Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’
Ann Becker has been President of the Cincinnati Tea Party and was at the core of arranging the Tax Day Rally in Eastgate, Ohio on April 15th 2014. As is typical of her position she is heavily involved with the liberty movement and has teamed up with another powerhouse for freedom—Libertarian Girl. The two of late have been inseparable, and are deeply involved in a carefully planned strategy which has establishment Republicans terrified. It is unlikely that there is anywhere else in America where the types of people who Ann and Libertarian Girl are reside together toward the strategic goals that is resonating throughout the world. It is for that reason that Matt Clark of WAAM radio came down from Ann Arbor, Michigan to cover the event organized by Ann. I knew that putting these two girls on the radio would be a great interview—and it was. The radio segment featured below is a battle plan that should be shared with every member of every liberty front member throughout the country. Matt did a good job of getting out of the two girls a very concise interview that has some real power to it. Have a listen.
You can see part of how that interview looked in person with the next video. The audio wasn’t very good, but you can see what Ann and Libertarian Girl looked like so that there are faces to go with the voice. Essentially what the girls said was that they are currently involved in a similar movement of infiltrating the Republican Party in the opposite way that communists infiltrated the Democrat Party back in the 1950s. Libertarians are attacking the foundations of Republicans with conservatism pulling it away from the progressive middle ground from which it currently resides—and there really isn’t anything machine politics can do about it. A few years ago, Ann likely wouldn’t have been so loose with her tongue, and Libertarian Girl was just creating her online persona. But now, it’s too late. Sure machine politics will still win in the short run, but over time, people like Ann and Libertarian Girl are pulling Republicans away from the middle, and back to the right. The current middle has been established by progressives who allowed communists to pull the political left so far in that direction. The new middle is where hard Democrats used to be in the 50s and 60s and the old political “center” is now considered extreme radical right-winged. What Ann is talking about doing is pulling the political right back to the old center where the current left would be forced to place their centrist views at the current right.
And how will this be done? Well, that’s no secret either. Libertarian Girl uses sex to bring people to her message, and she doesn’t apologize for it—and why should she? Sex sells, and Libertarian Girl is selling freedom. How many men would follow Libertarian Girl just to have a chance to talk to her? For the answer, check out her Facebook page.
She has a lot of fans, and they often hinge on her every word. She is smart, she knows how to explain things simply, she is very articulate, and she has Barbie Doll proportions that simply melt men like a stick of butter on a hot ear of corn at an August picnic. If she is selling freedom, 8 out of 10 men are buying it—and 6 out of 10 women also buy it just because they don’t want to appear insecure. Libertarian Girl is dangerous to the political left. Watch this video by her explaining beer—which reaches over 80% of the population with a political metaphor that makes sense.
What the freedom movement is doing now has been done in a similar fashion. It doesn’t happen over night, but often takes generations to pull off. After all communists began their infiltration of the Democratic Party as far back as the 1930s—it wasn’t until the 60s that they recruited Jane Fonda to be their spokeswoman. It is incalculable how many men became young socialists because they admired Jane Fonda’s breasts and enjoyed her nudity in the film Barbarella. The political left has been using sex appeal for years to convince testosterone driven men to the voting booth and setting the social parameters for other women. It was a smart strategy; after all, a lot of men are perfectly willing to squander their values just to get laid. Heck, many middle-aged men who are very successful still spend most of their time making money, buying cars and trying to hide their baldness exclusively to have opportunities to bed young 22-year-old women—so sex is a powerful ally in politics. Communists in America used sex to take of the political edge in the 60s and now most young Hollywood actresses advocate worship of Mother Earth—which is essentially the new version of communism—large government managing virtually everything—for the good of “nature.”
Most men once they’ve spoken to Libertarian Girl strive to read books so they can converse with her and vote for Libertarian candidates to win her approval and have a chance to talk to her again. I’ve been around her while this process was happening, and it is truly amazing. People want to have their picture taken next to her, and when it comes to voting, they will listen to her 100% of the time over some stuffy square-faced progressive. Once other pretty people see how successful Libertarian Girl has been, they will copy off her and thus join the party of freedom. Within the next couple of decades more mainstream beautiful people will join Libertarian Girl, and her mission will then be fulfilled. It’s actually happening right now—there are several actresses and spokeswomen who are jumping away from the progressive establishment and onto the freedom loving bandwagon. After all, Fox News set its roots in the media by hiring attractive women. They do have the highest ratings of all cable news—and it’s not because people want to look at Bill O’Reilly.
Ann and Libertarian Girl are at the heart of Southern Ohio politics and there isn’t a damn thing progressives from the Right and Left can do about it. They don’t have a similar offering in their established parties to match Libertarian Girl so all they can do is curse her—and Ann for their effectiveness. Because the secret is not just that Libertarian Girl is just another pretty face—she’s also smart—very smart. Once she gets older—and not so pretty—she will still have her mind and that is a dangerous combination. She’ll have years of experience by then and will only get better over time.
The point is that freedom lovers aren’t going to surrender ground to progressive big government types any longer. We’re going to hit back, and we’ll do it more often and better than the left has now for five decades. They have pretty much had unfettered access to America during that whole time—until about five years ago when the Tea Party groups began popping up—and with them Ann Becker and Libertarian Girl who came up with an approach to politics that would swing the pendulum the other way. And one proven way to do such a thing is through long legs, platinum blond hair and flawless female features—with a mind behind it–that combination is more powerful than millions of rounds of ammunition at the point of a gun. Progressives have lost the ability to appeal to average people, because they have lost the sexual edge. Madonna kissing Brittney Spears no longer raises eyebrows, Jane Fonda is an old lady, and Hillary Clinton looks like somebody’s 60 year old alligator purse lost as luggage in a Brazilian airport. In a game of beauty where Hollywood puts up their latest topless A-List actresses against people like Libertarian Girl, voters will follow the later over the former because in the end brains trump stupidity when breast sizes and long legs are equal.
Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
It was kind of a funny story that took place at the 2014 Cincinnati Tea Party Tax Day Rally in Eastgate, Ohio. Doc Thompson was brought in to perform as emcee, however, when the event began he was outside the crowd filled room on the radio with Matt Clark leaving Ann Becker standing at the podium waiting. So I had to get Doc off the radio and fill in for him during the broadcast so he could begin the ceremony. You can hear that exchange below as Doc and Matt were involved in an interview for WAAM Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Doc as usual came in and did several segments of ad lib, with no notes to speak of. He didn’t even know that he was emcee for the event as he had just returned from Dallas, Texas where he was hanging out with Glenn Beck’s group at The Blaze—where they are moving into film and television production. Doc and his radio partner Skip LeCombe had just finished the post production duties for a new documentary they are producing about the effectiveness of the Tea Party over the last five years—and are planning many more projects. Glenn Beck is in production on three motion pictures at his Dallas studios, so things are moving quickly for Doc Thompson. He came to the Cincinnati event on a whirlwind fresh off an airplane and didn’t know that Ann had slotted him to be emcee. When I told him that he was the emcee he was surprised, but happy to fill the role. Then he forgot about again it during his radio segment with Matt Clark.
As can be seen below, Doc doesn’t need notes. He does so much radio every day from 6 AM to 9 AM on The Blaze Radio Network that he can just rattle off statistics and current events from memory. He occasionally does television on The Blaze, so he has become very proficient at public speaking. He was always good at it, but now it’s effortless for him.
During Doc’s radio segment with Matt he hit on something that is at the core of a huge modern problem. Doc is moving beyond just providing radio commentary. If you are a conservative, there are not film production venues out there that can currently represent our viewpoints. Not that long ago in Hollywood conservatives like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood were openly attending Republican conventions in Los Angeles—but now, a Republican cannot be found in mainstream Hollywood—until very recently. One of the reasons the Atlas Production Company had to be formed was to actually produce the novel, Atlas Shrugged—because Hollywood was not interested.
I have been to film festivals and at those events, there are seldom openly conservative films because it is well-known that projects with those kinds of messages will not get play—there is nowhere to distribute those types of creations—until now. Prior to Glenn Beck’s Blaze television station, there was not a single conservative distribution outlet for a conservative project. Anyone who wanted to make such a thing these days had to invent not just the product, but the production company as well, making funding of those types of projects even more difficult. For instance, when my novel Tail of the Dragon hit the market the people who read it all agreed that it would make a great movie, it had product placement tie-ins, a strong NASCAR type storyline, and had its roots in traditional American film. I would thank them, but in the back of my mind was—who would make it—Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, Paramount……………Amblin, would Harvey Weinstein at Miramax make a movie of the novel—of course not. As a progressive Harvey would be repulsed by my material. Not even Jerry Bruckheimer was able to overcome the hatred of conservative values in Hollywood with the Disney backed The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp. The Hollywood machine hated the ideal of a modern western taking America back to the good ol’ days, so they attacked the film out of the gate. It is nearly impossible to produce conservative projects like movies and documentaries unless a production company is created to make them. Even then, distribution outlets are even scarcer—until now. Perhaps Depp’s heart is changing with time and wisdom, his new fiancé is Amber Heard, who is a bisexual and would otherwise be touted among the Hollywood elite with welcome arms—except that she is a huge Ayn Rand fan. That represents part of an emerging undercurrent that cannot be stopped and Hollywood is not happy about it.
Among conservatives like Doc, Beck, the Atlas Shrugged guys, and me we are all approaching our projects from the ground level. The Steven Spielberg’s of our day are not able to provide the kind of mentorship that he had learning from Hitchcock and other notable directors from the past, because they are afraid to be associated with conservatives—for fear of blacklisting. Some great filmmakers like Gerald Molen have broken loose from Hollywood and are now associating with Glenn Beck’s studios—and more are on the way. But things are now changing because technology has given power to conservatives to bypass the studio system if they can figure out the distribution issue—and now that Doc has The Blaze at his back, he is making his move.
A few years ago I had the very grim realization that only I could make a project I had written into the kind of movie I wanted to see. I had worked with selling to Hollywood for years but they never understood what I was trying to do. I was sitting with some very notable Hollywood types at a restaurant in Glendale where belly dancers were performing and everyone wanted to think of themselves as very worldly. The women were dressed in the latest fashion all perfumed up, and the men looked cut from the pages of GQ. I had on camouflage pants and my outback hat with Gargoyle sunglasses and they accepted me well enough. I cracked my whips in front of a movie theater on Brand Blvd and cut targets out of people’s mouths and everyone was having a delightful time—until someone brought up politics. I voiced my opinion and that was the end of a productive evening. They didn’t want to understand my Midwestern sensibilities, my position against public education, my views on small government, my hatred of Marxism, and my love of traditional westerns.
It’s not that people didn’t agree with me—often they do—but in a town run by progressive labor unions, and Hollywood is, it is hard to get work unless you are properly politically aligned. And it is nearly impossible to even make a movie unless Hollywood is backing the project at least through distribution. I have never known a single independent filmmaker who didn’t enter a film at Sundance or some other place like the Cannes Film Festival and hope that Hollywood picked up the project for distribution. A Tea Party documentary is not the way to get distribution in Hollywood, and neither is a western. Even though Disney has the power and money to produce a film like that, and even distribute it—the town of Hollywood attacked it through their critics and trade magazines to preserve their industry. The same thing happened to the Atlas Shrugged films.
