2014 Values Voter Summit: How Glenn Beck is incredibly wrong

The Glenn Beck speech at the 2014 Values Voter Summit was very good and worth watching—which can be seen below.  There is a lot he said correctly—especially regarding Sykes-Picot agreement.  I was one of the first to cover that origin of trouble in the Middle East and if members of Beck’s staff passed it along to Glenn Beck to report—well, that’s why I write this stuff—to educate and help people understand the world around them.  It doesn’t hurt my feelings if Beck takes his big platform and expands it.  Click here to review my article on the matter.  It is the key to understanding the trouble and politics of the Middle East.  The rest of Glenn Beck’s speech was good as well and worth witnessing.  I agree with most of what he said, but in some parts of it he is vehemently wrong.  In those portions his life as a former addict crosses over into the realm of strategy and his advice is bad.  Specifically, it is in his self-sacrificial calls to surrender thought to God and to embrace Christen passivity in the face of evil.  Like many people who have found God late in life to redeem their self-destructive paths people like Beck fill their lives with scripture to plug the holes that were formed through drug and alcohol abuse.  It’s a survival mechanism that works better than personal and social destruction.  But for confronting evil, strategically, Christ is not the example and the kind of passivity Glenn Beck talks about in his speech will get a lot of people hurt, and or, dead.  So let’s explore the correct position below after watching the speech.

I understand that Glenn Beck is under tremendous media pressure to avoid being called a rebel rouser and is taking the Martin Luther King approach to solving problems when confronting evil.  Well—Martin Luther King ended up dead—killed by his rivals.  Beck also talked about Jesus, for many of the same reasons and suggested that Judas was frustrated with Jesus and his lack of ability to rally the troops against the Romans—which is why Judas betrayed Jesus.  Well, Jesus and his passivity caused him to be killed—assassinated as a religious rival to the power held in Jerusalem.   Beck and his utterances about Christ’s passivity obviously has not listened to the popular church song, “Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War” which invokes a bit of battle balled.  Passivity of religion rolled over into politics will end your movement before it ever begins and sparks for rebellion is necessary if there are hopes of overcoming evil.  God will not come down from Heaven and break down the walls of Jericho to the sounding of trumpets and slay the enemies of King David through simple prayer.  Such things require action to square off against evil and to conquer it as it presents itself.

Without Sam Adams, his cousin John would have never been the second President of the United States.  The American Revolution would have never happened.  Without Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson would have been just another former European styled intellectual pointing out what should be as opposed to what was.  Without a rebel rouser, action against the enemy does not happen.  In his speech Glenn Beck brought up the criminal Barabus who was picked by the mob to save instead of Jesus.  Beck stated that the angry mob in Jerusalem wanted a rebel rouser to spark rebellion and Jesus just wasn’t that type of person to perform the task, so they picked Barabus whom history would have otherwise only remembered as a harmless, petty inciter against the vile institutionalism of the day.  However, it was the pressure from the mob that caused the Romans to even put in place a system of providing a choice to their subjects to take the edge off their tyranny.  Without the aggressive pressure of people like Barabus—the Romans would just slaughter anyone who disagreed with their power.  Because the Romans feared an uprising against them, they put in place mechanisms to appease the mob—just as what happens to this very day especially during elections.

Praying to God in front of an armed thug who wants to destroy you and everything you stand for will only get you dead.  Trusting in God to save your soul from evil might get you into the gates of Heaven, but it will destroy life on earth for you and all that you love.  Passivity is not the answer—aggression is.  The bad guys need to know that the mob is angry and that at any moment some rebel rouser will shout “let’s get them!”  The only messages such villains understand is force—unapologetic force at that.  It is nice if that force is backed by a value system represented by Christians or some other religion of value, but passivity toward aggression cannot be a plan for expanding goodness in the face of evil.  That is just dreadfully empowering for those who favor aggression and blind power over those who are easy targets.

The current role that America has in the world shows this—the foreign policy of those raised as peaceful Muslims—like Barack Obama in the country of his education Indonesia—has a hands off pacifist behavior that is also characteristic of the modern liberals and libertarians who think that they can smoke a joint and offer the peace sign to a radical terrorist and all will be well—that God will just sort it all out.  They are insanely wrong.  Religion is only good for a relationship to the after world and establishing some foundation beliefs that can build a civilization.  But it will not provide good advice on how to deal with an aggressor.

I’ve never been a pacifist.  I learned martial arts at a young age and learned how to make myself invincible from a one on one attack through blocking techniques.  You can’t guarantee that you will always win in such matches with the opposition, but you can force a stalemate by not allowing their force to overcome you.  This has been a very successful position, and I’ve had many people—most of them bigger and stronger try to impose their will over the years—and they have not succeeded even after nearly five decades.  I’ve been in a lot of fights from young to old, the most recent one was actually a few years ago in front of several Butler County police officers which took place in the Hamilton Court House parking garage.  When confronted with vile evil, God won’t swoop in to help you.  You have to help yourself and confront it directly.  They have to know that if they make a move against you, or the things you care about—that you will pummel them.  That is the only way to achieve peace without being the victim of slaughter.  I’ve never been a drug user or a person who uses evasion techniques to avoid thinking—so have never had a need to turn to God to fill holes in my background.  I have always acted upon the moral appraisal that my mind produces based on the conditions of the world around me.  So I can speak from experience, pacifism feeds aggression against goodness, it doesn’t make it go away.

