Posts Tagged ‘drug cartels’
Labor Unions Should Be Prosecuted Under the Sherman Act: The largest coercive monopolies in the world go unpunished
To prove that the government is involved in a coercive monopoly with labor unions both private and public, examine the evidence, and the path of behavior which delivered us to the conditions of 2013 where much is made over the size and ambition of virtually any company or financial entity endeavoring to make money. The landmark case of the government against private business establishing the terms of what “the government” considers a financial monopoly can be seen in the United States v. Alcoa case from 1945.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law. Judge Learned Hand‘s opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Justice Department charged Alcoa with illegal monopolization and demanded that the company be dissolved. Trial began on June 1, 1938. The trial judge dismissed the case four years later. The government appealed. Two years later in 1944, the Supreme Court announced that it could not assemble a quorum to hear the case so it referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the following year, Learned Hand wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit.
Alcoa argued that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies.
Learned Hand J held that he could consider only the percentage of the market in “virgin aluminum” for which Alcoa accounted. Alcoa had argued that it was in the position of having to compete with scrap. Even if the scrap was aluminum that Alcoa had manufactured in the first instance, it no longer controlled its marketing. But Hand defined the relevant market narrowly in accord with the prosecution’s theory. Hand applied a rule concerning practices that are illegal per se. It did not matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one. In Hand’s words,
“ It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.
Hand acknowledged the possibility that a monopoly might just happen, without anyone’s having planned for it. If it did, then there would be no wrong, no liability, and no need to remedy the result. But that acknowledgement has generally been seen as an empty one in the context of the rest of the opinion; because of course rivals in a market routinely plan to outdo one another, at the least by increasing efficiency and appealing more effectively to actual and potential customers. If one competitor succeeds through such plans to the extent of 90% of the market, that planning can be described given Hand’s reasoning as the successful and illegal monopolization of the market.
The basics of the case were that Judge Hand decided that Alcoa Aluminum was guilty of operating as a monopoly because their superior manufacturing techniques had deemed them so much better than their competition and they had to be stopped so that other companies could compete. This case set up the history for which much of the modern business landscape has been established for the worse, and is the direct example of “the government” sticking its nose into the business of potential revenue generation to micromanage Alcoa into become less threatening to its competition so that other, less productive companies could gain a helping hand from the government to stay in business. These days we would call this “wealth redistribution,” as wealth and potential profit were stolen from Alcoa through the court system and delivered to its business rivals. Many today have long forgotten about these antitrust laws allowing the government to behave in such a fashion. Most people assume that things have always been as they are now. But the government intrusion attacking capitalism with Karl Marx inspired socialist tendencies began roughly 40 years after the Communist Manifesto was published for the world to read paving the way for that collective based philosophy. In Russia, the communist movement came on the heels of World War I and through the seductive words of Lenin in 1917. In The United States because of the independent nature of the average American, it came subtly through government regulation beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which was the measure used in the Alcoa case.
Sherman Antitrust Act, basic federal enactment regulating the operations of corporate trusts, passed by the U.S. Congress in July 1890, through the efforts of Senator John Sherman of Ohio. The act declared illegal “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Criminal penalties were provided for violators of the law, and aggrieved persons were entitled to recover three times the amount of losses suffered as a result of the violation. The Sherman Act has been amended and supplemented by several subsequent enactments. Most notable among these enactments was the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. See Monopoly; Trusts.
A few years later with the rise of progressive politics in America following the aggressive behavior of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but never learned to make any real money of his own, progressives applied antitrust laws against “big business.” The Clayton Antitrust Act was passed in 1914. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time and represented the most aggressive push in history where academic intellectuals attempted to gain power through regulation, as their theories could not compete head to head with the titans of industry. So they used the government to perform coercive monopolies against any organization who thought they were too big to bow at the feet of the political class. Wilson and the Roosevelts both Teddy and Franklin a few years later were deeply in love with European politics and were inspired by the works of Karl Marx and used progressive action by government to further strengthen the Sherman Act.
Clayton Antitrust Act, legislation passed by the Congress of the United States in 1914 to prohibit certain monopolistic practices that were then common in finance, industry, and trade (see Monopoly). Sponsored by Alabama congressman Henry De Lamar Clayton, the Clayton Antitrust Act was adopted as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Designed to deal with new monopolistic practices, the act contained provisions covering corporate activities, remedies for reform, and labor disputes. Unfavorable court interpretations weakened the act, however, and additional legislation was required finally to carry out its aims.
Fair Trade Laws, in commerce, legislation permitting manufacturers to set minimum resale prices for their branded products sold by retailers to consumers. The proliferation of chain stores prompted attempts to introduce such legislation in the 1920s to prevent the price-cutting policies characteristic of the chains, but passage of regulatory state laws did not occur until California led the way in 1931. By the 1940s all but three states had enacted fair trade laws governing intrastate transactions. Although the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited all price-fixing agreements in or affecting interstate commerce, it was amended by the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937. This new act permitted resale price maintenance agreements on trademarked commodities sold in interstate commerce in states where contracts between manufacturers or wholesalers and retailers were sanctioned by state legislation. A 1951 Supreme Court ruling released all merchants who had not signed such contracts from the requirements of this act. The McGuire Act, passed by Congress in 1952 , reestablished the requirement that nonsigners abide by the same terms as signers of contracts. Although subsequent Supreme Court rulings upheld price fixing, the laws were challenged in state courts and enforcement became increasing difficult. In 1975 President Gerald Ford signed in law an act repealing the Miller-Tydings and McGuire acts, again making all resale price-fixing agreements affecting interstate commerce a violation of federal antitrust laws. Most states subsequently repealed their fair trade laws.
This of course brings us to the modern age where companies terrified of being accused of a monopoly status must send lobbyists to Washington to pad the pockets of politicians with riches hoping to avoid the dreadful designations and court proceedings which can come out of an antitrust case. Now, before anyone states that the events so far discussed are “ancient history” and not relevant to the modern age, let us examine the most recent example of government trust busting where it used The Justice Department to prosecute Microsoft for being too big using the Sherman Act to do so.
United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (2001) is a US antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states.Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor.
The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating systemsales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer(IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft’s position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies.
It can be argued that Microsoft has never been the same company since that case. A few years later, Bill Gates retired to philanthropy to become a guilt ridden ex-capitalist attempting to further expand the government education empire of which he rejected as a youth to wash away the sins exposed by the government prosecuting him for his lack of business altruism. Microsoft prior to that case did not effectively use lobbyists in Washington to pay off the trolls of legislation, which is something they remedied after that case and many companies followed. The message to business in America was that if a company decided that it wanted to corner the market through competitive superiority, then they would be punished—unless however a company sent representatives to K-Street to grease the wheels of politics away from prying eyes.
The government established itself as a crusader for “the people” in an attempt to create a “fair” business environment, as defined by socialists, communists, progressives, and other Karl Marx fans. Yet their attention only gazes in one direction—toward money making enterprises. They ignore however the antitrust of the labor unions who hijack business labor, especially in the public sector with excessively aggressive examples of coercive monopoly. Unions avoid the ridicule because the antitrust laws have been designated toward the bourgeoisie producers of products to use Karl Marx’s term and ignores the actions of labor which is inserted as a competitor within any organization dealing with labor unions. This action is most evident in the public sector unions of education where their behavior prevents competition, deliberately drives up the wage rates outside of market parameters, and is the grossest modern example of a coercive monopoly. As defined by the government in their cases against Alcoa back in 1945 and Microsoft in 1998, teacher unions and education institutions in general are the absolute worst forms of coercive monopoly in existence. Based on their behavior, they may be the worst to ever exist in the history of the world. Education unions steal tax money by striking, preventing competition through force, protest, and lobbying having a sole purpose of maintaining a labor monopoly by excluding entry into their markets with “force.” In this way, modern unions are far, far worse than Alcoa ever was as a monopoly power, or Microsoft ever came to be, yet no politician thinks to attempt prosecution against the labor unions in a way that Senator John Sherman of Ohio did back in 1890 toward business or Henry De Lamar Clayton did in 1914. But why?
