from my car out of the valley nearly as clearly as I could inside my car.  It was one of the best moments of my life—a small wink of time when things are totally clear to the conscious thoughts of the waking world.  I know why I was so happy, and why I was driving so fast.  I hated school—I hated every bleeding moment of it—I hated the smell, the look of the buildings, the teachers, the authority figures—I hated everything about it.  I knew even at my tender high school age that the place and what the teachers were teaching were things I didn’t want to know.  They were teaching me to be dependent when all I wanted out of life was independence.  The music, the speed, the lifestyle I was living was all about independence and it felt good to break the speed limit, and the social norm for music levels to celebrate being free of that dreadful place—a palace of shackles to limit imagination and hinder intellectual growth.  They teach you in school what to think—not how to think.  There is a tremendous difference.

Some of the worst arguments I’ve ever had with family members outside of my marriage was when my wife declared that she was going to homeschool our children because of a disagreement we had with Mason schools when they wanted to teach sex education to my fourth grade daughter.  Of course they sent home a release form, which we rejected, and the black listing began.  We were expected to sign the form without question and when we didn’t, trouble erupted.  My wife used to volunteer at Mason schools and was loved by the principles, the administration and all the teachers—until she said no to the sex education.  Things likely got out of hand because the school employees saw my wife as one of “them” and expected her to fall in line behind the collective.  Well, for people who think I’m an “individualist” they have not met my wife.  She once quit her first day at McDonald’s as a teenage girl because they told her where to stand at the front counter.  Not a good idea to give her any kind of—“instruction.”  She does what she wants, when she wants to do it—to this very day, to this very hour, to this very minute.  She wasn’t welcome in the school as a volunteer anymore; she was harassed by known student drug dealers who came to our home to harass her and my daughters while I was gone to work.  The fire department began following her around everywhere to the grocery store, post office, and especially the bank.  They’d get in line in front of her and behind her and talk about “bitches that just wouldn’t play along” and had nothing to do all day long but “be neurotic,” a shot at her for being a housewife in the traditional sense.  They never addressed her directly, just talked around her, about her situation avoiding any direct threat or legal implication.  The unions had coordinated the harassment through their network of compliant parasites all trained in public education to just do what they were told, and they were told to harass my wife for not allowing our daughter to be taught to put a condom onto a dildo in the fourth grade.  The Mason police department gave us personally 50,000 reasons to despise them with their continuous harassment that went on for two years.  The situation was so bad I approached the mayor of Mason at the time for relief, but none came.  Instead of complying with the pressure we withdrew our kids from school and taught them ourselves to an onslaught of pressure from family members who thought we were crazy for trying—and unqualified.

My kids learned more in this period of time than all the years up to that point, or in the years after. We were teaching them things in the fourth grade that no school would even think of—such as why the earth had an elliptical orbit around the sun and why Edger Allen Poe was so much better of a writer than the modern-day John Grisham.  I was able to teach my kids during this period about literal pornography and intellectual pornography which is what they would see at the grocery story at the check out lines with all the magazine headlines selling sex, panic, and weight lose—which obviously wasn’t working very well for most people.  This period of homeschool benefited my children in such obvious ways that it was clear that there were some very bad things going on in public school evident by the differences instantly noticed.  Public schools like Mason, and the school my children graduated from at Lakota was destroying the process of thinking, but they sold themselves to the public as institutions of thinking—and clearly were doing the opposite. They were teaching non-thinking—they were teaching compliance to authority—and nothing more.  My children returned to public school for a few years but ended up graduating nearly two years early by taking online classes condensing their junior and senior years together.  They couldn’t wait to leave a brick and mortar school for the same reasons that I drove 110 MPH down Beckett Road on the last day of school playing rock music.  While both my children had their graduation ceremonies conducted by Lakota—they were in Europe learning how the world really worked—already living their lives years in maturity ahead of their classmates—which is still true.

The Romeikes know the same thing, and I feel sympathy for their struggle.  I know how hard the system comes down on people who do not comply because I’ve experienced it first hand.  I agreed to leave Mason by my wife’s request.  We sold our home for a nice profit and moved to something better in the district I grew up in of Liberty Township.  My agreement with her was that since we bought some property that gave me elbow room, I would not leave again.  The next time I went to war with the police, the firefighters, and the teachers like I did in Mason, I would not retreat—ever.  When they came for blood like they did in Mason, I’d hang them by their feet in the trees around our home like Christmas decorations, and that has been the standing policy for the last 15 years.  In my twenties I wasn’t sure what I could and couldn’t do when the highest authority in town was questioned.  In my thirties I figured it out.  The secret that nobody talks about is that there is a major offensive advocated by the education industry to process the minds of the human race into a kind of gravy that can be spread over their social reforms.  They hate individuality with a passion and are at war with logic.  The antics written about here centering on the Lakota levy are nothing compared to what my wife and I went through in Mason after we decided to homeschool our children to save them from premature sex education classes.

