Posts Tagged ‘Lakota Schools’
MASON, OH (FOX19) -
Parents and teachers in Warren County want more money and better benefits for the Mason City School District.
The Mason Education Association, which represents 650 educators, has been negotiating a new employment contract since April. Mason teachers say they’re not only concerned about money and benefits but also concerned about cuts to academic programs and facilities.
The union also declared a “no confidence” position in superintendent Gail Kist-Kline.
The district meanwhile says it’s hopeful that negotiations will continue during the summer months, and a contract settlement will be reached before the beginning of the school year.
According to school board members, Dr. Kist-Kline was hired following a levy failure, and asked to lead during a time of economic challenge that required the district to improve efficiency and make difficult decisions.
The story continued with the MEA (Mason Education Association) threatening to go on strike and late in the afternoon on July 8th 2014, a contract agreement was reached which will then go to a vote by the union members. Teachers all across Ohio rejoiced as one of the wealthiest districts in that state had proven that it was once again ripe for pillaging. The entire story of how the teacher’s union in Mason threatened a hostile action—work stoppage—preventing parents who pay the taxes there from retaining their free baby sitting service at the end of summer, forced the payment of ransom which were pay increases. It was all too reminiscent of an old pirate story about Blackbeard’s blockade of the Charleston harbor in 1718. That old story about pirate action was essentially the same as the modern story of the MEA in Mason, Ohio 2014.
Edward Teach (also Edward Thatch, c.1680—22 November 1718), better known as Blackbeard, was a notorious English pirate who operated around the West Indies and the eastern coast of the American colonies. Although little is known about his early life, he was probably born in Bristol, England. He may have been a sailor on privateer ships during Queen Anne’s War before settling on the Bahamian island of New Providence, a base for Captain Benjamin Hornigold, whose crew Teach joined sometime around 1716. Hornigold placed him in command of a sloop he had captured, and the two engaged in numerous acts of piracy. Their numbers were boosted by the addition to their fleet of two more ships, one of which was commanded by Stede Bonnet, but toward the end of 1717 Hornigold retired from piracy, taking two vessels with him.
Blockade of Charleston
By May 1718 Teach had awarded himself the rank of Commodore and was at the height of his power. Late that month his flotilla blockaded the port of Charleston (then known as Charles Town) in South Carolina. All vessels entering or leaving the port were stopped, and as the town had no guard ship, its pilot boat was the first to be captured. Over the next five or six days about nine vessels were stopped and ransacked as they attempted to sail past Charleston Bar, where Teach’s fleet was anchored. One such ship, headed for London with a group of prominent Charleston citizens which included Samuel Wragg (a member of the Council of the Province of Carolina), was the Crowley. Her passengers were questioned about the vessels still in port and then locked below decks for about half a day. Teach informed the prisoners that his fleet required medical supplies from the colonial government of South Carolina, and that if none were forthcoming, all prisoners would be executed, their heads sent to the Governor and all captured ships burnt.
Wragg agreed to Teach’s demands, and a Mr. Marks and two pirates were given two days to collect the drugs. Teach moved his fleet, and the captured ships, to within about five or six leagues from land. Three days later a messenger, sent by Marks, returned to the fleet; Marks’s boat had capsized and delayed their arrival in Charleston. Teach granted a reprieve of two days, but still the party did not return. He then called a meeting of his fellow sailors and moved eight ships into the harbor, causing panic within the town. When Marks finally returned to the fleet, he explained what had happened. On his arrival he had presented the pirates’ demands to the Governor and the drugs had been quickly gathered, but the two pirates sent to escort him had proved difficult to find; they had been busy drinking with friends and were finally discovered, drunk.
Teach kept to his side of the bargain and released the captured ships and his prisoners—albeit relieved of their valuables, including the fine clothing some had worn.
The behavior of the MEA was essentially of the same morality as Blackbeard’s seizer and extortion of Charleston. Blackbeard’s actions were designed to exploit the weaknesses of the governor; the MEA was designed to exploit the weaknesses of the superintendent of Mason schools. Both groups used force and fear to obtain wealth—the Blackbeard pirates used fear of physical violence, the Mason teachers’ used the fear of work stoppage by refusing to perform contracted obligations as employees of the state of Ohio. There is no real difference between the piratical acts of Blackbeard or the MEA.
So why weren’t the Mason teachers arrested for their piratical acts instead of rewarded with more money? Because the pirates run the government in 2014 unlike in 1718. The only difference between the MEA and Blackbeard is that they are now the lawyers, legislators, and union leaders who have infiltrated the law to have easy access to the plunder of the tax payers. Pirates have changed their tactics over the years—instead of violence and blockades, they just gained a government backed service—like education—and threatened to take that service away unless they obtained their desires. The ideal of the blockade of education services through a labor strike and Blackbeard’s extraction of medical supplies from the Governor of Charleston are the same because tax payers have no other option. There are no other schools for their children to attend just as there was no other way out of the harbor of Charleston for the citizens to embark on any kind of trade by sea. So Blackbeard had the city by the throat and used it to his advantage just as the MEA had Mason by the throat regarding education. The intentions were extortion to fulfill the desires of piracy. The only difference is that these modern pirates in the MEA were backed by the law which is an evolution from the days of Blackbeard. But the intentions were the same—fear, power, and plunder at the expense of others.
So if anyone dared wish to see examples of modern piracy, don’t look to the South China Sea or the dangerous waters off of Somalia—just look in Mason, Ohio at the members of the Mason Teacher’s Association and you will see pirates just as vicious and greedy as Blackbeard.
The cries of anger from the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby by feminist groups is so reminiscent of my complaints of school levy supporters who are typically feminists looking to cover their parenting deficiencies with tax payer funded baby sitting services, that I had to go back to an article that caused a lot of controversy toward me as a kind of time capsule confirmation of my thoughts—to validate its merit. An article I wrote after a very contentious first quarter—politically in 2012 became cherry picked for negative comments to use against me, so I put it on password protection to stop the bleeding. Of course it was the Cincinnati Enquirer who was doing the cherry picking on behalf of the type of feminists who are now howling in rage against the recent high court decision. In the wake of that political turbulence I had not revisited that article to take the password off—which I should have done earlier—because if people could have seen the context of the article—they would have seen what the Enquirer had done. But I never got around to it until I wanted to see how true many of my statements were in the winter of 2012 compared to the radical position of the feminists against Hobby Lobby. At the link below, my comments from that time can be revisited.
The trouble with these feminists—the ones against Hobby Lobby and the typical school levy supporters which I described with my open opinion is that they cross the line in expecting other people to fund their beliefs. People are free to believe what they want to—those feminists are free to conduct their lives in their families and be man hating despots all they want—until they ask me for something. In the case of the school levy supporters they demanded that I support their politics with my tax money. Their reasons for a school levy and their demands of the public education system put the burden on me as a tax payer to support. When they did not respect the vote from Lakota residents in the fall of 2011, I saw that they were just going to keep coming until they got what they wanted, and I let my thoughts about their actions be known. What is the point of playing the same stupid game with them when they have only one objective in mind—higher taxes to support their progressive world outlook—which I do not support? The essence of their argument was take something from me that I didn’t want to give—and to get it they were more than willing to assassinate my character and anyone attached to me through brute force.
The same is going on over the Hobby Lobby case, the feminists are very concerned that the progressive gains they have made against American tradition—which I support—are slipping away so they feel they must become aggressive to defend their position. But their position is essentially the expectation that a corporation fund the sexual exploits of women without those women taking responsibility for their actions. In a lot of ways, this is far worse than the school levy supporters who really just want free babysitting and the guilt of their career building removed from them as the government takes responsibility for their children’s educations. In this case the feminists are demanding that Hobby Lobby fund sexual activity—which is the decision of women whether or not they wish to participate in such an activity or not. Sex doesn’t just happen—it is a decision and Hobby Lobby has no obligation as a corporation or a family business to contribute to those kinds of personal activities. If women want to work for a company that does endorse that kind of activity—then they can apply for a job at such a place, or start their own company where they can provide those benefits to employees–that way feminists could work together and not muddy the water of women who actually enjoy working for a company that respects religious beliefs and traditional value.