When I watch the Atlas films, or the Dinesh D’Souza’s documentaries, or even Glenn Beck’s documentaries there is something unpolished about them—even though the filmmakers are often industry professionals. I attribute a lot of this to the fresh perspective of conservatism being represented once again in the film industry more than any lack of experience in film production. But the key to reaching a public is through those methods and unless conservatives retake the film industry, the plight of traditional values returning to mainstream America is nearly impossible.
Doc is now moving into that realm. His Tea Party documentary is just the first step. He and I are planning to work on a project together, and I am planning things of my own. It has taken time for me to assemble my thoughts on the matter, but I’m nearly there. Like a lot of things, I had to go through a process of unlearning what was taught to me and that is matching up with the magnificent tools that are now at the disposal of anybody who dares to use them.
As usual, it was good to see Doc, and this year had a different feel to it than in times past—where a sense of desperation was ever-present. This time we all had a presence of veterans who had been around and done most everything before. Like I said on the air with Matt while sitting in for Doc Thompson as he went to emcee the Tea Party event, conservatives are getting better at putting our message out—and that is something that the other side is significantly terrified of. In the future, there will be a lot more conservative competition in visual arts than there has been, and that is something to be very excited about.
There is no question that Bill O’Reilly is the best news guy in the business today. However, for my tastes he is way too close to the progressive point of view. He is too cozy with the kind of people who are wrecking our country so I usually watch him the way I would a disconnected parent from another generation who is out of touch with the reality of our times. The reason I do is because he is simply the best that there is—which says everything that needs to be determined. Bill O’Reilly tells the truth without spectacle and fanfare. So it should be quite shocking to many to watch his Talking Points Memo shown below from a few days ago titled, “America in Decline.” I understand the reason he does what he does with the progressive left, he wants to be a good reporter just after the facts, and he feels he will reach more people if he’s fair and balanced. Largely he is right, he is a bestselling author, he has excellent ratings on his top rated news program on Fox and his stage shows around the country routinely sell out. By most people’s definitions Bill O’Reilly is the epitome of American success, so they should listen to what he has to say. If you have not seen this, please do watch it and send it along to a friend. If you have, watch it again, and again and again. It’s all true and then some and every point made must be corrected in American culture within the decade, otherwise, we will not survive. It is that simple.
To those who say that Bill and those who think like he does is just a bunch of angry white guys spewing hate, it’s time to can it. Those are exactly the kind of people who have delivered us to this precipice. The angry white guys are “angry” because they have been kind, and fair, and open—and progressives have done all of the above to our country—and we don’t like it. It is kind of like telling a teenage kid not to have a party while we go on vacation, but while gone, the kid does just that, and when we returned, the house is destroyed. We will be angry! It only adds insult to the injury when the stupid kid tells us not to be angry!
All the things Bill mentioned have been done either intentionally, or through severe corruption and outright stupidity. This is where Bill and I are very different; he is willing to give progressives the benefit of the doubt where I think they have been quite purposeful. Bill being a strict Catholic guy believes in turning the other cheek to those who vilify him—where I do not. I think it is more appropriate to cut off the cheek of the villain and feed it to them for what they’ve done. But we both agree that things cannot continue as they have.
America has been attacked in the same manner that it was during the Pearl Harbor invasion, or the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist plot. It has been threatened in a similar way as the Cuban Missile Crises was designed to invoke and has been quite literal. The trouble is that most Americans did not define what was happening as an attack because guns and hostilities were not openly declared in the traditional sense—so much of what took America to the place it currently is, went unchallenged.
Now we are part of a country that has had its wealth redistributed to unproductive corners of the world, where fairness has been used as a club to crush enterprise, and stylish feelings have overtaken logic. Probably the biggest sign of the foul play which is amiss is the concluding statements in Bill’s Talking Points, where Lois Lerner testified before Congress yet again and took the Fifth multiple times so not to implicate herself. Lerner being a high-ranking member of the IRS has refused to answer questions as to Washington’s involvement in the IRS scandal that is at this point much, much, larger than Watergate ever was—and nobody in the media, or the Beltway culture have the courage to face down the obvious evil which is taking place. If the IRS will do what they have done to conservative groups, they’ll do it to anyone who stands in their way in the future no matter what the political affiliation. The Lerner corruption at the IRS is testimony in its own way and confirmation that everything so-called radicals like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and many others have been saying is 100% true. It is true until people like Lerner proves otherwise. They can’t have it both ways, use American laws of innocent before proven guilty, and then use the cover of bureaucracy to commit crimes against America. That is nothing short of terrorism and the evidence has proven that Lerner is guilty of it.
But what’s worse than what Lerner has done with the IRS, or the major newspapers who refused to cover the story out of ideological commitment to the kind of change they are trying to impose on the rest of us—is that we’ve let them do it. We’ve been kind, accommodating, and docile allowing them to take the “Fifth” when we know they are hiding something, or lying to us over Benghazi, or the reasoning that energy prices are so high, or taxes are going up, or our health care system has been tampered with, or our jobs are shoved overseas so to “redistribute” them to the gutters of Italy to balance things out with the European Union which has mismanaged itself to the brink of oblivion. We’ve been nice, and we have been taken advantage of.
O’Reilly isn’t inflating the situation in his broadcast on Fox. He’s point for point being excessively factual. The situation is every bit as bad has he stated and if corrections are not made, we are done as a nation—and it will have been on purpose by the enemies of the nation working within our system of government. We have been compromised, and we have a right to be angry about it. Very angry!
The central premise of the progressive argument which has been the undercurrent of communism for all of the 20th Century, emerging in popular culture during the 1960s—is that The United States was built on theft. The argument by progressives like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Noam Chomsky is that America stole their land from the “Native Americans,” that it stole its labor from the African slaves, and that it stole its wealth from Middle Eastern oil. But the real attack is an old one that was most spectacularly on display during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and was conducted much more subtly in The United States—it is a frontal assault against capitalism hoping to destroy the economic engine of prosperity which progressives stood vehemently against. Progressivism shaped the mind of Barack Obama and others like him; it was not them who shaped progressivism. Like termites they believe that their view of the world is the right one and their collective efforts were larger than their individual will—and their aim from day one of their acceptance of progressivism has been to burrow out America into a hollow shell to give back to the world what was stolen from them by capitalism. This is the premise of the new film by Dinesh D’Souza called America, which will be released on July 4th 2014, and promises to do something that has not yet been done before—take on directly the premise of progressivism in a film by high-profile Hollywood talent—most specifically the great Gerald R. Molen. Molen has turned from producing Steven Spielberg films to dedicating his talents by producing films which question the basis behind progressivism the way only Hollywood can—and is one of the first obvious defectors from the movie machine in California.
I’m not going to lie, I knew five years ago after attending a film festival that things needed to change. I had written a few very conservative novels. My Symposium of Justice opened with a serial rapist being bullwhipped to near death for the deliberate staging of a sexual assault by the city police in order to win more support from the public. Not exactly the kind of material a 2004 reading public was ready to deal with. My 2012 novel Tail of the Dragon was about an open civil war against statism done against the backdrop of the great car chase films of the past like Vanishing Point and Smokey and the Bandit. Readers of my blog loved the novel, but the general public wasn’t sure how to feel about it—as it went against everything most people were trained to consider acceptable. After a film I worked on in 2008 and understanding the Hollywood culture up-close and personal I changed direction in my life not to fit the times, but to the times I knew that were coming. Creative people where emerging from their hiding places, people like Glenn Beck, Hollywood defectors like Gerald R. Molen, and Harmon Kaslow. John Aglialoro went into production on the Ayn Rand classic Atlas Shrugged, and of course Dinesh D’Souza started making movies leading up to 2012: Obama’s America. The Batman films by Christopher Nolan were certainly making arguments against progressivism on a huge scale. I saw in Hollywood that progressivism was about to go to court, California had spent itself into oblivion, several American cities were on the edge of bankruptcy, and a radical progressive president had just been elected. Times were changing and as the people in position to usher in those changes, the masses would need more details to explain to them what went wrong and how they could come out of it. This has led to the blog site you are now reading which has over 2 million words worth of my opinions, history, and strategy on how to defeat progressivism. I knew as people like Molen, D’Souza, and Kaslow produced films that would wake up people to the slow cannibalizing of their country by progressivism, that people would need support for their personal journey while coming out of that deep sleep. So I started Overmanwarror’s Wisdom to help them with the difficult journey of waking up from the terrible sleep imposed upon them for years by respected progressives such as Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky had already written several bestselling books over many years which have been pushed like intoxicants into American students through universities thoroughly corrupting the minds of millions for several decades toward progressivism—really to the doom of American capitalism. Chomsky’s essential philosophical premise of Universalism is that “we are choosing to live in a world of comforting illusion,” alluding that the truth of American imperialism is theft of other people’s resources exploited by the evil West. He has sold progressivism with the argument that America should “apply the same ethical principles that we apply to other governments to our own.” In this way, he and others in intelligentsia have paralyzed conservative America into a defensive posture when attack was the needed strategy. That paralysis has lasted for at least four decades, but in 2008, the cracks were forming and a collapse was about to occur. So I determined to help with the transition.
Many wonder why I don’t try to sell my work done here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom. The reason is that I am fighting to preserve America so that the intellect of the buying public is not lost to progressivism forever. It won’t do any good to sell my work to a bunch of mindless drones and I’m not interested in writing for a drone driven public. A Wilshire Blvd talent scout told me about 15 years ago, “Mr. Hoffman, your work is too hard-edged, too political, too violent, and too judgmental. Loosen up a bit, and put some occasional tits in your stories, everybody likes boobies.” This was a female agent from one of the big firms. She was telling me how to sell my work so that it would be marketable to the masses. But that just wasn’t interesting. What good was a condo in Florida, and a Lamborghini, if America failed? So I stopped writing for other people and started writing what I wanted to. And on this blog site, I write what I damn well please at whatever cost. Because the casualties are strategic objectives that will help pave the way for the other media to gain more of an audience—such as D’Souza’s new film, or the Atlas films by Kaslow and Aglialoro.
In the upcoming film by D’Souza, called America, he will take on directly the premise of Noam Chomsky’s arguments, which for the left is like attacking Jesus Christ. Chomsky is forbidden territory that has been beyond refuting, and question. D’Souza will attack the basic foundations of Chomsky and his roots into Immanuel Kant going all the way back to 1785 when the roots of progressivism were forming in Europe. While Immanuel Kant was publishing his works Critique of Pure Reason, (1781) the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the Critique of Judgment (1790) America was working through the difficulties of becoming the first nation on earth to have a free people driven by capitalism protected by a Constitution rooted in Aristotelian logic. Over the next three centuries countries who followed the lead of America succeeded wonderfully, while those who followed after Kant have suffered under the terrible weight of poverty. This is where Noam Chomsky gets his foundation arguments about progressivism which have done so much damage.