It took several hundred years after the death of Jesus for Christianity to begin taking hold.  In the meantime, many innocent people were murdered and lives were destroyed needlessly because mankind was too willing to surrender their life on earth for a perceived entry into the afterlife.  This allowed evil to manifest on earth and rule the planet for the last several thousand years.  And it was a stupid strategy that was supported by people like Glenn Beck over the years who get their messages mixed up—on one hand they stand aghast at the depravity of the world but then think that the situation will be solved by putting trust into God without any direct action taken by the victims of violence.  God made evil as well as the good, and places them into the battlefield of life for purposes yet defined.  However, in that transaction, goodness cannot yield to villainy and pacifistic behavior will not lead to victory for Christians.   When you see the actions of a bully, you have to be willing to look that bully in the face and destroy it if needed—and you can’t hesitate—you have to be willing to turn evil into a pretzel if need be and to end its life on earth if the situation calls for it.

As a person who has looked directly into the eyes of evil for many years and challenged it with force of my own, I can report that pacifist behavior feeds them leading to violence not avoidance.  I once confronted evil by taking on the entire police department of a local city who was using their power to sell drugs to kids through a local school.  The police gained these drugs through raids and instead of the evidence sitting on the shelves in a FBI lab somewhere, the cops were selling it back on the streets for extra cash—and everyone knew about it, including the mayor at the time.  How do you dear reader think that confrontation went?  Praying to God certainly didn’t help.  Many of those same cops were influential in the local churches, and gave a lot of money to the donation plates.  That evil had to be confronted directly—and it was.  I’m still around—many of them aren’t.  So who does God favor?  Does God favor the meek and weak, or the one who will spit down the throat of evil when pressed?  My experience tells me that God does help, but only when evil is confronted by the good—not yielded to.  Many of those police officers referred ended up destroyed by car accidents or health ailments within a few short years so fate does play out to some extent, but in my experience, meekness leads to the destruction of good, not the furtherance of it.

It is also in my experience that disguised behind the sermons of peace are people generally afraid of confronting evil, and they use the excuse that God is the ultimate mitigation of justice to avoid needed confrontations.  Born again Christians are particularly of this type as they must believe that their sins from the past will be rewarded through meekness toward God, by surrendering their lives to ancient provocation.  It is easy to do such a thing and still appear to be tough in standing against evil—without actually having to perform the task.  But it doesn’t work.  Evil must be confronted.  You have to be willing to look it in the eye and beat it down.  Without such a position, evil grows through embolden observation of pacifism.  Glenn Beck says a lot of things that are right, but on the issues of aggression and the inevitable confrontations with evil, his past taints his strategic thinking for the future. And his opinions about tactics against aggression by mixing religion with observed thinking is wrong.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

“Fat Han” in X-wing Miniatures: “I’m in it for the money”

When I participated in my first tournament for X-wing Miniatures I was still learning all the rules—but knew enough to build a squad of ships that would be competitive against even the most seasoned players. However, when I revealed my squad to my opponents, they immediately assumed that my use of Han Solo on the Millennium Falcon which encompassed a point build of 55 points out of 100 meant that I was a rookie player who did not trust my piloting ability. The Falcon fires in a 360 degree arc as most of the other ships fire in a 90 degree arc coming off the front of their ship. Most seasoned tournament players at the time if they did use the YT-1300 were using Chewie or Lando and using two B-wings or some other assortment of support ship to save points. Nobody was using Han, which made no sense to me. He was after all one of the highest pilot rating cards in the game and he has a wonderful re-roll ability that makes him very powerful. His card on the Millennium Falcon looked to my eyes to be one of the most powerful combinations in the game, and I thought it would be crazy not to use him in a tournament.

Well, about three months later some of the best X-wing players in the world used almost the same build at the Nationals played at Gen-Con 2014. In reaction to the new TIE Phantoms released at the end of June 2014 a new type of Rebel build called “Fat Han” emerged in the meta game to deal with the incredible maneuverability and fire power of the new Empire faction ships. In fact Paul Heaver who is the current world champion used nearly the same build as I had to climb into the top four at the nationals.

I never published my build anywhere and Paul and I never spoke—yet to his experienced eyes he picked that particular build to deal with the new elements coming into the X-wing game. And he wasn’t alone at the nationals; there were many other top players who were flying “Fat Hans” in competitive play which changed the game for the better. It is doubtful that Paul Heaver received the same sideways glances that I did when I placed my YT-1300 on the board. I was a newbie, Paul was a seasoned champion. But it made me feel good to see that even in a game where I am not comfortable with all the rules and certainly lack the experience of that kind of competitive play, that I’m able to fairly quickly jump in and identify trends that are out on the edge and not yet fashionable.

This was an important observation as I spend a great deal of time pointing out trends that are coming as opposed to the ones that currently exist. If the ability is gained, it can be applied to virtually everything in life even in areas where others are much more proficient. The “Fat Han” builds are now the complaint of the X-wing Miniatures world because of their extreme effectiveness and they will continue for some time until something else knocks them off in the months to come. But for me the experiment was very telling, and useful.

I left my tournament feeling like I could have done better and that I was close to something big as far as a strategy. The other players were so polished and knew their stuff—citing the rules from top to bottom quickly and were certainly at the top of their game. So I thought there might have been something to their complaints about using Han Solo and the Falcon in such a way as I was. But as it turned out, the best X-wing players in the game soon after turned to the very same strategy because the meta game pointed tactics in that direction. What I’m proud of is in seeing the trend before it occurred. Part of it is that I have a personal preference toward the Millennium Falcon, but when all the cards are looked at, it is beyond refute that the YT-1300 is by far one of the best tactical pieces in the game and that it should be included in any Rebel build.

I know much more about X-wing Miniatures now than I did during my first tournament, and I will know a lot more in a year than I do now. But the trend of seeing strategies and cycles beyond the curve of orthodox thinking is something I have been able to maintain even when others knew a great deal more about something than I did. It’s not some magic act, but simply a confirmation that Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality strategies are employable on every level of endeavor, even in gaming. I do pretty well in life staying in front of the curve of social trends in most everything I do—even leisure. So it was fun to feel the scorn of the X-wing community—even though it was friendly jousting at the time—then find just a few months later that the entire meta game is moving in that direction.

