Posts Tagged ‘S.B.5’
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“. For two days Congress methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure. 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.”
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. 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. 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.
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.||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.||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.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):
- New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
- Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
- Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
- Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
- New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
- New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
- Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
- Delaware: George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean
- Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
- Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
- North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
- South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
- Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
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
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.
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.
I 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. The 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.
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. 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.
High school girls, gay guys, and European men with way too much cologne appear to be the target of Fiat’s newest Jeep, Renegade. Fiat’s acquisition strategy of the Jeep brand from Chrysler was on full display at the 2014 Geneva auto show. They revealed what they intend to do with the automotive line nurtured in America and recognized throughout the world as a symbol of rugged individuality and toughness—they turned it into a mini. Fiat is quite boastful of their skyrocketing sales after their Jeep acquisition. The new Renegade will be built in some of the former factories crushed by socialism in Italy, and targeted for sale in Europe. From their stand point, this is a brilliant move, Europe’s roads are too small, the people too tightly packed, and their governments are corrupted by the ghosts of communism. Because of their mystical beliefs in global warming, Europe’s fuel costs are too high, and their expectations for personal freedom are very low. For them, Jeep, as it has been marketed out of America under the Chrysler Corporation was representative of American independence, so Fiat has taken that image and smashed it down into something that the rest of the world can enjoy in order to boost sales. For tightly packed Europe, the dirt roads of India, the washed out trails of China, the forever college students of Germany sung to social sleep by radical professors, the drifting yuppies of Brazil, and the up and coming drug dealers in Mexico, the Fiat version of the Jeep is perfect for them. But for the American, the new Jeep will be one of those throwaway cars that dads buy for their daughters, or men lacking masculinity will purchase because it’s so “cute.” The new Jeep Renegade by American standards looks like it might be capsized during a head-on collision with a bicycle.
One of the best vehicles my family ever had was a Jeep Grand Cherokee that we drove all over The United States. Its powerful inline 6 cylinder engine could pull boats with no problem; it could handle the Appalachian Mountains with ease, and perform well on the highway for long trips. One specific year my wife purchased a bike rack for the back of our Jeep and we took a family vacation down to Hilton Head Island. Once we arrived we biked all over the island. It was my wife, and two daughters with me on that trip and the Jeep had no trouble carrying a bike rack that could haul so many bicycles and still have the girth to plow through the wind, rain, and inclement weather from Ohio to South Carolina. Inside that Jeep there was plenty of room for all of us to comfortably travel and still pack more than enough supplies for a week of vacationing. Shortly after that trip, my wife was in a car accident that the insurance company totaled meaning we would lose the Jeep. She had been hit by another vehicle taking my kids to school as another car slid on the wet pavement during the heavy traffic mornings. Because the Jeep sat so high off the ground, and was so large, the vehicle took all the impact leaving my family safe inside. The airbags all deployed and they walked away without any harm. Initially, looking at the Jeep, I thought the damage was pretty minor. The bumpers had held up, the fenders where hardly wrinkled, and the lights remained completely intact. But, since the airbags deployed, the cost of repair was up over $10,000. It was a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee and the accident was in the mid 2000s, so the vehicle was getting up in years exceeding the technical value of the vehicle. However, if not for that wreck, we would still be driving that Jeep to this very day. If my wife had been driving a Jeep Renegade instead of a Grand Cherokee, my family would have been seriously hurt.