On July 4th, the progressive left, and right will be very outraged by Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, but the time has come, and I knew it would for a long time. My goal was to have thousands of articles available to viewers of these new movies to combat directly the swarms of progressive propaganda that currently exists. Even with my millions of words produced in defense of free markets and capitalism, there are literally trillions and trillions of words in favor of progressivism. But the big difference is that there are severe holes in their theory and it has always been the progressives who have conducted the theft—like Robin Hood, where they intend openly to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The grim reality that Chomsky refuses to see with his Kantian mindset is that the Middle East sat on their giant oil fields for generations, and did nothing with it. It was capitalism that found a use for it, and made the families of Saudi Arabia wealthy beyond measure. Without the West buying their oil, the wealth that pours into the Middle East would dry up like a torrential downpour in the desert. It would evaporate as quickly as it came. It was America who taught the Japanese how to have one of the world’s most powerful economies, and it is America who buys most of what China produces. It is America who keeps dictators from overrunning the entire world and it is still NASA technology that makes space travel in Russia possible as our astronauts have been forced by the progressive Obama into hitching a ride with a contentious enemy all in the name of “progressive peace.” The American Indian, the so-called “Native American” lived life as nomads for centuries regulating themselves to begging the gods for rain so that crops would grow. The American had science which could help them produce more food under adverse conditions than anyplace on earth. America has produced so much food that going hungry in America is a choice instead of a random option. Within two centuries of the mystic Native American dances around campfires asking the gods to bring food to their tribe, McDonald’s restaurants sprung up every 50 miles across America and NEVER run out of food. It is inconceivable to stop by a McDonald’s and find that they don’t have meat for a hamburger. Noam Chomsky and other progressives think that the Native Americans had the right approach to life and that McDonald’s is a vile construct of capitalism creating a consumer based culture, and the premise of progressivism is to destroy it forever—preserving the earth with a foolish notion of tribal tribute to ancient gods and human reason being troubled by questions it cannot dismiss, but also cannot answer. The American seeks to answer all questions and overcome all obstacles as progressives see such behavior as theft—theft of resources that are finite and not renewable by human ingenuity—in the same way that Indians believed Buffalo kills were spiritual gifts, and rain was given because of a stupid dance.
As the rest of the world learns of these falsehoods they have been taught all their lives, it is my intention to give them a safe place to find the answers with a simple Google search. There are so many articles now on the World Wide Web from me that people all over the world are reading for the first time and having their epiphany moments. Most of the articles are long, and if I charged money for them, people would skip reading in favor of some pornographic material. So I offer them for free so that people will be encouraged to study them. And when people see films like D’Souza’s America, or Aglialoro’s Atlas, or Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, people enlightened will do their Google search and get the details here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom. They’ll learn how they have been scammed by people like Noam Chomsky, and Barack Obama—for a very, very long time. A new rebellion of intellectual thought is emerging, and it is the opposite of the one that Nom Chomsky has been a part of for so many years. The time has come, and not a moment too soon. But the next step will be the hardest. It is one thing to have filmmakers like D’Souza make wonderful films; it is another to understand what to do with that information. For that, I have dedicated myself, and my fortune. I have been on strike so to speak for several years now, and it has been expensive. But well worth it, because the fight is not just for wealth, but the quality of minds needed to have commerce with. Without quality people in America to conduct business with, the quality of the capitalist experience is greatly diminished, which has been the ultimate reason for the progressive attempt to dumb down America through public education. For them, it was always about attacking capitalism—at any cost—even people’s minds.
This may be the most important document that you’ll ever read and contains some of the most potent videos you’ll ever see. Give yourself time with this topic and brace yourself. If you do the research properly and let the evidence take you to the ultimate conclusion eventually the road runs out. Eventually, you will discover what was always hidden right in front of all our faces—a realization that is so troubling, and sinister, that nobody will want to believe it. But it’s true, and dear reader, what I’m about to tell you will bring great harm to your mind and make your sleep difficult. If you care even a little bit about the matters of the world around you, what you will read in the oncoming paragraphs will invite demons into your dreams to haunt you for eternity. The demons however where always there—but you will now be aware of them.
I was there in the final days of the Reagan Presidency and saw the Berlin Wall coming down. I watched the Sean Connery interview where he declared that Gorbachev “is the man of the 20th Century,” while the country was coming apart at the seams promoting his film The Russia House. In that same interview he spoke about his first visit to the country during a movie 21 years earlier called The Red Tent that he stared in where he said, the Soviet Union seemed impregnable. “It was just so potent, with this enormous army, and you felt if they were going to do something they’d do it. And nobody’d do it better.” Then suddenly without warning Gorbachaev seemed to be leaning toward peace and “democracy.” The Soviet Union surprisingly “tapped out” on the mat and begin to embrace western ways letting film crews like Connery’s come to the country to film in Moscow—behind the Iron Curtain. Something about all that never seemed right to me…………………it was mysteriously odd to be so concerned about the Soviet Union for all of my childhood and suddenly they were our friends welcoming the West into their culture and breaking their nation into small republics all seeking United Nations membership.
The more research I have done into education funding, origins of labor unions, and global socialism all these paths have led to a glaring fact that has now touched the lives of virtually every human being on planet earth. The intentions of the communists in the Soviet Union—which can be seen in all their glory in the magnificent novel, We The Living by Ayn Rand have come to fruition with a strategy invoked in a method only collectivists could utilize—people not concerned with the pronoun “I” but with collective salvation that would take over a century to fulfill, global world-wide communism. That was always the stated goal of the Soviet Union and they had President Franklin Roosevelt’s ear reaching an agreement with him on November 15, 1933.
Almost immediately upon taking office, President Roosevelt moved to establish formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. His reasons for doing so were complex, but the decision was based on several primary factors. Roosevelt hoped that recognition of the Soviet Union would serve U.S. strategic interests by limiting Japanese expansionism into Asia, and he believed that full diplomatic recognition would serve American commercial interests in the Soviet Union, a matter of some concern to an Administration grappling with the effects of the Great Depression. Finally, the United States was the only major power that continued to withhold official diplomatic recognition from the Soviet Union. It also helped that Roosevelt was from the same family as former President Teddy Roosevelt who helped create the Progressive Party in the United States and were trying to do with less violence what the Bolshevik’s had done in Russia overthrowing the Tsarist regime. Being a Democrat, the Soviet Union was not all that different from progressive stated social progress goals, prompting Roosevelt to introduce Social Security and other government safety net programs into American politics so to take the edge off communist pressure during the Red Decade—the 1930s. Communists and Democrats were not that dissimilar. The big difference was that the Soviet Union was participating in major social purges where the United States at that time wouldn’t consider such things.
President Roosevelt decided to approach the Soviets in October 1933 through two personal intermediaries: Henry Morgenthau (then head of the Farm Credit Administration and Acting Secretary of the Treasury) and William C. Bullitt (a former diplomat who, as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, was informally serving as one of Roosevelt’s chief foreign policy advisers). The two approached Boris Shvirsky, the Soviet Union’s unofficial representative in Washington, with an unsigned letter from Roosevelt to the Soviet Union’s official head of state, Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, Mikhail Kalinin. The letter intimated that the U.S. Government would be willing to negotiate the terms for recognizing the Soviet Union, and requested that Kalinin dispatch an emissary to Washington. In response, Commissar for Foreign Affairs Litvinov journeyed to Washington in November 1933 in order to begin talks.
Initially, the talks made little headway due to several outstanding issues: the unpaid debt owed by the Soviet Union to the United States, the restriction of religious freedoms and legal rights of U.S. citizens living in the Soviet Union, and Soviet involvement in Communist subversion and propaganda within the United States. Following a series of one-on-one negotiations known as the “Roosevelt-Litvinov Conversations,” however, Litvinov and the President worked out a “gentleman’s agreement” on November 15, 1933, that overcame the major obstacles blocking recognition.
According to the terms of the Roosevelt-Litvinov agreements, the Soviets pledged to participate in future talks to settle their outstanding financial debt to the United States. Four days earlier, after another private meeting with Litvinov, Roosevelt also managed to secure guarantees that the Soviet Government would refrain from interfering in American domestic affairs (i.e. aiding the American Communist Party), and would grant certain religious and legal rights for U.S. citizens living in the Soviet Union. Following the conclusion of these agreements, President Roosevelt appointed William C. Bullitt as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, the cooperative spirit embodied in the Roosevelt-Litvinov agreements proved to be short-lived. Shortly after his arrival in Moscow in December 1933, Bullitt became disillusioned with the Soviets as an agreement on the issue of debt repayment failed to materialize. Moreover, evidence emerged that the Soviet Government had violated its pledge not to interfere in American domestic affairs. Finally, the killing of the Leningrad Communist Party boss, Sergey Kirov, launched the first of the “Great Purges” that led to the death or imprisonment of millions of Soviet citizens as the Stalinist regime liquidated any potential critics of the government. The wide scope and public nature of the purges horrified both American diplomatic personnel stationed in the Soviet Union, and the world at large. The Soviet Union proceeded to pursue an all out infiltration of American politics at virtually every level using KGB agents to set the stage for the counter-culture movements in Europe and The United States by infiltrating the colleges in both areas and slowly breeding communist sympathizers. Again the details are spelled out explicitly in We The Living. In 1979 when America created the Department of Education, the internal goal was to usher in communism to every child in America one mind at a time. Between 1908 and 1975 130 bills were introduced to congress to create The Department of Education. They all failed–every one of them. So why suddenly did the 1979 bill succeed, it is because, it was created by communist infiltrators into the American government by sympathizers to the communist cause on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crises, and Kennedy assassination. These infiltrators worked through the labor unions, specifically the National Education Association. The validity of this claim can be confirmed by Charlotte Iserbyt, who was the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and The U.S. Department of Education. She reported directly to Ronald Reagan who used his acting skills to help make America feel good about itself while the Cold War tore at the internal workings of government in full knowledge by him. He fired Iserbyt when she started leaking what she discovered about the communist plot within The Department of Education. Meanwhile Reagan who had sympathized with communists in the past, had been a leading member of United World Federalists, and a charter member of Americans for Democratic Action and tried to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union with lessons he learned from GE when he was a spokesman for them in the 60s. Reagan turned to advertising propaganda, and charm. Reagan outspent Soviet Russia into oblivion forcing the Soviet Union to collapse economically. But ideologically they had already penetrated all their targets fulfilling many of their 45 planks of communism outlined in the book The Naked Communist outlined extensively here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom. Communism had infiltrated the colleges, the public schools, the media, the movie industry, the Democratic Party, large parts of the Republican Party and now that the Soviets were pretending to break up and collapse, new members of the United Nations were being admitted so to gain voting power and fulfill another communist plank, infiltration of the United Nations, which was created ironically by Franklin Roosevelt. This new, less obvious strategy was called The Perestroika Deception.
Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn CBE (Russian: Анатолий Михайлович Голицын; born August 25, 1926) was a Soviet KGB defector and author of two books about the long-term deception strategy of the KGB leadership which was intended to be implemented during this period of the early 1990s. He was born in Piryatin, Ukrainian SSR and provided “a wide range of intelligence to the CIA on the operations of most of the ‘Lines’ (departments) at the Helsinki and other residencies, as well as KGB methods of recruiting and running agents.” He is an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire(CBE) and, as late as 1984, was an American citizen.