I remember what it was like when I was a kid and I was the one who loved Star Wars above all the other social trends that were occurring at the time. It was considered very “uncool” to like the science fiction epic publicly. But I knew at the time—even as a very young kid, that there was something unusual about the stories and that the values conveyed in them had meaning beyond the social trends of the time. Now, 30 plus years later Star Wars fever is everywhere even to the extent that drones have been flying over the filming locations looking for a hint at the storyline. The only people now who think Star Wars is “uncool” are the backwards thinking lost in time souls who can’t identify with the values of the stories. They are people stuck in the past—in the policies of the New Deal, and progressive utterances inspired from the pages of Karl Marx.

I have a shirt that I like to wear when playing X-wing Miniatures with Han Solo on the front of it—not unlike the kind of shirts I used to wear as a 9-year-old kid that says, “I’m in it for the money.” It is a very capitalist message and I first saw it in Hollywood Studios, Florida while coming off the Star Tours ride. I was surprised that Disney did not filter that pro capitalist message as there are many progressive executives who work for the large entertainment company. But, Han Solo is an unequivocal capitalist—an Ayn Rand type of capitalist in the Star Wars saga and he is one of the most popular characters there is. In fact, while downloading the new Star Wars game Commander onto my iPad I noticed that the characters on their load screen featured Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker because Disney knows where the money comes from in the series. It’s not the altruistic Luke Skywalker that people want to emulate; it is the capitalist Han Solo. This is a trend which will increase now that Star Wars is socially cool—altruism is out, capitalism is in.

That capitalist philosophy has spilled over into the X-wing game as the designers were careful not to weaken the message when designing the Han Solo game card. If played right, a “Fat Han” build can take being shot by opponents while dealing consistent damage during an entire match. It’s a very capitalist build and I think that the hatred for the build early in the game meta can be traced back to the fact that so many people are trained from their educations to hate capitalism. But—the meta of the game has moved by need of competition to utilize “Fat Han” builds just as the new Star Wars films and television shows soon will do the same on an epic level under Disney’s care. They know there in the hallowed halls of “Mouse Town” that capitalism is the key to social order and I could see that emergence as far back as the release of that Han Solo shirt featured at Hollywood Studios. We’re all in it to win, we’re all in it for the money—and that is why “Fat Han” builds have risen to popularity and why capitalism will emerge triumphant from 2020 to 2030 in ways that have never been seen before.image

I’m so sure of it that I’d bet everything I have. With the same assurance that I built a “Fat Han” build in X-wing Miniatures during a time when it was considered too novice-like to even think of bringing it to a tournament—I can see that capitalism will crush socialism under the care of the Disney handling of the Star Wars franchise. Some people may bellyache and complain, but the trend is already emerging. I can see it as plain as a sun in the noon day sky on a cloudless day around the equator. It’s so bright that it burns. Meanwhile, I have to change my tactics to stay competitive. “Fat Han” will no longer work because everyone is using it. So my new build is something I’m called “Dashing Han” which is more akin to how the Falcon actually flew with Han Solo at the controls. It is very difficult to fly, but should provide an advantage that will last a while. Because the name of the game is to always stay out in front of the meta.

Rich Hoffman   www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Declaration of Independance: Poor minds not qualified to care for such a wonderful document

I do not believe that there is a single lawyer, politician or lobbyist who could write the Declaration of Independence today in 2014. When modern progressives, socialists, and domestic terrorists declare that they believe the founding documents of America are “living documents” they are wrong—because the quality of the minds that could contribute in the ways they propose would only diminish the meaning. It is possible that John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were among the greatest collected minds in human history when they gathered to write the Declaration. They were as proficient philosophically as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle only all existing at the same time and without the murder of one by a society protecting itself from their intellectual advancement. When those three gathered and Jefferson wrote the founding document, a new era of philosophic endeavor had begun in the wake of war. A unique window had opened and the three of them stepped in bringing the rest of the new country with them. The results were the Declaration of Independence that was presented and edited by the Continental Congress in the following days leading up to July 4th 1776.

Congress ordered that the draft “lie on the table“.[66] For two days Congress methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure.[67] Congress removed Jefferson’s assertion that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies, in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Britain who supported the Revolution. Although Jefferson wrote that Congress had “mangled” his draft version, the Declaration that was finally produced, according to his biographer John Ferling, was “the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity.”[67]

On Monday, July 1, having tabled the draft of the declaration, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with Benjamin Harrison of Virginia presiding, and resumed debate on Lee’s resolution of independence.[68] John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[69] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.

After a long day of speeches, a vote was taken. As always, each colony cast a single vote; the delegation for each colony—numbering two to seven members—voted amongst themselves to determine the colony’s vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation, lacking permission to vote for independence, abstained. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean (who voted yes) and George Read (who voted no). The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by the Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who was opposed to Lee’s resolution but desirous of unanimity, moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[70]

Here is the text as it appeared after those edits:

Introduction Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained. In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[77] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Indictment A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[77] Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Denunciation This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[77]Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.Conclusion The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.Signatures The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents, Benjamin Harrison, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26), was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[78]

 

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

It is unlikely that there is a single mind in all of Washington D.C. who could write those sentences presently let alone put them into a contextual sentence.   Clearly those same minds are not capable of participating in a “living document” which evolves over time to accommodate changing circumstances. This is the actual sad part of our history is that the intention was that each generation would produce men and women like Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, but this has not been the case. Instead, American society has regressed into the worship of stupidity and patted themselves on the back for passing gas in the form of a “fart.”