We have seen in Ohio and Wisconsin what happens when legislators attempt to apply such rules to unions; the unions use their coercive monopoly to apply physical harm to legislators who attempt to designate their actions in such a fashion. CLICK HERE FOR AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE BY THE SEIU IN OHIO. Businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft didn’t act in such a fashion. That is why they were picked on by the government. Government like the labor unions of which both are products of socialism, achieve their goals trough coercive monopolies and they use their power, and desire to use force to extort from those too placid to fight back. In the case of businesses like Alcoa and Microsoft, they were producers who have everything to lose; the government has nothing to lose since its sole function is to steal from others to fill itself. In a conflict, this gives the government the upper hand. This is the cause of the lobby influence in Washington to this day. The goal of the lobbyists is to keep the government in their offices and away from prosecution using the Sherman Act to attack their companies with antitrust violations. Yet the same doesn’t work the other way as it should. Legislators fear applying the same antitrust terminology to a firefighter union, a police force, or any of the teacher unions even though they engage in exactly or worse antitrust violations than have ever occurred—anywhere, because the unions operate through fear, intimidation, and extortion. Legislators instead of confronting them, attack people like Bill Gates, a computer geek who became wealthy inventing the computer industry from his garage as a college dropout. No threat there. Or they attack Alcoa for simply being too good at their business.
The hypocrisy is obvious, and demands serious analysis. Labor unions in The United States are parasitic entities that only exist through coercive monopoly status. They are the cause of continuous tax increases and unmanaged local budgets. They don’t get paid based on the quality of their work, but from the fear they inspire into the political machine. They, unlike Microsoft or Alcoa are not the best in their fields of endeavor, they are simply willing to use force to achieve their desires—and that means they should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law with the same gusto that The Sherman Act was created and for the same reasons. The only reason they are not is because legislators are afraid to put such words into the public for fear that they will be examined by history for taking away the “rights” of such people. What those politicians don’t know because they lack a study of history is that such rights do not exist—except in the mind of Karl Marx, where the labor unions were born using tactics that have built the worst coercive monopolies in the history of mankind—all on the backs of the American taxpayer, while the innocent are hung like thieves by the murderers of capitalism—labor unions and their government conspirators with their coercive monopoly which involves the legal system.
Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
What Happens at a Tea Party Meeting: Agenda 21, Commissioner Disputes, and two candidates running as West Chester Trustees
Many wonder what happens at Tea Party meetings. Some fantasize that the participants dress up in 1776 outfits and talk about raiding the federal government. But the reality is much different as can be seen in the video below where members presented updates of political happenings occurring in the local community. In the case of the example below the general theme of the meeting was highlighting instances where local politicians showed a tendency to take federal money and sacrifice the sovereignty of a state or local management by doing so. At the West Chester meeting of March 19, 2013 an update of the Butler County Commissioners was given and a very dramatic update with film footage of the West Chester Trustees meeting. A central Tea Party concern which comes up at many trustee and commissioner meetings locally all over America is the impact of Agenda 21 which is a list of mandates created by The United Nations to impose its will upon The United States negating the effectiveness of elected offices. Agenda 21 is a far left-winged philosophy constructed by the architects of Socialist International and has cleverly been imposed upon a vast majority of American municipalities riding on the back of federal money, which politicians like West Chester Trustees Catherine Stoker and Lee Wong vote in favor of so they can gain access to the funding. (CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO) George Lang during a recent meeting addressed this issue of Agenda 21 only to get a colorful rebuke from Stoker at the 16:45 minute mark of the below video.
The mistakes that Catherine made during the exchange is the same that Governor Kasich is currently doing with Medicaid expansion in the state of Ohio, the federal government dangles money raised through taxes like a carrot in front of the greedy faces of people like Stoker and the temptation nearly 100% of the time is to grab it. Stoker and trustee president Lee Wong want the federal grant being argued about at the trustee meeting because it will free up money to be used in other places and provide relief to their budgets. For a politician creating a new bike path or a new bridge to nowhere is all too tempting as it provides them something to do, and an achievement for which to be re-elected on. Any time a politician can build something with other people’s money then take credit for the achievement it makes their résumé more attractive to re-election allowing continued access to the perks of elected office. The architects of Agenda 21 knew this a long time ago. They knew that Americans would never accept direct infiltration of socialist ideas, so they constructed their plan to exploit the weakness in America of poorly qualified politicians eagerly seeking federal money to prop up their careers instead of managing their finances.
The easiest way to understand this relationship is through any local public school system. Typically financially strapped school boards are always looking for new federal programs to help them hedge against the costs of their labor force which is always on the rise. School boards actively apply for Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and Common Core programs so that they can gain access to federal money in the same way that West Chester trustees seek a grant to construct a sidewalk. In schools which are run by progressive labor unions—the same kind of international forces committed to Agenda 21 strategies shape their policies as well. They openly push to exceed their payroll from the previous year not so that teachers can be well paid, but so school boards will always have a need for federal money to absorb the 3% to 7% labor increases incurred every fiscal year. When the labor unions at the national and international level push for more money in their membership they achieve two things, they gain “useful idiots” who are so well paid that they won’t question the source of the money and will fight in the trenches to always apply pressure on management causing them to act irrationally reaching for federal money. They then can achieve the real objective of superseding local management authority of curriculum decisions by imposing the will of The United Nations which comes with the federal money. This is the current danger with Common Core instruction. The federal money allows some pinhead in a faraway land to decide what goes on a school curriculum and the tendency of public unions to continuously be overpaid forcing elected management to the public coffers to accept handouts. To gain the money Agenda 21 type strategies must be accepted as the condition for taking the money.
Obviously Catherine Stoker did not appreciate George Lang even bringing up Agenda 21. In all reality she probably has no idea that it may have originated in some Geneva gentleman’s club constructed on paper over watered down whiskey and lap dances given to comb-over U.N. bureaucrats pretending they are ruling the world through legislation instead of the way their European ancestors did—by the point of a sword. Stoker like tens of thousands of politicians just like her all over The United States doesn’t want to know about Agenda 21. They want to simply take the money like a teenager who has just received their first credit card and begin charging all the things they want to buy to a federal credit limit to be paid later by somebody else long after they have built their personal legacies.
After seeing that video and the disgusting transactions that occurred, two West Chester citizens stepped forward to announce that they were going to run for trustee against Lee Wong and Cathy Stoker in the upcoming 2013 election. It was Mark Welch who stepped forward during the video to announce his candidacy. Obviously he had been teetering on the subject for some time, and like many, he is busy with his personal business and has better things to do. Usually it’s the vacant souls who run for office because they need elected office to fill their social identities with something useful. But this is how management of taxpayer resources becomes so distorted—which prompted Welch to act. Seeing Stoker so recklessly accept federal grant money for a stupid sidewalk was enough for him to commit to the cause. Another man after the camera was turned off and the meeting was dispersing announced his candidacy as well. Mathew King threw his hat into the ring with the intention to help bring fiscal sanity to West Chester by contributing real management to the Board of Trustees for a change. George Lang is a successful person in his private life so he does not seek office to prop himself up as many do—which is why he can see why taking federal money is a bad idea. But he is only one vote out of three, and the other trustees who are both up for re-election in 2013 do not share his values. The other two trustees are obviously using their office to fill a personal void in their lives that can only be filled with other people’s money—and this makes them dangerous necessitating a need for others like Lang to run for elected office.
