Well, you can pat yourself on the back for part of that. Finally tax payers are learning what type of scam has been pulled over their eyes for many years now by being told so much money was demanded for the teaching of our young, because we needed “quality” teachers in our classrooms. However, by the rash of scandals happening all over Cincinnati, most recently in Highlands High School in Northern Kentucky involving teachers having massive amounts of sex with the student population, it would seem the quality of our teachers are being recruited from Hooters and The Brass Ass strip clubs instead of Americas highest institutions of learning.
Yet during the above interview one must wonder who dropped mustache man Stuart Bassman on his head. His loose use of the word “compassion” is straight out of the progressive handbook of apologist behavior. Sorry Stuart, but the compassion is all used up buddy. I don’t give a rat’s ass whose hurting emotionally inside. They can hurt on their time, but when a teacher is in the classroom, they are “owned” by the community, and do not have a right to have sex with kids, no matter what their age.
For those out there with common sense, this is just one more example of what kind of quality we can see in the modern teaching profession. Make sure to send this article to all your friends and family so that when their local school asks for more money with a tax increase, they’ll know what their hard-earned money has bought them.
Oh, sorry teachers reading this—you think I’m being a big mean man. You wonder what I think a good teacher is, what I think would be worth the extraordinary amounts of money that we pay teachers. Well, I do have a teacher in mind who if our schools were filled with them, you’d hear no complaints by me.
Meet Miss Beadle. Now this is a teacher.
Instead, what we get are nymphomaniacs who can’t even wait to get home before having sex with young male students. Not my idea of a quality education.
Be sure to pass this on to someone who needs to learn what they are paying for in education.
This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon
Here is one of the many socialists who seek to undermine America. This is Van Jones at the Green Festival recently. The Green Festival is a cesspool of socialist sympathizers who seek to use climate science to spread communism all over the world. Listen for yourself.
Take note, prepare your minds, and make a friend aware and awake.
Pass it on………………..
This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon
Once again Denise Wilson of The Pulse Journal shows that she is not eating out of the hand of the Lakota School System. In my experience with Denise she has always been fair. She’s been fair with me, and I think she has been fair with the school system. Most recently though, she did a story on the outrageous sums of money that was spent on the Laura Kursman case which I’ve covered here extensively. For my primary article on Laura’s case CLICK HERE.
But for the sake of credit to Denise Wilson’s article, here it is in case you have not yet seen it. Just think how much tax money that was wasted on absolutely nothing–and the school did it for the same reason they do everything–it’s not their money, so it’s easy to spend. And when they need more, they just twist the arm of the tax payers for more money. Taxpayers of Lakota–look how the school system spends your money!
At that link one posting jumped out at me as being particularly sensational. Apparently a person obviously close to the author went into the Kroger store in Liberty Twp and randomly asked people what they thought of me as they entered. The results of their “highly scientific” survey are below along with most of the original posting, which can be seen with all the other comments at the Yappi link. To my experience these comments represent very well the type of people who generally support school levies. Check it out:
What I now find funny, after opening up the Cincinnati Enquirer this morning is that the “No Lakota” group has dissociated itself from Hoffmann. Here is a bit more about that piece of news.
What is Mr. Hoffmann going to do now? It’s obvious that his level of intelligence is not up to a high standard. He also really seems to be mentally unbalanced. I fully believe that, as the mouthpiece for “No Lakota”, Mr. Hoffmann has been a paid spokesperson/lobbyist for the group. With the amount of time that he put into his efforts to defeat the levy coupled with the writing of his blog, he would seem to have time for little else – at least not a real job. I hope he doesn’t show up to any job interviews wearing his “wife beater” shirt. Poor little Rich is going to have to get a real job now. No more drawing a salary as a lobbyist.
I agree that there needs to be something done to address school funding issues. The problem of school funding affects all districts in Ohio. The larger districts are particularly affected. What I’ve never been able to understand about the “No Lakota” group is why some of their energy, as well as Mr. Hoffmann’s, weren’t channeled toward lobbying to make changes at the state level. The “No Lakota” group was founded by real estate people (Mark Sennet and others) and it would seem to me that they would realize the importance of a strong school system and what type of positive impacts it has on property values. Meanwhile, those that voted against the levy based on the advice of a “psycho” spokesperson probably didn’t realize that the value of their home and property will probably take a bigger hit than the additional tax dollars that they would be paying. If these real estate people were serious about having a positive impact on the real estate values in West Chester and Liberty Townships they would be trying to implement change at the state level.
In closing, I am going to list the results of an experiment that someone did at a Kroger store in Liberty Township. I thought this was interesting and it will give you a good idea of what a lot of people think about Mr. Hoffmann. You’ve all heard of word association games. Random people entering Kroger were asked to say the first thing that came to their mind when they heard the name of “Rich Hoffmann.” Many did not know who he was and some did not care to participate. A pretty good number of people did contribute. Here are some of the responses:
– Little man – Straw man – Genius (this guy was incoherent and wore a “wife beater” shirt similar to what Hoffmann wears on his videos) – He’s a dolt – Destructive to our community – He has Napoleon’s Complex – A little man with a little brain – A smart guy (this guy also looked like a productive member of society. He appeared to be drunk at 1:00 in the afternoon on a Saturday) – I’d love to go mano-a-mano with him (I echo these sentiments – with or without the bullwhip!) – What an idiot – An ugly dude with an ugly agenda – He really misogynic. I’m surprised the guy is married. I feel sorry for his wife – Another guy wearing a “Hoffmann wife beater shirt” that didn’t comment but gave a thumbs-up – He’s a really piece of work. The guy is a psycho – The guy is a tool and a jackwagon
There were a lot more similar comments.
It is because of people like that, that I am now against public education, and against the levy system. The more I have learned the less I desire to support it with the taxes I already pay, let alone more. For me it started with a desire to just control costs. But as time went on and I read these kinds of comments about me I have decided to find every way possible to withdrawal any financial support from their organizations. I don’t want one dollar of my tax money to go to any employee or any supporters of a school system who writes and believes these types of things about me—who will go to a Kroger on a Saturday afternoon and attempt to smear my name.
Events like that survey did get back to me in the late days of January and early February and my response was well noted and appropriate. If it’s good for them, it’s good for me. But to call me a known terrorists and right-winged extremist is quite a stretch, which was said about me later on that particular thread. To attempt to paint me as an extremist who will bomb buildings and lash out at the Federal government with violence is precisely how the progressive party of public schools and liberal politics work when they find they can’t argue an issue because the facts are not on their side. They are the reasons for my desire to cut off funding to such organizations completely.