It would be my wish that I could associate with people like these Founding Fathers, instead of the weakened people of the modern age—people unable to understand the above document let alone produce another one of equal value. What is to be respected from this period in America is that intelligence was honored and valor was a part of daily existence and it is these traits that carried America to become the greatest country on earth. It was not the “come lately” types who spent years of their academic lives getting drunk, pursuing sex, and passing gas yet expecting to build their minds into understanding the need for the Declaration of Independence. Worse yet, to even entertain the belief that they were equal to men like the authors.

The sad state of our modern times is that intelligence is attacked and stupidity is worshipped, and it is for this reason alone that no modern man should even conceive of changing a single word of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution—because they simply are not qualified—intellectually. No modern Supreme Court Justice, no lawyer—anywhere, and no current resident of the White House are able to meet the task of intellectual aptitude required to care for the founding documents let alone amend them. They are only capable of winning elections and moving money from one pocket to another—but they are not stewards of America equal to the founders—and authors of The Declaration of Independence.

Rich Hoffman www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

50 Years of Marriage: The Rams draft Michael Sam–the first openly gay NFL player

It was a rare privilege these days to attend the 50th wedding anniversary of some family friends hosted at a church they had spent their entire life attending.  Prior to the event my wife and I had just celebrated a few days ago our own anniversary of 26 years.  My parents were there and next year they will celebrate their own 50th anniversary.  Growing up I had two sets of grandparents who both went past the 50 year marriage mark which didn’t seem unusual back then.  In the middle of the celebration came the news through social media that Michael Sam had been drafted in the 7th round by the St Louis Rams—which was significant because he is the first openly gay player to enter the NFL.  Talk about locker room tension, or even on the field concern of being tackled by the guy who will unquestionably struggle to keep his sexuality in check around naked men every day.  The kind of idiots who think that gay athletes can be paired together without circumstance are the same fools who can’t fathom being married for 50 years to a member of the opposite sex, raising a family and falling in rhythm with that person in a lifelong dance that builds good people as byproducts to the relationship.

A long time friend of mine gave a nice speech to the crowd amassed in the bowels of the Grace Baptist Church in Middletown about how important his parents had been to he and his sister over all those years.  It wasn’t difficult for him to conger up many good memories of all the years his parents had been there for him like a rock to depend on.  As I listened I knew my own children and now grand children had similar thoughts which would become that much more pronounced when my wife and I hit our own 50 year mark.  That seems like a long time ago, but we realized during the speech that all these 50 year marriages had essentially all been present at our own wedding and they were at the stage then that we are now.  I remember thinking at the end of the 1980s when divorce was becoming rampant and easy by lawyers looking to make money off other people’s misery that many then thought 25 to 30 years of marriage was impossible, yet many were present at our own wedding at the Becket Ridge Country Club.  That in itself was sadly unusual.

Long marriages are not about sexuality.  They are about teamwork, commitment, determination, tenacity, love, and a willingness to walk through the fires of life and spit out the flames one by one at whatever cost.  No marriage over such a long time goes without pitfalls because life has a way of issuing out detours to such journeys without any compassion to our sensitivities.  Long time couples find a way to work through things and come out on the other end and their families are stronger for it.

The news of the new openly gay NFL player is a judgment based on a person’s sexuality only.  It is a progressive desire to destroy all resemblance of traditional family values and place before the world the progressive notion of an athlete that is gay as though such a thing could be normal.  Regardless of how one believes another might become gay, the fact that Michael Sam is will without question cause difficulties in the lives of his teammates.

Being married for a long time I can declare with safety that if I were playing football and the cheerleaders had to shower in the same location as my team mates, my wife would not be OK with that.  The reason is because sexuality needs to be focused and conducted in the bedroom of our home in order for her to manage all the other tasks of our family.  Having nakedness and sexual temptation outside of our marriage would then weaken all the important tasks in our relationship, such as picking out new trees for our yard, keeping track of events in the extended family, needs that the children might have and so on.  Seeing the naked bodies of many women even if the occurrences did not lead to sex would be distracting to our relationship.  It introduces elements that would pull the context of our marriage maneuvers into the primal realm which is not sustaining to families at large.  It’s not a matter of trust so much as sacrament.  If every other young woman prancing around gets a nice view of the tripod and can go home to satisfy themselves to its memory—what sacrament is there for my wife who is then supposed to worship it as a phallic beast meant only for her appeasement.  At football games she would know that all the little girls had the same knowledge of it as she.  They may not handle it but the vision of it is there in their minds for their enjoyment.

NFL player wives already have to accept that their husbands are likely cheating on them while on the road for away games.  That is bad enough.  But now they have to worry that Michael Sam will be doing more than playing ball on a football field and even if it isn’t beyond just looking—the act will be a sexual one.  For a man who likes to be under other men, nobody can legitimately ponder that for a gay male—being on the bottom of a football pile is not a fantasy that he will carry with him to his private acts.  For each man who adds a bit of sweat and odor to the fantasies of Michael Sam, it is sexual essence robbed from the wives of the players who are left with almost nothing sacred for their own bedroom.  Part of the appeal of a married couple is that their sexuality is committed to each other—not the world at large.

I do not like it when my wife goes to a doctor.  Her nakedness belongs to me.  Now, in the scheme of the human body we are all just clumps of flesh and once the soul is removed, the body decays away into dirt.  Humans bring value to such nakedness through their relationships.  If every other man out there has seen the naked body of a wife, then there is less sacred appeal in the bedroom—and anybody who has been married for a long time knows the need for such things.  Sure you get used to seeing each other but there is still purity in knowing that every neighbor up and down the street has not seen her which makes her treasures a gift of the relationship.  Without such enticements, fighting through the really hard stuff is not very appealing—and people usually give up.   This is also why being married to a stripper will bring unusual tension to a relationship.  It might be fun while she is young and attractive, but down the road when her old customers are lonely and looking her up online after she’s popped out a couple of kids—her naked body will be on their mind.   They don’t want to talk—but to remember.