He has been the repeated target of KGB assassination attempts. Current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin was a 16 year officer in the KGB holding a rank of Lieutenant Colonel before retiring in 1991, about the same time as The Perestroika Deception was set to take place and go underground. The movie mentioned regarding Sean Connery, The Russia House was the first film to be allowed into Russia and filmed in Moscow and St. Petersburg. For those not proficient at geography, St. Petersburg is Petrograd in the Ayn Rand novel referred. St. Petersburg was renamed to the current which had been changed in 1914 to Petrograd in 1991. Remember that date. The novel The Russia House was written by John le Carre, otherwise known as David John Moore Cornwell who was a former intelligence officer for MI5 and MI6 in Great Britain. The KGB was well aware of what The Russia House could mean to their plot to begin The Perestroika Deception and implementing an overall strategy by a popular actor from Europe in Sean Connery, a beautiful American actress in Michelle Pfeiffer—playing a Russian woman, and a platform to announce to the world how Russia is a good country who suddenly wanted peace. The project of course was funneled through the SAG union in California from the Communist Party USA advocating the novel on the fast track for film studio production. No studio in America would pass up the opportunity to be the first American film shot behind the Iron Curtain. But what many of them didn’t know was that they were all pawns in The Perestroika Deception.
Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn wrote a book called The Perestroika Deception which was published in 1995 and claimed:
- “The [Soviet] strategists are concealing the secret coordination that exists and will continue between Moscow and the ‘nationalist’ leaders of [the] ‘independent’ republics.”
- “The power of the KGB remains as great as ever… Talk of cosmetic changes in the KGB and its supervision is deliberately publicized to support the myth of ‘democratization’ of the Soviet political system.”
- “Scratch these new, instant Soviet ‘democrats,’ ‘anti-Communists,’ and ‘nationalists’ who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents.”
In his previous book, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, Golitsyn said President Gorbachev stated outright, “Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system.” Answering those asking, “Are we giving up socialism?” Gorbachev replied, “Every part of our program of perestroika…is fully based on the principles of more socialism….” Gorbachev has even been as blunt as calling perestroika a “continuation of the October Revolution.”
The “perestroika deception” worked like a charm. American leaders were all too eager to pronounce the end of the Cold War. Then President George H. W. Bush declared, “We live in a time when we are witnessing the end of an idea — the final chapter of the Communist experiment.” President Bush went on to spearhead a guns-to-butter policy resulting from this “peace dividend,” culminating in a massive diversion of military spending to social programs. From 1989-2004, military spending as a percent of GDP dropped from 6.2 percent to a scant 2.9 percent. Over the same period, entitlement spending went from 28 percent of federal outlays to nearly 40 percent.
US military cuts have been so drastic that former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger has said, “The simple reality today is that we cannot fight two MRC’s [Major Regional Contingencies] more or less simultaneously.”
For more on this, please do read this very good article in American Thinker from way back in 2009.
Now fast forward to this current time of 2014 where within one week America and Great Britain announced major cuts to the military and their world-wide occupation of far away countries, the libertarian push to put up walls to the world and live and let die other nations, and the Russians attacking Ukraine for its involvement in attempting to join the European Union by rebelling against the Russian puppet president of Ukraine. The people desperately want freedom from Russia as one of those false Republics which were supposedly set up to preserve “democracy.” But they’ve had too much taste of freedom, and now want the real thing—and Russia doesn’t like it.
I received a note the other day from George Soros advising me that now was the time to invest in the Ukraine—as he has all along been involved in planting the seeds of discontent in that country, as he has been doing all over the world on behalf of his progressive sponsored groups, directly connected to Socialist International so that the economy of Ukraine will collapse. Up until a few days ago when Ukraine reached out for international financial help, their currency slid 18% just in February of 2014. As all investors know, such devaluations are ripe pickings for quick returns on investments because they are driven by market turbulence. So people like Soros are often found playing two sides against each other to provoke such devaluations. The same thing that has happened to Ukraine is currently underway in The United States. If you will read the letter from Soros below dear reader you will see that George began his involvement in Ukraine in 1990, the same year that The Russia House was released, and one year before Vladimir Putin supposedly retired from the KGB and decided to run for political office eventually making a fool of Barack Obama and the rest of America at every turn as the world does not yet want to admit that they have all been deceived by the “perestroika deception.
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Sustaining Ukraine’s Breakthrough
By George Soros
Following a crescendo of terrifying violence, the Ukrainian uprising has had a surprisingly positive outcome. Contrary to all rational expectations, a group of citizens armed with not much more than sticks and shields made of cardboard boxes and metal garbage-can lids overwhelmed a police force firing live ammunition. There were many casualties, but the citizens prevailed. This was one of those historic moments that leave a lasting imprint on a society’s collective memory.
How could such a thing happen? Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics offers a fitting metaphor. According to Heisenberg, subatomic phenomena can manifest themselves as particles or waves; similarly, human beings may alternate between behaving as individual particles or as components of a larger wave. In other words, the unpredictability of historical events like those in Ukraine has to do with an element of uncertainty in human identity.
People’s identity is made up of individual elements and elements of larger units to which they belong, and peoples’ impact on reality depends on which elements dominate their behavior. When civilians launched a suicidal attack on an armed force in Kyiv on February 20, their sense of representing “the nation” far outweighed their concern with their individual mortality. The result was to swing a deeply divided society from the verge of civil war to an unprecedented sense of unity.
Whether that unity endures will depend on how Europe responds. Ukrainians have demonstrated their allegiance to a European Union that is itself hopelessly divided, with the euro crisis pitting creditor and debtor countries against one another. That is why the EU was hopelessly outmaneuvered by Russia in the negotiations with Ukraine over an Association Agreement.
True to form, the EU under German leadership offered far too little and demanded far too much from Ukraine. Now, after the Ukrainian people’s commitment to closer ties with Europe fueled a successful popular insurrection, the EU, along with the International Monetary Fund, is putting together a multibillion-dollar rescue package to save the country from financial collapse. But that will not be sufficient to sustain the national unity that Ukraine will need in the coming years.
I established the Renaissance Foundation in Ukraine in 1990 – before the country achieved independence. The foundation did not participate in the recent uprising, but it did serve as a defender of those targeted by official repression. The foundation is now ready to support Ukrainians’ strongly felt desire to establish resilient democratic institutions (above all, an independent and professional judiciary). But Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can provide: management expertise and access to markets.
In the remarkable transformation of Central Europe’s economies in the 1990’s, management expertise and market access resulted from massive investments by German and other EU-based companies, which integrated local producers into their global value chains. Ukraine, with its high-quality human capital and diversified economy, is a potentially attractive investment destination. But realizing this potential requires improving the business climate across the economy as a whole and within individual sectors – particularly by addressing the endemic corruption and weak rule of law that are deterring foreign and domestic investors alike.
In addition to encouraging foreign direct investment, the EU could provide support to train local companies’ managers and help them develop their business strategies, with service providers remunerated by equity stakes or profit-sharing. An effective way to roll out such support to a large number of companies would be to combine it with credit lines provided by commercial banks. To encourage participation, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) could invest in companies alongside foreign and local investors, as it did in Central Europe.
Ukraine would thus open its domestic market to goods manufactured or assembled by European companies’ wholly- or partly-owned subsidiaries, while the EU would increase market access for Ukrainian companies and help them integrate into global markets.
I hope and trust that Europe under German leadership will rise to the occasion. I have been arguing for several years that Germany should accept the responsibilities and liabilities of its dominant position in Europe. Today, Ukraine needs a modern-day equivalent of the Marshall Plan, by which the United States helped to reconstruct Europe after World War II. Germany ought to play the same role today as the US did then.
I must, however, end with a word of caution. The Marshall Plan did not include the Soviet bloc, thereby reinforcing the Cold War division of Europe. A replay of the Cold War would cause immense damage to both Russia and Europe, and most of all to Ukraine, which is situated between them. Ukraine depends on Russian gas, and it needs access to European markets for its products; it must have good relations with both sides.
Here, too, Germany should take the lead. Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance.
Source: Project Syndicate
Do you see the source of the trouble here dear reader? Do you see what’s happened? Ukraine is representative of all of us the world over. They are caught between Russia and its dedicated allegiance to worldwide communism declared to President Roosevelt in 1933 when he sought peace with them before war broke out. The European Union is built on socialism. The Soviet Union, the European Union, the Screen Actors Guild Union, the National Education Association Union, the National Auto Workers Union, EVERY UNION is involved in this god damn communist plot, and if you support a labor union you have been helping the “perestroika deception” a KGB strategy to spread communism to every corner of the world and rule as a one world government. Out of all the countries in the world that George Soros could have involved himself with, why did he establish the Renaissance Foundation in Ukraine in 1990? Because Soros knew about the perestroika deception. That’s why he funds the Open Society Foundations. Ukraine does not have a choice between American capitalism, or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. They are not being offered anything close to an American Constitution—they are offered an alliance between one communist union and one socialist union and freedom isn’t even in the cards. That same fate is intended for us, made more complicated because of the free nature of America, and the amount of money and invention which has been generated on a relatively small land mass, compared to the communist work of a massive Russian nation and the still very communist China. China has kept Hong Kong a capitalist sector so not to disturb the markets that have been generated there, which communist China now enjoys instead of Great Britain, but that is simply a hook in the water to snag up Western investment while these communist forces disguised as progressives seek to destroy the American currency—forcing America into a North American Union which will ultimately be controlled by communists already in place, especially in Mexico, Central America, and South America—specifically Venezuela and Brazil.
The situation is actually far worse than even the most controversial radio talk show host has sputtered about. The “perestroika deception” is more sinister than Glenn Beck or even Alex Jones has suggested. The attack has been more flagrant than anything Ted Nugent has uttered, or Rush Limbaugh has espoused. All those characters have talked around the problem to the results without really getting to the bottom line of what the root cause is for all these things. I have made a good living identifying problems well before anybody knew there was a problem and fixing things that other people have struggled with. When I asked years ago what is wrong with American schools, and I sought an answer, this is where it has taken me. The answer is that communism is alive and well, and still a major threat to the world. America did not win the Cold War. The surrender by Russia was a ruse designed to get America to lay down its defenses, and it worked. Actually, it’s far worse than anybody thought, because America allowed itself to be sung to sleep by the KGB quite on purpose. Once we let down our defenses, they entered our children’s minds through various labor unions and went to work turning them against the hard-working generations of the past—so that in the future, those children would be easy to conquer as adults. Once the generations who built America died off, the new generation of complacent union trained idiots would be easy to dispose of, which was always the plan—from the very beginning of the “perestroika deception.”
People in the west, which is both their strength and weakness, have a firm reliance on the pronoun “I.” The word “I” indicates responsibility and self-worth, and is the primary reason that Americans invent so many things and are so industrious leaving the rest of the world to only copy off us. Collectivist societies in every single fashion lack the ability to generate anything new. It is the pronoun “I” that allows for innovation, technological revolution, and advances in free will, increased human capacity and improved lifestyles. But it is also a weakness, because those functioning under the pronoun “I” cannot understand a group of people who would happily sacrifice their life for the greater good of some stupid ideal—like the spread of communism over the entire planet. They cannot understand living one’s entire life for the good of the collective whole—where once they perish, the work they pursued can be picked up and continued for another generation. The communist because they do not function from the pronoun “I” can happily not see their objectives met within their lifetime. They can wait for 100 years, or 200 years—whatever it takes to get where they want to go—because they lack the value of the word, “I.” Americans because the pronoun “I” is so pronounced have been exposed by the KGB and manipulated by a scam that takes place outside of the lifetimes of the participants. Americans have not been able to see the perestroika deception because the plan takes place over several generations and the career changes of many America media personalities, union officials, politicians, and celebrities. The average influential years of most Americans is about 15 years. Most people functioning from the pronoun “I” spend a number of years climbing the ladders of success, and once they arrive, they have a seat at the table for about 15 years before they retire and move on to a peaceful life enjoying the fruits of their labor. The KGB knew this and exploited it in grand fashion hatching a destruction upon America that would unite the world under communism for all known eternity—at least for the human race—and they did it with the “perestroika deception.”