The acts I preach are not of violence against some entity like the government for public school, unless attacked first. Instead I seek to make tax payers aware that they hold all the cards and that they fund all this nonsense. For most people they fund their public schools not because they want to take care of tomorrow’s youth, or desire to be esteemed members of their communities. They do it so they don’t get ridiculed by political terrorism such as a person who goes to Kroger on a Saturday to ask people what they think of their political enemies.
Nobody on their side of the political aisle can explain to me why I am compelled to help them cover the cost of their child’s education. I don’t want to help financially a family who thinks that I’m a terrorist, and I certainly don’t want to help their child get an education. Why should I help anybody unless I want to? It is not my task to figure out when I wake up each morning how I am going to make people like me, and I certainly don’t jump through hoops to see that they do. I spend zero time each day thinking about what anyone else thinks of me. If people like the things I say, they tune in and read. If they don’t I won’t lose an ounce of sleep.
But I do not wish to support even with a few cents a day a person or a group of people who think so poorly of me. If they feel that way, that is their decision—their freedom of choice. But I am not compelled to give them the value of my earning in any way. I do not spend my afternoons slandering my political enemies at a Kroger store or any place else. I write my thoughts and communicate on the radio using the First Amendment to do what it’s supposed to do, and that is create dialogue to root out an idea.
To people who wish to extort through coercion and other means of pressure money from the public pockets so that they can carry on their silly government racket–my acts are as severe to them as blowing up a federal building–relative to their mentality. Because they are extremists who live off public money and they need my participation into their collectivism to have power, my desire to be removed from their looting scheme is a threat to their very existence. I do not wish to be in their collectivist society. I do not want their friendships, their approval, or their endorsements. I require absolutely nothing from them, and for that they call me a terrorist and multiple other derogatory terms. Because of my stance on living, and social participation is the greatest threat to their existence—because I do not need them–they think of me as the most sinister force they can imagine. And that makes me very proud.
It is not “popular” or “fashionable” to declare ones independence from the masses. Just because their opinion out-numbers my own does not make them right. It is possible to have 1 million or 1 billion people be completely wrong and only one person be right. A majority opinion does not mandate truth, or justice. It is simply mob rule and I’m not interested in that type of lifestyle, or teaching the modern children of America to live under those terms. America is a free country designed to protect the freedoms of individuals. Individuals will be drawn to their own friends who suit their interests and this happens naturally, without government interference. People are attracted to each other through aligned values. The advocates of public education such as the author of the above posting seek to remove value from society so that all people with empty heads will be drawn together by default in a grand scheme of equality—equally helpless, foolish, and conniving. I’m opposed to their approach—and will not support it. My lack of support does not require the action of a single other person. However, due to the shared values of many people who feel as I do–but are just not vocal about it–the school levies will continue to be defeated. I will not support more state funding so long as labor unions rule our education institutions. I will also not support a per pupil cost amount that is not driven downward with competition from schools who can educate better, and cheaper. And if the schools do manage to get a tax increase I expect to take back that looted value with declining property taxes through reassessment. These words from me to my political enemies are equivalent to the acts of Timothy McVeigh. On my end I do not seek to go out and attack any of them physically. My acts of terror are to deny them of money. If I take away their money, then what becomes of them? They revert to the colossal failures they truly are socially, parentally, and individually since they can no longer hide behind the money they’ve looted from society. That is when we can see who the bad guys really are, when they can no longer hide, and must show themselves for their true nature—which is quite disgusting. This is why I now stand against public education completely, is because these types of personalities need to be removed from any public debate before such an idea will ever be worthwhile to another generation of children. And right now they have equal value with me in the public debate only because they do it with looted money. Take that money away and those of true value can be seen for their true worth—which is greatly lacking.
This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon
The ACLU advertises itself as being an organization that fights for the rights of the people and protects free speech. But the true nature of the ACLU agenda has roots that run deep into the gardens of society. And those gardens as they exist now are full of weeds pushed up by the ACLU.
A representative of the ACLU, an earnest man from the Ohio chapter, not too long ago spoke at a Tea Party event in southern Ohio, for the Liberty Township group, a satellite of the Cincinnati Tea Party. In his talk he was questioned about why the ACLU was suing Arizona for its new immigration law. The man then danced vigorously on the stage, even though there wasn’t any music.
He was of course not literally dancing, but was dancing with words which infuriated the Tea Party group, because it had become obvious he couldn’t give a straight answer. The audience wondered why a group named, the American Civil Liberties Union, didn’t represent the Americans terrorized by illegal immigrants and border violence, but chose to take a position in favor of people who weren’t even American citizens.
The credibility of the ACLU will always be in question. This is a group that gives legitimacy to groups like NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, but is shy to take up positions which favor the Second Amendment, hiding behind the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller in 1939. In that case, the right to own a gun transported across state lines was attacked because it wasn’t a gun that could be used in a militia and the gun fell under commerce because it was transported from Oklahoma to Arkansas. Such legal dancing is routine, and is the embodiment of how our current case-law has drifted far from the original constitutional intentions. If the ACLU put the same energy into defending Second Amendment rights, or 10th Amendment rights instead of groups like NAMBLA, we might have a much different country that more accurately represents what the founders envisioned.
But the ACLU has chosen to walk down the road that has had more influence on our constitution than most any organization, and they’ve done it by forming case-law around issues like homosexual rights in the military, or the right of a man to lust after a young boy. As a group of only 500,000 members it generates over $85 million in revenue. This makes it a cleverly disguised lobby group for some of the more radical members of our society that have indirectly attacked the principles of our constitution. And this lobby group is attacking elements of our country like cancer cells do to the human body.
The ACLU has been routinely affiliated with communists. In 1940, they formally banned communists from the organization, even though the founder, Roger Baldwin was a former supporter of communism, in order to give an appearance of neutrality in legal cases. Bernadine Dohrn, leader of the Weather Underground and wife of Bill Ayers was a legal researcher in 1990 and 1991. She is one that took a stand of support for the violence of Charlie Manson during the Helter Skelter issue. With such people in the ACLU, is it any surprise that the ACLU opposes capital punishment because of its ultimate denial of civil liberties? Charles Manson’s trial expenditure came to over $770,000 and his cost of imprisonment has cost tax payers more than $644,000. In such a clear-cut case, such as the Manson issue, why has he been allowed to burden our tax system, along with thousands like him? The ACLU is proud that it takes on any client without judgment. But what the ACLU leaves in its wake is a path of destructive case law that cripples our legal system.