To people who think marriage is a mystery and really have no clue to how relationships work, they are cheering for the progressive step forward society has taken as the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam.  They believe that putting a gay man in a locker-room with other guys will actually work but it won’t, mark my words.  The two things are not biologically, or intellectually compatible and the tension of sexual premise will be distracting to the organization in a very negative way.  Progressives are fine with the conflict, because they are out to change the essence of how human beings conduct relationships.  They are interested in the social impact of changing behavior—especially in marriage.

An old friend sat at my table at this anniversary dinner—one I hadn’t seen in about 20 years.  We picked up our conversation upon the last sentences we had uttered two decades ago only he filled me in on the three marriages he had over that duration.  Such things are normal these days.  Having children with one wife then children with a second and third and trying to see all those kids who are essentially being raised by other men who do not share the same kind of values as the original father is simply destroying children—and these days it is normal behavior.  Nobody thinks twice about hearing his story—but when people find out that my wife and I have been married for a quarter century they almost act like they stumbled into a leprosy village.  Yet everyone yearns for the 50 year anniversary.  I doubt there is a woman alive who goes to her wedding day not hoping to someday celebrate 50 years of marriage to her husband. Yet increasingly, such thoughts are a fleeting fantasy.

The progressives have destroyed the lives of many millions of people by teaching them the wrong values; this latest stunt involving Michael Sam is just the most recent.  Unisex bathrooms, easy pornography, and cheapened sexuality mixing gender roles attacking the family unit of tradition aggressively have destroyed our modern culture and left the children to be raised essentially by government schools.  Behind every marriage these days is a parade of parasitic lawyers chasing after the couple like hyenas waiting for one of them to stumble so that legal action against the other can take place and the state can take control of the children.   What my friend was thanking his parents for at the anniversary dinner was for giving him a sense of tradition and value as the trend has moved toward thinking that the Michael Sam draft is fashionable. Anybody coming from such long-term marriages whether it is my friend, me, or my children are lucky and we know it.  But it will be up to us to protect such opportunities in the future as the trend is against it.  Yet it shouldn’t be.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Kelly Kohls for State Senate of the 7th District: Taking the stink bugs out of the State House–starting with Shannon Jones

Collectivists are a dangerous species in that they are like bugs specifically Halyomorpha halys–brown marmorated stink bugs.  This year for whatever reason stink bugs are popping up everywhere and whenever I see one in my home, I take it outside to free it, but also to get it out of my house.  But there are so many of them that even though I could crush one of the little bugs with little effort, the creatures can ultimately consume my time as I try to address each one of them individually.  The labor unions, political party driven insurgents, and other progressive groups have had a target on my friend Kelly Kohls for a long time.   She has put herself out there pushing for real change especially on the education front—and has drawn a lot of stink bugs into her life.  One of those stink bugs—Shannon Jones in a close alliance with the Governor John Kasich and the Republican Party in Ohio have looked at Kelly’s primary challenge of Jones’ Senate seat and come directly after the former Springboro School Board President using the same tactics progressive groups have used against her in the past—a bankruptcy filing.  Of course this action comes straight out of the Republican Party to defend their grip on power at any cost.  So Kelly wanted to get her message out and answer Jones’ accusations—and of course I helped her.  I take the stink bugs out of my house without killing them—but I also intend to do the same thing with all the progressives and weak-kneed politicians in Columbus and Washington, and Shannon Jones and her John Kasich boot licking ways needs to be carried outside where they can no longer stink up the place with apathy and inaction.   Here is Kelly’s message one week before the primary challenge for Jones’ seat on May 6th 2014.

Progressives thought it was outrageous that Kelly Kohls even had a mortgage of $829,000 on a $450,000 home—and that her bankruptcy was a sign of fiscal recklessness.  This is because most of Kelly’s harshest critics are those who work for government and make great salaries doing almost nothing.  Learning how to accept progressive causes into their lives preserves their incomes.  They don’t start businesses or deal with money-making opportunities.  They simply take money so to progressives, it is a mystery as to where money comes from—and they believe it to be finite.  They emphasize the large sums of money to point out that Kelly is operating above the average norm for the “middle class” which was a term created by labor unions.

However, Kelly has five kids and most of them have gone to college by now.  Kelly herself holds a doctorate so a lot of money has been spent in the Kohls family on education and college these days is a $50K to $100K enterprise.  So Kelly hasn’t been spending money hanging out at Jags buying $300 meals every night for her friends—she’s been getting her education, putting her kids through college, and starting entrepreneurial enterprises.  All that together easily adds up to a million dollars when you try to do all those things in the same fiscal decade.  Since progressives get most of what they want in life by begging, mooching, and looting—they don’t understand Kelly Kohls—but I do, and have no problem at all standing with her in a run for State Senate.

I know how the name calling game works and 90% of what is said derogatory about Kelly Kohls is of that variety.  I have been married for a long time; my wife is a “house-wife” in the traditional sense.  She makes herself 100% available to my grown children and now grandchildren and she is proud to be the kind of mom that the television show Leave It to Beaver would have recognized in his home.  For my traditional views on family life, my disdain for feminism as a progressive movement, and a belief that all children need a strong mother in the home guiding a family to prosperity, I have been labeled a sexist because most everyone in existence is doing things wrong in their families in my opinion—and these names came at me well before I called the PTA moms at Lakota “latte sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match.”  The name calling was already going on well before—I simply wasn’t going to play the game for the “good of the community” or any group which I was a spokesman for.  The personal attacks were designed to change my behavior just like the stink bug infestation can overwhelm you if allowed.

