The Socialism of Liz Rogers: Why Mahogany’s failed in Cinncinnati

It was obvious that Liz Rogers was going to fail at Mahogany’s on the Banks when she gave the interview on the radio shown below. She stated that she was guided by faith, not sight and that she was destined to bring an African-American owned restaurant to the plush riverside development in Cincinnati. The city to encourage the endeavor threw a lot of money at her—which was unprecedented, because they wanted the politics of the deal. They wanted the feel good stories, progressive political support, and a success for minority owned businesses. Liz had a nice place in downtown Hamilton that was working, so developers wanted her to expand to a second location. But there was baggage with her from the start, which everyone ignored and the Mahogany’s deal turned out to be a disgrace. In the end the restaurant failed and Liz asked people not to judge her based on what she owed monetarily—but on her love for food. What?????????????????????

Liz Rogers lives in my community and I think is a nice lady. I think her intentions were good. But her business approach belongs in the Twilight Zone, expecting judgment based on her personal desires to cook food, and that she approaches the business with feelings—not thought. In other words her approach to the Banks deal was similar to saying standing before a tall wall, metaphorically, “I have faith that I will be lifted above and beyond that wall.” But the lift never comes leaving her standing in the same spot stuck with ineptitude. The proper approach would be to say, “I will construct a rope and climb over that wall.” That is a plan that can lead to a profitable enterprise. Having faith doesn’t do it. Faith can help you get up in the morning, but it won’t deliver tasks completed.

Now Liz is out of the Banks location and she is looking to make a deal with the city—which should have never been involved in the Rogers endeavor from the start. She is threatening to sue Cincinnati for her failure on the grounds that the types of development city government promised her would take place—which never quite manifested the way they proposed. What is unfathomably naive about her threat is that she actually believes that the fault of her business is the city’s problem. Her location was right next to The Holy Grail and was plugged numerous times on 700 WLW—most of the time in a favorable way regarding her food. She failed to retain the curiosity customers by making them into repeats. Good or bad press she has had loads and loads of free advertising—the name of Mahogany’s has been on every television station, radio station and received plenty of news print. She has had her chances to take a freak show and turn it into a legitimate business opportunity—which is much more opportunity than any other business have had in Cincinnati in years. Just getting the name out for a new enterprise is difficult at best.   If anything, the city gave her a golden opportunity to become gloriously rich—and she failed epically. The city responded to her threat with the following article:

The city of Cincinnati won’t take up Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers‘ offer not to sue it in exchange for forgiving the balance of a $300,000 loan the city made for her to open the restaurant at the Banks.

“In a letter last week, the city expressed its position on this matter,” said Rocky Merz, a spokesman for City Manager Harry Black. “Due to the potential for litigation, we have nothing further to add. We wish Ms. Rogers all the best in her future endeavors.”

Rogers wrote a letter to the city offering not to sue it over promises she says were broken when she agreed to open a restaurant at the riverfront development, including that there would be a hotel and office workers there. She also proposed that for $12,000 the city would sell her the furniture and restaurant equipment the city’s $300,000 bought. Rogers, who said she would open another restaurant in Cincinnati, gave the city until Thursday to take the deal.

Mahogany’s closed last week after it was evicted by its landlord, NIC Riverbanks One. Rogers has denied allegations made in the eviction letter sent by the landlord.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/16/cincinnati-to-mahogany-s-owner-no-deal.html

It is obvious that Liz Rogers is a believer in socialism as she does not attribute her actions to success or failure of her business, but in the promises of government to provide or not provide. She brought with her business venture an obvious lack of embrace in capitalism which scared away her potential customers. She failed because of her philosophic position. She was the one given a gift, nearly a million dollars in opportunity—loads of free advertising and a site across from the Great American Ballpark and one of the hottest developments with residential living right over her head—nearly guaranteed customers if she produced a decent product. But, there was a lot of competition, and she couldn’t hack it—and due to her failure, she sought socialism and racism as the excuse. That is absolutely pathetic.

I didn’t write much about her at this site because part of me felt sorry for her, and I didn’t want to pile it on. I knew from the first time that I heard her speak that she would fail, so it didn’t come as a surprise to me when she did no matter how many opportunities were placed before her feet. But what did surprise me was that she actually believes she has the right to sue Cincinnati because of her failure. That is really astonishing and is a direct symptom of a very broken society that people actually believe such things. Liz Rogers failed because her product wasn’t very good. Her food may have been good, but the experience in dinning in her restaurant as opposed to other places did not have appeal to enough people. That is the whole issue. She was given an opportunity to give Cincinnati visitors at the Banks “soul food” and they rejected it. She may do better in Over-the-Rhine or even Forest Park, but at the Banks—people expect other options and they voted with their wallets. And she went out of business—and because she was not using her sight—she failed to make corrections to her presentation so to keep her customers and make them want to come back. Nobody wants to spend good money in a restaurant where the owner is a victim. They want to brush elbows with success—because it makes them feel good to do so. Instead of Mahogany’s Liz’s customers likely went on down to the Moerlein Brewhouse on the river and conducted their dining experience at that establishment for similar value for the dollar. It was up to Liz to figure out what they were doing and to adjust—but she didn’t. Instead she blamed everyone but herself for a failure that is in her sole possession. If the city government did anything wrong it was that they tried to help her in the first place giving false hope to a person who had not earned a chance that wasn’t theirs to give in the first place.

Rich Hoffman  

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Why There is Trouble in the Middle East: The whole issue explained–“one side wants the other side dead”

Many find the situation in the Middle East confusing, and have little ideal why there is any trouble there. The political left wishes to deny there is anything wrong at all, and sides with the Palestinian/Muslim factions, the political right with Israel along the typical Christian conservatives. Each side points to the other and says there is no evidence to support their theories of aggression and this is largely due to the fact that tyrants, thieves and cut throats in our modern age have destroyed evidence so that proper arguments against them can never be rooted. Common sense explanations about the Middle East seldom occur like they have in the video below—because few people are left in the world who can make value judgments based on observation—due to the evidence that is so cryptic as to who is the villains really are.

 

The video featured nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager, who is known for his strong conservative views, the pro-Israel YouTube video aims to explain the Middle East conflict in under six minutes.