Was it such a great victory for free speech to have the Ten Commandments removed from the courthouses of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky, when so much of our country was founded on principles of divine trust and guidance? The ACLU successfully attacked The Ten Commandments, but is silent on the violation of the 10th Amendment over the Health Care Bill. Our Constitution is a uniquely profound document. It has produced the greatest country on the face of the earth in known history. However, it allows groups like the ACLU to exist because of the Constitution, even if the intent of the ACLU is to subtly attack the founding document and reshape it into something more akin to The Communist Manifesto.
Beware of those white knights that proclaim to help, such as how the ACLU portrays itself. They may actually use the guise of goodness as a way to get behind our defenses and destroy everything from within. And the well-intentioned speaker from the Ohio Chapter, bright-eyed and believing that he is the champion for the weak, and defender of the Constitution…..that is why we have the Second Amendment. We don’t need the ACLU. It’s time to tend to our garden and start pulling the weeds, so the flowers can bloom. And it’s time to spread some mulch so the weeds can be choked off from the sunlight, and stop growing. Once all the weeds are gone, and we can see our garden again, we’ll be surprised at how robust that garden flourishes.
In the garden of America it is groups like the ACLU, NAMBLA, Teacher’s unions, lawyers in general, multi-term politicians and presidents who want to be remembered as kings who are our weeds, and it’s time now to remove them from our landscape.
This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon
I was so angry with so many people over the attempt to eliminate me from the political scene by the progressive education funding apologists that I had made a decision to turn up the heat even more and get personal in the levy fights at Lakota–so I called my political enemies “latte sipping prostitutes” and described how and why which became all the rage in Cincinnati. (CLICK HERE TO REVIEW). I had made a decision to break away from the orthodox approach and get even nastier since it became evident that the Lakota school system did not respect the wishes of the voting public and were positioning themselves for a fourth levy attempt, so I didn’t even listen to the interview I did for Scott Sloan’s show on 700 WLW during his morning program, which was very controversial, and difficult for me personally. It was strange to be referred to as a sexist, a woman-hater, and an activist on the same rhetorical level as a “Wall Street Occupier” making the interview shown below one of the most difficult I’ve ever given. In the interview at one point Scott stated that I had weakened my argument by yelling louder than the pro levy factions. But I didn’t agree. I yelled louder than my political enemies for the same reason a parent yells over screaming, disrespectful children—to get their attention and let them know that their behavior is intolerable. The pro levy people attempted to take my very targeted comments and apply them to all women of the world—especially Lakota, because it diffuses the attention away from the groups I had in mind. It’s an old strategy that has worked to advance many radical agendas over the years, and it was surreal to find myself involved in the middle one. But deep inside I knew I was saying what everyone was already thinking—but dared not speak for fear of ridicule—such as what I experienced during this very difficult interview. Click the video to listen.
I knew as I hung up the phone that most people understood what was happening by the way the Enquirer article was quoted, the way that it aligned itself as a paper with the public relations intentions of the Lakota school system. I knew my supporters would see this event as the political assassination attempt that it was. I knew such an attempt had been in the works for quite a long time, and that it was initiated by a sitting school board member to eliminate me from the political scene. I knew that other school board members were attempting to break bread with my friends at No Lakota Levy to soften our resolve against their reckless financial proposals. And I also knew that financially strong community advocates were putting serious pressure on several business owners through the Lakota school district to weaken their stance supporting No Lakota Levy. That pressure gave rise to the scholarship foundation mentioned in the interview which was not expected by the pro levy groups at Lakota and set off a violent reaction which prompted this character assassination attempt against me. The hard-core levy supporters who were the targets of my comments knew that if I were involved in taking away their extortion measures with a positive community campaign that they would lose their stranglehold on the district so they came after me with all guns blazing.
But you never quite know who is on your side until you face a crisis, and as Scott and I parted ways after that interview I had a sense of where the weak links were on my side quickly, and I had to decide to completely rebuild my efforts alone. Given the way the Cincinnati media quickly piled up against me biting down on the hook cast into the water by the pro levy, pro union, progressive feminists, it appeared that I would be fighting in the future differently—which I was prepared to do. So I didn’t listen to the interview, or read the paper, and haven’t now for over a month.
But something unexpected happened almost immediately following my interview with Scott Sloan. People were pulling me aside, men and women, and were—thanking me. At first it was just a couple of bold personalities who I thought were just trying to encourage me not to give up the fight, which was never in danger anyway. But from their perspective, they were concerned. In the days after, leading all the way up to yesterday—at gas pumps, restaurants, meetings, community events—there have been many people who have personally came up to me and thanked me for speaking on their behalf against “the mob” as they termed it. So many people approached me in the weeks that followed with such statements that I decided if 100 people came to me and thanked me for my very aggressive comments lambasting the pro levy government education supporters then I’d go back and listen to the Scott Sloan broadcast and post it here on Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom.
Yesterday I heard from my 100th person, a man who told me that it was about time that someone stand up to those cackling hens who think they can cheerlead all of society right down the crapper. I will admit that these comments were relieving, because you just never know. I knew my comments would get attention, which is why I made them, but I wasn’t sure they would be successful solidifying how many people really feel about being openly scammed by progressive social engineers attempting to do to our communities what they do on the national stage.
In fact it was a woman who told me just a few hours after my interview with Scott Sloan that I said 90% of what everyone already thought and that she knew I didn’t mean all women when I made my statements. She recognized that the targets of my comments had no other defense but to attempt to pull all women into their quicksand just as they’ve done over the entire feminist movement. The man yesterday told me that the “bitches had it coming” and he hoped that I would continue to call those progressive terrorists out by name as I did in the interview above.
What these pro levy people, and progressive activists don’t know is something that I only suspected at the beginning of that Scott Sloan interview—was that millions upon millions of people are frustrated and tired of the crying diatribes that many progressive activists use to advance their cause. In the case at Lakota it’s the radical mothers who are in the minority but seem unable to isolate their protective instincts from the logic of reason regarding funding decisions that affect the entire community—young and old alike. The radicals of my community are not unlike the racial radicals in Florida who want Zimmerman crucified to solve some social ill they are trying to advance in yet another progressive platform using the unfortunate death of a black child as their launch pad. Nobody in the media calls them progressives parasites for using a grieving family as a key to manipulating an entire society, but most reasonable Americans can see the sham for what it is—but they are taught by society to keep their comments to themselves otherwise they will be attacked—like I was.