Yet the feminists expect “others” to fund their recklessness—and their personal philosophy of complete independence of males in their life. At the foundation of their proposal is to actually enslave everyone—whether they believe in the same things as the feminists or not—into contributing to their lifestyles. So the feminists are far from independent—but rather they are more dependent than ever. The only difference is that the feminist demands that society care for her instead of a single husband which might expect something in return—such as traditional housewife roles within a home, caring for children, preparing a majority of the meals, taking care of most domestic obligations—etc. The feminists want to be free of all those obligations, yet they still want the support of big government to care for them the way a typical “man-of-the-house” traditionally did, bringing home the money, taking care of fixing things and providing non emotional advice regarding priorities for the family’s direction—the “father knows best role.” In that role a housewife might have told children—“don’t do this or that or I’ll tell your father.” The children fearing such an overpowering figure might then correct their behavior. The modern feminist instead tells her children—“do what the government tells you, do what your teachers tell you, and mind the police.” The feminist has simply replaced the traditional head of household man with government. The trade-off was that government doesn’t expect anything from the feminists in return leaving them free to do anything they want, believe anything they want, and to espouse values regardless of their destructive tendencies without feeling the impact of direct consequence. Instead—those consequences are distributed to many people—people like me who do not support the feminist cause.
It’s not that women should be pushed down into a passive role in society. The only real difference between men and women are purely physical. The mind of people is where value really is—so in that context men and women are equal—if the mind is the root of judgment. But the feminists do not have the right personal philosophy—they are wrong about most of their assertions—at least compared to my traditional American values. They are free to believe or be as wrong as they wish—but they are not free to impose those values on other people who disagree with them. In essence, that is what the feminists against Hobby Lobby are attempting to do. It is that same attack gay rights advocates have against Chick-fil-A, or that race baiters have across the entire economy—the goal of all these parasitic groups is to gain something from other people who do not necessarily support those viewpoints—making those parties contribute in the acts by default.
This strategy puts the blame of bad, reckless behavior on the entire society as a result making correction of such behavior irredeemably impossible. For instance, a cost of feminism is the destruction of parenting ability provided to children. The divorce rate has increased, men have become feminized, and role models have been removed from the home as the state through teachers, and through court appointed liaisons became the central figures in a child’s life. Judges decide where a child sleeps in divorce hearings as opposed to the parents. The parents lose their rights to instruct their children once lawyers and government in general becomes part of the process. The adverse effect is that a whole generation of children are coming to age who look to government for decisions—which government is incapable of making—causing major problems currently. Feminism can be traced as the cause. It is of course more complicated than that—not all men are capable of being a good head-of-house; women not so attractive then don’t have access to the same type of good men as attractive women do—most feminists are not very attractive—which is the deep insecurity that they have and foundation for their commitment to feminism. Yet their commitment to that particular cause then has a chain reaction effect that could be blamed on destroying society—the effects are just now being recorded—socially. But all that is hidden because feminists through legal victories in the past have pulled everyone into contributing to their faults.
Feminist are fearful of the Hobby Lobby case because they see the trend turning against them and it is scary. If they cannot hide their stupidity behind all of society—behind large corporations like Hobby Lobby and others—they will be left vulnerable to take responsibility for the cost of their beliefs against society. For them, that is a terrifying prospect. Just as my comments from over two years ago have proven, the feminists are extreme radicals and when I made sure that I wasn’t going to go along with their plan—they did everything they could to come after me publicly which still angers me. They had no right, which led to my comments in the article linked above. And when I called them on things, they cherry picked my words and attempted to manipulate the situation into their favor just as they are doing now against Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court. But history will prove what I’m saying correct. Just as I was able to resurrect the article above from two years ago, ten years from now this article will be reviewed similarly. And the facts will be known, the cost of feminism will be well documented, and the truth will be obvious. It is that truth which the feminists are terrified of in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. The tide is finally turning against them—and there isn’t anywhere or anybody to hide behind. Hobby Lobby is one less place in a field of vanishing confinements that a decade from now will be an empty plain leaving the feminists and other such progressive groups bare and completely exposed for what they have always been.
Wonderful American women are people like Dana Loesch, Ayn Rand, and Annie Oakley. There are many others, those are just a few examples. So it isn’t women hating to declare that feminists are destructive, and on the wrong path. Just factual. And thank God for women like the Tampa Bay Buccaneer cheerleaders–symbols of American exceptionalism.
Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
‘Cloud Atlas’ Possibly the worst movie ever made: Director Larry Wachowski is now a woman named Lana
Yikes, I watched recently what may be the worst movie I have ever seen—which is very embarrassing for the movie. I mean, Jesus Christ—it was absolutely terrible. Diabolically ridiculous, lampoonist, flawed, disjointed—it was a wrecked concoction of poor philosophy, disastrously stupid politics, and a sheer waste of the three hours I spent watching it. Tragically, I hoped it would be good, Tom Hanks was in it, Halle Berry was as well, the Wachowski family was involved who did films like the Matrix and Speed Racer—so even though I thought I would dislike the politics—which were noticeably progressive—I hoped the movie would have its moments. It didn’t. It was just terrible and the only reason I am reviewing it is so that I can show readers here that not every movie review is good. Some people have accused me of working for Warner Brothers because of my glowing reviews of the Batman films, and Eastwood projects—but this—this Cloud Atlas—it was just wretched. It was like looking at something a dog puked up after eating feces in the yard mixed with freshly cut grass and garbage out of the hamper. It is unbelievable that anybody ever gave a green light for that movie because if that is what people in Hollywood think is a good movie, we are in big trouble.
I gave the film a chance because Roger Ebert loved it—he said he thought it was one of the most ambitious films ever made and was a complicated riddle that deserved multiple viewings. And parts of it were very ambitious, the budget was large, the visionary attempt was epic, and it had stars. Susan Sarandon’s inclusion almost made me not even watch it because of her active progressivism—but I recorded it on my DVR in March and finally got around to watching it in June out of obligation really. I felt because of what Ebert said that the film deserved attention, but I knew it was a progressive film—so I treated it like a trip to the dentist—something you don’t really enjoy, but is needed from time to time for basic maintenance. My conclusion was that Roger Ebert lost his mind. Cloud Atlas was that terrible.
The foundation of Cloud Atlas is deeply flawed making all the interesting interconnected storylines worthless. The film is about gay love, slavery, feminism, and is clearly against big oil. It is also about the worthless nature of individual lives and only concerned about how they fit into the larger tapestry of existence. Considering Ebert died shortly after Cloud Atlas I’ll give him a pass—maybe the idea of resurrection through a future life was something appealing to him in those last moments and he saw in the Cloud Atlas insanity a ray of hope for himself. The film was released around the same time that Atlas Shrugged Part II hit theaters and I remember well having to defend that film from people who loved Cloud Atlas. So I made a point to see the film at the first available moment which is why I recorded it. Being an open supporter of the filmmakers producing the Atlas Shrugged films, I wanted to understand how the other side could make such comparisons, and what I learned was that Cloud Atlas is the exact opposite philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. The two couldn’t be further apart in values—they have nothing in common other than the word “Atlas” in their titles.
And before anybody says that I didn’t understand the film………………….please, don’t waste the time. I understood all the metaphors in the film and I get the interaction of the characters and the various time periods. But to what point—so that the sick guy on the ship trying to get home to his wife who was really the future goddess of civilization could tell her bigoted father that she was running off with her husband? That was the closing scene and the climax of the picture?????????????????????????????? No, there was another climax, the one with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry married and living happily on another planet well into the future telling the story of Cloud Atlas to his grandchildren who wanted to look up at the stars and know which one was earth. Really???????????????????? I wasted three hours to come to that stupid revelation? You can refund money but you can’t refund time—and I am resentful that I lost three hours of my life to Cloud Atlas.
However, one thing that I did learn is that everything I say about progressives is absolutely 100% correct. Their world vision was on full display in Cloud Atlas and philosophically, they are like children right out of the womb—yet they believe they are at the height of human knowledge. Cloud Atlas was presented as an exclamation point and epic triumph toward progressive thought. Tom Hanks is a smart guy and a great actor—so he consciously took on multiple roles in the film. It was obviously for him a labor of love—he believed in the project intensely—and that concerns me greatly for his very mental health. There was nothing profound about Cloud Atlas. It was like watching the news with a progressive slant. It was ridiculously simple and anti-climatic. I mean crap…………..it was just terrible.