“The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems in the world,” the video claims. “But, in reality, it’s very simple.”

“It may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain,” Prager says. “In a nutshell, it’s this: one side wants the other side dead.”

According to Prager, the “simple” problem is difficult to solve because most Palestinians and Arabs “do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.”

To support his thesis, Prager briefly overviews several decades of history, contending Israel has always sought peace with its neighbors. The conservative talk show host concludes the video leaving viewers with one final thought.

“If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”

The video, officially titled “The Middle East Problem,” has amassed more than 3 million views since it was uploaded in late April. According to YouTube statistics, most of the views have poured in over the past couple weeks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/04/some-are-calling-this-the-most-important-video-about-israel-ever-made-and-its-taking-the-internet-by-storm/

While that may seem simplistic, it is in fact the case, there is nothing that Palestinians will ever do to accept the 1947 creation of a Jewish state—erected out of the violence of World War II to attempt to bring peace to the Biblically driven people. Likely some of that decision by the members of the United Nations at the time believed that it was their earthly obligation to restore the nation of Israel to God’s chosen people.

Revelation 12:12-17 speaks of how the devil will make war against Israel, trying to destroy her (Satan knows his time is short– Revelation 20:1-3, 10). It also reveals that God will protect Israel in the wilderness. Revelation 12:14 says Israel will be protected from the devil for “a time, times, and half a time (“a time” = 1 year; “times” = 2 years; “half a time” = one-half year; in other words, 3 1/2 years). So if the root cause of the establishment of the Jewish state were analyzed, it is likely that religious superstition was at the heart of it more than compassion for a tortured people.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Revelation-chapter-12.html#ixzz39XFilWoN

On 2 April 1947, the United Kingdom delegation addressed a letter to the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations requesting that the question of Palestine be placed on the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly.[88] On 15 May the General Assembly resolved (Resolution 106) that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created “to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine”.[89] In July 1947 the UNSCOP visited Palestine and met with Jewish and Zionist delegations. The Arab Higher Committee boycotted the meetings. At this time, there was further controversy when the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin ordered an illegal immigrant ship, the Exodus 1947, to be sent back to Europe. The migrants on the ship were forcibly removed by British troops at Hamburg after a long period in prison ships.

The principal non-Zionist Orthodox Jewish (or Haredi) party, Agudat Israel, recommended to UNSCOP that a Jewish state be set up after reaching a religious status quo agreement with Ben-Gurion regarding the future Jewish state. The agreement would grant exemption to a quota of yeshiva (religious seminary) students and to all orthodox women from military service, would make the Sabbath the national weekend, promised Kosher food in government institutions and would allow them to maintain a separate education system.[90]

In the Report of the Committee dated September 3, 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[91] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with “an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem” …, the last to be under “an International Trusteeship System”.[92] On November 29, 1947, in Resolution 181 (II), the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations, the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out in the resolution.[93] The Plan was to replace the British Mandate with “Independent Arab and Jewish States” and a “Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem administered by the United Nations”. The Plan of Partition in Part 1 A. Clause 2 provided that Britain “should use its best endeavors to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948″. Clause 3. provided that “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem … shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.”

Neither Britain nor the UN Security Council took any action to implement the resolution and Britain continued detaining Jews attempting to enter Palestine. Concerned that partition would severely damage Anglo-Arab relations, Britain denied UN representatives access to Palestine during the period between the adoption of Resolution 181 (II) and the termination of the British Mandate.[94] The British withdrawal was finally completed in May 1948. However, Britain continued to hold Jews of “fighting age” and their families on Cyprus until March 1949.[95]

In the immediate aftermath of the General Assembly’s vote on the Partition plan, the explosions of joy among the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent among the Arab community. Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other’s heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The impasse persisted as no force intervened to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence.[96][97][98][99] By the end of March, there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded.[100] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.

Shielded Jewish convoy during the blockade of Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road

From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria.[101] Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, he organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[102] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armored vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni’s tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah‘s armored vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed.[103]

While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs,[104] the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centers eastwards.[105] This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition. The British, on the other hand, decided on February 7, 1948, to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.[106]

Supply convoy on its way to besieged Jerusalem, April 1948 Although a certain level of doubt took hold among Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness. David Ben-Gurion reorganized Haganah and made conscription obligatory. Every Jewish man and woman in the country had to receive military training. Thanks to funds raised by Golda Meir from sympathizers in the United States, and Stalin’s decision to support the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to sign very important armament contracts in the East. Other Haganah agents recuperated stockpiles from the Second World War, which helped improve the army’s equipment and logistics. Operation Balak allowed arms and other equipment to be transported for the first time by the end of March.

Ben-Gurion invested Yigael Yadin with the responsibility to come up with a plan in preparation for the announced intervention of the Arab states. The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet, which was put in place from the start of April onwards. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the war, in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive. Within the framework of the establishment of Jewish territorial continuity foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Palestinian Arab society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinian Arabs.[107]

The British had, at that time, essentially withdrawn their troops. The situation pushed the leaders of the neighboring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they could not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war. Most Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan’s monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine as he could. He was playing a double game and was just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and approved a proclamation declaring the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.[108] The 1948 Palestine war entered its second phase with the intervention of the Arab state armies and the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. The Arab states marched their forces into what had, until the previous day, been the British Mandate for Palestine. The new state of Israel had an organized and efficient army, the Haganah, under the command of Israel Galili. The Arab forces were of varying quality, but Arab states had heavy military equipment at their disposal. The invading Arab armies were initially on the offensive but the Israelis soon recovered from the initial shock of being invaded on all sides. On May 29, 1948, the British initiated United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 and declared an arms embargo on the region. Czechoslovakia violated the resolution supplying the Jewish state with critical military hardware to match the (mainly British) heavy equipment and planes already owned by the invading Arab states. On June 11, a month-long UN truce was put into effect.