I have spoken to many more hundreds, if not thousands of anti-levy supporters who are truly scared to speak out in public because they do not want the wrath of the activists to publicly humiliate them or their children. In the last campaign there were a lot of emails and personal correspondence where people showed their support of No Lakota Levy but did not want a sign in their yard because they were afraid they’d become targets by the radicals in our community who will stop at nothing to extort more money from the public to satisfy their unrelenting appetites for safety, security, and as much money as possible to throw at their children hoping it will overcompensate for their parental inadequacies. And a selfish labor force of union employees is all too willing to exploit this naive group of activists to loot more money for themselves. The rest of the community is far more experienced in business and in raising families and we can only shake our heads at the sheer stupidity of the whole scam. So when a person like me says what everyone is already thinking, it’s a feeling of relief, not shame that is the dominate emotion.
I had been keeping a count since March 15th of these people who thanked me, and the best one was last week, number 94. I was getting gas and a car pulled up across the pump from me. It was a Lexus and a businessman got out, someone who looked to me like he had children in the district and was a pro levy type of supporter. I noticed he kept looking at me as he pumped his gas–as if he were working up the courage to speak to me. As I finished up and was getting back on my bike, he stopped pumping and approached me. “Excuse me, but are you Rich Hoffman?”
“Yes I am,” I replied.
He smiled as though relieved. “I have wanted to contact you for a while now—I just want to say—thank you.”
I smiled as he shook my hand. “For what?”
“For putting those God damn, bitches in their place. For striking back at those Lakota Fu**kers and standing up for the rest of us the way you do. What you said took serious balls.”
I was shocked to hear him talk this way at a gas pump in the early morning before most people even had a cup of coffee. And he didn’t look like the type of person who would use such language. He was very animated. “Thanks,” was the only thing I could think to say. I looked at his hand and saw he wore a wedding band. “Does your wife share your beliefs?”
“She was the one who told me about you. She reads your blog every single night before she comes to bed. She’s very much a fan.”
“Well, that’s good to hear. You have no idea,” I replied.
Our conversation evolved into many other topics centering on his family and Lakota. He railed on about how high the taxes were and how dangerous it was for a small group of levy supporters to have so much manipulative power over a community of over 100,000 residents. We both agreed that it is done through extortion and force.
He left in his Lexus as I put my weather gear back on for my motorcycle ride feeling good inside. It is always good to hear when people see through the games being played to the essence of a situation. In this case, I had thought the man would be a levy supporter, not a guy on my side of politics. So he surprised me. In the wake of the March 15th broadcast on 700 WLW I learned that my frustration spoke on behalf of many thousands if the sample of 100 could be such an indicator. If 100 people went out of their way to tell me how they felt, there are no doubt 10 for every one of them who thought about approaching me, but didn’t. I like that math, and more than that, it is nice to see people finding their courage and beginning to call these progressive terrorists what they really are.
For too long we’ve all been too polite, too sensitive, too lack-luster. We admire characters in movies and TV shows that act boldly in their lives, but we find often we chastise the behavior in real life. And the enemies of America know we have this tendency, so they openly exploit our weakness with social terrorism. The way to counter that terrorism is with doses of it back in their direction. If the weapons they use are peer pressure manipulation through name calling and attacks on social and economic status in an effort to control political behavior, then it can work against them also. After trying everything else but that strategy I decided to turn up the heat and throw back at the social terrorists of my community the type of rhetoric they had been dishing out using my own special flare. I told those levy supporters what I thought about them. I was honest. And honesty is not something that we should ever apologize for. Sometimes it might hurt what we say and think, sometimes we might feel the situation wrongly, but the exchange of dialogue is necessary and when reason is not the governing factor, then fire must be fought with fire. In a raging inferno, water just evaporates to mist. That is what happens to the facts we present in the school levy fights. They come out of the hose cool, but the raging tempers of the estrogen driven radicals confusing biological protection for their young with endless financial justification for ever higher taxes becomes nullified at the point of attack—so a new strategy must be utilized.
For those 100 supporters over the last month who have given me that much-needed support, I thank you. It is hard to do anything that goes against the norm, especially when the strategy of your political enemies is to handcuff criticism of their actions with political correctness. This has taken away the ability of people to call things what they actually are. So when I decided to call the situation as I saw it, there was a risk that I might do what Scott Sloan suggested and that is lose supporters and validity in my arguments. And on that day as I hung up the phone I wondered if I had crossed the line. But over the last month, I realized that I hadn’t—that my descriptive terms were deserved, and appreciated by many people who feel run over by a process that can only be described as tyrannical. Fights like this one are not won by playing nicely while the other party kicks at your knees or groin. To win these fights you have to be willing to play every bit as dirty as they are—even harder. Because they have shown that they will not listen to reason, that they do not respect the opinions of the community majority, and will stop at nothing to satisfy their internal neurosis. So to the magic 100, thank you for letting me know you thought I did the right thing. It means a lot.
So why did they do it? Why didn’t Jason and Kimberly get a room down at the Fields Ertel exit during lunch where they could be alone? Or maybe take a drive in their car and park someplace private and do their business? The only conclusion one can make is arrogance, pure and simple.
Because Assistant Principal Keeton opened the door and became a third-party to the act, the labor union and Mason public relations by Tracy Carson could not clean up the public perception at that point. The two school employees resigned quickly, so that they could get jobs elsewhere once the heat was off. That is the mode of operation for all public schools.
Mason has been forced to avoid a tax increase attempt while the smoke clears from their year of scandals that could not be cleaned up by Tracy before the story got into the mainstream media. They managed to move their superintendent–who had knowledge of many sex scandals going on in Mason climaxing with the Stacy Schuler trial–to upper Ohio to avoid more scandalous damage. So as Stacy Schuler nobly stood in front of her accusers and took responsibility for her actions and went to jail for 48 months, there were many, many rats that had jumped off the ship in Mason to avoid massive investigations that would ruin everyone’s careers. Just like what has happened in Lakota, and is happening at this very moment in every public school in America. It’s a game to these public employees that is focused more on avoiding detection than in behaving correctly.
