The Collegiate Deception: A grim reality regarding the lies of higher education

The great fear that those who support the collegiate system of education most have is the revelation to their minds that all the money they spent and mental energy expended—that it was for nothing. Their fear—which is quite extensive and the root of much anxiety is the discovery by the world what they know themselves—that they were unable to purchase skill and prestige in society with a college degree—and that their path to success was paved with deception. There are many people who pursue degrees at colleges largely due to the marketing efforts of the last forty or so years by collegiate institutions and governments that education could be purchased by attendance—and on the back side of such endeavors good jobs and social respect awaited them. But that has not been the case. People who succeed in college do so because they tend to succeed in everything they do, and would in most cases succeed whether or not they ever attended a collegiate school at all. As for the rest—the masses—those most ardent supporters of higher education—and education in general—college has proven to be a scam that has not been able to buy respect from society in general just with the presence of a framed piece of paper.

College cannot make a poor mind into a good one. It cannot make a lazy person into a successful bastion of productivity. College cannot make the stupid into the smart—and this is in violation of the promise that has been made to those who have attended. The great crises of our day is when a highly educated bastion of collegiate endeavor sits down across the table with a person who is a truly hard worker, and has gained all their knowledge in life by doing, and applying skills directly to a task—that the collegiate supporter is out-witted in nearly every instance. The reason is that skill, and aptitude cannot be cheated with the purchase of an institutional endorsement. Experience cannot be bought with a yearly tuition and a life of ease not obtained by simply graduating college. This is what has been sold to America—and it was a lie.

It was a grand plan concocted by the same types of people who thought that communism was a good ideal in the 1930s, and to this day believe that global warming is caused by man, that equality in every human being is the highest form of endeavor, and that stylish diversity in hiring practices constitute quality. While those are noble features of an advanced civilization, the lack of understanding of what makes some people better than others and what truly drives innovation, productivity and ultimately national GDP the failures are self-evident. Rooted in the college system is the old socialism of lower case “communism” where all people are equal if given equal access to education. Like the atrocious experiment with public education called “Common Core” colleges have found that they must penalize the good so to prop up their bad and sell the whole package to the public through their sports programs to divert inquiring eyes away from the failures and ultimate castigation that will ensue once fault has nowhere else to go but to the perpetrator. That castigation is upon us due to the continued failure of the college system in America to do as it promised—but has instead delivered massive debt to families who spent money on the system and students heavily liberalized into a progressive mentally who are more dependent on government instead of less. The success that college graduates are finding is not the promise of a life of ease in the private sector unless they can secure a government job—because in private enterprise where nearly all innovation and productivity occurs—it is experience that counts most.

There is behind the collegiate system an old superstition that comes from the dawn of civilization—that kings were descendents of gods and that bloodlines deserved to be persevered.   Those who believe in modern college are most apt to be concerned over a company’s organizational chart so that they can see on a map of progression who is above them and who is below them. Particularly in males is the concern over what males are superior to them and which are inferior. Males are and have always been most concerned about their place in the peeking order of other males—and for the collegiate supporter is the fantasy that they can gain superiority over others by obtaining a magic fleece called a college degree, which gives them some advantage. So long as the world functions from that old falsehood of bloodlines, and that social ordainment can be obtained through organizational charts—then the illusion of merit can be sustained. The crisis comes when they come face to face with a man or woman forged from the pressures of endeavor and has succeeded legitimately. When paired off with such a person—the collegiate supporter is unarmed and easily destroyed in every category—and this is the real terror of their present condition.

Social position does not equate to a quality position and this is the tremendous difference between the capitalist system of The United States and every other country in the world—particularly Europe—which still endorses the ridiculous notion that blood and social position dictate who the movers and shakers are in the world. In America—traditionally the decision makers are those who prove most able through entrepreneurial endeavor—Walt Disney and Bill Gates come to mind. A quick glance through the most successful people in human history, CLICK HERE TO SEE WHO THEY ARE, will prove that success and college are not tied together. All that can be obtained through college which can sustain profitable lifestyles is the adhesion to the old mantra of the “power of pull” the ability to network and relate to others not based on merit—but on social order reflective of bloodlines and organizational charts.

Not all things learned in college are a waste of time. Often students enter the work force knowing how to give PowerPoint presentations and to conduct conference calls. They learn how to interact professionally with the outside world—but they do not learn to think with a mind toward quality. They think with a mind toward deception—which they learned through their institutional instruction. They don’t learn to solve problems, but how to mask them with dialogue that would make Saul Alinsky proud. The are so good at it they deceive themselves and continue to until they come face to face with someone who does not play by their rules and can easily sidestep their authority.

The best path to success is not to think that it can be purchased, but to live every day honestly and with a curiosity toward solving problems. Experience has been and will always be the sure ticket to a good life—and the more experience one obtains, the greater their success in life. If a person wants success, they should not let organization charts stop them from learning, or doing the correct things in life. Success will not be obtained allowing some scholastic peasant stuck in the old European ways to bottleneck innovation so to protect their status in the peeking order of corporate politics. The most terrifying thing in the world for such people is for a person they believe is beneath them to shut their office door and instruct them on how little they really know about the world around them and to destroy their perception of peaking order reality. Large displays of embarrassment are not needed—only the knowledge that there are people functioning that are beyond the reach of a chart of hierarchy which was supposed to protect them from the knowledge that they aren’t all that smart and that their purchased status did not magically make them into quality people—but buffoons on parade using excuses as masks for their incompetency.

College is not a ticket to success—but only a stepping stone. For those able, it is best to leap over the stepping-stones all together and proceed through life with bold action that leads to the most experience. But for those not so strong, and not so able, college can help obtain experience—but success cannot be purchased. Anyone who has said such things is lying and is either a proponent of communist beliefs, or a victim of them. The frame-work for our modern tendency toward collegiate autocracy is rooted in a time in American society where communism was entering a capitalist culture with a promise that anybody who paid the money could enter the gates of the able and productive. But that is not, and never has been the case. Still, the only way to real success is through experience and hard work. To truly obtain such things, they cannot be cheated. They simply must be acquired with adventure and curiosity followed by a strong desire to persevere.

Rich Hoffman


The Pirates of Mason, Ohio: Similarities between the MEA and Blackbeard


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,[40] 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.[41]

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.[42]

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.[43]

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.

 Rich Hoffman



Why Most Feminists are so Unattractive: The truth behind the Hobby Lobby case

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

‘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.

imageHowever, 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………… 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.


Do yourself a favor———never watch Cloud Atlas.  Something’s are better left alone—and that movie is one of them.image

Rich Hoffman


The Emperor of Aldersonville: Lakota becomes “The New Clothes”

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.

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.’s_New_Clothes

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.

Rich Hoffman


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.

Rich Hoffman


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

Read more:

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