Both Mathew King and Mark Welch are already independently successful so they do not need the nameplate of elected office to advance their careers. That is why they should be trustees instead of the typical politician like Stoker who has her hand out for every federal dollar she can qualify for. Ultimately, these are the kinds of things that routinely happen at local Tea Party events all over the nation. I have to been to many of them, and spoken at several myself, from Oxford, to Clermont County all falling under the umbrella of The Cincinnati Tea Party where the host of The West Chester Tea Party is also the president. The people who attend typically are very caring and have arrived at a stage in their lives where they value wisdom and share it openly with the other members. What I like about Tea Party members most is that typically most of them read, and read a lot. A love of books and all things literary is a common attribute to Tea Party members. For that reason alone I would support the candidacy of the two men who vowed to run for the two open trustee seats—because they are most likely to read the fine print of contracts and federal mandates before committing West Chester to federal control designed by far-away legislators seeking to impose progressive manipulation upon local management through Agenda 21. If not for the Tea Party, there would be nothing to stop such global power grabs and the erosion of freedom which comes from every federal dollar taken by the hand of a worthless politician who wants to build just one more sidewalk to paint upon their tombstones a glory that can only be purchased with other people’s money.
So why the hoopla over Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster that recently took place during the first full week of March 2013? Well the political clatter is over whether or not a President of The United States can assassinate American citizens on American soil at their discretion. The controversial implication is the automated response—how could anyone conceive that an American president would ever act against the people who elected them? The suggestion is a frightening one and most people are not prepared to deal with such a reality—yet that is exactly what the wording that the Justice Department has been attempting to preserve for President Obama with legal language that could easily be conjured up for some future political maneuver. The alarm signs with the Obama administration and his Justice Department started years ago when they openly endorsed the voter harassment antics of the Black Panthers at polling places, then were caught in the terrible gun running scandal of Fast and Furious. Then there was the tragedy of Benghazi which appears to be the result of the President’s military action against Libya without Congressional approval. In spite of what the Obama administration has said about their peaceful intentions, and desire for justice, their actions display a hunger for power that is dangerous, which is why Rand Paul wants to make sure that the language of the law is defined in this moment of history for clarity, which is required given the level of deception that is common in politics.
It is sad that there are members of our American Republic who are so naive that they cannot see the mechanisms of evil that work behind the masses of collective rule. Even though publicly there appears to be great differences behind the recently deceased Hugo Chavez who was the socialist dictator of Venezuela and President Obama, the big differences are in the checks and balances in The United States with the Constitutional power given to individual people and the House and Senate. Idealistically Chavez and Obama might as well be identical twins, as Obama if left unchecked would undoubtedly run America in the same fashion that Chavez ran Venezuela—which appears to be Obama’s intention. Progressives believe that if they don’t name an evil, that it doesn’t exist so they expect Obama’s actions to go un-noticed because the public façade is named to be conducted under the umbrella of goodness.
Yet real reporters like Bill O’Reilly are just now beginning to arrive at the dark place that many of us in the Tea Party movement have been declaring all along only to be shrugged off as conspiracy. Is President Obama intentionally attempting to harm The United States through economic collapse? I have stated that I believe Obama is doing just that and the evidence is stacking up in my favor. But even mainstream reporters who might lean conservative, but attempt to be as fair as possible are starting to catch on that there is something really wrong with President Obama. This led to one of the most explosive, and frustrated interviews that O’Reilly has had in many years when the liberal talk show host Alan Colmes attempted to defend Obama’s fiscal failures with the lure of conspiracy.
Colmes as a progressive knows that the way to diffuse a question he can’t answer is to attack the interrogative with wild accretions such as daring O’Reilly to say that Obama is deliberately attempting to harm Americans—which in the court of public perception would appear to be too extreme for believability. Even though the facts point to such a reality, O’Reilly didn’t fall for it and turned the issue around on Colmes which became a violent exchange that I wish more conservatives would do. When conservatives buckle under accusations of fascism, racism, or conspiracy theory, and dance around the issue without getting angry at the strategy they find themselves losing to the Alan Colmes type progressives nearly 100% of the time. They end up like O’Reilly’s former back-up host John Kasich who is the current governor of Ohio as watered down versions of their former conservative selves. Even when people like Kasich win in polling and elections, conservativism loses to the Progressive who is the architect of madness. Colmes deserved what he got from O’Reilly and I would hope that more people would begin to defend themselves from the tyranny of the Progressive—because their work is sinister, deceitful, and disguised with smiling faces. Their evil is well documented and can easily be seen in countries like Venezuela who operated without the checks and balances of a Republic like The United States.
In that context the actions of Rand Paul should be common place in the Senate and not the exception that it was. America should function with the enthusiasm that was shown in the great old movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Jimmy Stewart filibustered the senate in a very similar fashion that Rand Paul did in his 13 hour standoff. Government is not supposed to be like a mound of insects serving a collective cause of unity, they are supposed to be a group of representatives who hash out their differences in verbal combat for the good of the country, and display that nobody is above the law—not even a President of The United States. America does not have a king, or a dictator, so they are not able to make decisions without accountability to other representatives of the Republic having an input. The facts and behavior behind President Obama show that he has a willingness to act without respect to these checks and balances, and this should raise concern among every American. Thankfully, Senator Rand Paul acted as a proper representative under tenuous conditions, and justice has been pursued in his filibuster to the benefit of all no matter what political persuasions may be. Right is right, and Paul acted in accord with the pursuit of truth, and justice—and the American way, which is truly unique on the world stage and should be the model every country across the planet uses for their own government. The spirit of that government is often confusing and mired in controversy, but the intention was captured so wonderfully in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the Rand Paul Filibuster. The rest of the world should take notes.
I didn’t think much of Joan Powell’s announcement that she would not seek reelection for her Lakota school board seat she has held for over 16 years until I saw her closing statements in the Lakota News Network’s newspaper—(The Pulse Journal). In yet another softball interview from Hannah Poturalski, Powell stated about her fellow school board members “I don’t think anyone does this job for the recognition or the money, but certainly I know that this group of individuals, everybody’s heart is in doing this for the betterment of our community and the children of our community to make sure they have quality education.” I don’t have any doubt that every one of Lakota’s school board members including Joan believes that mantra, but the reality of the situation is far more telling. Read the actual Pulse Journal article at the link below. (Also below are some 2010 examples of how Lakota used young people to advance a union labor cause contributing to the need for additional taxes. Notice how The White House and Lakota Schools use the same tactic of manipulation on the backs of young children. After the next three videos are more factual based videos that deal with the actual school funding problems. Joan and her friends have openly participated in this behavior knowingly or unwittingly.)
School board members are not pillars of the community. The school in fact is only a small part of the community, not the centerpiece—as organized labor supported by long time school board members friendly to such socialist organizations have openly advocated. School boards are only management teams no more important than an average management team of any company. Their job is to manage their business, and in the case of the Lakota school board members, they have not done a very good job of that management because they are always asking for more money—which they plan to do in the fall of 2013 ahead of the LEA contract that is up in the summer of 2014. If the school board under Joan’s leadership had done their job and not caved into the labor union so many times over her 16 year career Lakota might not have so many financial problems now. Anyone in management knows that it’s easy to say “yes” to employees and give them anything they want, but most of the time managers are required to say “no,” and to draw a line in the sand to live within a budget. At Lakota, the management team has routinely just given away money to their employees believing that it would shut them up, that it would buy them the best talent, and that they could cover their incompetency with the silly notion that they are “pillars of the community.” For many years parents believed Joan and her fellow school board members like former levy campaign advocate Sandy Wheatley, and current school board member Julie Schaffer who also worked on the past levy campaigns, had exhausted all options when they ask for community tax increases. But instead of management of resources, these fiscal managers simply copy the big labor bullet points of their employees and expect the community to buy into the cost increase without opposition. These tax advocating big labor supporters are dead wrong in their version of what makes education work, and attempt to hide the reality not just from the community, but from themselves. They attempt to paint their jobs as important beyond analysis because “children” are involved which covers the real crime of poor management.