The Supreme Court has an obligation to stand up for the Romeikes.  They are the kind of family that made America unique—and I want those kinds of people as neighbors—even friends.  I want to see those people at the grocery store, and at a park. I want to pass them at the gas pump.  They look to be good people who should be free of tyranny and have the right to turn on the lights of their children’s minds away from the shackles of state-run schools in Germany which these days are virtually identical to Lakota, or Beijing, China.  They are all state-run schools advocating compliance to authority—and are menaces to human thought.  The Obama administration is doing to the Romeikes much the same as what the union brothers of the fire department and police departments of Mason did to my wife and me, only on a larger scale.  The international trade unions after all look out for each other and they see anybody who posses a threat to their hive collective to be dangerous—and in need of attack—ruthless attack with no mercy or recognition for the individuals involved.  For the Romeikes the only chance they have to keep their children free of a state-run education is The United States Supreme Court.  But now because of Obama and his administration of left-wing radicals dangling by the puppet strings of labor unions—the Romeikes may not even be able to keep their family together.  The Supreme Court will not only decide whether or not the Romeikes can free their children of a tyrannical public education, but whether or not they can even stay a family—which we all know is the ultimate goal of progressivism—the destruction of the family unit.  It will be interesting to discover how the Supreme Court rules.  There is a lot at stake for not just the Romeikes—but for all of us because that ruling will set a course that not only America will follow, but the world.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Cindy Carpenter and Mrs. Hyde: Butler County RINOs and deceitful politics

In the recording below from 700 WLW Bill Cunningham found himself in the middle of Butler County Republican politics when Commissioner Cindy Carpenter was engaged in yet another debacle on his show.  Cunningham joked to Cindy who was on the radio to defend accusations and possible indictments against her–that Butler County does not have any Democrats so Republicans have taken to fighting each other as Carpenter was at odds with the county prosecutor.  I think it was lost to Cunningham that what he said was actually quite wrong.  A lot, (too many) politicians in Butler County like Commissioner Don Dixon are former Democrats just like Cunningham used to be—they are the epitome of the whole RINO accusation—“Republican In Name Only.”  Dixon used to lead the Democrats in Butler County in the 90’s and only changed parties when he realized that it would be easier to win elections if he called himself a Republican.  During the last trustee race in the very conservative West Chester Township, Cathy Stoker was a Democrat but she didn’t dare put that information on her campaign literature.  Instead she put “fiscal conservative,” so to give the impression that she was a conservative.  Her running mate, Lee Wong—who is a functional socialist literally called himself a Republican—complete with the little elephant on his yard signs.  Later during the Cunningham broadcast with Commissioner Carpenter their mutual friend Sheriff Jones came on and essentially called Carpenter a liar.  Jones thinks of himself as a Republican, yet he supports labor unions and votes for school levies.  His social behavior is quite liberal, yet he is considered a staunch Republican, just like his friend the radio host Cunningham.  A lot of these people put on the mask of conservativism to win audience approval, but they legislate like bleeding heart liberals and are directly responsible for spreading the expansion of government.  Because most of the world sees and hears these kinds of people as the faces of Republicanism, real conservatives who live as traditional Americans, and are actually philosophically conservative seem as though they are extremists.  Meanwhile, these mask wearing conservatives get themselves involved in so many different aspects of politics that they lose track of what they said to whom and when they said it.  This is apparently what has happened to Cindy Carpenter who came on the Bill Cunningham Show to dispel the perception of her political blunders.  At the end of the broadcast she was dismissed by her Republican buddy and political fundraiser Sheriff Jones who sided with the prosecutor over the controversial incident.  CLICK TO REVIEW.

Many of the problems that Cindy has had during her tenure as Commissioner has been her tendency to abuse her office for little things like free baby sitting services and intimidating others with a lot of yelling and screaming.  I might be inclined to admire Cindy’s combativeness if she didn’t have elements of big government expansion about her—which comes out in conversations like what she had on 700 WLW.  She was quick to point out in her interview that she was a conservative, as though she needed to explain her actions to confirm it.  However, the troubling aspect of her discussion is that she declared Sheriff Jones had told her he’d back her over her confrontation with the Butler Country Prosecutor, which was the theme of her latest trouble.

This is the direct result of politicians who are not philosophically aligned by conservative beliefs and instead use the Republican Party as a platform to work as career politicians.  When these politicians have to fake being conservatives to get elected in a conservative area, they are often caught in contradictions like what Cindy has found herself in.  I believe she has convinced herself that she’s a Republican in the same way that John McCain or Chris Christie believes they are hard-core conservatives—yet deep down inside they are bleeding heart liberals who believe that government should intrude on people’s lives—and interfere with justice based on their interpretation of a moral code—which is established by the same type of politicians.  

This behavior from Cindy is not new; it has gone on for a long time and seems to be part of the way she operates.  Former Commissioner Chuck Furman addressed his concerns regarding Cindy Carpenter’s temper tantrums and emotional tirades in the Commissioner’s office not that long ago.  If I were in Cindy’s position, it is likely that many people would be intimidated and frightened also and often, so I don’t begrudge her of that.  I understand dropping the “F” bomb in meetings and harassing people who are standing in the way of justice—but whose justice?  That is the million dollar question.  As a conservative, I know where the line is, but for someone who is a wanna-be conservative– a RINO—their opinions are likely shaped by liberal politics dressed behind a conservative mask—and that is not OK.