I understand that I hate progressive and liberal philosophy. Those idiots can call me a right-winger all they want—because if Cloud Atlas is what they think merits thought—they are thoughtless. They do not even have the ability to make a compelling argument if that is the best they can do. Cloud Atlas is the culmination of that kind of crappy Hollywood politics where screenplays are written by boot lickers at parties where drugs flow freely and everyone thinks they are brilliant from the vantage point of the little flat of land nudged up between the Pacific Ocean and the Nevada desert mountains. The Wachowski family is not the second coming. They likely ripped off the concept of the Matrix from another writer and have struggled to make a good film since—even though studios have thrown massive budgets at them. Larry Wachowski wrecked his life in the Hollywood Dungeon when he started hanging around with Iisa Strix and Buck Angel the transsexual known as “The Dude With a Pussy.” Worse yet, one of the directors of Cloud Atlas was Lana—who used to be Larry after he went through a sex change operation—so he is one of those LGBT people and that wrecked identity became Cloud Atlas.
It’s not that the many incidences in Cloud Atlas where male characters play females, and females play males was artistically wrong—it was just too simple. Anyone who bases their identity purely on sexual function is a lost cause—and in essence, this is what was going on in Cloud Atlas. The premise of the characters is from the vantage point of the kind of person who desires to engage in bondage in the Dungeon which is a huge part of that transsexual community in Los Angeles. But for the rest of the nation—it’s considered stupid. So while Cloud Atlas had a 10 minute standing ovation at Sundance and progressives raved about the film—it is only hard-core progressives who enjoyed it. For everyone else—it is ridiculously simple—and tragically limited in its philosophical outlook. What makes a person is not the holes they have in their bodies which allow for sexual penetration—it is the content of their minds—and in Cloud Atlas, the minds are disasters who made a film seething with liberal talking points ridiculously displayed as a work of art that belong nowhere else but in a litter box.
Ironically, I didn’t even know that Larry had turned himself into Lana before I watched Cloud Atlas. I discovered that trying to figure out why the movie was so fu**ed up. I was trying to understand how and why Warner Brothers distributed the film and discover who put up the money for the project and learn what on earth the directors were thinking. That’s when I learned that Larry never recovered from his divorce after being caught with the dominatrix Strix in the Dungeon—and had poured way too much mental energy into becoming a woman. He then directed a film about the quality of a soul regardless of gender roles over a long-span of time to justify his/her terrible decisions in life.
Patti Alderson is a state-central-committee woman tied to many political heavy weights from Governor Kasich to John Boehner. She is one of the wealthiest citizens in Southern Ohio and is involved in many charities—and has been a major levy supporter for Lakota schools. Years ago my group No Lakota Levy offered to her charity The Community Foundation to join forces and help the children of Lakota and the pay for play extortion rates exhibited by the public school and their labor union. Instead of working with me as proposed, she decided to attack me which became the foundation of a media blitz led by her and her friends on the Lakota school board. When I heard what she said about my reaching out a helping hand I made my opinion of her type of levy supporters known—which of course she understood clearly and took all the offense that I intended. The rest is history. Reflecting on the matter I have come to believe that the real reason she was so angry with me wasn’t just the truth of my statements which conveniently found their way into every media outlet in Cincinnati. It was because I am likely the only person in America who does not kiss her ass. When it comes to Patti Alderson, politicians want her money, business people want her alliance, public employees want her ability to control the temperament of a community, and countless legions of parasites just want to be invited to her parties. Click the video below to hear my radio segment on 700 WLW talking about this issue. I was careful not to name names at the time of the interview, because at that time all the guilty parties were not so obvious. But over time, the pieces came together nicely.
When the deal was offered to the Community Foundation to join forces I wasn’t all that impressed by her reputation. Wealthy people like her put their pants on like everyone else, so I didn’t see anything coming from her as particularly special. To me, she was clearly playing politics when she refused to help the youth at Lakota by picking sides in favor of the levy supporters at the expense of the children attending. So I have first-hand experience of how she conducted her business—leading to the things that I said about her supporters backing the Lakota levy. And while all this was going on, it surprised me how people who were quite intelligent, wealthy, and powerful coddled her so openly. It disgusted me—because the real cause of the school levy at Lakota fell right on her doorstep, and too often she skated away free of responsibility because nobody challenged her—because nobody wanted to be on the political out with her—since she controlled so much.
So I have some context to her proposal of bringing the Boys’ and Girls’ Club to the Lakota area. In order to achieve this she wants to share expense, time, and space with Lakota schools. Under this plan, the Club would use the space after school and during the summer, while Lakota would expand kindergarten to all day for those who wish, and have a place for younger pre-school children during the day when school is in session. Seven months after the 2013 levy passed, there was a proposal for tearing down the old Union school and building this shared new facility. During the last levy campaign the following excerpt was taken from an article in the “Journal News” published in May of 2013, “’No part of this levy is just going to be hanging out there undisclosed as far as what it’s going to be about,’ said Joan Powell, school board president. ‘It’s very important to recognize that of the levy dollars we are contemplating asking, virtually all of them are dedicated to either additional personnel we need to give help along the way, for security, or for technology.'” So now that Lakota got their money, it is time to start breaking the promises which won their votes, and at the center of the activity—as usual is Patti Alderson.
People in the know around the politics of the situation have reported that Patti’s group received around $350,000 cash as a giveaway from Attorney Mike DeWine to purchase a building down on Smith Rd for another youth center. Alderson’s company was the real-estate broker on the deal and collected the commission. Now, none of that is big stuff to Patti—its chicken feed really, but is part of the game of politics which she enjoys controlling. And in order to control those strings there needs to be an unquestioned, mutually agreed upon target—and that is the exploitation of children. When I had my fall-out with Patti, it was because I was trying to take away that exploitation which left the pro levy argument publicly stripped down with nowhere to hide. I hoped at the time that more people would listen to my argument over hers, but in the end, it was a lesson of the old children’s story, The Emperor’s New Cloths. Patti is used to everyone telling her wonderful things, because they want her money just like in that famous story. Then when a child says—“but you’re naked”—anger ensues. I was the one who metaphorically told her and the rest of the levy supporters they were really naked and was using the children of Lakota as their cloths to hide behind. Most people who I thought had guts and nerve stood down and got behind Patti. They told me privately that they supported me, but publicly they stood behind Patti. Most did, but not everyone.
Recently Patti gave up her position after 15 years as head of the Community Foundation. publicly it seems that Patti wishes to pursue her interest in this Boys’ and Girls’ Club deal. But Beth Hauer believes it’s something else related to her—which can be seen in the comments section of the Journal News link shown below.
Posted by Beth Hauer at 1:12 a.m. May. 2, 2014
I wonder if Patti Alderson’s resignation has anything to do with the formal, documented complaint that I filed against her as CEO, the Foundation, a now former V.P., the West Chester Tea Party, the Cincinnati Tea Party and a number of other people concerning the last election for a Fiscal Officer for West Chester Township? I have to tell you, Journal News, that I am not happy about your decisions not to publish anything about that federal complaint, and to publish glowing articles about Patti Alderson.
From that same Journal News article written to give glowing praise of Alderson’s work over the years:
“She’s able to get things done because she does her homework,” said Foundation co-founder Debbie Boehner, the wife of U.S. House Speaker and West Chester Twp. Republican John Boehner. “She is a brilliant businesswoman. Patti’s always had her hands in something that’s a change factor.”
Boehner, who has been friends with Alderson for more than 35 years, said she is amazed with how much of her time and her talent she has given to this community, including spearheading the recent effort to form a Boys & Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty.
“I don’t think that anybody comes any closer,” Boehner said. “We ought to call it Aldersonville instead of West Chester.”
So now Patti Alderson is even more directly aligned with Lakota schools and is looking to tear down the Old Union School which has value by building something else designed to essentially provide free day care to more levy supporters and use the altruism of the escapade to get more shiny stars on her reputation.
Taxpayers have spent half a million dollars refurbishing the old school, putting in new windows, adding air-conditioning, and re-carpeting rooms in the building, not long ago. The school is structurally sound and by tearing it down equity will be lost in it. A charter school or maybe a business could make good use of it as new school buildings that have gone up in recent years often require additional money for structural repairs.