Following the announcement of independence, the Haganah became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Palmach, Etzel and Lehi were required to cease independent operations and join the IDF. During the ceasefire, Etzel attempted to bring in a private arms shipment aboard a ship called “Altalena“. When they refused to hand the arms to the government, Ben-Gurion ordered that the ship be sunk. Several Etzel members were killed in the fighting. Large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many of them World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors, now began arriving in the new state of Israel, and many joined the IDF.[110]

After an initial loss of territory by the Jewish state and occupation of Arab Palestine by the Arab armies, from July the tide gradually turned in the Israelis favor and they pushed the Arab armies out and conquered some of the territory which had been included in the proposed Arab state. At the end of November, tenuous local cease fires were arranged between the Israelis, Syrians and Lebanese. On December 1, King Abdullah announced the union of Transjordan with Arab Palestine west of the Jordan, the new state name being the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He adopted the title “King of Arab Palestine”; only Britain recognized the annexation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

Many, including Christians have an untrustworthy eye toward Jews for a lot of reasons, the first of which was the assassination of their savor Jesus Christ by the Pharisees. The Pharisees didn’t want Jesus cutting in on their religious action in Jerusalem so they conspired to kill him. This has left a strange discombobulating effect between the Biblical New Testament and the Old—the two books are essentially different books of religion with the land of the Jews serving as the essential bridge. In the Old Testament, God is all about revenge, fire and brimstone, and conquest over oppressors, as the New Testament is about churchless religion which Jesus preached from hill tops—a religion of peace, pacifism, and love of life—except when Jesus got into that argument with the fig tree because it didn’t have any fruit.

What the Jews and Muslims have in common is that they both revere the same essential Biblical text—the Old Testament as their sacred document of religion.   The problem is that the Islamic states call their text the Koran, but the characters are essentially the same—only the viewpoint are changed. So there is no rectifying peace even between Christians and Jews where real trust takes place—let along two religions fighting over a version of the same characters from the same book, one called the Old Testament, the other called the Koran. Of course when faced with all this “evidence” and opinion—ideologues who wish to protect their point of view from reality—and facts—will declare that what has been presented here is too simplistic and that nobody understands their problems. But in essence, the Jews just want to live life and visit the temple of their King David. Muslims want to kill Jews. It really is that simple—and has been that way for many thousands of years—because both religions share the same Biblical stories, but one is a peaceful religion and the other is one of violence and conquest. So long as Jews live, Muslims will seek to destroy them and that is the essence of the trouble in the Middle East.

As a lesson to the United Nations, they never accomplished the micromanagement of the State of Israel correctly, so they should expect the same trouble everywhere they wish to tamper, whether it is the United States in pitting progressives from the coasts against the conservatives of the Heartland, or communists against capitalists, or dogs against cats. The United Nations has no ability to bring people together without antagonizing tensions. The only way for life to flourish and people to solve any problems is to change their foundation thoughts—and that cannot be done with silly laws or lines on a map. People have to change the way they think—and in that absence violence will dominate always.

Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Defiance is Key to American Success: Why history should remember Claire Lee Chennault

A few days ago I introduced you dear reader to a book that is very close to my heart, Way of the Fighter by Claire Lee Chennault, the famous World War II general and leader of the valiant Flying Tigers.  There are times when I go to Wright Patterson Airforce Base just to sit next to the P-40 on display there.  It reminds me of what America should be, instead of what it has become.  I am also glad to report that the Tri State Warbird Museum down the road from my house have successfully restored a P-40 from New Zealand.  They restored the P-40 to the paint scheme of the ace pilot that had flown it, which does not have the famous mouth on the front.  But that P-40 to me is special to behold.  Every morning that I ride my motorcycle in the cold putting on my U.S. Wings leather jacket to battle the elements it reminds me of the old fighter pilots from the early days of aviation, which was a specifically American invention.  The Germans, the Japanese, and the British copied off American designs and tried to improve upon them, but it was America that developed aviation, and pushed each new technical break-through.  The P-40 is a representation of this early period between the old bi-planes and the much faster and durable planes like the Mustang and Corsairs that would follow. 

On a previous article that I did on this topic there is video of the Tri-State Warbird Museum firing up its big Allison 1,12 hp 12 cylinder V-1710 engine.  My wife and I had the privilege of being inside this aircraft early in its restoration, and it is delightful to see it completed and functional.  Of the 13,738 P-40’s of all variants produced between 1938 and 1944 only around 85 exist today—one at Wright Patterson and one at the Tri-State Warbird Museum.  I am so proud to live within 40 minutes of those two famous planes.

The plane represents more than military service, reliability, and World War II patriotism.  It was how the plane came about, and how it was used in tactics developed by Claire Chennault which reached every corner of the world by 1942 that tell the largest story and point to a particular secret of American ingenuity and the benefits of capitalism.  Chennault as a military commander had in common a trait that I love in the NFL football coach Sam Wyche of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Bill Gates when he left college to start Microsoft, George Lucas when he moved out of Hollywood to create Star Wars, and Steve Jobs in pushing to create Apple—what they all have in common is that they got where they did not by complying to authority, but by challenging it—and often defying it.  The P-40 is more than just an airplane; it is a symbol of why America was so superior to other cultures, and why defiance is the American way over blind compliance to ridiculous authority.

When General Stilwell came to China where Claire Chennault was the proven authority—yet outranked the Flying Tiger leader, the expectation was one where Chennault was expected to bow to authority and respect the chain of command, which of course didn’t happen.  If Stilwell had his way America would have lost in China and Japan would have occupied and dominated Asia.  When Chennault was called from China at the end of the war it was then that communists overtook the country.  Chennault wanted to stay and fight the communists after the Japanese were defeated but American command wouldn’t allow it—and their folly cost America its soul from the Korean War to present.  Of course the Soviet Union was pushing the Vietnam War advancing communism which was overtaking all of Asia and was also feeding the counter-culture movement at American schools through KGB subversive penetration.  The “hippie” was a KGB creation and they are largely forming American foreign and domestic policy to this very day as they are now of age to be in senior management positions.  The pinnacle mistake that sent America on a downward spiral was when the defiance of Chennault was removed and the bureaucrats got their way.  That is when the problems started for The United States.  The key to American success is in defiance.  When that defiance is suppressed, America is just as worthless as every nation that does exactly what they are told by pinheaded fools and worthless politicians.