This is where I get angry with all these characters. When they can’t explain the flaws in their philosophy, and have shown that they are not willing to look deeply into the problems of education—they instead perform the exact same maneuver that the Obama White House is doing whenever they find themselves on the wrong side of a philosophical debate—they use the innocence of children to attempt to shut down all debate of their actions. In the case of Lakota, they are a government school, so they function with the same mentality as all government programs; they believe their service is the most important aspect of human life. It doesn’t matter if it’s the EPA, the TSA, Police, Firefighters, the Postal Service, the BMV—they all behave like the youngest child in a family and scream for attention as though their self-importance made the world spin. What makes all this nonsense unfathomable is when that self-importance seeks to justify itself with children—and that is what Lakota and every other public education institution does to justify their mismanagement. The situation is compounded when school board members attempt to paint a 16 year investment of their life to a school board as the betterment of their community through children. I believe people like Joan consider such things, at least superficially as factual. But the reality is far from the truth.
After my experience with Lakota schools from 2004 to 2012 and going to many meetings on education and studying the funding situation—I believe the only fix for public schools is School Choice. And before there can be real School Choice for a school like Lakota, the teachers union has to go away with the Workplace Freedom amendment or some version of it. Only when teachers are given a choice of whether they wish to participate in an extortive labor union or not can choices in education be given to parents. And only then can freedom and educational opportunity be given to children. When school board members align themselves with labor unions like Joan has with the Lakota Education Association, as Sandy Wheatley has, and Julie Shaffer has and many others……..they support a lack of freedom of choice, of allowing Lakota to have a monopoly on the education process without competition determining the real winner and losers of the marketplace. Watching these people perform in public is like watching the Harlem Globtrotters play against the Washington Generals. You know the Globetrotters are going to win–their shows are just a lot of tricks and silly antics. No competition against a stacked deck.
In another article in the West Chester Buzz Joan revealed again her view of the education situation when she said, “I have worked with four different superintendents. I can’t think of how many governors. Lakota has seen a lot of change and I hope Lakota can remain so successful because I really do believe that it holds a valuable place in this community.” Without realizing it, Powell articulated her real motive for holding office with the school board. What other position would allow her to be a supervisor over superintendents? What other position would give her access to state governors? What other position would place her in the middle of most community politics? Would she have access to such people if she were only a real estate agent? Of course not. But under the umbrella of helping children, the hidden desire to rub shoulders with important people can be hidden from analysis. It allows a gigantic illness to continue to ooze throughout society, and people like Joan and her 16 years of advancing the big labor position have only succeeded in limiting freedom of choice for families and the students of education with a phony regard for their well-being. If they really cared they wouldn’t attempt to cover up bad things that happen to kids by protecting the reputation of the institution over the individuality of the children. I have many cases that prove that to be the case—some published here, some not. CLICK HERE FOR A SAMPLE.
The same kind of illusion that is hidden behind motherly care was uttered by Lakota’s superintendent Mantia when she said about Joan’s years of service, “I have watched an incredible amount of time this board of education spends in what I would view as some of the most tumultuous educational times. It’s deep conversations about children’s futures … and as we ponder the next phase of education for students in a very changing world, those conversations get much more difficult.” Mantia and Powell along with the rest of the Lakota school board I have no doubt believed every word of that statement too. But they do not look further to the merit of their statements. What they are really concerned about is not children, but their vision of education and the direction it is going—which is School Choice. What resides behind the superficial concerns for children’s well-being is a concern for the preservation of their understanding of education—of the philosophy they have committed their lives to. If public schools really cared about kids they wouldn’t try to pound out their individuality into socialist goo of brainless consumerism. Public schools and their agents have destroyed the lives of far more children than they’ve ever helped. The proof is all around us—and those products are the result of many Joan Powell’s and their multiple years of service on a school boards supporting all the wrong ideas and building the strength of a community on the unstable backs of organized labor driven public education.
The reality of the situation is one thing, and I feel the way I do about it. People are free to choose whether or not they wish to support such social positions. But children cannot choose, and they are always the ones who are exploited by the weak arguments of professional educators who cannot otherwise justify their internal psychosis. That is when the line is crossed. I wish Joan well in her future endeavors if she is in fact truly leaving the Lakota school board—and this is not just a stunt prior to the announcement of their 2013 levy. But bringing the community and children into the argument is crossing the line. Her job as a school board member will not be missed by children or the community.
Life will tick on with or without her and behind her words is the real fear that her 16 years meant nothing for the greater good, instead of being of paramount importance. That is the real meaning behind such statements that are hidden behind the defenseless children who naively advocate so much social evil. The evil is in lack of choice and the tyranny of monopoly as advanced by public education institutions everywhere of which Joan and her fellow school board members are simply minor players. The system they serve is headed for a major revolution. It won’t happen over night, but over the next decade. It will happen slowly and will benefit children and their families immensely. And before it’s done, there will be many more resignations from those who see the writing on the wall, and want to jump off the sinking ship while it still floats.
For my position, I am happy to see public education sink, because what the ship carried was a way of looking at the world that has caused great harm to our civilization and it deserves to be on the bottom of the deepest oceans in the cold dark abyss where such an evil can no longer hurt children by using them to fuel the luxury the ship affronted on behalf of the ship’s crew who enjoyed much luxury on the “love boat” called public education.
I have established the parameters of America’s next Civil War in my 2004 novel, The Symposium of Justice. I then defined the who, what, why, when and where for rebellion to occur in my 2012 novel Tail of the Dragon. Before the scam artists in government attempt to portray my future actions as radical, dangerous, or as an enemy of the state, those two literary works are my testimony of innocence against a court system built by insanity. A government that allows $16 trillion dollars of debt to go unchecked and signs 23 executive orders against the 2nd Amendment is a criminal syndicate no different from Al Capone’s organized crime actions—and I consider them all domestic enemies. Click the link below for more detail. After all, Saul Alinsky learned from Al Capone, and it was Saul who taught most in modern government how to conduct their business of arm twisting and extortion against individual liberty.
To learn more about Saul Alinsky, click this link:
When I speak about the need for a Civil War it is not because I want it, but because bad people are attempting to impose themselves upon my life, and those of the people who are not so vocal about their desire for liberty. I know all too well that many lawyers, judges, and politicians do not believe in the Bible they swore their oaths to, or respect the Constitution they pledge to protect. They are simply scavengers who seek to pillage the lives of individuals of everything they own or desire to possess. I have seen first hand many instances where America’s entire court system is about nothing but generating money for the participants at the expenses of the victims. I gave such an example in Tail of the Dragon, which is based on first hand experience. The court system is only about making money through the clerk of courts for the judges, the lawyers, the bailiffs, the jails, the insurance companies, the legal professors, the mind numb politicians, and nothing else. They seek targets that have broken the law as defined by those same people who have no respect for the American Constitution but serve only the case-law of fellow attorneys. The legal system in America is a racket no different from the organized crime syndicates that formed during the Prohibition Period.
When Jon Hammer was thrown into a Mexican jail for trying to register a rifle at the border, the Mexicans were not interested in justice, or fairness. They were only interested in jailing the young man and attempting to extort money from the ex-Marine’s family. The Mexicans behaved no different from a band of pirates who took over the lives of the innocent and threatened to kill them on behalf of their personal profit. The court system is corrupt beyond repair in Mexico. Nobody cared about the life of Jon Hammer. The President of Mexico allowed the behavior to continue on once the story became public for over 4 months. The criminal underground runs Mexico, and the Jon Hammer case proves it. Both The United States and Mexico showed the world that neither side cared about Jon Hammer or his family—especially when the situation was so obviously unjust. Instead all the parties involved on both sides walked over the issue as though they were egg shells, not daring to step too hard in any one place so not to upset their supplies of money that funnel to them through organized crime.