Watch all the videos included in this article to learn more. If you want to read the book The Perestroika Deception, it is out of print and very hard to get. But you can download it online by CLICKING HERE.
Stupid people who don’t comprehend what they read very well believe inaccurately that I am anti-education when in reality I am anti-liberal instruction. If there were other viewpoints reflected in colleges and public education—ones that reflect my sense of conservatism, I would be more tolerant. But I was fighting this fight long before most people even knew there was a battle. My school days were very contentious and my college experiences even worse. Basically I never did yield to the left leaning sentiment of most of the teachers I grew up with, and they were never as obvious about their political leanings as the teachers of today are—and my attitude toward them hasn’t yielded. In kindergarten for me at Lakota it started from day one—I went toe to toe with Miss Mays and was always in trouble. She ended up in a mental hospital. Every teacher I had through the rest of my elementary years called my mother crying about how they thought they were failing me—because I treated them with so much disrespect. My desk was always mess, I had no reverence for their instruction, and I wanted to spend all my time drawing pictures and writing stories. They hoped that my mother would put pressure on me to cease the behavior—but it was my mother who gave me the independence to begin with—wisely before I ever entered public school. By that time there was no going back, even if she did at times want to. And those were the good—peaceful years. I spent more time in the principal’s office and in detention than in class—which was fine with me because it was more time to read and write what I wanted—not what some leftist teacher wanted me to learn.
To show off for his girlfriend teacher at the time my 8th grade gym teacher took my bullwhip from me which I had brought for show and tell, and kept it in the gymnasium to play with in front of his entourage of junior high football players. He did it to show he had power and authority over me. So after feeling bad for half the day I got up in the middle of my English class as my teacher protested and marched down to the gym right in the middle of that guy making a fool of himself with my whip in front of the school’s athletic elite. I took the whip from him, gave a quick demonstration which made everyone’s mouth drop and went back to my class to a parade of harassment from school administrators demanding that I head straight to the principal’s office. That day confirmed it for me, my teachers believed that they were my parents, and functioned from a position that they believed I had an obligation to listen to them—which I did not. I went back to my class and sat down leaving them mystified that I did not have any fear of them. With my whip in my hand I knew there wasn’t anything they could do to me because nobody—not even the athletic gym teacher knew how to use it the way I did and that gave me power over them.
I helped drive my freshman English teacher into a mental breakdown the next year. They were an extreme bleeding heart liberal. I had no interest in learning what they knew—because their mind was a mess. They had no right to stand in front of a class and teach anybody anything. And from there things went severally downhill culminating during my Senior year with a drag race down I-75 with beer and the future Superintendent of Lakota Schools after a year of cat and mouse furiously engaged. That guy tried to pin everything that went wrong at the school on my back out of revenge for my behavioral rebellion.
One of my good friends during my sophomore year was a very tough guy who got into a lot of fights. He was humongous. He wasn’t afraid of anything, because he was literally bigger than everyone else, stronger, and if both those things failed, he was more fearless. He sat across from me in one of my study halls after a weekend where he had gotten into a fight and cut open his knuckles revealing the bone from his victim’s teeth. He left the wound open to close on its own and never went to a doctor. The wound got terribly infected but he didn’t care. He left it to grow closed without stitches for the remainder of the school year. He didn’t fear infection, he didn’t fear losing the hand, he didn’t fear death, he didn’t fear other people’s opinions, and he completely lacked concern. The next year when I had the same type of wound from the same kind of activity where my bone popped out, my ligaments were strung from my hand with pouring blood and it took a plastic surgeon to reconstruct my fingers he saw me in the hall and grabbed my wrapped appendage and laughed calling me a “pussy.” Then he winked at me. His hand was still infected a year later from the same wound which he had broken open half a dozen times. It was his way of telling me I was right, and that he should have went to the doctor—that time. The cops were scared to death of him, and no administrators knew what to do with him. We had in common that we both wished to live free of any chains. He learned from me how to outsmart his enemies and I learned from him how to fight—how to be so certain with yourself that you never had to worry about a confrontation no matter how many people were involved. He eventually got into a fight about 20 years ago where he got stabbed in the heart and died. As time and distance moved between us he resorted back to just raw knuckle fighting which left him vulnerable—and eventually dead. But he lived quite a life. He lived outside of the law, outside of the school rules because no administrator knew what to do with him. He could walk down the hall and call the principal by his first name, grope any girl even in front of their boyfriends and never be challenged, and pretty much do what he wanted any time he wanted. We got along fabulously and had a symbiotic relationship. When he did end up in jail, he got into a lot more trouble of course which eventually pulled him down a vortex where I could no longer reach him. For him, his best times where in school where he could let me piece him together again—because he lacked structure otherwise. The teachers couldn’t do anything for him, but I could. Liberal education made him worse—he needed my conservativism, and structure.
I knew from day one even at a very young age that the school system was wrong, the lines, the recesses, the teachers, the desk assignments, the whole intrusion on personal liberty was designed to break people—and I determined that I would never be broken—and I never was. That has given me the clairvoyance as an adult to speak accurately about the public school system and what it does to people.
A vast majority of the educators in any school system lean-to the political left and they believe inaccurately that their job is to mold us all into some collective fabric of interwoven social blanket for which we are but one silly little thread. They reflect accurately the opinion revealed in the first video on this article. In my experience at Lakota—which was supposedly the best in the area, I can only think of maybe five teachers who were not extreme liberals. By the time I got to my junior year and had been in some high-profile violent acts that were plastered all over the newspapers and television the school finally gave up—except for a few who decided that I would be locked away for my insolence—I did discover a couple of teachers who were relatively decent people founded in conservative philosophy. The rest were bra burning scum bags—old drug hounds and loose moral scum bags from top to bottom. One of my current friends who was a school board member at Lakota during this period will recognize word for word what I’m saying—and can confirm it all and more.
To prove my point there was an article just the other day about an upcoming election featuring Kelly Kohl’s and Shannon Jones, both known as hard-core Tea Party candidates. That article wasn’t all that surprising to me, as I have been covering those kinds of things here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom for a long time. Shannon caved under the pressure of the SB5 defeat along with John Kasich and the Tea Party wants to eradicate them from the earth. Nothing new there—as the emotions are justified. Just because you lose one battle you don’t tuck and run yielding to the liberal menace. You fight them—and you fight them high and low with methods that they can’t fathom until they yield, beg for mercy, and are willing to make a deal for their very life. Then when you have them in that state—you end them. There is no debate. Shannon didn’t do that—so Kelly is challenging her political seat. Well of course this article stirred up comments at the end of it and guess who was the most vocal? Supporters of the education industry were the ones who left the most left leaning comments against the Tea Party. Check below for a sampling of their diatribes and click the link at the end to verify for yourself. That first guy—Scott Malone is a psychologist for two different Lakota schools. His political leanings are obvious and he is the one who advises young people in matters of psychological difficulty.
Either way Americans lose
Terry Battle · Top Commenter
If you wanted to give Ohio an enema you would stick the hose in the Tea-bagger party
If the Tea Party was made up of bears, they would all be polar. Maybe some would be Bi-polar, but they would just roll around in the snow a few extra minutes and hope no one notices.
Now this is truly funny. When Shannon Jones is not conservative enough for the Tea Party you know things are really getting screwed up.
Can you imagine what the party purity test looks like ?
What those names have in common is they are either educators or political activists and in public schools, colleges, and labor unions who attach memberships to those activities. Their core beliefs are confirmed by what Paul Reville revealed in his talk at the Center For American Progress recently—a liberal think tank designed to “progress” society into collectivism. “The children belong to all of us,” that is what Reville said, and he’s not the only one. That statement has been said during virtually every school levy campaign in America for years, by more than one pandering politician and bucket loads of misfit parents who suck at instructing their children anything—and want “society” to do the hard work for them. That is the root cause for the collective belief of group ownership of children.
Is it any surprise that Peter Dinklege did pro communist commentary for NBC during the 2014 Olympics in Sochi? NBC apparently did not understand the Twitter backlash when they announced, “the towering presence, the empire that ascended to affirm a colossal footprint. The revolution that birthed one of modern history’s pivotal experiments……………..” Most teachers think the same way as the NBC producers who thought that the Cold War against Russia was long over. Yet what they all have in common is that they were taught in public schools by disciples of the original KGB to push the entire world into a communist state—and they aimed to do it through American schools. I have covered the proof extensively in previous articles for those who are new to this problem. Minds are formed in schools and once the mind is reprogrammed into a liberal thought process, for most people it’s over for the rest of their lives. If they grow up to become Republicans, they end up wishy-washy, watered down people like John Boehner. I know hundreds of them—they think they are conservative, but their educations where teachers believed they were co-parents ruined their minds with a liberal mentality exclusively—as conservatives have been deliberately shoved out of the public education experience. They do not last in the education profession at any level except in the extreme situation where the education institution is decidedly conservative such as Hillsdale, or Liberty.
It does not work to say that just because someone is against the liberal education of America they are against education. If there were openly conservative teachers at my district public school of Lakota, I would feel differently about a great many things, but there aren’t. The further I became involved in Lakota due to my political activity, I found it shocking how much sexual molestation was going on, how many teachers were openly gay, how many support communism, socialism, and Barack Obama and once I learned that it tied right into my own school day experiences where my refusal to be considered “one of their children” got me into a lot of trouble which I am very proud of today. My wife was a straight A student. Once she met me—she dropped down to Ds and Cs because I told her the whole experience was stupid. My very best friend was an Honor’s Society member who sold his robe to a kid for a $100 bucks on graduation day. I am proud to have had an influence on them because to this very day, they are far freer than if they had been pulled into that vortex of social engineering at such a young age. But all the kids I knew back then who did follow all the rules, they ended up watered down versions of their true potential—which was the intent of public education from the very beginning—once the Department of Education was created in 1979. Public education isn’t trying to teach anybody anything—but how to be compliant—and answerable to the collective sum of society. And that makes public education a vile enterprise with sinister intentions confirmed all too well by the comments of Scott Malone—a psychologist at Lakota who should not be in a position to instruct conservative children from conservative families anything. The basic belief that the teaching profession has that “children belong to all of us,” is one that says the shared experiences of Scott Malone’s liberalism is just as valuable as a conservative child’s parents. Anyone in math knows that you can’t multiply “0” with anything and get something back in value. Malone’s liberalism is a “0” while a strong conservative family with a mommy and a daddy who go to church on Sunday may be a “10.” What do you get when you multiply 10 X 0? You get a kid that has zeros in their life where there should be value, and the mind of the child becomes a watered down version of the parent’s instruction—because society with its collective liberalism has entered a zero into the equation, and given a child little value to carry into their adult lives. That is why I’m against public education in the form it is now. Now—put some Ronald Reagan type conservatives in front of a class with a suit, tie, and some firm American beliefs—and we can talk. But until then, it’s a waste of time. I have literally felt this way my entire life—and it’s not going to change now. But what will change when an immovable force interacts with a bunch of squishy minded liberals—is the immovable force will have its way. Mark it on the calendar. I intend to do for many others what I did for my friends during my own school days—and that is help free them from the bondage of a nanny state and the collective ownership of the value in their minds sucked from them by the many liberals who teach public education.