In the 1986 film Heartbreak Ridge by Clint Eastwood the film opens with his character in trouble with the law—particularly for urinating on a police car.  This is to establish that Eastwood’s character is defiant, and something that American movie audiences can relate with.  In that film, Eastwood was essentially playing a variation to the kind of leader the real life Claire Lee Chennault was.  For a long time I wanted to write a novel about The Flying Tigers and have Eastwood play the role, but he’s too old now, and I am still working out the story details.  I don’t want to just write another World War II novel, I want to explore this theme of American defiance as the most important ingredient.  I would say that defiance is as important to American success as sugar is to cookies—it is a must have.

The rest of the world struggles because they are too structured, too compliant, and too obedient to worthless bureaucrats.  The reason that communism, socialism and every big government attempt does not work, is because institutional systems produce too many people like General Stilwell and not enough like General Chennault.  If General Patton had done as his superiors had instructed him to do, World War II would have been lost in Europe.  Britain, France, and all of Africa would have been dominated by the Italians and Germans.   It was Patton’s defiance that made him great, not his ability to follow orders.

In American music we like our artists defiant to the rules—that is because it is deeply inherit to the American psyche.  We do not admire compliance.  American heroes are not good soldiers who go down with the ship of sacrifice—but the ones who bark back at their chain of command and do what they think is right as individuals, not cogs in the wheel of society.   There are a lot of competing ideals floating around which confuse the issue, but for me it is quite clear whenever I see a P-40 Curtiss-Wright airplane what the key to American success was, and continues to be.  It is defiance like that of the Flying Tigers who were terribly outnumbered, and up against superior airplanes to paint that gaping mouth on the front of their planes to represent the swagger of American ingenuity, and defiance.  The Japanese would have never done anything like that to the planes of the Emperor.  German pilots would have never conceived of defacing the planes of Das Führer.  And even American pilots under Stilwell would have been frowned upon if Chennault had not let his men express themselves creatively before his arrival.  Chennault had set a standard that carried over into just about every branch of service for the next 60 years, as orthodox military generals frowned upon it.

I have told many stories about the original Pirates of the Caribbean led by Henry Morgan, another personal favorite of mine.  The privateers in early Jamaica were really no different from the Flying Tigers of China, the Henry Morgan pirates were essentially hired guns by the English Crown to prevent Spain and France from acquiring too much Aztec gold.  Morgan let his men be as free as possible and the results were staggering.  America was born on Morgan pirate vessels as Thomas Paine observed the antics first-hand and how much gold the King of England received from Morgan’s adventures.  The key again was in defiance.  The real Pirates of the Caribbean were so bold, and able to win against impossible odds because they were fighting for profit, and spitting in the eye of compliance.

I love the Flying Tigers and specifically the P-40 airplanes they used, because it is the most obvious example of why capitalism, defiance and free thinking destroy the rigid chain of command adhered to by the rest of the world.  There have been other successes since—many, and they all share an element of pushing against authority, not yielding to it.  Statistically, there isn’t any real evidence that any other way of thinking but that of the American is successful time and time again.  It is the only proven method of achievement that has a real track record of success.  So the million dollar question, or otherwise, the $17 trillion, which is the current U.S. debt, is why would America copy off the rest of the  world’s stupid submission to authority—because time and time again those authorities are corrupted with human error and not qualified to make the best decisions at the best times?  Why do we teach our children to follow orders, when they should be taught to give them?

  Why would we teach blind submission to compliance when history proves that is the quickest way to personal and national destruction?  And why would we teach military generals to be more like Stilwell when they should be more like Patton and Chennault?  The answer is that we shouldn’t.  We need to rethink our entire thought process in America and start with following what works, while setting to drift that which doesn’t.  Compliance to authority will not take anybody where they need to go and this needs to be embraced openly for the first time in American history instead of around the edges of our movies and music.  It is time that our schools teach defiance, our colleges teach conservative capitalism, and our businesses seek the renegade manager who wears business suits without soaks and has no interest in being in charge—except for the freedom to execute their individual visions and follow their blissful passions to the ends of the earth running over all the opposition that gets in their way.  It is time to admit that this is what it means to be an American, and to embrace it fully for the first time without the shameful judgments by the idiots who run the rest of the world.

Rich Hoffman  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

 

The Leather Jackets of U.S. Wings: Sgt. Hack’s curious case and exceptional quality

Too often there is very little to talk about but what we don’t like—and when you’re picky, or expect competency when dealing with people, all too often what we get is disappointment.  Every day for over 6 years now I have put on a leather flight jacket from US Wings.  I ride motorcycles all year, and there are maybe a handful of days over that span of time that I don’t have to go somewhere.  And when I do travel it is usually by motorcycle.  So my leather jacket has to be tough, withstand all the elements and be extremely functional.  Even on the hottest days of summer a leather jacket is needed—the mornings are often cool, too cool for naked skin and large bugs pelt you in the torso area while riding.  The leather is an offering of armor and is essential riding equipment.  Even during a motorcycle ride from Key West to the Everglades 50 miles west of Miami where the real temperature was 107 degrees the early dawn sun was pleasant to the naked skin, but once the day hit 10 AM, it was punishing.  The jacket was needed just to stay hydrated and prevent the skin from burning under the sun. Then from Miami to Orlando, afternoon thunderstorms are common, it may be intensely sunny and 15 minutes later a thunderstorm is upon you dropping rain the size of a small fist as hundreds begin hitting you by the minute.  Without the leather the pain would be intense, probably unbearable.  So because I ride a motorcycle every day of the year I wear a leather jacket every day as well.  I have an additional problem, I often meet people where my leather jacket has to go along with a suit and tie.  It would be disrespectful to the people I see to show up in a biker jacket with studs looking like I’m going to Sturgis—so I need my leather jacket to look as good as the cloth underneath it.  So with all that in mind I have only found one company in the entire world that made a jacket fitting for me and that is U.S. Wings outside of Cleveland, Ohio founded by Sgt. David D. Hack, the Purple Heart recipient and Nation’s #1 US Army recruiter from 69 to 73.  He’s been Chief of Police in Sebring, Ohio, and in his spare time founded U.S. Wings in 1986 to the present.  His company knows how to make cloths that fit my very intense lifestyle.  So you can imagine dear reader how disappointed I was when I went to zip up my well-worn flight jacket a few weeks ago and the teeth were so worn out from use that they no longer gripped each other.