What’s worse about the whole ordeal is that Mexico appears to be more honest than America. At least the Mexicans don’t attempt to hide their tyrannical intentions behind children or tapestries of “justice” like American courts have attempted to do. President Obama attempted to hide his power grabbing actions of executive orders behind the naive innocence of children, and nobody questioned the obvious evil of the act. Both courts in Mexico and America are corrupt and rotting with scallywags intent to profit off the unfortunate misery of the guiltless. When things go bad in the near future it will be those types of scallywags who attempt to call me “the criminal,” which of course I am not, or won’t be. There comes a time when it is right and honorable to fight back against evil that attempts to hide theft behind righteousness, and that time is coming quick.
We are living in an upside down world, the bad pretend that they are good, and the good are made out to look bad, so a war between those two ideas is immanent. In the context of a normal life, the talk of war might seem extreme, but it is in the desire for peace that the pirates of government loot us all in broad day light with further encroachments’, and out-right injustices are advanced through sheer greed. It is against those feeble minds that we will protect ourselves and in that context, is the reason for the next war that is about to break out. It will also be in the context of the villainy conducted among America’s failing political system and its corrupt courts that the actions of liberty will forever be measured. The sanity of the Constitutional defenders is written down forever and cannot be changed by the looters of social order, who hide their malicious actions behind “safety,” “security,” and “children.” The truth is easy for everyone to see and that truth might waver for a bit when the first shots are fired and real lives find themselves at the cashiers counter–but context will find its place which is the reason for these millions of words. It cannot be said that we did not try a solution of peace. When the lives stack up, nobody can say that we did not try.
As to the source behind Obama’s new gun control laws created by executive order………………..it is all about making more money for an ever-expanding–all-encompassing government.
Among the new spending the president proposed:
• $4 billion for the president’s proposal “to help keep 15,000 cops on the streets in cities and towns across the country.” (That is roughly $266,000 per police officer.)
• $20 million to “give states stronger incentives to make [relevant] data available [for background checks] … “$50 million for this purpose in FY2014″
• “$14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.”
• “$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”
• $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting System.
• $150 million to “put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job.”
• “$30 million of one-time grants to states to help their school districts develop and implement emergency management plans.”
• $50 million to help 8,000 schools “create safer and more nurturing school climates.”
• $15 million to “provide ‘Mental Health First Aid’ training for teachers.”
• $40 million for school districts to “work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to assure students with mental health issues or other behavioral issues are referred to the services they need.”
• $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”
• $25 million to “offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.”
• $50 million to “train social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.”
As the nation prepares to plunge over the “fiscal cliff” of 2013 with $16.3 trillion dollars in debt, and the promise of increased taxes on every American tax payer—not the moochers—the roughly 50% who do not pay taxes, but the actual tax payers who have their incomes taxed because they are productive; the finger-pointing begins as to who is at fault. Well dear reader, I will tell you who is at fault—and I’m happy to proclaim it as I have made my own internal arrangements to legally avoid my tax hikes. I will not stand for being robbed by the idiots who caused this mess. I will not work harder to slave for the bad decisions of the people who are at fault for the “fiscal cliff.” America is not a “good for one, good for all” kind of place. I am not “connected” to the fools of bad thought, and do not feel compelled to help those who are listed below with the mismanagement of their individual lives which has caused the current crises.
The people, who are at fault for the “fiscal cliff”— not necessarily in the order of importance, are those who are willing to pay for their food at McDonald’s with a credit card. It is the congressman who would rather play golf with the president, than to do the job he was elected for. It’s the President of the United States who believes more in socialism than capitalism. It’s the woman who puts her career in front of her family leaving the children emotionally bankrupt. It’s the father who would rather watch Monday Night Football at Hooters with his friends than to sit at a dinner table with his family. It’s the woman who is on her third husband in a decade, and on the man who just left his wife of twenty years for a 23-year-old girl younger than his own daughters. It’s the idiots who would rather spend their Friday evenings getting drunk than reading a book. It’s the welfare mother who just gave birth to her fourth child in 6 years by all different men so she can qualify for more government assistance. It’s the over-weight fool who has spent 35 years overeating to the point they can barely get up off a couch then expect someone else to cover their medical expenses as they are perpetually sick. It’s the teacher who lies to themselves that they are in the teaching profession to care for children when in reality it’s really for the money and the shopping sprees it affords them. It’s the lobbyist who would sell their country up the river in a heartbeat for a lap dance at Archibald’s on K-Street while their wives brag to their friends about what “great guys” their powerful—well connected husbands are. It’s the woman who turns a blind eye to her husband’s indiscretions in trade for diamond ear-rings on Christmas. It’s the woman who would rather work a job so she can get away from the pressure of being a mother then blame her child’s failures on a public school. It’s the man who sent his son to college on an athletic scholarship so that the boy can have a shot at professional athletics. It’s the gamblers who are still at the slot machines at a casino at 3:30 in the morning spending the last of their weekly paycheck waiting for the buffet to open for breakfast which they charge on a credit card because they’ve lost all their money. It’s the news reporter who slanted their stories to fill an ideology they inherited during journalism school; instead of using what their critical mind tells them is right. In short, the people most corrosive, most destructive, most diabolical and the most responsible for the “fiscal cliff” are those who blindly serve an institutional system in some fashion or another, and have strayed from individual responsibility. They are commanded by their social weaknesses instead of commanding their daily lives.
There are of course many more types of people who are responsible for the “fiscal cliff” and the moral bankruptcy that America is now in. But the above description paints the picture effectively. My view of those types is that they created their own problems, and it is not my responsibility to save them from their own stupidity with extra tax money—which is what additional taxes are really going to fund—more of the above behavior. The problem is, until the above issues are addressed, America will always have a debt problem because the root of the problem is greater than money. It is a rot of the human soul that the fools above seek to fill with material possession which skews all the raw data needed to solve the actual “fiscal cliff.” I realize that the best way to teach America the hard lesson it needs to straighten out the behavior above is to let them fall off the cliff, and to plummet to a painful crash. Only then might they listen the next time we come near a “cliff” of any kind. Maybe then they’ll listen when people of logic and reason tell them to be careful with their lives and treat every aspect of living as a precious moment worthy of great care. Because the debts of our society are a lot of little things that add up to trillions of dollars and the people who created that debt do not deserve to be a part of “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.” Such disreputable characters are not worthy of the honor to call themselves Americans when all they have done to contribute to the nation is debt.
Don’t ask me to pay for their bad behavior—because I won’t do it. I realize that I just insulted most of the people reading this—but tough. A thousand fools does not trump the brilliance of a creative individual who lives on the side of goodness. Such is a problem of democracy and the demise of fools who seek to cover their folly by the good deeds of the few by force of the federal government and the armies of the destitute employed by their tyranny.
(I would advise that all these videos be watched carefully after the text is read. Spend some time with this article, and share it with a friend.)
I truly feel sorry for people who are missing the ability to recognize treachery. I feel sorry for the people who can’t believe that Hillary Clinton’s “concussion” is an old lawyer trick designed to scout out the prosecutor’s position on the Benghazi hearings. By throwing underlings into the fire to witness the arguments position guilty parties can learn how to make their case. Hillary is trying to delay her testimony till January while taking the brunt out of the hearings by unleashing her incompetency slowly, allowing her to manage the public opinion presentation more adequately. Do I think she faked her injury—I absolutely 100% do. Can I prove it? Of course not, and she knows it. She is like so many employees who desire to have a day off work; they get a doctor note to say they are in a state of disrepair, giving them an alibi. But anyone who deals with these issues knows that doctors have no problem writing such notes for their patients so long as they collect their fee. So only Hillary knows for sure what she is up to. Experience tells me she is faking it.