So why did Jason Austerman and Kimberly Rowland of the Mason school district do it, especially knowing the risk to Mason if they got caught? Because they are arrogant, they lack respect for themselves, their jobs, the community that employs them, and the money that funds the whole operation. They live in a government employment bubble of altered reality that does not understand responsibility for their actions because they lack competition in their business. Public school teachers and administrators can act badly and get away with it because they don’t fear losing their jobs unless their schools public relations department fails to protect them, and in those cases the next choice is to simply move to a different district. So there isn’t any fear of losing a job to keep their morality in check.
This latest case of malicious sex during school between school employees will not be the last. In fact, I’d go so far to say that it’s rampant. There is without question evidence that these things go on in every workplace, but in government positions they happen more often because in those jobs even the least bold among us lack fear of punishment for their actions. In most jobs coworkers might only think about doing the dirty deeds but will avoid the task out of fear of being caught. In government positions, especially well-paid teachers and administrators who do not work pay check to pay check with dimes to spare like most people, they have a luxurious life, short work hours, healthy compensation and a progressive work environment that is a direct result of the utopian hippie age where sex is free, personal possession is forbidden, and trust in a God for guiding principles is virtually nonexistent.
This won’t be the last time sex scandals break out in a school system. It is the job of the public relations personnel in these schools to cover for the Jason’s and the Kimberly’s of public education and all those who knew about the sex, but failed to act while trying to convince the public that they should continue to send their children to these education institutions, and that they should build their homes around such testaments of prosperity as public education. But upon a closer look, these institutions of learning are simply pornographic propaganda nightmares that do very little for the public of what they promise. The children come out of them half-baked, the parents pawn off much of the parenting to the third-party of public education because they fear the personal responsibility of actually being a parent. Meanwhile in a corner office darkened for effect there are animal noises coming from two impassioned school employees as they indulge in each other while students walk by the door outside and snicker. Most of the school employees know about it and avoid turning the door knob because of the scrutiny that in so doing might bring to their personal livelihoods. Reporting the activity might affect the next levy attempt, so they turn their attention the other way, and plot their own sexual moves to attempt to bed either Kimberly or Jason once one of them is free. And we wonder why our kids come out of public education so screwed up and demoralized. Just look to the animal sounds coming from the corner office with the door shut, but audaciously unlocked—almost daring someone to open it—and you’ll know why.
This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon
As you are reading this at 8:00 PM on April 25th 2012, Monroe Local Schools is having a special meeting with their school board to ask the public what to do about their multimillion dollar operating deficit. For some unknown reason, the district seems to believe that their costs magically spring up from the ground like grass, and they pretend they didn’t plant the seeds. The school board like all school boards everywhere plays dumb as to what put them into their financial situation to begin with, which are their labor costs. Monroe desperately wants another operating levy from the public to solve their financial problems, but they don’t want to end up like their neighbors to the south—Lakota and look like a bunch of bumbling fools going to the public three times in two years only to be rejected handedly each time.
It was only yesterday that Superintendent Mantia at Lakota and her public relations staff–that charges $60 per hour to the tax payer–made the final announcement that after several school board meetings, the school board finally agreed to cut 141 jobs to offset a $9 million budget deficit eventually slashing $10.5 million for the next school year. After the Monday night meeting similar to Monroe’s, Mantia and her empire of looters put out the call to the media around town that the cause of the cuts to the Lakota school system was the result of several levy defeats in recent years.
Serious……………..that’s what she said!
It’s no wonder all these schools are broke, no matter how much money tax payers send their way. Superintendent Karen Mantia of the Lakota school system makes $165,000 a year with up to a quarter million dollars in total compensation and she can’t even identify what the real problem is in solving her budget. What she does know how to do is complain about how sad it is that these 141 jobs are going to be cut, and how much every person on the layoff list has contributed to Lakota and the students. “They have served in every school, some in every grade level, and they have taught across the spectrum in many subjects. They have combined years of experience and the loss of these people is regrettable.”
She continued to say, “By experience, we know that we will receive some resignations in the upcoming months. We do have a recall list. We will recall employees up to two years as job openings arise and after that they will go through the usual hiring process.” Listening to the superintendent go on and on about how sad it is to lose all these jobs, it is easy to see what the priorities of the school are, and that is to provide jobs to the employees of the school, and the school believes that if they somehow cannot provide jobs to teachers and administrators then they have failed.
That’s the only way to explain Superintendent Mantia’s complete lack of understanding of what her budget problems are. She specifically stated that the problems were “caused” by the failed school levies over the last couple of years. She did not acknowledge the fact that the “cause” of her budget problems were that Lakota had too many employees making too much money on the pay role. She also did not say that she could have kept all 141 positions if she could have asked the labor union at the LEA to take a 3% pay reduction to save their “brothers and sisters” jobs at Lakota. No—nobody suggested that—except me.
Instead the superintendent of Lakota and the school board continued to display that they have no idea why they have a budget problem. This is why they allow their budget costs to control them instead of doing what the rest of the world outside of government does and that’s control costs. Mantia sounded just as dazed and confused as Timothy Gietner did recently declaring that the Obama Administration would do nothing to get out in front of the coming Medicare/Social Security meltdown except raise taxes on the rich, as if it wasn’t the Obama Administration policies that caused the problem. Lakota schools and the rest of the school boards across Ohio are all guilty of the same kind evasion, they truly seem to believe that they did not cause their own problems by making public school jobs some of the most coveted positions available in the modern economy, because nowhere else can an employee work so little and be paid so much. All these public employees have a nice little scam going, as if they truly believe the solution to the world’s problems is to give everyone a government job and everything will solve itself. Gietner certainly believes such things, and his boss Barry Obama certainly does—and without question Superintendent Mantia of Lakota does. That is why she’s so sad to see all those jobs go, even though most of them should have been cut a year or two ago anyway.
I know one of the positions at Lakota that will be vacant soon is Keith Klein who interviewed today for an assistant superintendent position in another distirct. Klein is currently the principle at Lakota East. That’s good, because once Klein leaves Lakota will save an additional $110,000 per year in wages. Since enrollment will be down at Lakota in the coming years that means there will be many more employees like Keith Klein who occupy wages at the top of the pay scale will also be leaving to avoid the kind of things that are crawling around in the wake of good ol’ Keith. In fact, the layoffs that Mantia announced are just the start. Within a few years there will be a number of school buildings that will be empty as there just won’t be enough students to fill them, and thus—no need for the employees any longer. Lakota’s budget next year is set to be $154 million, and as enrollment demands drop off, and employees like Keith Klein continue to turn in their resignations saving the district millions with their departure, Lakota looks to have a promising future.