I contacted U.S. Wings to price a new zipper and liner and they responded quickly.  The zipper replacement was $60 and the liner replacement was $90, plus shipping the jacket to the New Jersey plant where most of the construction takes place.   It was still winter where the nights are often in the mid 20s so I had to be able to zip up the jacket—it simply couldn’t wait.  But after careful consideration, even though the stitching all over the jacket was still very much intact it was decided that it was time to retire that jacket and buy a new one.  A new jacket from U.S. Wings costs about the same as a good firearm but considering my use, a new one was better than fixing the old one so I placed an order for one of their Signature Series flight jackets with nearly the exact specs.

The order was placed and a few days later the jacket arrived on my doorstep ready for battle.  I literally took it out of the box, tried it on for fitting and left the house on my motorcycle.  When you meet with people they can tell instantly whether the jacket is a cheap rip-off from some shopping mall vender selling “club” clothing or some piece of crap made for the herds at various coat suppliers destined to be sold in the future at a flea market.  It doesn’t matter so much if the jacket is stained from sweet, rain, bugs, or heat streaked, they can tell if it is of quality and if it’s not it won’t look right with a suit and a $500 dollar watch.  But U.S. Wing jackets are just fine for this kind of thing and suit both necessities perfectly.  The jackets are of a quality where their value never comes into question.

When I bought the first jacket six years ago Hack’s company sent with it some bonus items free of charge—a book about Hack’s life which was actually quite good and a free Moko Man hat which I wear often.  As this new jacket arrived I expected him to send something extra, but wasn’t all that shocked when only the jacket was inside.  The economy had been hard for everyone, so I figured that U.S. Wings had given up on those kinds of perks to save money.  Two days after the arrival of the jacket it was a Saturday and one of my nephews was at my house playing Star Wars: X Wing with myself and one of my son-in-laws as we noticed the mail man driving up our driveway.  He dropped off a package and neither my wife nor I expected to receive anything.  We took the usual protocols when examining something unusual which arrives at our home, but my concerns quickly alleviated once I saw the U.S. Wings logo on the box.

U.S. Wings had sent a special delivery of free items, a DVD music video titled “The Ballad of Sergeant Hack” by Erica Lane and a special single song CD by the same musical artist called “Believe in America.”  Inside also was a special bag designed to protect expensive garments while traveling, such as U.S. Wing jackets and tailored suits.  It was a cost that U.S. Wings did not have to incur, they could have just sent the jacket, but as usual they went above and beyond.

The song, “The Ballad of Sergeant Hack” can be heard on the first video on this article along with other videos which give an ideal who David Hack is, and why he is one of those unique people whose personality inevitably comes out in his company U.S. Wings.  Hack is a guy who personally wrote President Johnson complaining that he wanted to go to Ranger school.  He volunteered for Vietnam during a time when many people were dodging the draft and was a recruiter on the active front designated to reenlist soldiers who were set to rotate out of the combat zones.  Needless to say, Sergeant Hack is the real deal and that personality certainly comes out in the clothing line of U.S. Wings.

Hack’s patriotism is genuine.  He’s obviously not happy with the direction of the country currently—and his sentiments are much older than the Tea Party.  He’s not a “come lately” to the ideal of patriotism and is truly one of the unique people of American culture.  I purchase my leather jackets from U.S. Wings because there simply are not better jackets made by any other manufacturer in the world when it comes to military clothing and rugged apparel.  I would not trust my jackets to be made by a roving communist from the East or a socialist from Europe or a conquered soul in Russia.  U.S. Wing jackets are purely American and made for American lifestyles, and they are the only kind of jacket that I’ll wear.

As is often the case, the company U.S. Wings is the embodiment of its creator, Sergeant Hack and the quality he has directly infused into a great American company.  In a day where most things are imports from other countries done cheaply out of necessity, U.S. Wings jackets have an emblem inside all their garments which actually sends a chill up my spine every time I see it—which is every day because I put those jackets on every day.  U.S. Wings is a company that I trust because I trust Sergeant Hack and know that he puts a lot of extra effort into the reputation of his company.  Most companies that make coats, shoes, boots, or even farm equipment have fallen from grace because the personalities of their creators, the Chief Executive Officers who utilize capitalism to bring joy to the world lose touch with their initial passions.  When it comes to U.S. Wings, even after many years of existence, over a long-span of time, their quality and effort are matched by their past performance and it is one of the rare honors that I have had to open a package from them and see what’s inside.  Often it is the little things that matter, and when it comes to U.S. Wings a lot of little things add up to greatness, from the quality of their stitching to the measurements of their segments—to the quality of the actual leather.  And even when they don’t have to—because the product speaks for itself, David Hack wants his customers to know more about him, so that they know what they are getting is the real deal that won’t falter when they need it most.  And when it comes to leather jackets there aren’t any better made.

For me there are two essential ingredients to my daily life, my leather U.S. Wings jackets and Gargoyle Sunglasses.  Everything else is a variable.

Here is the U.S. Wings website:

 http://www.uswings.com/

And now that you’ve read all this, watch all the videos completely and know that what you are seeing is a deep tap-root into American exceptionalism and be damn proud of it.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Ayn Rand Versus James Joyce: The Divorce of America from Europe

I feel sorry for people who feel this way. The reviewer simply can’t relate. They have no concept of having the kind of passion for something where sleep, rest and comfort are secondary concerns. They don’t feel those kinds of things, so they think good characters are the type of people who strive to have faults, where they work simply to eat, drink, rest, and have sex. People like that are like monkeys at a zoo looking at human visitors across a gulf of intelligence, beyond the barriers of a cage, and can’t understand why zoo visitors have drinks, and strollers, and small humans in their arms with sunglasses shielding their eyes from the sun. They are primitives, sad and left behind lost forever to faulty thinking and stupidity.

Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/5e30cb6/atlas-shrugged-is-a-ridiculous-book~aanyvpt6qjgrvit7nk2b4wfioe#KbDwv05Roro8QBRx.99

That was a comment I made to an article published on Atlas Shrugged is a Ridiculous Book posted in the Galt’s Gulch site where I have quite a few friends.  I read the review linked below and thought that the author Robert Nielsen did a good job citing his opinions, that he did thoroughly read the book and made an effort to have pointed comments.  I thought the author was a generally curious person of above average intelligence.  However, I also thought that the author might be a radical left winged oriented socialist (Democrat) who was a staunch Keynesian and after looking into the guy a bit, that is exactly what he was.  He was a European born and raised amidst the socialism of Europe and simply had no mental mechanisms that could relate to the novel Atlas Shrugged and believed that through democratic consensus that just because a majority of the population on earth does not think like the characters in Atlas Shrugged, that the book is ridiculous and should not have an audience.  Nielsen had a number of opinionated passages in his article, but the one below struck me as being the most revealing.

http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/atlas-shrugged-is-a-ridiculous-book/

 

“All of the heroes have this absurd element to them. They don’t stop to eat or rest a single time in the book and it is casually thrown in that they haven’t slept for two or three days as though that would have no effect on them. They have no hobbies or interested (sic) outside work. Even when they are bleeding they don’t feel any pain. In other words they are soulless robots, machines good for working and nothing else. Atlas Shrugged bears a strong resemblance to Fascist propaganda in its treatment of heroes.  There is a strong emphasis on the cult of personality, of worshipping men of action in contrast to the masses who are too stupid and cowardly to achieve greatness.  Democracy destroys accountability whereas dictatorship is the only system where anyone is responsible.  All of the best firms in the book are named after their owner and collapse without them.”

Nielsen says a lot here and represents a large portion of the world who have grown up for generations under kings, princes, fascist rulers, and tyrannical dictators who to them represent the “right” on a political spectrum and democratic socialists, communists, labor unions, and religious collectivists on the other representing the “left.”  Yet for me personally, I don’t even consider any of the categories on that scale relevant and long ago designated Europe and its history to be corrosive to the human experience.  My ideal of a good time is not sitting in a “pub” with my mates watching a socialist soccer game and thinking that James Joyce was an intellectual giant as the benchmark of good literature.  The guy could write complicated metaphors—but to what end—to be haunted by dreams of a fragmented past as in Finnegan’s Wake or to visit a brothel in Ulysses.  Nielsen is from Dublin, and so was Joyce and because of my experience with those works, I feel I have a pretty good feel for life in Ireland and what it represents—and none of those things are concepts that are attractive to me.

I find it utterly disgusting that so many Americans have been bred through the education system to believe that the cities of Europe are exotic destinations of culture and sophistication.  To me the entire land mass from the shores of France to the end of Russia protruding out into the Bering Strait is a corrupt embodiment and continuation of The Dark Ages.  The people from those lands have been conquered and beaten so many ways by so many tyrants that the only way out of the cycle was “democracy” through majority rule.  And if the majority are idiots, than so be it.  Visiting a BW3’s on a Friday night disgusts me as much as it would if I were in a Dublin Pub with a bunch of socialists banging mugs of beer together in communion around a soccer match—so my feelings are not specific to Europe.  And before I say any more, one of my son-in-laws is from England, just outside of London on the eastern side.  My other daughter dated a guy from the boarder of Scotland.  I have family members from Europe, and I deal with people almost every day in every time zone from London to New Zealand, so I have a very good understanding about the lifestyle of Europe which leaves me shaking my head when Americans seek to mimic that cold landmass with a history of oppression extending from here to the dawn of man shown in the Caves of Lascaux.  America was founded by people seeking freedom from Europe and they were willing to die to leave that place.  In a lot of ways the pilgrims were the original Gaultchers from Atlas Shrugged they were looking to be free of the religious and political persecution of Europe, which still exists to this very day in Keynesian economics.  The thought process moved from churches into the economy but the mentality is very much the same.

Once America was founded and Europe saw that they could visit without being killed by natives, they settled the New England area and brought their stupid European socialism with them in the form of “progressivism,” and started voting for Democrats while encourage America to give up football and making “soccer” the national game…………………………..NO.  In many ways Europe is still stuck under the veil of tyranny that they have been confined with since there was an Ice Age and it is utterly disgusting.  Atlas Shrugged is one of the first great American novels produced under a relatively new country with a new way of thinking.  Now of course the jealous European trained in the liberal schools of Ireland, England and France will scoff at the characters of Atlas Shrugged because they are clearly outside of the European experience.

In reference to many of the successful Americans that I know, it is true that if they do not come to work, or leave a company after they have led it, the company does collapse.  Making money is their hobby.  I remember a lunch meeting that I had in downtown Cincinnati with some very influential financiers and patent attorneys where the bill was $11,000.  These guys did this every day of the week.  They made their money under an American capitalist system and could not have done what they were doing in Europe because people like Robert Nielson would think that they had equal rights to that money just because their mothers gave birth to them in Dublin.  The people I had lunch with had a hobby that was “making money” which is why they had it.  The wealth they produced carried over into every aspect of society from the nice waitress who tended to them daily to the people who imported the food required to feed them.  If those types of people didn’t show up for work one day, or decided to go on a vacation, their businesses fell apart because “the people” working for them lost focus and drifted without proper leadership.  That is not fascism that is leadership.  Fascism is where such a human trait is taken advantage of.

America has created its own definitions and fascism is not even an option.  A business leader of an industry is not a fascist, they are a job creator.  People are free to leave that job if they discover they don’t like the direction of the company.  But to allow a fascist to rule over the entire nation of America—that simply isn’t going to happen.   Europeans can’t wrap their mind around that ideal; it doesn’t fit with their history and their foundations of education.  To them the political “right” is fascists like Mussolini and Hitler and the “left” are people like Lenin, Stalin, and Marx.  America rejected all those idiots because they are collectivists, and in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged she is introducing an entirely new way of looking at the old problems so that Americans can understand why their capitalist system is so superior to European socialism.  Those in love with “democracy” (majority rule, even if a majority are fools) is to commit a political and economic structure around collectivism.  In America where individualism is the foundation concept, collectivism is a curse.  It is a waste of time to achieve group consensus because not everyone is capable of making proper decisions.  The reason for this has been explored by Robert Pirsig in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, another revolutionary work of philosophy done specifically in America.  Slowly the old philosophers of Europe, people like Nietzsche, Marx, and Descartes are being replaced by Rand, Pirsig, and Adam Smith.