Experience also tells me that the Sandy Hook shooting is a false flag, which is very sad. When I have told people these things, they first say—“do you actually think that our government would kill children to pass gun control legislation? Do you really think that the government can control people’s minds making them do things? Do you really think people can be so evil? The answer is—YES, I do believe those things, based on my experience. The shooters of both the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora shooting have dramatic things in common, both were young, both were intelligent—honor students—and both were very well prepared for investigators to go through their computers and destroyed the evidence of their plans. The Aurora shooter had booby-trapped his apartment. Investigators had to set off the traps to enter his apartment which destroyed a lot of evidence. And the Sandy Hook shooter even thought to destroy his computer hard drive before he went on his shooting rampage. Doesn’t that seem awfully………..sane? I mean a guy wants to commit suicide and go out in what he thinks is a “blaze of glory” but he destroys his hard drive to protect whom–or what? These stories have been lost to the emotion of the poor children that were killed and the teachers who died at the school during that shooting rampage.
It appears that the father of the Sandy Hook shooter Peter Lanza was set to testify before the Senate with Robert Holmes, the father of the Aurora shooter in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low-level traders arrested. It is very ironic that the fathers of both mass murder shooters are involved in the Senate investigation. Read more here:
In the wake of these shootings, of course the gun grabbers were already poised to attack America’s Second Amendment, which has been the target of global power grabbers for a long time as indicated by the recent United Nations small arms treaty designed to disarm all countries. These foreign interests know that it will take a lot of manipulation to remove guns from America, so they are on a public relations campaign to do so, and they do not care if they kill kids to achieve it. More on that in a bit. None of these claims are a conspiracy; these are all facts that can easily be looked up. So the very next thing that people say when given these facts are how could these shooters be manipulated to perform such a terrible task? Well the answer is that the James Holmes case is revealing many terrible manipulations that have not been reported. Here are just a few.
In stunning accusations, dated August 27, reveal a startling story by the claimant as having been visited at home by police chief Dan Oates and Dist. Atty. Carol Chambers where they forced the unnamed individual to testify as a fake victim of the shootings, under the threat of being arrested for prostitution and escort services and charity fraud, for the purposes of garnering an easy conviction against alleged shooter James Holmes. But not before being shot by the police chief in “non-life-threatening areas” of the body, according to the motion, to appear as having been shot by James Holmes himself. The motion also claims that it is likely some of the victims in the theater were merely paid actors working on behalf of the conspirators and wants multiple individuals involved in the situation to take polygraph tests to prove their innocence. Read more about this story at the link below:
Back in 1973 the CIA had to give up on their mind control experiments which seem to have been renamed under new programs and departments which are still at work today under much better technology. Using microwaves broadcast from radio towers all over the nation there has been success in controlling the behavior of people by sending radio waves directly to the human brain. Of course this affects different people in various ways. This condition is so rampant that I featured a fictionalized version of this government strategy in my 2004 book The Symposium of Justice. In my book it is called the Veil of Knowledge. But as discussed on a recent episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venture, the Governor and his team investigated the infamous Brain Invaders project, shown above. Watch it for yourself. In the decades since WWII, thousands of Americans have come forward, claiming the government has been experimenting with mind control and brainwashing techniques, and they appear to have been very successful. It is not a stretch to consider that such manipulative microwaves directed in a general population center might create in the mind of the average person feelings of anxiety and stress. But in the mind of people like the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters who are of above average intelligence, possibly heavily medicated by prescription medicine that allows the brain to become more prone to such mind manipulation devices, the thin line between thinking about evil and committing evil can easily be crossed—and it appears to have been to the strategic aims of very sinister global interest.
I consider the ability to comprehend such options to be the result of a superior intellect. It is not easy to develop the creative ability to see how all these dots connect. Most thinkers are limited by their narrow frames of mind and specialized training to only see their lives in the context of daily experience. I feel sorry for these people who cannot understand how deeply sinister human beings truly can be, and to what extinct they are drunk for power. The most obvious hypocrisy for these political thieves would be in the example that President Obama used in his recent speech declaring that the poor children who were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre had their lives robbed from them prematurely stealing the opportunity to raise families of their own and live happy lives. Obama as a Democrat built his entire presidential campaign on being pro-abortion, being pro baby killers. Obama used the deaths of the Sandy Hook children for political gain out of convenience and as a push to advance gun control. Yet many of those children killed in Sandy Hook are only 6 to 7 years older than the many thousands of babies that are killed each year through abortion. Democrats and progressives do not have a problem killing babies in a mother’s womb, so why do they care so much when the children are killed in a classroom? Because they can exploit the tragedy for political capital—the hypocrisy is obvious. Most people never connect such thoughts and it is on the backs of those poor souls that much evil is advanced by their own ignorance. The forces that are at play in their lives are beyond their simple minds, and evil knows it. It uses them to spread death and destruction to every corner of every community in every nation and in America it is the Constitution that stands between evil and goodness—and little else. And evil is attacking that Constitution directly, yet subtlety.
Just because simple minds cannot grapple with such evil designs does not mean they are not real. But a mind cannot drown in conspiracy theory either. All that needs to be acknowledged is that Hillary has a high motivation for not appearing in the Benghazi hearings to protect her own political legacy on the backs of many dead Americans that are her fault directly. Like her husband, she has shown in the past that she will stop at nothing to preserve herself. And throughout the world, there are many who see America as their threat to global control. They seek to use emotional events to destroy the nation by undermining its philosophy of self-reliance, and they do have the tools to perform the task—and those tools are being used. Sandy Hook is just the most recent and the evil committed there goes far beyond a disturbed young person who played too many video games and was angry at his mother. Of course there is more to it, but the simple minds of the masses lack the heart to look at such evil directly—because they fear what they might see if they open their eyes.
It is easier for these simple minds to trust the words of Obama, of Clinton, of Congress, the Senate, of law enforcement, of their teachers, their “rulers” than to take responsibility for their own lives and think for themselves. It is easier to surrender their logic to the power-grabbers who will do anything to preserve their positions in the political class, and the strings that are tied to unelected officials who do not care who they destroy, or what they destroy, so long as they can implement their personal strategies. It is those types of conditions that is the real story behind the Sandy Hook shooting, and those same forces are behind the deaths in Benghazi. They are connected behind the stage where the stage play we think we are watching is actually being written by minds that reside in the shadows. The Second Amendment in America is not to shoot deer for hunting, or even to protect ourselves from petty thieves who might rob our homes. It is to defend ourselves from the kind of people who hide behind the stage and might desire to use our own military against us all—which is why they are seeking to disarm America so that we are defenseless against their diabolical plans.
Evil is very real, and the Second Amendment is dedicated to stopping it. Evil will not go away if guns are removed from society. Instead, evil will grow without regulation or fear of resistance. That is why the deaths of kids are justified by the same minds who claim to support “social justice.” The focus is not on the deaths of individuals, but on the “greater good”—the collective. I feel terribly sorry for the people who have lost their lives in these terrible tragedies, Aurora, Benghazi, Sandy Hook and many more that never even get reported. But I feel even more sorry for the ignorant simpletons who deny that evil is at work beyond the boundaries of their accepted reality. It is they and their un-complex thinking that act like fish food in an aquarium that evil feeds upon to grow into a menacing entity that is hell-bent to destroy everything in its path with a mindless hunger that can never be quenched. Denying that the fish exist does not lengthen the life of the food once it is plopped into the water—and America has been dropped into the water. Below our feet in the depths of the abyss they linger……………and they are hungry. (Don’t click the video below if you have a weak stomach. But if you want to understand the kind of raw ruthlessness that is driving events behind the scenes in our society–then watch the white fish carefully.)