But school officials are having this activity happen to them by default because the communities have taken the steps of turning off the money to these bottomless pits of government school budgets. They didn’t come up with these management methods on their own, which is why Superintendent Mantia looks like she just got blasted out of a cannon, because everything that is happening to her goes against her training as a government school employee—which was to make good paying jobs off tax payer money. Suddenly the tax payers have said they’ve had enough, and no more money is coming, so the schools have to figure out how to solve their problems—like they should have always been doing.
Monroe schools hopes that they can avoid the fate of Lakota by dancing around the issue as long as they can. Hopefully for them–if they are lucky–they will see many of their top wage earners employed at their school retire or leave for another school system so that budget room will be freed up. This is how you balance a budget. If your revenue is limited, which at some point they all must be, then you ask employees to live within the budget with pay reductions, or you reduce the number of employees to meet your revenue. Throwing a fit like a small child is not acceptable, and spending even more money on public relations manipulation in an effort to make the public feel sorry for the management of the district is pathetic, and pretentious. Hopefully Monroe will learn something from Superintendent Mantia and not make fools of themselves with a lot of noise that essentially means nothing, because the voice of the public must be obeyed and not twisted maliciously as Lakota has attempted to do which divided the community in half politically. In the end the community will come to realize in Monroe what has been learned in Lakota, and that’s all government schools are microcosms of the macrocosm of government in general. And attempting to feed that monster is a worthless enterprise and the sooner people stop doing it, the sooner they can stop being eaten by a system that never stops being hungry and seeks to devour everything in their path on a mission to destroy private enterprise, private property, and enslave the whole world into more and more government.
In advance I must say I’m sorry because this posting will be difficult for many of my readers here to deal with. Before I get into the details of this article let me state that it is better to have something of a spiritual nature that holds together a personality even if they do not get that spiritual means from any other source than religion. I am far from a godless heathen in the way I conduct my own life and for many years the church was important to me. But there comes a time when you either keep growing or you stop, and I never stopped. I outgrew the confines of any religion in a personal quest for knowledge and philosophy that has replaced that spiritual growth for me which I consider to be much larger than the teachings that come from just The Holy Bible.
This small disclosure is needed for a reason, there are two modern philosophers who have done work that will save the world by saving America, and they need to be studied. Any barrier which stands in the way of learning what these people had to say needs to be addressed. It is one thing to study the Founding Fathers and what they had to say, but the task of our modern age is different, and will require a different level of understanding to accomplish. We cannot just repeat what was done in the past, but must learn from it and translate it to our modern circumstances, and to understand the perspective of where America finds itself in 2012 this information is important.
A few times a year he makes port with his boat in New York and picks up his royalty check from his publisher, then he goes back out to sea to disappear for months at a time. He made his contribution to the human race and he’s done—and I don’t blame him one bit.
The turn-off that many people have toward Ayn Rand is that she did not believe in God, and her reasons are for the same reasons that Aristotle and Plato were fundamentally in intellectual combat all the time. Plato eventually at the end of his life began to see that Aristotle was correct in the belief that “The truth resides in the world around us.” Plato on the other hand believed that “Earthly knowledge is but a shadow.” Plato thought that forms in the living world were to some degree less than an unseen, unknowable supreme being that is just out of reach of our conscious reality. It is Plato who was used by later philosophers such as Boethius in 480 CE to help formulate the terms of Christianity in the church and create what we think of God here in the modern age. Boethius wrote the masterful book The Consolation of Philosophy while in prison awaiting execution for treason. It was in this work by Boethius that many of the myths about a living God emerged such as “God foresees our free thoughts and actions,” and that God is beyond time. Descartes, Leibniz and Kant would proceed on with Plato’s corrupted theory through the Dark Ages into the modern progressive age. It would be Immanuel Kant that the academics of Europe and America would attempt to mold the progressive philosophy from and Karl Marx was a huge fan of Kant. The flaw in Plato’s thinking was not malicious, nor did it take away from his creative genius. His thoughts were improved by Aristotle by competition of thought and many problems Plato had in his theory were solved by Aristotle. But Aristotle was rejected by the medieval churches because Aristotle didn’t fit the agenda of social control, and Plato did.
After Aristotle died there was a philosopher by the name of Epicurus from 341-to 270 BCE who took Aristotle’s ideas a bit further. He determined that if mankind could overcome a fear of death, then we can be happy. On the last day of his life, knowing he would be dead by the end of the day he was asked if he was still happy. He replied, that he was truly happy—as he had rejected any fear of death in his life. It was Epicurus, known by many in the Dark Ages as a man in pursuit of sensual pleasures by rejecting the idea that his actions in this life were in a quest to obtain something better in the next life. It was John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century who much later revived the ideas of Epicureanism putting the idea in the head of the American Founding Fathers. It is because of Epicurus that the term, “Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” was put into TheDeclaration of Independence. It was Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers who embraced Aristotle in favor of Plato. And it was Ayn Rand who took Aristotle to a whole new level in objectivism. She has done for Aristotle what Kant did for Plato.
The modern cry out for a fix to the worlds moral state of depravity is because everything the human race thinks and believes was built off a false premise that Plato himself attempted to correct later, but the editors of history looking to the passive collectivism in Plato’s belief of a superior afterlife created flocks of human slaves ready for worldly representatives who could communicate with the Gods.
After Epicurus died, Greek philosophy quickly declined and the Roman Empire rose to power. The Romans applied stoicism which placed duty before self. As America became a world power and considered itself to be more like Rome, our military had adopted the Roman practice of honor in sacrifice. Of course the Romans advocated stoicism to serve the needs of the empire and this went on until Constantine declared himself a Christian by signing the Edict of Milan which allowed Christians for the first time to profess their religious beliefs.
The Roman Empire fell basically in 395 CE with the division of the Empire into East and West and the vacuum of philosophy and the arts vacant in Europe and the Mediterranean since the time of the Greeks was satisfied by various churches trying to fill the power void left in the wake. This was the beginning of The Dark Ages and the churches needed a way to gain control of the various segments of the population no longer under the obedience of the Roman Empire. St Augustine of Hippo 354 to 430 CE had began to devote himself to Christianity and proposed that God is not responsible for evils which led to the interpretation of the Fall in the Garden story of Adam and Eve. The Hebrew Bible began to take shape as early as the 7th and 10th centuries organized by Masoretes. The Codex Amiatinus was produced in the 8th century, but it wasn’t until TheGutenberg Bible printed in 1452 that a Bible could be given to anyone outside of a church for comprehension and personal study. Until that time all information was passed to the masses through the church, which they ruled with an iron fist.