While the school system takes over the childcare responsibilities after school, there are many local day-care centers that will suffer. Parents often want the school to handle their children after hours because it is less expensive. This way the taxpayers are subsidizing childcare for parents under the leadership of Patti Alderson. The parents will pay less because the school system is building and maintaining the structure and the tax payers will absorb the cost.
There is a very great possibility that in this shared project the donor-grant funded responsibility could fall behind in payments do to the funding mechanism failing. These things always work so well in meetings, but reality often deals different cards. That would leave the school system to pick up the slack. The Club has received a $500,000 grant, and the rest will come from donors. This means that at some point in time, tax payers will be asked to cover the costs of mismanagement which history indicates this to be the future of this endeavor.
It is a huge undertaking to decide to provide the luxury of all-day kindergarten (when the value to the children is questionable), subsidizing childcare for parents, extending busing (when recently there wasn’t money to provide it), and tearing down a perfectly good school to make room for a new building which will just turn out to be another temple built to honor Patti Alderson.
The taxpayers passed a levy, and within 5 months, this plan was unveiled which was kept from voters prior to the election. This appears to be a “bait-and-switch” situation led by an underhanded and unethical group of people. No Lakota Levy said this all along—I certainly did.
Patti Alderson is now openly cozy with the Lakota school board and even sat with them, superintendent Mantia, and a facilities person from Lakota in a round table discussion on Monday June 23rd. At the meeting a decision was made to pursue a land lease arrangement with the Boys & Girls Club for the Union school property. It was discussed that Lakota would not fund a new building. It was estimated that demolition of the existing building would cost about $500K. The building currently has an occupant that will end its lease in approximately a year, (summer of 2015). Lakota made a study to see if they had room with existing facilities to house an expansion of the all day kindergarten activity; there currently exists enough space within Lakota’s current buildings to due this service expansion. It was said that someone who wanted to put a charter school in the existing building had first dibs but superintendent Mantia saw that proposal as potential competition for Lakota which didn’t make her happy.
The financial attractiveness for Lakota is that the district would get some revenue for the property – possibly to offset the cost of the building demolition. It would be a long-term lease. It sounds like Boys and Girls Club could, in turn, lease some of the building space to others. The plan is to have the all day kindergarten be tuition funded, which is why it will likely fail and fall back on the tax payers at a future point. Lakota’s lawyers will now draft a land lease plan and at this point it would seem that the approach would not redirect any of the levy fund’s commitments as stated to the public. But the devil is always in the detail in these kinds of things—and a few years down the road when things don’t work out the way everyone intended, the financial loses will have to be recovered somewhere by somebody—likely the tax payers.
This is where my problem with Patti originates. The last levy at Lakota is projected to generate well over $10 million dollars from every property in West Chester and Liberty Township. Yet Patti is a rich woman and has the ability to generate vast sums of money just at her charity events. She has in her power the ability to fully fund Lakota as a self-contained entity. If she wanted she could remove the burden of Lakota funding from tax payers—but that is not what she’s interested in doing. Her focus instead is to use other people’s money and resources to use “good causes” to show what a giving person she is. My experience with Alderson is that she enjoys more being the center of attention than actually solving problems. Children are an easy target and are the most exploited demographic group of people on planet earth, and that exploitation is alive and well in West Chester—or as Debbie Boehner says—“Aldersonville.” The real goal of the effort at Lakota will be to expand kindergarten for parents too busy to care for their young children. Everything else about this whole deal is to inflate the ego of Patti Alderson—based on my experience with her. People tell me all the time that she means well, and has the best of intentions—but I’ve seen her behavior up close and she showed me her fangs—and that is not a person who is trying to do “the best for the community.” The context of that niceness is to be seen as the Emperor of Andersonville—as defined by John Boehner’s wife Debbie and her new “social” cloths.
In the story The Emperor’s New Cloths a vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid”. The Emperor’s ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but continues the procession.
I am happy to be the only one in the crowd not functioning from a desire to keeping up a destructive social pretense. The Boys and Girls Club deal with Lakota for Patti is just another robe for an Emperor of Aldersonville where everyone kisses her ring and begs for her money. Just like the school levy campaign was a chance to get like-minded supporters of altruism together for parties, cakes, and back-scratching. It is why she chose not to take my offer of a partnership because the goal wasn’t helping kids; it was in exploiting them for the causes of wearing new cloths and showing them off to the people of Andersonville. In the end it won’t be Patti Alderson writing a check for all her ideas—even though she could—it will be the tax payers still paying for her metaphorical wardrobe years from now once she has disappeared into history and the many monuments dedicated to her charity work will be lost to future generations who could care less who or what she ever was—or anything she ever did.
A special thanks to the many people who contributed to this article. It helps to have so many eyes and ears in the trenches. Not everyone is intimidated by the Emperor of Aldersonville, and lucky for the tax payers of Lakota, the number is growing. Let’s see, what was it that Patti said about me to the Cincinnati Enquirer……………“We refuse to accept funds where political statements are attached.” She also said she had no affiliation with Yes To Lakota Kids. Oddly enough, one of those members was on her arm Monday playing their part in making a deal with Lakota. Ahhhh, the emperor has new clothes indeed–and of course politics played no part.
To review the deal that Patti was so against, CLICK THE LINK BELOW to read an article done about it in Forbes.
Washington Redskins Should Not Change Their Name: Indians were not Native Americans–the Frontiersman were
In regard to this movement of changing the name of the Washington Redskins NFL football team, the intention of the parties involved is not reverence of a conquered people, but an emphasis on progressive politics and all the garbage that comes with it. Native American guilt is used in the same way that other Civil Rights violations are exploited to advance social gains by progressive political advocates. Most of the time, the argument is a full proof slam–nobody would dare criticize a socially abused minority group—especially if the critic is in the majority—such as a “white male.” This leaves arguments one-sided and defenseless, which is the nature of the push to change the name of the Redskins to something else. The goal of the endeavor is not respect of the Indians who supposedly lived in North America happily and in accordance with nature before the “white men” came and destroyed their way of life. The goal is power over NFL owners and the public in general. This is a power attempted at the expense of the Native American Indian.
But for those who wish to propel the myth that the Native American had all the answers, they don’t know the history of those people. They don’t know that outside St. Louis was a gigantic “Indian” city of over 30,000 people who likely traded with the Mayans down the Mississippi, across the Gulf of Mexico and straight into Chichen Itza and their culture of human sacrifice. They don’t know that it is highly likely that many of the American Indian tribes—especially the Shawnee who settled Ohio out of Florida where always at war. The Shawnee couldn’t settle just north of Florida because the Cherokee fought them away driving them further. Once in Ohio, they settled just west of the Five Nations of the Iroquois and lived for a few hundred years in the manner that many believe was the way of life for all Indians since the start of time. But in all reality, it was a short time in human history and the Shawnee were long at war with their neighbors much the way the Mayans were constantly at war with neighboring factions. They were not a society living in peace. They were warriors.
Their culture of collectivism was not compatible with the settlers fleeing European statism so war ensued and the Indians lost. They were beaten and dominated by a culture inventing capitalism. They were fighting on equal terms of social evolution, and the Native Americans—who were largely stranded Chinese from various trading missions around the world by gigantic Junk ships circumnavigating the globe far before Christopher Columbus—were beaten by minds further developed creatively, financially, and socially. Indians were not superior to the American Frontiersman. They did not hold the key secrets to the universe, or have a special relationship to Mother Nature. They were hunters, gathers, and fighters, and they lost their fight against the “White Man.”
Even with the help of American culture to get financially on their feet, the Indian nations still resort to their collectivist tendencies, and are economically—poor for the most part. They still are happy to live in villages and avoid using their brains to create new industry, or even create great works of art—because they have allowed themselves to be conquered, even when their conquerors tried to help them. They like many of the poor living in the inner cities of America cannot shake their psychological tendency to live in village huts waiting to act under the direction of some chief. The reason the Indians lost to the American Frontiersman was because they rose and fell as a society based on collective effort as the Americans were individually motivated—and could not be conquered. If one group of frontiersman were scalped, raped and tied to trees as warnings to all who might follow with their innards used as ropes, more American settlers came behind them fearless and in pursuit of freedom. There was not tribal chief in America who decided not to be at war with the Shawnee, the Cherokee, the Iroquois or any other tribe so “White Men” never stopped coming forcing the Indians to yield, and yield and yield until they were all but destroyed.