Click here to see how the fish food thinks:
I was a bit baffled by the panic that the collective nation felt in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. I understand the sadness, but to hear news personalities and politicians so distraught—to see the nation turning on their televisions after work and mashing their faces against the screens wanting to learn more information goes several steps beyond simple grief. There was a fear invoked by the events of December 14th, 2012 where a 20-year-old shooter walked into a school and gunned down over twenty people, mostly kids, before taking his own life, that exceeds rationality and the reason is not what anyone is willing to discuss.
My thoughts about public education have evolved over the last couple of years from something that I previously tolerated as a local nuisance to a national menace of the American psyche. I have learned through my school levy fights that most parents don’t care one iota what their kids are learning in school, or what damage to their social futures that government schools might do to their children over 13 years of elementary school and high school education. Parents simply view public education as a babysitting service while they conduct their busy lives climbing a career ladder hoping that instead of love for their children they can purchase respect with the incomes they’ve earned from their occupations. Some parents do get involved in their children’s education, particularly in sports. However, many of these parents deep down inside hope their children’s participation in extracurricular activities will save money through scholarship earnings when it comes time to pay for college tuition leaving some of the savings that parents toiled over for years free for a nice vacation. The sports participation is not one of love for the child as much as it is hope that their child will land a cherished scholarship. It is rare to see parents in modern America taking an active role in their children’s education because they figure that is the job of the school—and in the back of their minds, the parents reserve the right to blame the school and the teachers for their failures as parents when things go wrong later. That is the essence of modern public education in government schools. The labor unions are happy to exploit this trend to their advantage, and they have. Politicians are happy to exploit the guilt parents feel over their lack of involvement to enrich themselves as social looters. But the real victims have always been the kids who just want parents to love them, teach them, and launch them into a life of their own with some measure of confidence—which they often find completely void.
So I did not feel stunned as others might have when hearing about the Sandy Hook shooting. In fact, due to the social conditions involved on all sides, I am surprised that it doesn’t happen more often. The failure is truly in social collectivism, where parents, kids, and politicians have embedded themselves into each other’s lives like mashed potatoes on a Thanksgiving Day dinner to be consumed by modern society and defecated out as waste products of a life dedicated to serving the collective whole. When it comes to gun violence and the most vulnerable places that they are occurring with the most emotional impact, it is in school settings that they are most rampant. This latest rampage, coming less than two weeks before Christmas, was the nation’s second-deadliest school shooting, exceeded only by the Virginia Tech massacre that claimed 33 lives in 2007. Before that it was the Columbine shooting that was so glorified by the communist leaning Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine.
The logical conclusion that one could make if they thought clearly on the matter is that if parents wanted their children to be truly safe, and to get a proper education that they would home-school their children instead of sending them to a public school full of unarmed progressive advocates where the children are vulnerable to the collective whims of society. It is in such whims that distorted minds like Adam Lanza can make victims of unarmed children and naive human beings who prefer the peace sign over the barrel of a gun with a continued belief that evil can be legislated out of Earth’s social fabric. People who think in such ways are the real danger to children because they are functioning from a false philosophy that is not driven by logic, but by their own internal selfishness. They do not wish to take the time to raise their own children properly so they send them to public school hoping the government can do it for them—but in so doing, their children are vulnerable to progressive politics, global power grabs, collective identity, and the barbarous malcontents of mental erosion.
My wife and I never left our kids to the fate of public education. My wife was always a stay-at-home mom who drove my kids to school every day and helped them with their homework every night. She also home-schooled them when the school wanted to teach my kids things we didn’t think they should be learning in the fourth grade—such as sex education. Most of what my kids learned they learned with the input of my wife and me spending time with them and taking an active role in their lives which still exists to this day. Many of my kid’s friends they went to school with who had parents who did not take an active role in their child’s lives, are rudderless despots drowning in the oceans of daily living, and that fate was sealed by their parents who used public education to do the job of parenting. We have watched the decline first hand over the last decade and the differences are incredibly obvious.
It is dangerous to place children in large groups unarmed in a school room that only has one door in or out and is guarded by pacifist progressive leaning teachers radicalized by national teachers unions. The policies of progressivism are failing in modern life, and there will be more incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre. There will be more because all the sorrow in the world can’t remove evil from the planet. Evil cannot be controlled by more rules and regulation. It cannot be quelled by guidance councilors or even more tax money. Success in every American child requires a parent or mentor who will take direct responsibility for a child with real love and understanding that is rooted in individual responsibility. The collectivism that is taught in modern society will produce many more troubled youth like Adam Lanza and leave millions of children perpetually vulnerable in classrooms all over the country because parents use public education as an extension of day care leaving complacent employees to safe guard the lives of Americas children—which is a recipe for disaster.
If parents really wanted their kids to be safe, they would withdrawal them from public school, teach them at home on a computer with online education within the safety and sanctity of private property guarded by American sovereignty, and one of the spouses would quit their full-time job and become a full-time parent because that’s what it takes. The fear that society felt on the day of the dreadful Sandy Hook Massacre was not because of the victims—it was the realization that a system that most everyone has accepted as “good” is actually a very vulnerable environment that is well out of the control of the parents. That vulnerability has been glazed over while busy parents pursue their individual careers, but the knowledge that a crazed lunatic can walk into any public school known to be full of unarmed—naive human beings is a lucrative target for the mentally anguished like Adam Lanza. The fear that people felt upon hearing the news is that what they believed to be safe is quite the opposite, and if they want to keep their kids out of the grips of deaths embrace, or the many social pressures that lead to small losses of innocence, that the parents will have to take more active roles in their family’s lives. And if I were them, I would take my children out of public school and do the job myself—so that I could ensure safety and success. The grief that people are feeling is not for the unfortunate victims and their families, it is the realization that the responsibility for children cannot be pawned off on a group collective, but are the sole enterprises of a parent and their children, and is best protected with a personal firearm, a solid peace-loving religion, and a thirst for learning that is as free of social degradation as possible.
I have heard enough about the gun argument that took place after the Jovan Belcher shooting/suicide which occurred at Arrowhead Stadium, in Kansas on Saturday December 1st. Belcher for all the reasons that impassioned youth build up a fury in their minds saw no way out for himself but suicide after he shot his girlfriend—the mother of his young baby during an argument. Many people have had such arguments with a loved one, and many times the rage can build up to a desire to obliterate the other person, even if deep down inside the love is great. The mind often distorts reality when perspective is misplaced, and people often do stupid things when they are angry. But as I’ve listened all week to the pundits fume for more gun laws, like what the big cities have around America—which are also Obama Zone voting blocs, the reality of the situation must be placed into perspective and not be allowed to migrate to the progressive arguments of rhetoric not based on reality.
The strongest case that progressive minded gun grabbing fools have for more gun laws is that the urban population is killing each other ruthlessly, and putting guns in the hands of such people is dangerous. Jovan Belcher is a product of this ruthless urban culture that is so highly praised among the media—and it is the creation of this dependent based urban culture that is the cause of many of society’s modern troubles—including gun violence. Progressives seeking to hide the crimes of their folly are pursuing fewer guns in society to cover up their political failures as a general philosophy. Much of that urban culture progressive creation can be heard in modern rap music which many young people like Belcher listen to often. The music is often violent, and contains a lot of race based anger, meant to fuel support of progressive philosophy, such as more welfare programs, an expanded and defined middle class, a destruction of American traditional value in favor of more global awareness with less individual sovereignty—along with a host of other platform points all of which can be seen in the Obama Administration. When pictures of Jovan Belcher are sought online, he is often seen wearing headphones which is common among athletes before a game starts—and I would be willing to bet that the music he was listening to was not Mozart, or Bach. If a young person puts garbage into their minds, of course garbage will come out in their behavior, so when young people like Jovan find themselves angry and insecure over being a new parent with a young baby that is depending on them to be a good person, and the spouse in a relationship has a whole set of values that are different from Jovan’s upbringing, conflicts are bound to happen, and Jovan dealt with the crises in the manner that he built the ideas in his head with like music, movies, television, and most likely large doses of meditating on the merits of “urban culture.” To understand that culture all one needs to do is play the video game Grand Theft Auto. I’m sure Jovan Belcher played that video game a lot. In fact—I’d bet on it.