Many of the books in the Bible were not written or translated until several centuries after the passing of Christ. Given the nature of the churches in the Dark Ages, I would suspect anything they put into a biblical translation, or left out. To me the Bible makes an interesting story, but it doesn’t come close to providing irrefutable truths about faith or the nature of God. It was not constructed by the hand of God, but by just another group of tyrants running the churches at the time. By the time the first Bibles were available for printed publication, well over 1000 years had transpired from the times of Christ.
A few hundred years after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim religion started as they sought to translate Aristotle’s work into the formation of their religion. Evolving in parallel with Christianity following closely the teachings of Zoroastrianism the Muslim religion did not have a Quran (Koran) at the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. Zoroastrianism had been prevalent in the modern area of Iran as early as 6th century BCE and had gradually been assimilated into Islam. Both Christianity and the Muslim faith resemble great similarities to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism would be revived by Friedrich Nietzsche in his book about the Übermensch (translated to overman—the name of this site) called Thus Spoke Zarathustra, named his main character after the prophet of Zoroastrianism.
Dear reader—I am telling you all this so that you can understand the shallowness of our human history and the beliefs that have brought us to this point. Much of what America did right in its creation was created by philosophies built upon the shoulders of Aristotle. Much of what we have done wrong has been done on the shoulders of Plato. It really comes down to those two thinkers. Everyone else has simply added to the basic ideas between those two philosophers. Aristotle was rejected until Thomas Aquinas talked the church into reviving the philosopher around 1270 CE, and it was Aristotle who had filled the gaps of his master Plato. Yet it was the churches, and the philosopher Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, then Woodrow Wilson, then Franklin Roosevelt, then John Kennedy, then Lyndon Johnston who brought to America more of Plato’s philosophy with an emphasis on religion from the Dark Ages through the writings of Kant and Roman stoicism. And that is where we have gone wrong as a country.
Ayn Rand has put her philosophy of Objectivism behind the work of Aristotle and when our nation functioned with a leaning under Aristotelian terms due to philosophers like John Locke whom the Founding Fathers read heavily, America worked better than anywhere in the world, much the way Greece did before the death of Aristotle. A country is built on the ideas of the people who inhabit the nation, and depending on the quality of the minds of those individuals a society will have success or failure. America is failing because it is functioning from the wrong ideas, so it is time to get rid of what doesn’t work and replace it with what does.
I’m certainly not asking anybody to give up their Bibles or their religions. But I am asking you dear reader to repot yourself into a larger container and give your roots some room to spread so you can grow even more. As human beings we are only performing at a fraction of what we are capable of, and progressives are using the same methods that created the Dark Ages to keep mankind as small plants in small pots with no room to grow. I didn’t learn all that I showed above in public school—in fact not one word of it. I may have heard the names of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle in my high school anthropology class, which I did enjoy. I learned all that from reading—and reading a lot. And being willing to go outside my comfort zone in pursuit of truths that no teacher could give me—because most of the teachers I ran into were practicing evasion tactics in their own lives and were certainly not in a condition to teach others.
But Ayn Rand should not be avoided just because she didn’t believe in a God the way the Bible instructs. She asked for proof and in the world of the living there were no signs of such proof. Ayn Rand demanded explanations for what she believed and why she believed it. Regulating certain thoughts to the blankness of a superior world that is unknowable, has left thieves and looters open to scam society with false teachings and speculation anchored in an afterlife. This is what looter politicians and corrupt representatives of the churches have done for many years—they prayed on the weak-minded who had been looking for salvation in their lives. Churches and governments both appeal to the masses through collectivism, and if America is to ever find itself again, it must eliminate collectivism from its vocabulary and protect the rights of individuals in the here and now.
One of those methods of replacing collectivism in American culture with a philosophy grounded in the roots of Aristotle, properly–as the greek texts had conceived before the corruption of interpretation exploding forth in the Dark Ages is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Today, it is Leonard Peikoff who carries Rand’s message as he is the official authorized presenter of Objectivism through his classes over many years starting in 1976. Objecitivism is the next step for the human beings of the world as it’s logic is destined to replace all the superstitions and theory of many years of religious turmoil and philosophic limitation. Below are an entire course worth of videos from Leonard Peikoff himself as he provided this philosophy to one of his classes. If you are a fan of Rand’s work such as Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, you will learn why those works are so powerful to you by watching Peikoff’s presentation. If you reject Ayn Rand in anger, or fear, you will learn why you are wrong in your thoughts. Philosophy is the foundation of everything, so if society is broken in some way, it is because the metaphysics and epistemology of the society is wrong at its basic premise. This is not an idea that can be cheated, or corrected with further spending. It can only be fixed with correction into the metaphysics and epistemology of a societies philosophy.
Religion is a guide for a person’s eternal life, and whatever method one chooses to utilize in getting there is perfectly fine. But radical Muslims cannot be allowed to inflict their beliefs on the rest of America and threaten to kill everyone who doesn’t believe in their shallow version of history. And Christians are in the same situation. Zionists have a right to exist and much of the trouble in present day Palestine and Israel are conflicts over the same plot of land as interpreted by the religious beliefs that were stemmed off the sources shown above. They have more in common then they have apart, yet they are willing to kill with the simple mindedness of stoicism utilized in the Roman Empire to bend the opposing belief system into their way of thinking. And this behavior is perpetuated by powerful interests all over the world who actually wish to rule in the same way that the churches did in The Dark Ages.
For all these reasons discussed above the great mind of Robert Pirsig is sailing out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, or perhaps even the Caribbean right now aloof to it all. I know people who attempt to read his books and find themsevles reading them over and over again never quite getting the concepts. This is because they still have their roots in too small of a pot–the world of Plato and Kent. But just because it’s hard, or different does not mean it’s not right. You can see more about Robert Pirsig at the link below.