The primary reason that we have a Bill of Rights, specifically the First and Second Amendment, is that WHEN corruption takes over a government, that the people can wrestle that power away and remove those corrupted restoring order. The Second Amendment is not to secure the ability to hunt, or provide personal protection in case some punk decides they want to steal all our cookies. The Second Amendment is present so that American citizens can defend themselves against the federal government if that body of government gets out of control. And the First Amendment is present so that the Second Amendment might be avoided. Power corrupts—it happens even in silly fast food restaurants when a manager has power over other employees, it happens between companies who are both fighting for power and influence, it happens among family members arguing who will sit at the head of a table, and it will always happen in government. There is no possible way that a centralized government can be expected to perform at an intellectually superior place of neutrality. Power is leverage over others, and so long as human beings desire such things—corruption will thrive in any government activity. This corruption has never been so evident than in the IRS scandal where Tea Party activists were directly attacked by government. Lucky for the government there is a First Amendment, because as long as its respected, the Second won’t be needed—and testimony like the one that Cleta Mitchell performed below can take place.
Explosive testimony lit up a House hearing on the IRS targeting scandal recently, as GOP super lawyer Cleta Mitchell told representatives that the systematic effort to delay the processing of grass-roots groups’ applications for nonprofit status continues to occur.
Mitchell represents several grass-roots conservative organizations whose applications under sections 501c3 and 501c4 of the internal revenue code were delayed for years in the run-up to the 2012 election. She said that targeting had not stopped. As seen in the video above, she listed a number of instances which are gigantic red flags concerning the IRS scandal that link directly to the President of the United States. In the case of the IRS, and history will certainly make note of it—the media has been complicit in a deception right along with the federal government. They have openly suppressed the scandal for the ideological benefit of their own power grab as those enjoying the current power of being in government wish very much to see that power grow.
Years ago I worked at a Wendy’s restaurant as a part-time job doing grill cook obligations during their busiest times of the day. I needed the extra money to pay off a tax obligation from a business start-up that didn’t work out, and I didn’t want the money to come out of our normal family budget, so I took on an extra job just to pay my tax obligation. I already had a normal full-time job along with dozens of hobbies to fill my time, so my time at this Wendy’s restaurant was something I could take or leave. One of the managers was a girl about my age who I got along fabulously with. She understood what I wanted out of the job, and she clearly understood the trade-off that her restaurant received by my services. On a normal day I saved her anywhere from 2 to 5 staffing positions because I was so fast. But there was another manager there whom was a disgusting, self-indulged, narcissist. She was a typically school levy supporter—she had a gigantic ass, an obtuse cranium from the very little brain capacity going on behind her skull and she was deeply in love with power. She loved having power over all the teenage employees and she relished instructing them what to do. Of course she and I clashed often as I was not responsive to her at all. She certainly wasn’t going to tell me what to do, and that was the end of it—but she tried often—and we fought just as much. She turned a simple task of making food for people into an excruciating ordeal just because she loved power.
I was also a waiter at Frisch’s for a number of years, again, as a second job making extra money. Frisch’s didn’t pay much, but I did make a lot of money in tips. I worked at the Fields Ertel location for a few years, and I did it because of the money I could make. Readers of my novel The Symposium of Justice can enjoy a bit of trivia to know that the climax chapter, “Salad Bar Goddess” is based on my experiences as a waiter at this job. The location described is the Frisch’s location at Fields Ertel—where the suicide of the hit man occurred, it was there on I-71—where he threw himself in front of an oncoming simi so to rid the earth of his corrosive—irredeemable presence. That’s why the book is called, “The Symposium of Justice.” Anyway, there was a manager there, a guy who was obviously miserable with his personal life, had no real personality, and was an otherwise social outcast who was the manager. He would invent tasks to perform at the close of business long after the tips stopped flowing just to exert power over people. Just when you thought all the closing duties were performed as a waiter, or waitress, he’d come up with a whole list of things to do at 1 AM in the morning just to show that he had power over you. Of course I also clashed with this guy. I made his life such a miserable mess in retaliation for the things he attempted to do to me, that he eventually was transferred away. On one particular instance I was on my break in the back reading one of my books when he came to tell me to handle another section because they were getting busy. Well, they weren’t that busy, and he didn’t need me to end my break. It was well-known that he hated that I read so much because he spewed about it all the time. So I refused. When he grabbed my book and tried to wrestle it from my hands, I grabbed his throat and threw him against the wall pinning him in place with some much directed dialogue that shut him up for several months. I got rid of him by going to corporate headquarters and letting them know what kind of guy he was. A few months later, he was transferred to another store. I still see him around town as he is still a manager at Frisch’s. He is currently a manager at one of the Liberty Township restaurants—and when he sees me he never makes eye contact. With him it was always about the power and when he sees me, it is a terrible reminder that I did not respect his authority, so he chooses not to deal with the reality which he has built up in his mind. I could tell hundreds of similar stories very closely related, but when it comes to fast food—where the pay is low, the work is hard, and the hours are disastrously difficult—there are always these types of power-hungry scum bags. There isn’t anything in it for them to be that way. The companies don’t promote them more than other people, and the pay is always bad. They are often forced to work lots of strange hours and in the case of the Frisch’s manager, he hated it that I read so much because he was afraid that I’d become something that he couldn’t ever become—and it drove him crazy. Yet he didn’t want to put the work into becoming better himself. His desire, and the levy supporter mentioned prior took jobs in management just so they could mess with people and have power.
Government is filled with these types of people—people who really only want to have control over other people—for the simple reason of having some sense of control. It’s an infantile desire that exists in every strata of society. But in the jobs mentioned, I was free to choose whether or not to work in those places, or whether or not I would ram the manager’s head through the back of a Frisch’s wall for interrupting my reading time during a break. When it comes to government when those types of people work in the IRS, the TSA, the local police and fire departments, zoning, code compliance you name it—those government jobs are filled with insecure despots suffering from deep insecurities that they wished to overcome being in charge of other people. Like I’ve said, I have lived a very colorful life—and I’m proud of it. I used to come to work at Frisch’s wearing a Mexican poncho and a cowboy hat with my whips strapped underneath to my shoulder. I wasn’t going to war, but between jobs I would practice in an abandon lot off Fields Ertel road. My day job was a kind of political one, where I would spend a lot of time down at Cincinnati City Hall. During an occasion where I had to deal with Mayor Qualls back in the 90s her office was wreaking with these power-hungry types. She loved the power of the Mayor’s office in Cincinnati even though she was a long way from qualified to perform management of any kind. After dealing with people like that I had a need to re-center myself, so I dressed the way I wanted, said what I wanted, and lived how I wanted. I had the eccentricity of a rock star without the tour bus especially during my tenure at Frisch’s which infuriated the manager mentioned. He became so frustrated with me that he actually pretended to have a nervous breakdown hoping that my compassion for him would pull me in line. It didn’t. As he fell to the ground with an apparent seizure flopping around like a fish I said to one of the waitresses as I stood over him that if he died, we’d be able to leave on time for a change. Miraculously, as the paramedics came to revive him, he got up and locked himself into his office. Four hours later, he was back to himself as he ran out of gas to perform the charade—at the end of the night he stopped me as I was leaving. He asked me if I cared about anyone. I said yes, my wife and kids. He then asked me why I worked at Frisch’s if I spend my days hanging out with mayors and Cincinnati “big wigs” then spend my evenings in his restaurant reading books that aren’t even taught in colleges dressed like I’ve walked out of a Clint Eastwood movie. I said—to make money.
The IRS, The White House, the military, the police, every government agency is filled with these types of people, and they are not capable to rule over anybody. If left alone, they will become corrupt with power for the simple reason that they have a psychological need to rule over others to justify their insecurities. For that reason alone, the progressive position of large centralized government will never work. They can’t even do basic tasks correctly—yet ideologically, all those who support such things have been willing to lie openly to protect that desire. This is what is behind the open lies going on over the IRS scandal. The power to rule over others is what committed the crime, but the denial that government is filled with these types of personalities propels it—because once that is admitted to, the foundations of progressivism—and liberalism in general—falls apart.
Government is not capable of self-correction. When confronted, they will attempt every ploy known to shake the truth from their actions so to avoid the grim reality of their personal tyranny. So we have the First Amendment to call out the bad behavior when we see it, just as Cleta Mitchell did in the testimony seen above. It’s not just one or two people involved in this scandal, its entire branches of government and most of those workers have similar problems as the people mentioned in my story. They fear to stand on their own—fear that they lack intellectual resources to do things on their own—so they are attracted to government. Once they have the power of an office, or the federal government at their back, they are free to be little tyrants to those they see as their intellectual superiors. With the IRS, they see the Tea Party movement as a threat to them—so they targeted them with all their power in the same way that the Frisch’s manager targeted me just for reading a book. My action made him feel bad about himself and he didn’t want the self-reflection. So he attacked me. The same thing has been happening between The White House, the FBI, the CIA, the DHS the IRS, and the Tea Party groups.
But there are rights and government is not allowed to harass people, so by using the First Amendment as a way to keep those corrupt souls in check, a balance of power can be maintained. If that doesn’t work, then we have the Second Amendment. But losing one or both of those options is not in the cards as much as progressives would like to see. They of course want unchecked power—but so long as humans desire such things, there will always be needed balances of power to counter those aggressions. Presently power has been abused by the IRS and the federal government in general—and action against those villains is justified—and expected in defense of the First Amendment. If it does not happen, well, then that’s why we have the Second. But turning away and letting the situation die down is not the path to justice—as we can’t expect the bad guys to do the right thing and throw themselves in front of a truck to rid us all of their intellectual burden. Cleta Mitchell has every right in the world to be upset. Crimes were committed and since the government is in charge of the investigation, nothing is happening—which is corruption. This is why government can never be so large, or can even be trusted to do basic tasks—and why progressivism is a failure that should be eradicated from the tongues of mankind forever.
The State of the Union speech was such a comedy this year—increasingly made so incrementally over time—that there was very little of it that I took seriously. The most comic parts of it are when for the whole previous year both political sides yapped negatively about each other with much rhetoric and fanfare—yet when the president arrived all those idiots from both sides lined up to shake his hand and get his autograph. When Obama finally arrived at the podium to stand in front of vice president Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner, everyone shook hands politely and with great respect before Obama basically announced himself Emperor of America. It was hilarious because the politicians were all talk spewing forth criticisms like a Pro Wrestler. But behind the scenes, which is what the State of the Union is really all about—they are friends. They are all on the same team. They are all part of the Washington D.C. beltway and are divorced from the reality of the main streets of America. They are power-hungry, unethical, and more or less scum bags. Out of all the coverage I heard about the State of the Union, only The Blaze Radio Network articulated my feelings accurately. Listen to Doc Thompson’s hilarious broadcast covering the day after the State of the Union Address. It’s well worth the time. Grab a snack, turn off the television, and turn this broadcast on in the background and enjoy the next couple of hours.