To their credit, the Americans felt sorry for their conquered rivals and they named their schools and sports teams after the brave antics the Indians showed on the battlefield. If Americans were truly bad, they would have bragged about their conquests of a superior culture over an inferior one–over one culture who yielded to nature and one who sought to overcome it with the power of imagination. But they didn’t, they gave them reservations to live on because in a world dominated by private property ownership, the Indians did not have any money to own any land. So they were given reservations—just to be fair to them.
Over time, the American western tried to incorporate the Indian into American culture through mythological endeavor. And tensions eased between the former frontiersman and the Native American and if the progressives kept their noses out of the situation and did not attempt to exploit them, the American Indian might be more integrated into American society. They may invent new technology, new cars, or even new philosophy—but they haven’t. Instead, they have allowed their name to be exploited by progressives looking for political capital to attack all tenets of capitalism.
The reason for exploiting Indians, specifically in the case of the Washington Redskins is to force a name change of an NFL team and start a chain reaction of appeasement toward progressive causes. The plight of the Indian is the unfairness of American ownership of private property to supplant the open community nature of the Indians. The Indian is valued as superior by progressives because they did not understand the concept of private property, and revered nature with the highest regard—which of course is a dog whistle to liberals and their support of the Green Movement. But the Indian that progressives hold in such high regard, are fictional characters in that they were part of a Utopia in America that was destroyed by the self-greedy Frontiersman. That Utopia never existed, and the Native American Indian was war mongers and deeply in love with battle, which is why an NFL football team wanted their name to begin with. Nobody wants a football team to be named, the “Washington Pacifists,” or the “Liberals.” Nobody wants to play on a football team named after losers, lowlifes or characters of low valor. The NFL has done the memory of the Indian a favor by naming a team after their battlefield antics—instead of the progressive pacifism which ultimately allowed them to be conquered utterly, and completely.
If the Washington Redskins change their name and cave in to the progressive activists advocating such a thing, it will not stop there—but will unleash a floodgate of demands affecting nearly every college and high school in the country. And it won’t have anything to do with the Indian. Their time has come and gone in a flash. They were not Native American in the way that people think they were—instead they were a mix of many cultures—some nomads who crossed the Bering Straight, some where Chinese stranded in North America when giant ships traveled the world well before recorded history has acknowledged the ability, and some where immigrants from Central Mexico who traveled into North America up the Mississippi River and traded with Cahokia and broke away to start their Indian tribes. But they were not Native Americans living in North America from the start of existence with established cultures who owned the New World with a deep history. The American Indian was no more Native American than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Simon Kenton. Daniel Boone had every right to settle the land of Kentucky into Illinois as Tecumseh did. In fact, Blue Jacket was a “White Man” who took up the Shawnee war against the frontiersman. The Indians were a mishmash of cultures that lost philosophically and technologically to a superior culture. Any attempt to highlight otherwise is an attempt to destroy that superior culture with guilt, and lackluster performance to stop the spread of capitalism throughout the world in favor of socialism—which is the standard of the progressive.
I am aware of the controversial nature of these assertions, yet history can confirm it. All anyone who wishes to dispute what I’ve written here need do is study Native American history prior to 1550 AD and they will see that the cultures that resided in North America were no better than any nomadic culture anywhere in the world and were just as primitive. They lost their war with the American Frontiersman fairly and have been remembered through the folklore of a capitalist culture. If not for football teams like the Washington Redskins, who would remember anything of the Indians—even if they were a failure? The NFL has made such memories household names which would otherwise never happen—which is an honor to a society that was a flash in the history of the world. But the Indian was never what the progressives paint them as—a Utopian society that should be followed, and honored with mimicry. That attempt is a falsehood and just another example of how progressives exploit minorities as a way to advance their agenda—even if it means they conduct themselves as complete liars.
The Mason Education Association Babysitters Demand More Money: Threatening to strike while already off work–only in public education
Make no mistake about it; the Mason Education Association is after money and nothing else in their threats to strike. Their public relations stunt against a district trying to at least look like they are trying to manage their budget is purely to get under the skin of the superintendent during an intense negotiation over their upcoming contract which is the usual tricks of thuggish enterprise shown by labor unions. The teachers are after pay increases when reality states that they are already overpaid, and want benefits that are unrealistically good provided by the Mason taxpayer to essentially be babysitters for children the parents are too busy for. The MEA hopes that the multiple scandals at Mason are over, the sex parties with the teachers that brought national focus to the affluent Ohio community and were dramatically embarrassing, have subsided. The MEA after three years of trying finally has the media back on their leash including Scott Sloan at 700 WLW who used to be a critic—but has now through his real estate selling wife been effectively muzzled. So the Mason teacher’s union is making their move to strike—so to impose on tax payers their radicalized demands—and it looks like the school board is about to collapse under the pressure.
MASON, Ohio —Mason Schools’ teachers will be meeting with their union discussing their contract. The teachers have been negotiating with the school district since April over more pay and better benefits.
“Up to this point, our focus has been exclusively on the children we teach every day. However, now that the school year has concluded, Mason teachers believe the community must know: we are greatly troubled by the direction that Superintendent Gail Kist-Kline is taking the district,” Mason Education Association President Karrie Strickland said in a news release
To properly understand how education labor unions think in these Mason type cases the movie Won’t Back Down should be watched. In that film released in 2012 and currently shown on HBO features the “parent trigger” law which is a legal maneuver through which parents can change the administration of a poorly performing public school into essentially a charter school. The film shows how things work in public education on both sides of the argument—it explores the teacher union point of view fairly, and the parents. However, in Mason, there will never be such an invocation of the law, because the vast majority of the parents at affluent schools like Mason, and its neighbor Lakota expect a babysitting service that takes the pressure of instruction away from them. So the teachers at Mason and Lakota don’t have to worry about parents leaning over them to demand better teaching because the parents really aren’t engaged in their children—for the most part—and won’t be attempting any recitation of the “parent trigger” law.
Recently, the other school mentioned, Lakota managed to pass a tax increase and immediately threw that money at their teachers just a few months later—as I predicted they would. I presented charts showing the exact behavior of the Lakota teachers, and everything happened on time. Lakota had managed to win over enough support from the opposition through a “niceness” campaign to put them over the top during a 2013 election. They had to counter my comments about them being thugs, fat assed despots, and diabolical menaces with a public relations campaign promoting them in the opposite way. Through their maneuvers and help from a patsy media, they put people back to sleep and kept the opposition at bay just enough to pass a levy and throw that money at the teachers to keep them appeased for a few more years.
Over in Mason, they had the added complication of the Stacy Schuler sex case and several other district embarrassments which made national news, so the MEA stayed low and avoided asking for more tax increases until enough time had passed. After watching the results of the May primary elections where a majority of Ohio school levies passed due to record low turnout—the MEA figures it’s time to make their move for more money—and are now returning to the old radicalized tactics of work stoppage which is mostly theatrical due to the fact that it is currently summer—and the teachers are out of school anyway—and the parents are not thinking about Mason schools—but summer vacation plans. Mason parents won’t become engaged again in Mason schools until August, so this is plenty of time for the Mason teachers to stage an attack against the tax payers.
But on the opposition front, Sharon Poe and her anti-tax activists still have a very strong resistance—and they attend the school board meetings—which is nearly an equivalent threat to the school board as the labor union. Sharon has stayed plugged into the happenings with the administration for many years now and is as close to an immovable spot as there is. But it won’t matter in the end. The administration will cave under the union pressure—they will give their employees the raises they are demanding and will be forced to go to voters with another levy against property values. The Mason school board won’t allow school to resume in August without teachers there teaching—and they don’t have the legal ability—or will to fire the striking teachers and replace them with new ones. The teachers know it, and are taking advantage. So the result is a radicalized class of imbeciles’ baby sitting children for busy parents who want more money with an outrageously high benefits package sitting around off work anyway watching daytime television and threatening not to work during the upcoming fall.