The characters of Atlas Shrugged are my kind of people.  They represent my daily life and I do feel sorry for those who can’t relate.  It must be terrible to wake up each morning in such a fog that human faults are the first area of focus.  It must be terrible to even consider if “group consensus” is something to measure before taking action.  I once went to Disney World with a large group and watched everyone standing in Tomorrow Land for an hour arguing about which thing to do first. Finally, I got sick of it and gathered up a crew who wanted to go with me and I left to explore the park.  We had a blast because most people just want to have someone give them direction in life.  They don’t want the burden of thinking, they just want to follow—and that’s fine so long as they don’t get in the way.  But if they try to hold things up with indecision and personal insecurities, then it is unacceptable to me.  The primary question explored in Atlas Shrugged is if the majority should be allowed to hold up the few, when it is the few who move the world, and the answer is no.

People like me do not reach out to the “democracies” of the world trying to sell Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged because I really don’t care if people like Robert Nielson accepts it or rejects it.  I just don’t want Nielson in a position through his Keynesian economics to hold me up when I want to do something.  If he wants to hang out in a Dublin pub watching soccer matches instead of being productive, that is his decision—but he does not have a right to hinder me.  The point of Atlas Shrugged is that when this process happens, people like Nielson do suffer.   Europe sucks…………..most everyone is stuck somewhere between fascism and communism.  The topless beaches of France and Spain do not give culture to a society—it does not make them enlightened.  French wine is not better than California wine and the Caves of Lascaux are representative of the same tribal collectivism as the Navajo of the American Southwest—both represent primitive collectivist cultures mired with a basic premise of tribal sacrifice.  The America that took Adam Smith’s lead, and John Locke and was first commented on by Ayn Rand, then Robert Pirsig is one that exists outside of European definitions for things.  It is not my task or those of my friends in Galt’s Gulch to “sell” Rand to anybody.  Her books have sold for decades quite well on their own—people come to her work in their own time in their own way.  The difference between a republic and a democracy is that a republic is supposed to represent different people as a representative as opposed to a democracy with majority rule.  America is a republic not a filthy democracy!  A group of thugs do not have a right to impose on me their beliefs just because they outnumber me.  The stupid will always outnumber the intelligent—so the stupid should not have power over the intelligent.  The intelligent should not be hampered by fools, lowlifes, and insecure collectivists.  That is what Atlas Shrugged is essentially about and why it offendshttp://youtu.be/bWebZ_OqU_c so many people.  I can understand that many people don’t like the book or the movies if they identify with the villains—nobody likes being called names.  But for years in every movie and book that has attacked capitalism, they have attacked my values, which is what the artists have done to people like me—so Atlas Shrugged is art that I can relate to.  I don’t expect the democratic masses to enjoy it—it wasn’t written for them.

It is sad that people like Robert Nielsen are stuck behind on an island of Keynesian economics, socialism, communism, and soccer matches over beer in 200-year-old pubs that smell like dirty feet and swamp ass stained to their wooden chairs after 50 years of use.  Like monkeys stuck on an island display at a zoo designed to contain them they can only look across the void at America and wonder why we have it so good, why we have so much money, so many tools at our disposal. But they never get to the answer of why because they are lacking the intellectual tools to step across the barriers which contain them.  If they knew how to swim or were not afraid of the water they could free themselves—but instead they spend their days grooming each other and beating on their chests in memory of their primitive ancestors and call those who have left them behind—cultists driven by “selfishness.”  I would love to help those people, but not by coming to Europe to copy off them, to play their stupid soccer matches where the game resembles socialism with their ridiculous off-sides rules—where a forward cannot be behind a defense—give me a break!  That makes for a boring game and a boring economy, and Europe has both.  Atlas Shrugged, an American story, is about productivity, individualism, innovation, and the corruption of the masses and their need for leadership.  John Galt is certainly not the next European fascists.  He is beyond that kind of thinking—he is all about total independence where individuals are not compelled into imprisonment by the weakest links of society—because those weak links chose to be stupid, perilous, or otherwise reckless with their lives—then expect others to shield them from reality through collectivism.  Atlas Shrugged philosophically is a divorce from Europe, and obviously in such divorces there are hard feelings and one side will always try to make the other look bad.  But in the end, Atlas Shrugged is a change in thinking that the spouse left behind resents and in this case it is Europe and all its faulty past.  Robert Nielsen might feel the chill of abandonment and call after their former lover with disdain and envy, but the merit is rooted in jealousy.  The proclamation that some people, some economies, and some ideals are better than others, and that people who love Atlas Shrugged are willing to go off and do their own thing is a reality that the European and the Americans who love the dank culture of that haze covered land is simply too much to comprehend.

Atlas Shrugged is about a new way of thinking where the roots of productivity are not explored through mystical hocus pocus balancing limited resources against equal distribution to the world.  It is about what makes resources in the first place so that new things can come to be which ultimately benefit everyone.  The question must first be asked, who is responsible for productivity—is it the democratic masses or the few who possess leadership and ability?  My trip to Disney World is confirmation that Atlas Shrugged is the only artistic work to properly identify the answer.  At the end of that day, a majority of the people in the argument of what to do were still there.  They had simply sat down at a few tables and ate food most of the day stuck in inaction driven by their indecisiveness.  Me and my group, we rode Pirates of the Carribean—5 times, road the Thunder Mountain Railroad, did the Swiss Family Robison Tree House, saw a number of shows including the Presidents Showcase, ran all over Tom Sawyer Island, did everything in Fantasy Land, shopped, road Space Mountain—3 times and still had time to do more.  The rest of the group had not even left Tomorrow Land except to get a place on Main Street to watch the fireworks.  That is what has happened to Europe and every single Keynesian economist and every political socialist.  They are still stuck in the politics of Europe and are chained to its dismal fate where America has moved on.  The philosophy of that “moving on” is chronicled in Atlas Shrugged and is only growing as more and more of those monkeys on the zoo island learn to swim and discover a big bright world outside of their intellectual confinement.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Obama The Dumbass: New Executive order against American productivity

Barack Obama has done a lot of really dumb things during his presidency and has shown himself to be a real novice when it comes to leadership.  Obama is the premier reason that an unproven senator rather than a vetted state governor or a military general should have nothing to do with The White House.  For those who foolishly voted for this fledgling idiot, the Percival of American politics, the video below is for you.  What they thought they were getting in 2008 when they cast their votes for the openly socialist community organizer from Chicago with direct ties to domestic terrorists, FBI tracked communists and a mother who slept her way around the world, was far from a savor.  The grim reality of their stupidity is self-evident.  Six years later, most of them are discovering what the woman in the following video have—which is reflected in the current poll numbers in 2014.