Kelly doesn’t share all my views, she is certainly an A type personality and that can rub other A type personalities the wrong way, but she shares with me a love of tradition and commitment to spirituality.  If she doesn’t want to cook meals for her husband and await him at the door with his slippers and a newspaper that is her business within her family and I’m alright with it.  It’s a decision she has to make between her husband and her.  It certainly wouldn’t stop me from voting for her for State Senator of the 7th District.  Are women equal to men?  Most of the time women are better—on intellectual matters especially.  But men are built for heavy lifting both physically and emotionally—and this is why traditional roles had men and women separating their tasks in such a way.  The man came home and was recharged by his wife for the next day’s battles.  However, politics is an intellectual pursuit, and in it Kelly Kohls is less prone to corruption, deals, and peer pressure than a John Kasich type because of her intellectual aptitude.

Shannon Jones is not as directed as Kelly is.  She allowed herself to be steered into proposing the Senate Bill 5 controversy to drastically pull back the power of public sector unions in Ohio.  When that bill was repealed Jones and Kasich retreated into progressive pandering and Obamacare Medicaid expansion.  Shannon went right along with the party line whatever it was and did not think for herself—so she needs to be carried outside with all the other stink bugs and set free from the State House.  Kelly is much better equipped intellectually, and spiritually to do the job of Senator of the 7th District.

I’ve known Kelly for quite a while and one thing that she is at her very core is something that I recognize as being the highest quality there is for a woman—she is a mom first and everything else second.  Kelly has been a political activist and political contributor now that her children are grown because she wishes to bring her nurturing tendencies to the State of Ohio instead of just her home.  My wife has no such desires—but she is not an A type personality like Kelly and I.  Progressives have created the modern definitions for womanhood and like their fiscal policies—they are all wrong and are ruining the lives of everyone who follows them.  The real roles of traditionalist, conservatives, and men and women is far more complicated than the progressive stink bugs can wrap their minds around and that is not Kelly’s problem—nor mine.

Kelly and her husband filed for bankruptcy trying to make things happen—the way they were supposed to.  But the business climate changed on them leaving them hanging over the edge of a cliff for which they were dropped.  The bankruptcy laws in America were created to encourage investment risk because that is the requirement of capitalism.  Government workers do not take risks, they figure out whose boots they have to lick—and they do so to protect their jobs and keep the tax money flowing into their pockets.  They don’t typically try to start businesses, they don’t typically take responsibility for raising their own children—they send them off to public school to have the task done for them—and they certainly don’t take risks.  Kelly Kohls has, and now she is doing it again going after an established Senator in Shannon Jones during the May 6th primary.  And for that risk, the stink bugs are attacking her with that terrible odor they emit, which the media is happy to play off of.

Kelly simply wants to take the stink bugs out of the State House one by one starting with Shannon Jones.  Of course they won’t like it, but they don’t have a choice.  Republicans and Democrats functioning from progressive politics are stinking up Columbus and they need to be removed so that order can be brought to our Houses of Legislation.  And that is the essence of Kelly’s run against Shannon Jones.  Kelly is a mother taking care of her house and her family.  Only her care extends out to the State of Ohio and all the people in it who just want a shot at the American Dream.   To some Kelly is an education crusader, to others she is a combative “A” type personality that wants to be in charge.  To others she is a fiscally reckless overlord who lives above the “middleclass.”   To others still she is a threat to the Republican Party and even more dangerous to Democrats.  But I know her as a mother who cares the way all mothers do.  She sees Ohio as her family and she wants to fight to do what’s right for it.  And for her the best way to take care of her family is to remove the stink bugs from the State House which is why she is running for a Senate seat and why the establishment Republicans are terrified.

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Rusty Humphries at the Cincinnati Tea Party: Why “WINOs” are in a lot of trouble

imageI have been extraordinarily busy of late—much, much more than I care to be. My bullwhip friends from the Western Arts had of course my top priority and that occupied most of the last weekend. Then of course there are family obligations, normal career type commitments, a meeting Monday at the Elks Club for the Liberty Township Tea Party which I wrote about yesterday. Then there was the event on Tax Day out in Eastgate, the Cincinnati Tea Party rally which brought out some of the most vigilant patriots of the current liberty movement anywhere. Doc Thompson was there, Ann Becker and all her posse including Chris Littleton, Mike Wilson, Ted Stevenot and Libertarian Girl were there. Rusty Humphries flew in from his Washington Times gig representing the new Atlas Shrugged movie. My friend Matt Clark came down from Ann Arbor to do a live podcast from the event. There were many, many more names—all of them very good—and all of them fighting hard every day for what’s right by way of the American Constitution—but my time was occupied primarily by those names mentioned. To do the event justice, there is no way I can cover everything in a single article, so I’ll start with the Rusty Humphries speech, which can be seen below—and embodied the tone of the entire evening magnificently.

Rusty also did an interview with Matt Clark who was set up outside the main conference hall. The interview was every bit as entertaining as would be expected by Humphries who has a nationally syndicated radio show. He also writes for the Washington Times, and is even acting in the new Atlas Shrugged Part III movie. Watching he and Matt work together was like watching the present and future aligned. Matt Clark certainly has in his future a syndicated talk show as he shares with Humphries the ability to use social media to blast his message to the world. The only difference is that Humphries has been doing it longer, and already went through the kind of criticisms that Matt Clark often inflicts upon himself constantly looking for broadcast perfection.