It’s not enough to wave the flag and proclaim change. You have to know what you want to change into, or in the case of The United States, what we want to revert back into. We have to know what part of our history worked and why, then commit ourselves to the act of getting there. I am not quite where Robert Pirsig is, where I’m willing to drop the world and walk off—because that’s what he did. Lucky for us Ayn Rand never did that. She stayed with the attempt of waking up the world her entire life, arguing against the foolishness of building the entire human race around Platonic thought with one eye everyday toward death allowing priests, politicians and simple looters to believe their souls could be saved if they coerced society into collective salivation through their toxic manipulations. The key to all life, to the betterment of all the world is to wake up the soul of every single human being and get them to treat their soul well in the here and now with an eye on today and living a good life as an individual of value and end the global practice of evasion utilized by the second-handlers of religion and politics. God gave human beings the gift of reason, and it is an insult to the universe if we simply refuse to use it due to half-hearted beliefs rooted in a time thousands of years ago that was faulty from the start, and identified. But the looters of logic stole the broken thoughts and passed them through the centuries to arrive before us all today in modern America. The key is in our minds already—all we lack is the courage to use it.
It is amazing how tilted the table is when someone isn’t a liberal, progressive, or public employee thief yet uses inflammatory language to make a point—because the other side certainly does it. Wasn’t it Barrack Obama who threatened to blow up the Jonas Brothers to protect his children with a predator drone. Hmmmmmmm…….or what about when President Obama’s union brother Jimmy Hoffa said he was going to “take these sons of bitches out” meaning the Tea Party at a rally in Detroit during the election of 2011. Apparently, the rules are, if you are from one side of the political aisle, you can say and do anything you want. If you are from the other side, like Ted Nugent, or Sarah Palin then everything said will be used against you in the court of public opinion.
The newspapers carried the story with vivid language used by me to describe my latté sipping enemies in full text, which surprised me. Every radio station in town read those articles on the air to over a million listeners combined in the tri-state area of Cincinnati. I heard it on radios when I went to pump gas at the gas station, from the kitchens of restaurants when I went out to eat, and from the downed windows in people’s cars. It was on FM radio as well as AM radio all day long. It was my first time up close and personal in seeing the kind of progressive manipulation that I’ve watched happen to people like Mel Gibson after he made the film The Passion, Rush Limbaugh on many occasions particularly over his Donovan McNabb comments a few years ago, and Glenn Beck countless times. Growing up I watched how progressive film reviewers went after Clint Eastwood aggressively over every film he made, particularly the Dirty Harry films and Eastwood would purposely fight back with pithy comments of his own. This went on until Eastwood made the film White Hunter Black Heart and decidedly become more of a filmmaking moderate then progressives no longer saw him as a threat and started to let him off the hook.
Progressive antagonists have learned these character assassination tactics properly from people like Saul Alinsky—who was trained by the mob in Chicago—how to engage in public relations terrorism, and they have used those tactics to eliminate their political enemies with the same effectiveness. When a political enemy has the moral high ground they are to be put on their defenses by answering a negative—which cannot be overcome easily. In Mel Gibson’s case he was a wild and crazy party guy for years and Hollywood loved him for it. All during his Lethal Weapon films his antics with women and drinking were legendary and everyone wanted to party with Mel. But Mel had a very serious side, which started to come out in films like Man Without a Face, and eventually Braveheart referenced by Ted Nugent. After Braveheart Mel became a serious threat. Hollywood wanted more of that kind of material, but they failed to understand where in Gibson’s heart these films came from. Braveheart was a very passionate, patriotic film, but it was about the faraway land of Scotland. Mel Gibson gave studios what they thought they wanted with The Patriot, which was another Braveheart type of film, but this time centering on the American Revolution and that crossed the line of the progressive agenda. At that point, progressives in the film community started coming after Mel Gibson with their name calling terrorism.
Gibson responded to his critics by making one of the most obscure and controversial films in the history of cinema, The Passion. He showed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in all the glory a long time Catholic might envision, and he had a creative license to do so. After all—it’s a free society and anybody is allowed to make a film about the life of Christ and they have tried. They just didn’t do it as good—and with the horsepower of Mel Gibson. So the forces who seek to strip away religion in America and implement the progressive agenda had enough of Mel Gibson. No longer would his wild exploits with women be accepted, or his untamed drinking–many of the things that made him popular in the first place. Now Mel Gibson would be called anti-Semitic by his political enemies and he will carry that label for the rest of his life. It’s similar to being branded on the forehead in a puritan community for adultery.
My political enemies attempted to use all these methods on me even at the local level to brand me forever as a “woman hater” because I don’t support the progressive platform of women. The evidence in my life clearly shows that I love women, but in the court of public opinion, that doesn’t matter. Progressives are not interested in facts, they are only interested in what advances their agenda and there is a double standard. They are allowed to cast any aspersion desired since many of them don’t have any value system that allows them to feel guilt. The same tactics cannot be used back at them, by the rules they’ve established, because they hide their individuality into a collective blob of mob mentality.
This disparity has occurred down the basic line of good and evil. Those who are good in heart and mind even if they are wild and crazy guys like Mel Gibson tend to care too much to play this game, and they end up playing the game poorly losing almost every time. The typical progressive does not have individual value—their values are in group assimilation—so as long as the group is behind them, they are happy no matter what coercion methods are used. But for people like me, or Ted Nugent, or Clint Eastwood over the years, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh—people who stand individually out on that limb and take the risk of it being cut off—they are vulnerable, and the progressive assimilation knows it. Individuals have no support structure.
Their methods have worked for over 100 years—that is, until now. What the collectivist progressives do not understand is the ability of the individual to stand on their own. Mel Gibson has shown that he could care less what people say about him and he is proceeding on. Ted Nugent is obviously not in the least rattled by his little visit by the Secret Service, and he could care less if Mitt Romney decides to play the pussy game of the typical conservative and distance himself from Nugent, even after Ted offered his endorsement.Such people are no different from Judas betraying Jesus showed so vividly in Mel Gibson’s The Passion. For me, I’ve been kissed on the cheek by so many “Judas” types over the years that I simply wipe away the lipstick with the same disregard that I pick bugs off my face after a long motorcycle ride. It simply doesn’t faze me, because I expect betrayal and weakness when dealing with collectivists. Those weaknesses cannot be allowed to set public policy any more. To fight the progressive you have to no longer care what they think or say. You just have to act authentically from the center of your own conscience.
And do yourself a favor—if you haven’t watched it in a while, watch The Patriot, by Mel Gibson. It is because of films like that—that he suffers now. So show your appreciation by encouraging your families and friends to see it again. Stand by those who stand individually against the waves of tyranny–because it’s not easy, and their actions are all that stands between freedom and serfdom for everyone else.