Below is a letter from Commissioner Furman to Carpenter which reflects accurately the current trouble that Cindy is having—yet this letter is over a year and a half old as of this writing.  It shows a pattern of behavior that is quite destructive.  Cindy’s response to the letter can be seen by clicking on the hot link attached to the letter.

June 5, 2012

To: Cindy Carpenter, Commissioner

Butler County, Ohio

This is a difficult letter to write but I think it has become necessary. I am speaking in regard to the hostile environment you continue to create in the commissioner’s office.

It has, again, been brought to my attention that you have denigrated and yelled, this time using profanity; stating that you were a “F—ing” commissioner when addressing a member of the commissioner’s staff. Tuesday, May 29, 2012, your very loud and angry unprofessional rant while addressing a staff member was clearly heard by many other staff members throughout offices on the 6th floor, as well as anyone in the elevator frequented by the public.

Your tirades and tantrums are becoming the norm rather than the exception. You seem to be driven to continually create a hostile work environment.

I have repeatedly stated, that in my opinion, the commissioner’s staff are all hard working professionals. Those who work together in an office should be able to expect at least a satisfactory level of respect. Our staff does not deserve your hostile behavior. Day after day they live with the threat of your outbursts. There is no way one can justify yelling and using profanity to address staff.

Your verbal assaults as well as your threats of physical assaults have gone on much too long. The staff of the commissioner’s office work for all three commissioners and I, for one, do not wish to seemly condone that kind of behavior directed toward them. While, unfortunately, I do not have any means to control your behavior I refuse to continue to sit silently without commenting about your abusive and irrational behavior. If a county supervisory staff member spoke to anyone under their command the way you have been known to do it could, and should, be cause for their dismissal.

Unfortunately, I have no remedy for this situation, but I refuse to be silent about it.

From: Chuck Furmon, Commissioner

Butler County, Ohio

CC: Don Dixon, Butler County Commissioner

Mike Campbell, Butler County Administrator

Cindy’s response to Furman was similar to what was heard on Cunningham’s show.  She presented a logical explanation for everything which sounded good and makes you want to shake your head in acknowledgment—but something isn’t quite right about it.  Someone isn’t telling the truth……….either Furman wasn’t being truthful or Carpenter wasn’t.  I know Chuck a bit, and I doubt it’s him.  Cindy I wasn’t so sure about, although the time or two that I met her she seemed like a nice stable person.  She certainly didn’t seem like such a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality which has persistently followed her antics as an elected representative since 2010.

Yet during the Cunningham interview the Mr. Hyde personality was exposed toward the end.  Sheriff Jones is too politically astute to lie on 50,000 watts of AM radio to hundreds of thousands of people all over Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.  Sheriff Jones might be walking the line between Republicans and Democrats with the skill of a circus act, but he’s not a liar.  So that leaves Carpenter rather exposed in an uncomfortable way that deserves consideration.

I admire about Cindy her fight, her drive, and her pursuit of justice.  Yet, her beliefs are way too liberal for me—she is a big government mind pretending to be a conservative.  She is at best a moderate Republican and if Butler County were a different kind of place where liberal politics were tolerated, I suspect she would be a Democrat similar to the kind of man Todd Portune is in Hamilton County.  I have a history with Todd as well, and I know his politics well—and Cindy is far closer to someone like him ideologically than she is a Republican like T.C. Rogers, the commissioner who took Chuck Furman’s seat during the 2012 election. Many believe that Butler County has three conservative Republican commissioners, but really they have only one in T.C.  Don Dixon is a former head of the Democratic Party and is Republican in name only.  He is a RINO without question.  And not far to the right of the political spectrum of Don is Cindy Carpenter.  Under a real tally of values Butler County is currently being led by two Democrats and one Republican—which is a deception that is not forgivable.

When people live their lives around lies, they force themselves to become a schizophrenic type of personality—a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in real life.  Cindy’s three year history shows that to the public she can display Doctor Jekyll—who is mild-mannered and articulate personality that is Republican.  But in the halls of the commissioner’s office screaming at people for strange reasons, forcing security to baby sit her kids while she attends meetings, and running around playing a bleeding heart liberal as a social service worker using the power of her office to impose her will—she shows the Mr. Hyde—and that person is a Democrat. It’s often not easy to see until provoked, but eventually the monster comes out and shows itself—and that’s what happened during the interview Carpenter gave to Bill Cunningham.

I don’t mind if people stand by what they are and believe what they believe.  I admire it in fact, and I will fight for those people to maintain that right.  I believe in the marketplace of ideals fighting it out for the betterment of everyone.  But that process doesn’t work if people hide what they really are and attempt to pull a blanket of deception over the actual monsters that drive them as people.  For that reason alone I won’t support Cindy Carpenter in the next election—because it is obvious she has not been completely honest about what she is, and what she believes.  Politicians who are RINO’s because they know they cannot be elected into office any other way are worse than Democrats because they are attempting to deceive the public at the very start of their public service—and that makes them unqualified of an office of any kind—and untrustworthy of tax payer dollars.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com