All evening there was a constant steam of interviews which went through Matt Clark’s WAAM broadcast table, most of which will be featured over the next couple of days. One of the funniest comments made over the course of the evening was Humphries reference to Hillary Clinton. During his speech he talked about the various RINOs in politics, people like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, any of the Bush brothers, etc. RINO of course means “Republican in Name Only,” which is to say that those so-called Republicans have been terrible at preserving conservative ideals. They’ve been more interested in compromising with people who want to fundamentally change American life, and have done a great disservice to their nation. This is when Humphries said that Hillary was a “WINO,” a “Wife in Name Only.” That drew quite a laugh and it stuck with me throughout the night.

The “WINO” comment was funny because most people feel that Bill and Hillary Clinton have an open relationship where they have simply pulled a ruse on the American public for more than three decades of scandalous crusade. Their mission as Marxist loving young college students was to deliver America to the doorsteps of the Socialist International controlled United Nations and they pretended to be like every day Americans to concoct the ruse. Part of that deceit was to pretend that they are a traditional married, husband and wife–while at the same time advancing LGBT agenda points and a gradual erosion of American sovereignty to the chaos of the world cesspool. Does anybody honestly feel that Hillary would not do anything to become elected into an office, even if it meant committing herself to a loveless marriage in the typical European style of power arrangement? I don’t doubt it for a moment, and it is likely that she cannot even relate to a typical American romantic comedy because she does not have the kind of feelings in her life associated with “love,” “passion,” or “sexual longing,” as her primary motives appear to be exclusively—for her entire life—committed to social reform built on a progressive reference established by Marxism—which she learned in college.

It was good to hear Humphries say what virtually everyone was thinking—it was therapeutic and was the primary reason that most of the hundreds and hundreds of people came to the Cincinnati Tea Party Rally on a Tuesday night. They needed relief from the insanity of a world spinning out-of-control and into perpetual progressive madness. The people present were awake and all aware of the follies around them—and having so many people in such a state gives hope that the world will not degrade into a bottomless pit from which it will never return.

Matt bought a hamburger for me once the event was over at the bar. We barely placed our order before the kitchen closed as the rally went late into the evening. Humphries had already left as many others were leaving, but Matt and I hadn’t had any food all day, so a well-earned hamburger was just the thing. Kelly Kohls and some of her party joined us in the bar for a bit as the waiter brought us our food. Kelly laughed when she saw the incredible size of my hamburger, complete with everything on it, onions hanging over the edge with huge leaves of lettuce, largely cut tomatoes and a tremendously huge bun sprinkled with sesame seeds. Her son happened to be sitting next to me and I took his mother’s comments and expanded on it by saying that this was an example of American food. “You wouldn’t get a hamburger like that in France, or Spain, or Italy. In those countries they give you some silly little noodles and some crappy vegetables off on the side of the plate—and they consider it art. Their food is like their crappy little Fiat cars, their bad breath, terrible economies, and wimpy sports. Here in America, like this hamburger,” which I had to put all my weight on to smash together to fit into my mouth, “we like V-8 engines, fast cars, violent sports, guns and women in thongs.” At that point Kelly called me a few names and took her 15-year-old son away from my bad influence. I told her that her son was a guy, and that he needed to hear those kinds of things. She laughed and hit me in the shoulder and walked off. I didn’t blame her, after all she is running for a Senate seat, and she needed to maintain her respectability in the eyes of the masses. But I don’t. Hamburgers, fast cars, rock music, football and chicks with thongs are the kinds of things I think of when I think of America—and specifically freedom. So after the evening festivities the gigantic hamburger from the hotel bar complete with Coors beer was the perfect night-cap to a busy day.

Much of what was discussed at the Cincinnati Tea Party could be summed up into not apologizing for what Americans are, but rather, being proud of it. It is clearly time to stop feeling sorry for every other country on earth and to make ourselves less just to make other countries feel equal. I know I’m done with such things, and according to Matt, Doc, Rusty, Ann, and all the others, they are too. The biggest difference between those at the Tax Day Rally and everyone outside of that room is that the attendees have arrived first to a conclusion that is inevitable—that progressives like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and many others, have taken America to a bad place, and people don’t like it. My friends are the first to express that displeasure—and soon, so will the rest of the nation. imageThe old WINO tricks won’t work this time, as an $18 trillion-dollar deficit looms over the richest nation in the world—caused by progressive mismanagement of American resources. And once the rest of society gets to the level of frustration that the people attending the Cincinnati Tea Party rally displayed on April 15th, 2014 in Eastgate, Ohio—WINO’s like Hillary will be in a whole lot of trouble—and I’ll celebrate with an even bigger hamburger. The secret to American excess is not that The United States consumes too many natural resources, but that it has produced so much—because of capitalism. If more nations throughout the world adopted capitalism over socialism, they’d discover excesses of their own and would be a whole lot less miserable.

Rich Hoffman  

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Closing of Holy Cross: Pelicans of European lore

In “The Dream of the Virgin,” by Christoforo Simone dei Conrocefissi—a painting of Jesus Christ emerging from a dead body in the form of a tree–a bird atop the crucified figure of Christ has bothered me for a number of years—since the early 90s when I first saw it.  The bird is a pelican which according to the nature lore of the European Middle Ages nourishes its young on blood drawn from its own breast.image  It is used in the painting to show the proper metaphor of how Christ through the giving of his Holy Blood has nourished mankind into Salvation.  About that same time the pastor of my Lutheran Church of Holy Cross in Fairfield, Ohio was suffering from a divorce where his wife ran off to find freedom from the rigidity of being a pastor’s wife.  She wanted to live a free life away from his judgmental existence and bicycle across the earth free of God’s appraisal.  As I looked up at the lit up cross in that church my parents helped keep alive for many years it was a measure of a 20 year journey into philosophy that leaped well beyond the good foundations provided by my years there. Holy Cross for me was my first exposure into a journey that would outgrow the little church starting at the point of time mentioned.  Over the next two decades I would only return a handful of times that would finally end on March 23, 2014.  It was the last service of that church, my parents were the ushers and a substitute pastor headed the service which would be the last one.  There was no new generation to take over, and the church was finally closing.   It first opened in 1957, my parents were married there, my wife and I were married there, we were all baptized there, some of my nieces and nephews and most of my first acting and public speaking was done there.  Prior to the 90s, I performed every job at the church except conduct the actual ministry and play the organ.  The church had played a huge part in my life which put me on a path to fight evil with a foundation started during my youth.   Now during this last service as we all readied to take communion one last time that painting was coming back to me resurrecting the ridiculous role of the pelican.  That was what I thought of as I was handed bread representing the body of Christ.