(YES THE VIDEO BELOW IS THE REAL GAME AS KIDS PLAY IT EVERY DAY.)
But that doesn’t mean that guns should be outlawed because Belcher used a gun to commit crime, or video games because they allowed Belcher to fantasize about being a street thug—shooting and raping “bitches” so you can score points in a game like players do in GTA. It doesn’t even mean that music should be edited in any manner. If people like the urban stuff, the market has a right to exploit that consumer need. But who created that market need—where does it come from? Progressives—they are the ones who made the welfare culture, they are the ones who created the modern ghetto, they are the ones who are responsible for much of the gang violence that goes on, the drug use, the sex driven diseases like AIDS, the out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and progressives are responsible for destroying the modern family leaving many young people like Jovan Belcher without a good role model in their lives in the form of a father. Progressives have attacked the America father of tradition and attempted to replace them with a central government, and that is the cause of most social failures. The gun violence is just the symptom of the sickness created by progressives in urban neighborhoods, which nobody in their right minds would want to live in.
Where I live I would say that 90% of the homes within a mile of my home are armed with at least two guns and I can report that we do not shoot each other—ever. The guns are there for target shooting, for personal protection, and on occasion hunting. But there is an even more important reason for having those guns—they are there in case the military fails us, and the government moves too far to the left for our liking, we will need to use those guns to take back our country from a military that we have wasted a lot of money arming and training only to be used against us as a weapon.
One year ago President Obama with the support of the House and Senate passed the NDAA Act which gives permission to whoever is president at the time to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans violating their 5th Amendment rights on only the suspicion of terrorist activity by the president as defined by that same Executive Brach holder. I can say that if such a thing happens, I will no longer recognize the laws created by the thieves in Washington and an armed revolution will become necessary to overthrow the tyrannical government. That’s why we have guns, because government cannot be trusted except when the threat of armed revolt is present. If the government goes bad, the armies, and militias that are talked about in the Constitution become the weapons of that government leaving Americans defenseless.
In case political pussies like Bob Costas and the other progressive cry babies in the modern media didn’t notice, most of America did not vote for Barack Obama, by land mass. It is the urban vote that did–the costal regions and cities with huge sections of Section 8 housing and strong labor union presences. America as a whole is not in agreement with the idiots of New York and their progressive gun bans because deep down inside of everyone I talk to from all walks of life there is a strong belief that our guns will be needed to preserve our independence from progressives such as The United Nations and other members of Socialist International. The U.N. is making their global land grab using the same progressive philosophies that helped shape the mind of Jovan Belcher. It’s just a paper conquest as opposed to a traditional siege. (And for my older readers here, sorry for my use of strong language, but it’s needed in this case. There is more coming at the end, just to warn you) The characters who want to grab our guns today are the same type of people we will have to fight tomorrow, and to surrender our defense against their parasitic aims would be a fool’s paradise.
Every idiot who called out for more gun control in the wake of this most recent tragedy is one of the types of progressive minded people who helped shape the mind of Jovan Belcher in the first place. If Belcher did things in his life my way, he would learn to hunt and fish on his own, he’d know how to fix his own things in life both mechanically and psychologically, and he’d be listening to classical music on his iPod instead of urban rap, and he would have paid attention. Young people love leadership, they soak it up like a sponge, and it says a lot that Belcher went to see his coach in the darkest hour of his life—probably because that was the strongest male figure in his life at the time. Most of the urban crimes in society could be solved if the world had more strong fathers for young people to look up to, because the progressive experiment of destroying fathers is what caused Belcher and many other troubled youth to not have the mental faculties to deal with crises in their lives. The fault is progressives and their urban culture policies, and the fix is in introducing young people like Belcher at an early age to more self-reliance, and positive role models. Progressives have sought to destroy positive role models so that society would have a greater need for a more centralized government who cared for everyone and everything, and the world with its current miseries is their fault. So with that said it was not the gun that caused the terrible events at Arrowhead Stadium, it was progressive philosophy, and for that they can all hang their heads in shame.
And to my conservative mild-mannered friends—don’t be afraid to call people like Costas a pussy—because he is. He makes a living interviewing celebrities and commenting on sports—the worlds great distraction. He had no right to bring his ass kissing ways to our living rooms when all we wanted to do was watch grown men run into each other at full speed and knock the shit out of one another. Costas should have kept his mouth shut and not stuck his nose into an issue he is not qualified to speak on—since he has made a living as a “yes man” not a defender of liberty or even a man of self-reliance which to me is the only kind of man there is. Tyranny and slavery are built on the backs of people like Bob Costas who seek to fix the symptom, not the cause so that the bright lights of a football game can resume without guilt.
I knew there was a reason I always liked Darryl Parks from 700 WLW. On his first Saturday show of December 2012 he offered an excellent reason why Kelsy Hartmann from Huber Heights—was caught having sex with one of her 16-year-old students in her husband’s car while pretending to do some last-minute shopping on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. According to Kelsey’s latest evaluation she was an excellent teacher, leaving Darryl to conclude that Kelsey was simply doing what many other teachers have been doing in the competitive field of public education, and that is to personally reach out to their students to give them something unique that all the evolving education tools are doing better, such as the modern computer. One thing that a computer can’t do for young students is have intercourse with them to keep their interests so during these very difficult times when school budgets are shrinking, and work forces are being reduced teachers like Kelsey have determined to stay on top of their students–quite literally. Maestros de escuelas públicas de amor tener sexo con hombres jóvenes y chupar sus penes! No wonder so many parents support public education for their needy young sons. And no wonder so many students take to the streets to tear down the signs of tax opposition when school levies are attempted. The young boys of public education know they can’t get sex this easy anywhere else but in their classrooms, so they defend their sexually charged teachers with a fury. Check out the pictures of Kesley at Darryl’s blog posting, and then listen to his Saturday broadcast below.
I think Darryl is right; Rosetta Stone software has changed the field of foreign language education. In these modern times of 2012, it is rather easy to learn a foreign language should one wish to, completely invalidating the old archaic style performed in front of a classroom. The two years of mandatory high school foreign language education is absolutely out of date—because the modern computer does a much better job than a traditional teacher. So credit must be given to Kelsey and her barrage of other public school teachers and their labor unions all around Ohio who have tener mucho sexo con hombres jóvenes y tragar su semon en cantidades tales que los maestros beben su hombría por la taza con el café. And we thought teachers were drinking coffee in the morning……………………..apparently not.
A computer can teach young students in high school better than just about any teacher in any course these days—math, science, history and especially foreign language. Since most people learn by visual stimulation, the computer is much better equipped to perform most of the modern education tasks with far superior results than the traditional teacher, and the computer is a lot cheaper on labor too. But a computer will not steal the keys of her husband’s car and meet with students on the side of a road and have sex with them to keep their interest in public education like Kelsey and her other tri-state teachers will. That is the one thing the computer cannot do better, and that is actually provide such “hands on” training.
So whenever a school levy is voted for, and support for public education is declared, think of the over the top and under the covers antics of many fine teachers like Kelsey Hartmann and how dedicated to their students they truly are—so much so that they are willing to stay on top of their students needs—literally. Kelsey le encanta sentarse sobre el pene de sus alumnos en el asiento trasero de un coche. Auuuuhhh…………….public education at its finest.