As usual, the antics of the MEA display what a scam public education is, and how stacked against the tax payers it really is. Ohio tax payers don’t stand a chance against such forces because politicians, administrators, and parents for the most part do not have the stomach to deal with the thugs on the true ground of their positions. The teachers only want money for a babysitting service no different from a teenage girl who wants more on the hour to watch the kids of parents who just want to go out for the evening. For the baby sitter, she won’t work any harder with the raise, but will spend her time playing on Facebook and talking to her boyfriend—same as she would if she were paid at the lower dollar amount. The parents however want to believe they are hiring professionals to teach their children—so they will accept the illusion and either not vote one way or the other, or they’ll grudgingly support a future tax on their homes hoping that they too will get a raise down the road to pay for the tax increase. After all, it costs less to pay the tax than to hire professional baby sitters to watch their kids as they work to build their careers. This leaves the Mason school board with no support and surrounded by radicalized anger they are not equipped to handle—and in the end, they will back down and give the union everything they are demanding. And my friend Sharon Poe will find herself fighting another school levy. Then, once the teachers get their money, the sex scandals and similar bad behavior will resume—because it has been killing them to be on such good behavior. For the teachers—it is now or never—because it’s only a matter of time before another member of their incompetent ranks screws up again returning public opinion against them once more.
Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
Because it happened in my neighborhood the attempted murder trial of the young Lakota honors student has been unavoidable. Mitchell Simon tied his parents’ bedroom door together and lit their Liberty Township home on fire committing arson and attempting to kill them because the parents took away his laptop. The father jumped out of their window breaking his leg leaving his wife to be rescued by firefighters. Listening to this story I wondered if this family had been my rivals in previous school levies where they declared that high taxes for Lakota were needed to give their child a great education. This student was after all an honors student and was very well thought of so the reasoning that a child would hate his parents so intensely that he would actually try to burn down their house with them in it, so it took a lot of people by surprise. But why did the kid do it and why were people so surprised? I’ll offer my thoughts at the end of this article, which will be related to my own experience on these matters.
The trial of Mitchell Simon was slated to begin Monday with jury selection, but instead the teen pleaded guilty as charged to two counts of attempted aggravated murder and one count of aggravated arson. He faces a maximum of 33 years in prison — 11 years for each count — and will appear for a mitigation hearing June 10 at 9 a.m. prior to sentencing.
Simon’s defense attorney, Brad Kraemer, is expected to put a psychologist on the stand to testify during the hearing. Kraemer said the doctor will talk about how Simon “is still very much a young kid rather than a man” despite his age. Common Pleas Judge Craig Hedric is expected to hand down Simon’s sentence afterward.
According to sheriff’s detectives, on Oct. 23, Simon, then a 16-year-old junior and honors student at Lakota West High School, went to the basement of the family home, found rope left over from when he was a Boy Scout, and used it to tie his parents’ bedroom doors shut. He then retrieved a gas can from the garage and lit fires outside both rooms. Simon was allegedly angry with his parents over his laptop being taken away, according to detectives.
A journal found in the nightstand of Simon’s room near the charred second-floor bedrooms of his parents detailed the angry feelings the teen had for his parents and himself, according to testimony given during a hearing late last year in juvenile court.
Kraemer told the judge that Simon’s parents, Perry and Sharon Simon, “are aware of his guilty plea and do think it is in his best interest.” Simon had limited contact with his parents — who have supported their son at every court proceeding, including Monday’s plea — because of the nature of the crime.
I don’t know these people personally, but I do know the types of people that they are. Likely, they were rabid supporters of the Lakota levy attempts and also previous fire and police levies over the years. In a moment of crises, the father showed what kind of man he was by jumping out the window leaving his wife to be rescued by the fire department. These types of levy supporters do not have any inclination of self-reliance. It does not occur to them to break down a door by head butting it or kicking it down with authority, or if it is simply too think—using furniture to escape. The parents have likely never seen a rappelling rope and surely don’t have such things in their closet that could have been used to scale his wife and him to safety during the crises. The family probably doesn’t even change their own oil in their cars—expecting a specialist to care for every aspect of their lives. Gone are the days from people like this where a man would lay down his life to protect the woman he loves—because such romances have been cheapened to such an extent in our society that nobody thinks with valor anymore.
The level of anger the young boy had for his parents appears to be unjustified by conventional thinking. By conventional I am referring to the progressive mindset of the typical levy supporter who moved to Lakota for the schools and social services—and the sense of community shared by others like them who conjugate on the soccer field sidelines and community sidewalks talking about the latest scandal discussed on The View. Conventional thinking which is represented by the court of law does not understand why the kid did what he did—he lived in a nice home, had loving parents, went to a nice school, associated with nice people—the kid had everything a young person should ever want—and then some. So why would he be so unhappy?
I don’t know for sure—as I said I don’t know those people other than passing them occasionally in a supermarket isle. We only have in common that we live in the same community. But, if I had to place a bet, I would say that the child saw what kind of parents he had and had the crises moment of realizing that he was becoming just like them—and in his journals of hate hoped that he could change his fate by rebelling so violently against them. When he realized he couldn’t, he did the unthinkable—he tried to remove them from his life.
Now that it’s too late—he’s facing most of the rest of his life in jail—his problems seem pretty petty now. If he turned out like his parents it would seem a blessing now compared to the lack of freedom he will now experience for his adult life—his premium years. Compared to where he is in jail it would be wonderful to have a wife in a nice Liberty Township home with a career that paid the bills and then some. At least he’d have the freedom of a movie or occasional golf game. Perspective is everything and a year in jail already likely has diminished greatly the hate he had for his parents on the night he tried to kill them—but why was the anger so intense where he felt no other way out—and how can similar parents prevent the same thing?
As I have said I knew a lot of smart kids in my high school days, and several of them had fantasies of killing their parents. It wasn’t that the parents were bad people and didn’t love their children—it was just that the kids didn’t want to end up like those parents—fat, ugly, unhappy, bitter about life—unimaginative—suck asses so willing to whore themselves away for a nickel. Kids want to know that they have the opportunity to be more than that—and if the parents set the bar low for themselves, the crises of the child is to destroy their fate toward the same end by killing the path that will deliver them to such a destination. I got along with my parents for the most part because I was so rebellious that I didn’t fear falling short of my personal goals because I did not have the needless concern over impressing others to enjoy my personal happiness. But most people are not like that—and they have great conflict between their internal dreams and those provided to them by parents they want to please. Under such circumstances, a parent showing such disapproval of a child already hiding online to avoid becoming exactly like his parents is forced to confront his emotions when the parents take away that hiding place and force the child to deal with reality—which is what he was running from. Since the parents never dealt with the reason for the anxiety—likely because they didn’t pay close enough attention to notice—the boy tried to kill the source of his conflict hoping for relief from the pressure. And what he lost was all his potential freedom forever—and the parents are now stuck wondering what they did wrong when everything they thought they were doing right blew up in their face.
Their biggest mistake likely was in believing that their personal failures as parents could be hidden by a Lakota education. Obviously not. And also likely, this kid isn’t the only one thinking about doing such a thing. Being a smart kid, Simon likely played out his tragedy and saw no way out, where kids not so bright might find it easier to live with their disillusion. The situation is rather common if the reality of real emotions are explored not from the perspective of law and conventional thinking—but what is really going on in the hearts and minds of people. I certainly don’t want to add to the grief of the parents. They did what they thought was right based on what was taught to them. But for others out there dealing with the same raw emotions—there are reasons for the behavior, and those reasons must be confronted and not further pushed down deep into the minds of a troubled teen. Otherwise the consequences will be literal—as they were in this case or internal—as they most of the time are left. But the emotions are always there—and left raw, and primal.
And Lakota is not a substitute for good parenting……….otherwise, the kid would not be in jail.