I have told people who didn’t understand why I stopped attending Holy Cross that it wasn’t that I was becoming an atheist or had lost “faith.”  I had just outgrown the church which of course nobody understood, particularly parents who had given so much of themselves to it.  For me, the failure of the church was not in its message of goodness, in helping people and having spiritual value—it was in the ideal of sacrifice.  I had continued to study literature well after my Bible study days and moved into comparative religion heavily from 18 to 19 years of age.  I learned that it wasn’t just Lutherans and Catholics who had these stupid concepts about sacrifice—it was all religions to some degree or another—and I saw clearly that politics was exposing this weakness taught to the masses of humanity for their own exploitation of power.  Now a pastor I had studied with closely over many years had a wife leaving him and it was obvious that God wasn’t coming to his rescue.  Bowing on his knees to a savor wasn’t going to bring the woman back.  The situation was much more complicated and I needed to understand the answers for my own life.  Blind trust into some mysterious beings behind a curtain was not enough for me.  For many of the people I knew, it was—and I saw that as an intellectual limitation that would not be sufficient for my family.

I left the church unofficially because of the false premise that sacrifice was needed for human life to move forward.  Creativity is the real driver of advancement, not pouring the blood of Christ into a cup and drinking it on Sunday.  Softened rituals of human sacrifice which is what Lutheran communion was only served in providing basic childlike foundations into living a life of goodness.  It did not help a person live a life where they are in control, where they are accountable, and they dictate the fate of their own existence.   So I continued on and only returned for big family events until this last service.  I couldn’t help but notice the tears from the audience, listening to the organ from the balcony, the lit up cross I had spent so many Sundays and years helping keep the place alive.  I looked out the window at the same trees I looked at growing up.  They were a little bigger, but mostly still there.  During sermons I had stared at every line of every brick in the front wall of a church that was quite a popular place in the 70s and 80s.  Many of my first girlfriends came out of the church.  Even during some of my most rebellious years mentioned prior, I still attended church at Holy Cross almost every weekend.  It had become a sanctuary of goodness for me over the years that I had a lot of value for.  But not enough value to sacrifice my life to, or the lives of my children.  The church was not more important than me and my family and that is a tough concept to explain to people who have not taken those steps.

The drastic difference in thinking was that sacrifice was a concept which should be abandoned—the ideal that something must be given up so that something can come to be.  I was not going to teach my children that sacrifice was needed to live—but that it was creativity that brought everything into being and that God was the factor behind inspiration and drive.   The ideal of someone sacrificing their life so that I could live was something I decided to reject and would spend my life going forward living from my own spontaneity and creativity and I would teach everyone who wanted to listen to do the same.   That way of thinking is not for everyone.  It requires a firm footing upon a foundation of goodness, and I gained that foundation at Holy Cross Lutheran Church and my parents did a wonderful job introducing it to me.  Many of my first books, which I still have and treasure are Bibles and Bible Encyclopedias.  In my pastor’s office when I was personally instructed by him I always admired the books on his shelves—literature was very important to him. But at a certain point you outgrow it if growth continues, and for me I could have stayed stagnate and thrown myself at God’s mercy the way the pastor did when his wife left him, or I could take control and move past him—well past him and shape my own destiny through creativity—not sacrifice.

One last time I took communion out of respect for the ceremony and I felt sorry for those who were still confined to the ideal of sacrifice.  They were good people, but they were stuck—and happy to be there.  Like the pastor from two decades prior, who was now deceased, it was easier to pray to God, trust in the wisdom of His benevolence than to take personal responsibility through personal creativity to lead one’s own life to a conclusion of self motivated destiny.  It is far easier to bow and eat bread, drink wine, and pray and leave the responsibility for living to the universe.

As I put the communion cup down for the last time alongside the northern windows I felt the heat of the building pushing warm air through the heating system. I would miss this church—because I wouldn’t be able to come back ever again.  It was closing, and at the end of the service, it would finally be gone forever, and it was a sad moment.  The building was alive and had been since 1957.  I had grown up and felt that heat most of my life but now I felt not just sad that it would be over—but that it was now like a pair of shoes that I wore when I was a child which I could no longer wear—and I felt bad that I couldn’t teach everyone to also outgrow their shoes.

Holy Cross closed with the stripping of the alter—with no music and the slamming shut of the church log, sniffles permeated the vaulted ceilings, the classic lights, the candles which were now extinguished and the gentle rumble of the heating system pushing warm air into the congregation.  The church had cared for its people attending worship for so many years, and now it was over—and it was sad.  But the ultimate failure was not the changing demographics of the area, the declining morality of society, but the concept that sacrifice was needed for a fruitful existence.  Every institution which subscribes to those types of theories ends just like the lives which give shape to them.  Sacrifice is the wrong approach to everything because in the end things just end, like marriages, churches, lives, and minds.  For something to live on, it requires creativity because without that—nothing happens—and that is the secret to success, love, and life.    The only pelican in my life are the ones I feed in Florida when I visit Tampa, who wait for me to feed them a fish.  They don’t give me back anything in return except for the joy of watching them eat it.  The European lore was wrong and all those who followed it.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com