Now the idiot has really crossed the line and insulted me personally which is something that I must address directly.  If the dude wants to talk to me after reading this feel free……………he has my number.  This whole business of Barry Obama signing an executive order directed at the Labor Department requiring them to expand overtime pay requirements to include salary workers making under $50,000 per year for every hour worked over 40 per week is epically dim-witted.  This move is to equalize pay and distribution of wealth with yet another brainless attack on the supposed wealthy class of Americans to those in the mythical government created “middle-class.”  Obama stated on March 13th as he signed a memorandum to this effect that, “Our businesses have created more than 8 million new jobs over the last four years.  The unemployment rate is at the lowest it’s been in over five years, but, in many ways, the trend that have really battered middle-class families for decades have gotten worse, not better.  So we’ve got to reverse those trends.  We’ve got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just for a few.”  Obama’s dialogue of course is foolish, and might as well have been spoken by Vladimir Lenin in 1917 Russia.  Whether or not anybody likes the reality of President Obama, this move is rooted in communism—this ideal that all workers are equal and should share in the wealth of profit produced.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.

As I have documented I have been employed just about everywhere and done everything in virtually every capacity.  I have been at the very top and I have cleaned toilets—sometimes all at the same time.  I have worked on multiple occasions 24 straight hours and then some and done just about every kind of job that human beings have created.  At every place I have ever worked and all of the thousands of people I have worked with over the years, all of them with equal access to this site and the words I publish and can confirm if they wish to—because not a single one of them ever outworked me in all my years of productivity.  I have always been “that guy” who excelled and strove to do more, get more done, and outwit competitors with cleverness, aptitude, and sheer willpower.  What President Obama has declared with his diabolical executive order is that every other worker behind me has been equal to my efforts—the slug who sits in the break room too long, the imbecile who goofs off during the job too much, and the general bench warmer who can now sit at their computer while on salary and play on Facebook being unproductive during their normal work hours so they can milk the clock out and get paid for it by Uncle Government and pimp daddy Obama.

The primary reason an employer puts a worker who shows promise on salary is to avoid having to pay them overtime.  For the restaurant manager who might work 65 to 80 hours a week, the owner does not want to break their budget by racking up all the overtime hours incurred by a manager, so they are put on salary to fix the costs.  The motivation of the owner to the manager is to convince such people of responsibility to be more efficient with their time and to learn to delegate so that they don’t have to do all that work themselves.  But if they chose to work the extra hours they’ll do it at their cost.  For instance, if one of their restaurant employees calls off and there is nobody around to do the job, the manager is often stuck having to cover—and since they are on salary it will likely be free work to them.  This will cause the manager to hire better people so that they won’t have to do such things. With this new overtime rule by Obama and his gang of government thugs, the manager won’t want to hire another person to delegate to, because they will want to do the job themselves to milk out overtime.  Only idiots who have never managed anything at any point in their lives would think that such a communist concept could work in a productive society.

In my personal experience Obama has just declared with his ridiculous executive order that all the misfits, low-lifes, and lazy losers I have worked with in the past were equal to me—and that is just an insult.  Compared to me, nobody does equal work for equal pay, because nobody puts the same level of effort into a task.  Only a complete idiot with no work experience would believe such a thing, and this is confirmation that Obama and all the socialist knuckle draggers in Washington D.C. are clueless as to what makes an economy tick, and now they have increased the burden on American productivity, not lessened it.

Anyone who has had to manage hourly workers knows that because of the overtime laws created during the “Red Decade” where communism was being openly advocated by the high levels of society in The United States that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 required most workers to be paid overtime in an effort to shuffle profits into the pockets of the common worker.  Salaried managers were tasked to combat the kind of waste this created by making sure that most of the work needed by a company was obtained within a 40 hour work week.  Without such management hourly workers typically stand at their jobs and string out their tasks so that they can obtain 5 to 15 hours of overtime a week supplementing their income.  In union shops this is an epidemic problem which has ultimately destroyed their competitive swagger in the world.  The federal government never had a right, or an obligation to determine what was “fair” for a worker in their relationship with an employer.  The cost of their intrusion has been productivity.

I have worked for employers who were idiots, and they sought to take advantage of me at every turn.  When I discovered this, I either moved on to someplace else, or I worked the situation to my advantage which is fair play.    Never have I turned to government to protect me from an employer.  It was always my task to handle that myself as it is for everyone.  While it’s true that not everybody is so ambitions, they should be……and they will never yearn to be so long as they are compensated by government for work that they aren’t doing in an attempt to equalize their pay and benefits.  This attempt at “fairness” by the Obama administration is one of the most obvious validations of their sheer ignorance and lack of worldly knowledge—at understanding what makes a person productive and what inspires them to sit on their ass.  This new executive order will encourage a lot more ass sitting and much, much less productivity because now those with management power on salary can milk out a clock too, and will be far less likely to manage hourly workers who desire at every turn to do the same.  This is the most foolish thing I have ever seen done by a politician……………which says a lot.

It is a personal insult to me to give workers who don’t put in the same effort that I do, equal pay.  It inspires me to work less, not more—and those like me who work hard will decide to shrug off that effort since the government has made inferior employees equal.  And that is the source of the problem because if the truly productive stop working hard, what is there that moves an economy……………….some proletariat worker?  Give me a break!

Obama, you are a dumbass.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Bob McEwen’s Fight For Justice: A revolutionary war ghost and the power of Cincinnati

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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27]

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 abortiongun controlhigh 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.[2] 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.[3] The Chillicothe Gazette would salute him for his work on funding for U.S. Route 35, a limited access highway linking Chillicothe to Dayton.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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.”[11] 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.[12]

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”.[13] 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.[14] 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.”[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McEwen

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.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com