Oh, and just for reference…………..when people hear about this case they assume that the entire home was ablaze to justify the father jumping out of a window, breaking his legs, and leaving his wife hanging out of an upstairs window in a panic awaiting firemen to rescue her. Listening to Sheriff Jones talk about the case, he declared that the firefighters and deputies risked their life to save the woman and provide care to the man of the house in the yard with broken legs. The son was ready to skip town with his girlfriend in Lawrenceburg to disappear forever—it all sounds very dramatic. But in all reality, the fire only did $2,500 in damage. It was so small that the father could have put it out with a couple of buckets of water from the bathroom sink. If he had burst open the locked bedroom door and put out the fire himself, his son would still be living at home—and would actually have a future. The trio could have talked about the family incident and worked things out. Instead, they panicked and placed their lives in the hands of public officials, and once they did that—the police, and legal system made a circus out of it—to serve their own needs at the expense of the family. Now the boy will live in jail, the mother will yearn for a man who won’t leave her hanging out of a flaming window, and the man will live in embarrassment from jumping out of a two-story window because of a silly little fire he could have easily put out himself—if only he knew how. Such a sad situation for everyone involved. They must have been levy supporters.
Even though his health had been failing since 2006 after a series of strokes left him partially disabled, Malcolm Glazer’s death is truly a sad loss for the entire world. The Tampa Bay billionaire was instrumental in upgrading the quality of life for the popular Florida city and has poured millions of dollars into charitable organizations that they wouldn’t have had otherwise—if not for his industriousness, and productivity. He is one of the people in the world that I admire the most and I came to know of him through his ownership of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team. But he was much more than that and is truly a great human being. After his passing Jon Gruden had this to say about the loss of his former boss.
“He was a friend and a trailblazer. I’ll miss him and I thank him for believing in me. My condolences to the Glazer family and to the Bucs organization.”
See more reactions from around the world at the following link:
Malcolm Glazer’s history by Bucs Nation Blog www.SBNation.com The Buccaneers’ announce Malcolm Glazer’s passing earlier today. (May 28, 2014) The Buccaneers have announced that the second owner in franchise history, Malcolm Glazer, passed away at the age of 85. After a period under Hugh Culverhouse’s ownership that was marked with ill feeling between players and the owner, Glazer’s purchase of the team saw a huge turnaround in the team’s fortunes. Under his ownership, the Bucs went from the worst team in the sport by a considerable margin, to Super Bowl champions in just seven seasons. Below is the Buccaneers’ statement in full: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are saddened to announce the passing of Owner/President Malcolm Glazer earlier this morning at the age of 85. A dynamic business leader, Glazer helped mold the Buccaneers into a model franchise and one respected league-wide. Since being purchased by Glazer in 1995, the Buccaneers franchise has earned seven playoff berths, five playoff wins, and captured its first Super Bowl championship in 2002. Known among his league peers as a pioneering thinker, Glazer infused his team and employees with the determination and dedication to be the best in the NFL. Glazer’s commitment to building a championship organization has provided the foundation for continued success, on and off the field. Glazer’s input was instrumental on the league level as well, as evidenced by his time serving on the NFL’s Finance Committee. He also played a major role in Tampa becoming a host for the Super Bowl on several occasions. In 1999, Glazer launched the Glazer Family Foundation, which is dedicated to assisting charitable and educational causes in the Tampa Bay community, highlighted by the opening of the Glazer Children’s Museum in 2010. In its 15 years of existence, the Foundation has donated millions in programs, tickets, grants and in-kind contributions. In 2005, Glazer purchased Manchester United. Since then, the club captured five Premier League titles (2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013), as well as the 2008 Champions League title. Born in Rochester, New York as one of seven children, Glazer took over the family watch-parts business at age 15 following the death of his father and then continued his foray into the professional world, investing in other businesses. Glazer owned or was a substantial shareholder of a diverse portfolio of international holdings and public companies, including: First Allied, Zapata Corporation, Houlihan’s Restaurant Chain, Harley Davidson, Formica, Tonka, Specialty Equipment and Omega Protein. A resident of Palm Beach, Florida, Glazer leaves behind his wife, Linda, six children and 14 grandchildren. Mr. Glazer’s long established estate succession plan has assured the Buccaneers will remain with the Glazer family for generations to come. Linda Glazer, along with their five sons and daughter, will continue to own and operate the team as they have throughout the family’s ownership. A private family funeral service will be held for Mr.Glazer. The opportunity for others to remember and celebrate Mr. Glazer’s life will be announced at a future date. In lieu of flowers, donations can be made in his memory to All Children’s Hospital, St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, and Shriners Hospitals for Children – Tampa. http://www.todayspulse.com/news/sports/report-tampa-bay-bucs-manchester-united-owner-glaz/nf8js/
What few people have acknowledged is that if Glazer had just been happy with the family watch parts business at the age of 15 and had not moved into other investments and risky business ventures, it is likely his family would have struggled all their life to make ends meet, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers would still be looking for a winning season, and the city of Tampa would be an armpit of strip joints and seasonal condo owners serving a fishing community. Glazer literally put the city of Tampa on his back and carried it with his innovation, and self generated wealth.
He will be missed………………………………..
Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com
For anyone who has read the Allan Eckert novels about the Miami Valley region from the period of 1750 to around 1800 you will understand why the following message brings great sadness to me. Progressives have attempted to claim the position of the Native American viewpoint, where shortsighted, pretentious, European settlers running from one tyranny to another brought with them to the New World a Victorian audaciousness that still persists among those who currently reside along the coast from Virginia to Maine. Those people pushed the Native American from one treaty to another across the settled continent of a wild frontier without a thought as to the long-term implications. Native Americans like Tecumseh fought to keep their land, but were pushed off for the proposed greater good—the European version of it—the same one that now desires socialism over capitalism. In those novels I personally identified with the Simon Kenton character most, Daniel Boone—George Washington and Andrew Jackson as close seconds. I understand those people, and their relationship with Native Americans was not so contentious. If left to Kenton, he would have been able to live alongside the Native Americans—he’d also own most of the Ohio River Valley—but that land was taken from him by snot nosed courts again in the European tradition of shortsighted consumption.
At the end of the road that I live on, thousands of Native American hunters traversed by canoe from their settlements near Xenia, Ohio down to the hunting lands of Kentucky exploring the edge of the world between the river that divided modern-day Ohio and Kentucky from one another. Without question they often camped where my home is currently built as it provides a high vantage point overlooking the valley where Trenton currently resides. It was good hunting ground with topography suitable for feeding a small army, which the Native Americans often had. My ancestors during this period were given land by the King of England right in the heart of Liberty Township and was part of the frontiersmen that settled the area as the French were partnering up with the Native Americans from the Eastern Lake Erie region—specifically Pontiac and his people the Ottawa who went on a bloody crusade against the English settlements which lead to the French and Indian War. The Treaty of Greenville took place right up the road from my house, and the Battle of Fallen Timbers right up the road from there. Few people have any idea what kind of massacre occurred at the current town of Piqua, Ohio. Even fewer these days know why Fairfield, Ohio was called what it was, or that Hamilton, Ohio was named after the Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, or that Monroe, Ohio was named after a sitting president. Fewer know that Liberty Township, Ohio was a direct tribute to the American Revolution and that it was the wild frontier that defined America, which is why Trenton, Ohio was so aptly named after the decisive victory of Washington after crossing the Delaware with his troops to deal a stinging blow to the English forces entrenched in New Jersey.
I grew up knowing long time residents who owned vast swaths of land, much the way the modern Niedermans do. And over the years I have watched them forced off that land because of high taxation. During the last levy campaign from Lakota, the public school that infests the region with government style education that is too expensive, too liberal, and severely inefficient, the most vocal supporters—the real-estate agents who want to sell houses declared that if people didn’t like the way the world was changing, under their guidance—that they should just move. Those same idiots claimed to love Liberty Township and West Chester for the large plots of farmland and green space—yet they brought with them a temperament that wanted to see a home placed on every acre—and those same real-estate agents who most fervently supported the Lakota Tax Increase of 2013 had the attention span of a flee—not considering what the long-term implications of their hostile behavior might lead to.
I know many of the developers who built the houses in Liberty Township and they have in common among them a lack of scope. Their primary concern, much like the levy supporters at Lakota was in protecting their investments without an understanding of the long-term implications of their decisions. They worked with real-estate agents to use Lakota to sell away most of the Liberty Township land to small-minded East Coast progressives transferring to the region because of the solid job growth of the Tri-State area. Most of those people move to the area not because of the deep history but because of the green space. But with each tax passed, the farms have packed up and moved away leaving the land to be divided up and sold away to more progressive minded newcomers who love taxes, government, and someone else being in charge of their life because they are simply too lazy—or unsophisticated to do it themselves. I have seen more letters than I care too like the one below spawned from the latest Lakota levy.