Glenn Beck, who runs The Blaze had even more fun to share about his impressions of the State of the Union. I’m not the only one who makes frequent comparisons to the fictional film Star Wars these days—Beck saw much what I did in Obama’s speech. Obama might as well have been Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars series. I remember when the film Revenge of the Sith hit theaters, many film critics from the left thought that the primary saga villain reflected George W. Bush’s constant lusting to start wars so to fill the pockets of Halliburton. That president was the one who brought us The Department of Homeland Security, and paved the way for all the NSA abuses we see today. But Obama far surpassed Bush with his 2014 State of the Union speech which was almost word for word what was said by Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith. Obama surely wasn’t even intending to copy the Star Wars villain—yet he did regardless. Obama’s power grab was driven by human innate desire—the desire to acquire power, and isn’t specific to Obama—but the people who put Obama in power. That was the point of the Star Wars films, and in the case of American politics on both political sides, fantasy reflects reality all too well. Watch Beck’s radio coverage on this topic.
The idiots looking for Obama’s autograph slobbering over themselves to shake the hand of the president knowing full well that the guy was planning to rule with Executive Orders paints the whole picture accurately. These guys are scum, they are addicted to power, and they are out to hurt us all. They aren’t legislating on behalf of the American people. They are a joke—and they really think so little of us that they will talk bad about the president to his face playing the media angle representing their side—then they turn around and slobber all over him hoping Obama rubs up against them in the hallway so they can die happy soldiers of solidarity.
The only–and I mean, only media outlet that even attempted to cover main street USA’s American perspective was The Blaze specifically Doc Thompson and Glenn Beck. Obama really thinks he’s a ruler—and his fellow politicians are perfectly willing to play the role. They are selling us out—every one of them. Every idiot who stood in line to shake the hand of an American Emperor contributed to the cause.
If I were there would I have shaken the President’s hand? I knew you were going to ask that question dear reader…………F**K NO! I might have politely shunned him and if he tried to force his hand into mine, I would have slapped it away. If I were invited to The White House under this president, I would not go—under any circumstances. I certainly would not stand in line to “touch” the dude.
This folly is not the fault of President Obama. It is a failure of the human condition, the desire to be led about and ruled which comes to us from the distant past when mankind was ruled over by a village chief who designated who made fires, who hunted for food, who had babies and when, and who would be sacrificed to the sun in order to keep it burning in the sky. One would hope that after several hundred thousand years of evolution the human being would have migrated away from such primitive thinking—but we haven’t. The slack-jawed idiots of Congress, the wishy-washy Senator, and the many guests drooling from the gallery were mostly enamored by the grace of America’s symbol of an Emperor—the one who rules them all. Very, very few of the people present were there to defend the Republic of America. Those who have defended America have been label radicals, nut-cases, and right-winged extremists by those who desire to look at Obama as the embodiment of an American Emperor.
Even Bill O’Reilly from Fox News is ga-ga over Obama. He’s actually proud that he is conducting the pre-Superbowl interview with Emperor Obama. Over the last couple of weeks O’Reilly came out in favor of Obama’s minimum wage increase of $10.10 an hour. That should make the pre-interview handshake more pleasant between O’Reilly and Obama. Both guys are wealthy beyond comprehension and are clearly out of touch. O’Reilly doesn’t care where the money comes from for the small business person. He doesn’t care that all the many workers who were making $10 an hour previously will suddenly want $12 and $13 an hour for the same work because now the minimum wage is $10 driving up all wages with inflationary value all over the country. He’s just another sell-out. I still watch him—occasionally he does some good reporting–about as good as any media outlet in the mainstream does these days, but he’s still too far to the left for me.
The White House is just a building with a bunch of bricks in it. I’ve been there and was not impressed. It is a symbol of an American Republic that no longer exists—it is a ghost of its former self and looters like Obama and most of the modern-day politicians are simply using that ghost to advance their lust for power. The White House is not sacred, it is not magical, and it is not enchanting. It is just a building and the people in it are flawed human beings corrupted by the imperfections of the flesh. They are small minded—lackluster collectivists weakened by an evolution of mankind which started in villages and is still functioning from those primal yearnings. The same dust-covered tribes of hunters and gatherers who spent all their waking moments trying to appease the king or chieftain sacrificing goats to the gods of the sun and moon are the same damn fools standing in the aisle of Congress wanting to shake the hand of a puppet in Obama. The whole event was just a ceremony designed to make human beings feel “safe.” To know that their place in the universe is protected by some symbol of authority—in this case it’s Obama. In the past it was Bush, Clinton, and Reagan. In the future it will be more watered down feel-good candidates even more useless and ceremonial as human evolution regresses further year by year until the whole thing collapses.
The humor of the situation is the declaration of dictatorship that completely went over the heads of all present—except those with a mind to notice. It was for me the funniest State of the Union yet. It was like watching Hulk Hogan standing in the center of a ring challenging all comers to a battle to the death—but knowing that off the stage, all the participants were making plans to go out to dinner and roll in the wealth of their falsehoods. Taken in that context, the entire event was quite funny—and entertaining—where it used to be just sad. There was no sadness this time—because I no longer even take it serious. It’s just entertainment by actors who aren’t even good—just cheesy marionettes of global interest.
Thank goodness yet again for The Blaze and blog sites who covered the situation for what it really was……………a travesty of justice cowering in the ghost-like mist of an American Republic.
I suppose my political beliefs were framed within the context of three men over a four-month period long ago. Prior to the presidential election of 1992 I was in Dallas, Texas spending time with Ross Perot and his family. I learned a lot from these experiences. I had always had a fascination with the Revolutionary War and Ross Perot had a style that brought that sentiment into focus. Then just a few months later I spent a considerable amount of time with Rob Portman as he began to run for the Second Congressional seat that was coming up during a special election. I liked Rob and my opinion leaned in his direction. At a special on-air debate on 700 WLW hosted by Mike McConnell during a Sunday night in Mt Adams, Portman’s challengers attended and I was there to witness the whole extravaganza. That was when I met Bob McEwen whom I initially disliked because of a House banking scandal that hovered over him like an ominous cloud. But for three crucial hours in my life I watched McEwen and Portman have it out with skill and debate that I admired spectacularly. Portman would go on to win, and would be the kind of prominent debater that Mitt Romney would use to prepare for his prime time debates against President Obama. Ross Perot would go down in history as one of the founders of the current Tea Party as his Reform Party essentially began during that Dallas event mentioned—where he would lose his run for president against Billy Clinton. And Bob McEwen hit the lecture circuit being paid $10,000 per speech because of his vast knowledge of history, economics and insider politics. Some of these speeches can be seen below and should be watched entirely. They are real treasures—he is a very good public speaker. In spite of the check bouncing scandal he was a staunch anti-communist, a religious supporter, and an economic scholar with a deep knowledge of history. Out of the three mentioned men, I learned more from Bob McEwen once I forgave him for the congressional scandal and realized why he was targeted—because Washington D.C. wanted him out-of-town. Political insiders wanted Bob McEwen out of their “beltway.” Watch all these videos carefully—preferably many times. And send them to a friend.
McEwen was caught up in the House banking scandal, which had been seized upon by Newt Gingrich, a like-minded conservative House Republican, as an example of the corruption of Congress; members of the House had been allowed to write checks on their accounts, which were paid despite insufficient funds and without penalty. Martin Gottlieb of the Dayton Daily News said “McEwen was collateral damage” to Gingrich’s crusade. McEwen initially denied bouncing any checks. Later, he admitted he had bounced a few. Then when the full totals were released by Ethics Committee investigators, the number was revealed to have been 166 over thirty-nine months. McEwen said that he always had funds available to cover the alleged overdrafts, pointing to the policy of the House sergeant-at-arms, who ran the House bank, paying checks on an overdrawn account if it would not exceed the sum of the Representative’s next paycheck. In 1991, McEwen had also been criticized for his use of the franking privilege and his frequent trips overseas at taxpayer expense, but McEwen defended the trips as part of his work on the Intelligence Committee and in building relationships with legislatures overseas.
Robert D. “Bob” McEwen (born January 12, 1950) is a lobbyist and American politician of the Republican Party, who was a member of the United States House of Representatives from southern Ohio‘s Sixth District, from January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1993. Tom Deimer of Cleveland‘s Plain Dealer described him as a “textbook Republican” who is “opposed to abortion, gun control, high taxes, and costly government programs.” In the House, he criticized government incompetence and charged corruption by the Democratic majority that ran the House in the 1980s. McEwen, who had easily won three terms in the Ohio House, was elected to Congress at the age of thirty to replace a retiring representative in 1980 and easily won re-election five times.
After a bruising primary battle with another incumbent whose district was combined with his, in which McEwen faced charges of bouncing checks on the House bank, he narrowly lost the 1992 general election to Democrat Ted Strickland. Following an unsuccessful run in the adjacent Second District in 1993, McEwen was largely absent from the Ohio political scene for a decade, until in 2005 he unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Congress in the Second District special election to replace Rob Portman, who beat him in 1993, and finished second to the winner in the general election, Jean Schmidt. McEwen’s 2005 platform was familiar from his past campaigns, advocating a pro-life stance, defending Second Amendment rights, and promising to limit taxes and government spending. In 2006, he unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in the Second District.
In Congress, McEwen, who “had a reputation as a man who thinks about politics every waking moment,” claimed Congressional Quarterly, was a staunch conservative, advocating a strong military. In addition, he was a strong advocate for government works in his district — dams, roads, locks and the like much as Harsha had been — as McEwen was on the House’s Public Works and Transportation Committee. The Chillicothe Gazette would salute him for his work on funding for U.S. Route 35, a limited access highway linking Chillicothe to Dayton. In general, however, McEwen advocated reduced government spending.
A vehement anti-Communist, he visited Tbilisi in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in 1991 to help tear down the hammer-and-sickle iconography of the Communist regime. That year he also called for the House to establish a select committee to investigate the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue – whether any soldiers declared “missing in action” in the Vietnam War and other American wars were still alive – by sponsoring H. Res. 207.
McEwen was not a man to mince words. In the heated debate in 1985 over a Congressional seat in Indiana between Republican Richard D. McIntyre, whom the Indiana Secretary of State had certified as winning a seat in the 99th Congress, and Democrat Frank McCloskey, in which the House declined to seat McIntyre, McEwen declared on the House floor, “Mr. Speaker, you know how to win votes the old-fashioned way — you steal them.” When McEwen was late in 1990 to the House because of a massive traffic jam on the I-495 beltway around Washington, D.C., he said on the House floor on February 21 that the District of Columbia’s government should be replaced:
The total incompetence of the D.C. government in Washington, DC, has become an embarrassment to our entire Nation. This experiment in home rule is a disaster. All of us who serve in this Chamber, well over 95% of us, have held other positions in government. We have been mayors. We have been township trustees, State legislators, and the rest. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there are well over 2,000 township trustees in my congressional district who with one arm tied behind their backs, could blindfolded do a better job of directing this city than the city council of D.C. It is high time that this experiment in home rule that has proven to be a disaster for our nation be terminated, that we return to some sort of logical government whereby the rest of us can function in this city.