Hi Rich, just wanted to write and let you know we’re leaving West Chester. I fought with you to help defeat the levy each time, but this last time I said if it passed we were leaving. So, we are moving. Don’t get me wrong, I know the levy system will follow us, but we are moving to a place where we can spread out in our own forest land, but our taxes on over 10 acres will be lower than our small lot here in West Chester. The schools have continued to increase teacher salaries as you said and I continue to be disgusted by the indoctrination of our school children and the parents who refuse to believe what is being done to their children. I will continue to follow your blog and will stand with you on the conservative issues we face, but will no longer do it from West Chester. Gods speed.
A frequent Reader,
What is the cause of urban sprawl for those conservation minded idiots of the green movement? Taxes. If one wished to drive north, west, or east of Liberty Township just 30 miles, they will discover many people like that letter writer who is willing to move away from neighborhoods, public schools, and high taxes in favor of more land, more space, and less nosy progressives. It is the same tendency that caused Simon Kenton to settle the area in the first place; he wanted to be away from the nosy politics of the East. The Native Americans already living somewhat of a free existence, certainly didn’t want to deal with the newcomers either. And today, I feel the same way.
If there are lessons to be learned from history it’s that the idiots never stop coming. You can pack up and move away from them, but within a decade or two they will be back on your doorstep looking for money, and trying to find ways to get you to care for them and their children because they are too stupid and lazy to perform the task on their own. They’ll arrive with great pretension and speak often about the “greater good” but what they really want is for you to carry them through life. They want you to care for their kids; they want you to start a tractor so they can see it driving around while they go to Panera Bread, and they’ll cry about green space when you leave because of high taxes, and they’ll call the developers who built homes in the wake of the surrendered property greedy. Local politicians lick their lips with each home sale like insects caught in the web of a spider. For every lot of land divided up from what once was a large field of corn, or a former Native American campground, is now a quarter acre money-maker that pays $2000 to $6000 in taxes per year divided 50 to a 100 ways as opposed to the former plot of land of 10 acres that paid only a fraction of that, until the surrounding neighborhoods changed the taxation structure giving politicians money to spend and ways to name things after themselves.
It is truly a loss when someone of quality leaves a community like Liberty Township and 50 fools move in to replace them—and that is what is happening. Some call it progress—those would be progressives. Some call it the wave of the future. Some call it inevitable. Some call it the legal way of providing a future for the next generation through education funding. But I call it stupid and unsustainable. For every person of quality who leaves Liberty Township and West Chester because the Lakota school taxes are too high, thoughtless migrants replace them as much lower quality people who will inevitably destroy the property values of everyone involved, not just a few. There is no way to run from stupidity. Because stupid has no choice but to suck the life out of everyone they come in contact with and expect others to pay for their deficiencies with high taxes and parasitic indulgence.
Years ago a labor union representative in Ohio confronted me on my position against hiring too many public school employees—which was the direct cause of the school levy activity driving up increased taxation on property values in my community. At the time they assumed that I would take their “professional” opinion without question and accept their rationale at face value that more unionized tax funded employees were good and beneficial to the field of education. I was told that the school teachers making over $65,000 per year would not be so outrageously high if everyone had a similar government job.
The comment from the union operative whether they realized it or not had its roots in communism. It proved that there was something deeply troubling about the way people like the union operative saw the world. Their version of reality was disconnected from the practicality of real world application and was mired in communist theory. It was easy to see what was happening once the frame of reference had been established. Cops, firefighters, political assistants of all kinds, school teachers, IRS employees, virtually every type of government employee had learned to accept degrees of socialism in trade for fantastically high paying jobs with benefits they couldn’t get in the free market. The goal had been to spread a long-held liberal fantasy of global communist propaganda funded by attacking property values with an ultimate goal of destroying capitalism. As the union operative pointed out, by making the public sector more attractive to work for than the private—the ways of private industry would either have to compete or be destroyed. By setting wages unrealistically high, the private sector by communist theory would have to also do the same. Of course when these people are pinned down to reveal their ultimate plans and their roots, they shy away from descriptive analysis. They call themselves “progressive” thinkers at best—but usually attempt to disguise their behavior behind American patriotism when in reality they are the opposite. They do not consciously accept responsibility that their social behavior is communism.
Yet they are not as dumb as they pretend. They know what they are doing even though collectively they never admit that most public employees are deeply committed to communism by practice. They assume that most people do not know the definitions for things in a world dominated by passive aggressive behavior—where few people confront anything for what it actually is but instead dance around an ideal for fear of naming an evil which will require decisive action—which nobody wants to do. In the absence of such confrontation, the communist advocates do sometimes reveal their intentions which have always been there from the very start of their campaigns against capitalism. One such person was United States Representative from Florida Joe Garcia who recently commented positively about communism.
Garcia made the comment during a Google hangout he convened last week to talk about comprehensive immigration reform with supporters. The Democrat attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.
“Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in,” he said. “So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?”
“And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”
Garcia’s comment states that so long as everyone had a good paying job working for government, that there would be no reason to commit crime and peace laced with prosperity would permeate the fabric of civilization. He’s not being facetious, he is literally advocating on behalf of communism—a socicoeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production. To Garcia and his fellow progressive advocates communism is the endpoint of human social evolution which will inevitably come into fruition through economic and socialist advances after the demise of capitalism by legislators like the Florida Representative.
In America the game works like this, a person wants to make a good salary for doing as little as possible, so they go to school, get a degree, so they can earn a spot behind the social gatekeepers of federal jobs. In school, they are taught socialism and Marxism by liberal instructors who have long infested the education system strategically. Most of the students are raised by American capitalism and hold their nose and put up with the liberal professors because they want a government job—and being passive aggressive manipulators of their own existence believe falsely that they can maintain their sanctity by rebelling against socialism through their private actions. So they get their federal job and find themselves employees of the tax payers. To protect them from future taxpayer wrath, they join a socialist labor union which is backed by the state. They often don’t have a choice with these group associations. If they want the government job, like being a teacher, a firefighter or a cop, they must join these labor unions a trend started by President Kennedy who was struggling with severe communist encroachment during the early 1960s. After a few years of this behavior they make wages that are roughly 40% higher than the wages of the private sector due to the artificial inflation of those positions by a political class with an ultimate aim of communism.
If the layers of immigration rights are properly explored without passive aggressive diffusion—it will be discovered that American Democrats like Garcia want open boarders because most immigrants are coming from countries already riddled with socialism and are naturally antagonistic of capitalism. By overloading capitalism with such people—without giving them the benefits of capitalism—but keeping them dependent on government services—long advocating communists wearing the masks of progressivism can advance their agenda through democratic activity one small crises at a time until people have long forgotten the definitions and original objectives of American civilization.
These same Democrats often support the legalization of drug activity—because the drug sales pour money into these immigration blocks giving them the power to attack capitalism through American vice toward narcotics. American’s own desires for passive aggression are being used against them as a military objective—and have now for several decades. Those in the heart of the storm—the government employees–have kept their mouths shut because the pay has been good, and they ignorantly believed that they could take the money like a whore—and wash away the crime with a warm shower and a lot of soap—but too late they learn otherwise.
There is no question, most politicians feel toward communism as Garcia does—they just know that saying such things to a public who wants desperately to forget it—do to their growing tendency toward passive-aggressive behavior—taught to them in public schools—is a major faux pas in politics. Communism is the social practice that progressives particularly of the Democratic Party are after. Republicans do too, only they still hide behind a false desire for free markets. Most House Republicans went to Washington financially poor but quickly become rich—and they got that way by the same methods. They have money thrown at them to accept communism—which they take for the comfort of living. All they have to do is enter a passive-aggressive legal mode of talking around the strategy socially. They take their tax payer funded riches, go out to eat in nice Washington restaurants and believe they are capitalists supporting American business. But deep down inside they know it is communism that filled their pockets and made them part of the wealthy elite and they knock their wine glasses together and pat themselves on the back for being the smart people that they are—until a fellow politician breaks the code of silence and says stupidly what has always really been going on—because the representative from Florida just isn’t so good at the game of passive-aggressive name changing.