After McEwen was criticized for his remarks, he delivered a thirty-minute speech in the House on March 1, 1990, on “The Worst City Government in America”. Because of the crime problem in the District, McEwen also attempted to pass legislation overturning the District council’s ban on mace, saying people in the District should be able to defend themselves. During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, McEwen introduced legislation to end President Gerald Ford‘s ban on U.S. government employees assassinating foreign leaders (Executive Order 12333) in order to clear the way for Saddam Hussein‘s removal, McEwen objecting to the “cocoon of protection that is placed around him because he holds the position that he holds as leader of his country.”
For people who believe that Cincinnati, Ohio is just a flyover city, they are sadly mistaken. The region of my home town produces very interesting people, life changing ideas, and I am proud of it. Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Nick Clooney, Ted Turner, Annie Oakley, Nick Longworth who married Teddy Roosevelt’s cherished daughter Alice, William Taft, the Voice of America, the Crosely brothers, Kings Island, Rob Portman and of course Bob McEwen along with many others. Not all of those names are good ones, but Cincinnati throughout history has been at the center of the heartbeat of the nation. McEwen is still out there fighting for freedom as a political outsider—pushed out of the beltway by those who didn’t like his message. And behind him is the next generation of freedom fighters. The Cincinnati Tea Party is one of the strongest in the nation and is directly challenging current House Speaker John Boehner and the fraudulent Ohio governor John Kasich who launched and won his campaign against Ted Strickland because of the Cincinnati Tea Party. Cincinnati is where the fight is at. It is the modern version of Trenton, New Jersey in the new Revolution for independence.
Bob McEwen is a product of Cincinnati, a man deeply committed to undoing the kind of progressive underpinnings brought to the city at the turn of the 20th Century by Nick Longworth and his father-in-law Teddy Roosevelt along with William Howard Taft. Before these characters, Cincinnati was where the great Simeon Kenton settled with his sheer will and a hatchet well before any “White Man” braved the wild frontier of Cincinnati. Tecumseh and his Shawnee warriors were from Cincinnati. Tecumseh was born where modern day Xenia is today and fought directly with Simeon Kenton for this holy ground of the Ohio River valley—particularly Cincinnati. Kenton was in the Ohio River Valley because he was running from the “White Men” European decedents for much the same reasons that the Indians did. Tecumseh couldn’t hold off the “White Settlers” as more and more people fled European tyranny in much the same way that Cubans risked life and limb to swim to Miami, Florida to escape communism. The Shawnee would grudgingly flee the Cincinnati area as President Washington had a fort built in his name to defend the region. Another fort to the north along the Great Miami River named Fort Hamilton was built in dedication to Washington’s right hand man—Alexander Hamilton, and just down the road was a town named after James Monroe. In between those places was a township called “Liberty” which was established in direct honor of the Revolutionary War.
I grew up next to the grave of the Revolutionary War veteran John Ayers and his wife Sarah. He fought in Elizabethtown, Van Nest Mill, Piscataway, and Monmouth. Their graves can still be visited; they are in the back yard of the homes off the Butler County Regional Highway at the 747 exit if traveling toward the east. As a kid I discovered this cemetery overrun by dirt and trampled by cows deep in the woods in the middle of nowhere. I brought home Sarah’s tombstone to my mother to prove that the place existed and she was extremely furious. I put the head stone back, and often wondered if the ghost of John Ayers plagued me with images of war, fighting for freedom, and settling an area braving the elements just to run away from European collectivism because I disturbed his wife’s grave. In all reality, it is likely that Cincinnati itself and the region of land projecting out for 75 miles in every direction has a soul that rises up to meet oppression—and the bad guys of the world know it. For decades the Soviet Union had nuclear missiles pointed at the GE plant in Evendale and Hitler wanted desperately to destroy the Voice of America in Mason, Ohio. And the Washington establishment wanted to destroy the man from Cincinnati, Bob McEwen and his crusade against communism, fiscal irresponsibility, and the preservation of Christian values.
I learned a little from everyone mentioned—some of those names were good, some were sinister—but all came from Cincinnati and had something for me to learn from—and I did—including the ghost of John Ayers and his family who I often felt patrolled the haunted woods outside my bedroom window where a highway and many homes now exist. For as long as I can remember I had an affinity for the Revolutionary War and it is likely that John Ayers had something to do with it as I spent most of my time as a kid outside hunting for old cemeteries, and the bodies buried by local politics which I despised for as long as I have memory. Bob McEwen is another of these Cincinnati products, and now that you have heard some of his speeches dear reader, you might understand why I was so taken with him as he debated Rob Portman during a special election at 700 WLW on a spring like Sunday evening. Out of Portman, Perot and McEwen, it is the later that is still as deeply committed to liberty and freedom. The rest of them either sold out, or ran out of gas—but McEwen never really gave up. He has been chipping away at the barriers for freedom for decades and really never let the ominous clouds of politics push him aside—which is why I admire him so much. I am happy to report that like the ghost of John Ayers, the Revolutionary War vet that I grew up with as a ghostly friend, Bob McEwen has been a tremendous influence on how I see the world—and perhaps you will enjoy his work as well.
New York City is a utopian dream. That is the point Doc Thompson and Skip LeCombe were making on The Blaze Radio Network. New York is the safe haven of progressives; it is the result of their policies, philosophies and influence. New York is the result of progressive authority so if it were so great—it should be “perfect.” Yet the reality of the situation is far from it, New York has some real trouble and the fault is squarely on the shoulders of progressives. This has never been more obvious than in the public education industry—and specifically a school in New York City. Public School 106 in Rockaway, New York is one of the most poorly run schools in the United States and is the embodiment of what happens when progressives are able to make the world into their image. It is run by Marcella Sills, a 48-year-old club hopping socialite who spends more time in her fur coat and BMW than she does on her job which she seldom even shows up for. When she does come to work it is past 11 AM. The classrooms are infested with vermin and the smell of urine, there are few substitute teachers, and the kids frequently watch movies all day instead of learning anything—while Marcella Sills makes $128,207 off the American taxpayer. Listen to Doc and Skip address this very serious issue on their very popular Blaze Radio Network show on every day from 6 AM to 9 AM all over the world.
Thus, public schools to some degree or another are the net result of progressive policy and the faults now being seen so grotesquely in our modern society is directly their fault. They own the poor performance, they own the treachery of the teacher unions, the sexual molestation of students, the bullying, the sheer stupidity, the apathy, the broken budgets—progressives own all the troubles because they created them first hand.
Of course as a middle-ager I have been in many personal circumstances where I have had success with something, then others trained in progressive concepts has attempted to loot off my efforts and then sign their name to my success. My standard policy is the moment this happens I put down my work and let the looters choke on their own bad decisions. I do not allow them to loot off my efforts so that they can appear to know what they are doing. I do not support “group” circle jerk endeavors where progressive concepts are allowed to sap the strength of my ideas. The moment I see it, I remove my influence and let the parasites choke on their own bad policy and stupidity. I do not let them use me as a shield from reality. I step aside and let them feel the full impact of their poor decisions. To do anything else would be to allow a deception. The same holds true for large organizations like public schools. To allow public education to hide behind the good efforts of a football player who is exceptional and earning scholarships all over America, or the parents who truly love their children and want what’s best for them—public schools often hide behind such exceptions and sign their name to their success as a collective enterprise. They say often—“we produced the star athlete,” or the child who achieved honors for academic aptitude. The individual efforts of the athlete or the loving parents are almost always ignored in favor of collective salvation.
However in New York, the haven of progressivism, there aren’t many people of quality to sap off of so progressives are left unshielded from reality. Most of the good people have left and moved to more conservative areas of the country leaving only losers, malcontents and progressives to run the entire endeavor—and the evidence of their work is eye-popping obvious. Marcella Sills might as well be Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton—they are all progressives who are nothing but leeches off of society. If they look good in their nice clothes are fancy cars it is not because of their skills, their personal aptitude, but because they have benefited from taking from others and reaping the fruits personally.
Much was made of Michelle Obama’s recent 50th birthday and how good she looked. The American media addicted to European royalty wanted to make her into something she’s not—a goddess of progressive ideals—but all she is–is a simple thief. Neither of the Obamas currently in The White House could be plopped down in a business situation and make it profitable. Neither has the skill to assess human potential or find a profit margin in a task that only exists in a mind and that makes them functionally worthless. So they become members of government so that they can earn through the IRS the ability to steal worth from people who create it and provide the illusion that they are people of success too.
When Marcella Sills arrives late almost every morning to her rat infested school in her fur coat and night club clothing fueled by her six figure salary she is stating to the world that she is a success. She is so successful that she can come and go as she pleases in her BMW. But she is nothing but a looter—only at Public School 106 in Rockaway, New York there is nobody to steal value from. The teachers, the students, the parents, the politicians are either all progressive, heavily government dependent, or being taught to be—so there is nobody of any value to steal from leaving Marcella grossly exposed as a fraud.
For more times than I can count I have been asked by people who think they are superior to me—socially, politically, financially, or even intellectually—how do you know how to judge the talent of people, how do you know how to recruit, how do you know how to see something that does not exist yet so clearly. I am often good about these kinds of encounters and often try to teach people so that they can do for themselves. Sadly, often this is not what is going on. The interrogators are simply wanting to steal my recipe so that they can put their name on my concepts. Of course they are willing to share the credit with me until they can politically push me aside later—or so they believe. But I never allow it, and their failures are predictably on par every single time. I can almost name the date on a calendar when they will fail if I take away my input—and deep down inside they know it.
That is when the word “team” comes out of their mouths—“it’s good for the team, the organization as a whole—if you tell me how you did this—or that.” But it never is—its only good for them so that they can steal value and hide their incompetency behind it. From my vantage point, it is best for an organization to understand where they are failing and to expose the problem areas by preventing the looting of value from others. In this way an organization can have success by spotting the personnel that is robbing its strength. Public schools have no such dynamic—so they perpetually must rob money from the tax payer to inject their institutions with value that they do not have—and can never get.
Marcella Sills, or Michelle Obama cannot make value where it doesn’t exist. Just because they have a fur coat paid for by tax payers, or their own private airplane to fly around the world—they are simply second handers—people who cannot live without the aid of others to help them. Their lives are second handed and totally reliant on some primary to initiate everything. All they are able to do is loot off the existence of those who create. In New York’s public schools where such value is lacking—the buildings and social structure are failing miserably—because there aren’t enough people of value to steal from leaving Public School 106 in Rockaway, New York a dump vacant of a mind or caring soul to save it from people like Marcella Sills.
It is time for everyone else to do what I have suggested and that is to remove their value from such institutions and allow those collective organizations to choke on their own failure. The best thing for children is to see the contrasts clearly between those who have value and those who do not. To allow a lie to continue is to allow a system that is corrupt by progressive influence to loot off the efforts of the good—which doesn’t teach children anything but how to grow up and become looters themselves. It’s not always so easy to see in places like Lakota, or Beverly Hills where people of value and wealth live—but behind the scenes running all these places are incompetent fools like Marcella Sills. The only real difference is that Sills is running a school where the entire population is progressive, where other places that are wealthy have a portion of the population that can be stolen from in value propping up everyone else. The behavior is the same—and so are the results.