The Jeep brand was fostered by American car companies and spoke to the world of a lifestyle forged from capitalism that they simply couldn’t enjoy. When Fiat bought the brand from the financially strapped Chrysler Corporation it was clear that the Italian company had plans to use that image to saturate a starving world with a mirage of American freedom represented by the Jeep brand. Chrysler and General Motors specifically have major labor problems in America largely due to socialism driven by their unions, and could not live up to their own image, leaving them vulnerable in the global marketplace to Fiat. Fiat has so far sought to shrink down the Jeep vehicles catering to the European market but dressing them up to look like the old Jeeps. The Fiat Jeep is a kind of Angry Birds version of a Chrysler Jeep; it’s purely gimmicky but has compromised itself to fulfill a larger global strategy of wealth redistribution copying off Americans without the commitment to freedom that comes from such places. Common in the discussion of economics these days is the “global marketplace” and behind that discussion there is always socialism driving the dialogue. Deep in the hearts of the rest of the world is the belief that America’s wealth should be redistributed to them, and in the case of brands like Fiat’s Jeep, the image is used and repackaged as a version more compatible with countries wrecked with socialism. The subtle goal is proclaiming that another American brand is now in control of that global marketplace—known as “the public.” No doubt that President Obama celebrated when Fiat bought up the majority of shares of Jeep stock showing a “partnership” with Italy and America that would resonate with the long-term plan academia has always fostered—a large federation of countries working together instead of being at war with one another. It is similar to the reasons why men often want to sleep with the attractive wives of men they consider their intellectual and physical superiors—so that they can take something from their rivals that they don’t have in the first place. Fiat, from Italy is taking from Jeep the American ruggedness and putting their stamp of softness to it so to reap the short-term profits while destroying the brand right in front of America’s bankrupt face—while The United States continues to pour billions of dollars in aid to such European nations through financing The United Nations, military support and intellectual property. How many global film blockbusters have been produced in France, Italy, or Germany? What was the latest billion dollar film made in Spain? ………………………Anyone……………………………………………………………………………….anyone at all……………………………………………………………………………………….I’m still waiting………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………there isn’t one and never will be. Because books, movies, music that achieve such status are created by free people—Americans—and that isn’t an accident.
The Fiat Jeep is wealth redistribution, not just in jobs that might otherwise have been created in America, but of the essence of American creation, the Jeep as it was conceived by Chrysler. The Jeep I spoke so highly of, the Jeep Grand Cherokee from 1996 was conceived by Detroit automakers during the Reagan era before Detroit collapsed under the weight of their labor unions. The Fiat Jeep Renegade is a vehicle conceived by a Detroit that just filed bankruptcy and had to sell off assets to an Italian company who traditionally makes small cars, for small people and their philosophic grip on history. Surely the new Jeep Renegade will sell well in all the armpits of the world, the minds of Europe still recovering from the Dark Ages, the tribal hunters fresh off the Serengeti who have just spent the day hunting Gazelles because the grocery store had its food shipment confiscated by socialist radicals in charge of the country, or some hut dweller in Cambodia who is working 5 full-time jobs trying to pay for the broken leg his wife incurred during a traffic accident between two bicycles. The Jeep Renegade will be a treasured vehicle in places like that. But here in America, they will be driven by 16-year-old girls who think they are cute little “mini” cars, and will fill the parking lots of San Francisco gay nightclubs with air fresheners hanging from the mirrors to cover the odor of their clubbing activities. But on the road across America these little Fiat Jeep’s will be road bumps equivalent to pot holes for the larger vehicles which are part of a culture which embraces freedom and individual liberty with size, space, and horsepower. And all those things are missing from the new Fiat Jeep which is an insult to a brand that was built with rugged American history and a yearning for freedom that is unmatched anywhere in the world—and under assault by yet another foreign company driven by socialism to consume anything and everything that has value.
The State of the Union speech was such a comedy this year—increasingly made so incrementally over time—that there was very little of it that I took seriously. The most comic parts of it are when for the whole previous year both political sides yapped negatively about each other with much rhetoric and fanfare—yet when the president arrived all those idiots from both sides lined up to shake his hand and get his autograph. When Obama finally arrived at the podium to stand in front of vice president Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner, everyone shook hands politely and with great respect before Obama basically announced himself Emperor of America. It was hilarious because the politicians were all talk spewing forth criticisms like a Pro Wrestler. But behind the scenes, which is what the State of the Union is really all about—they are friends. They are all on the same team. They are all part of the Washington D.C. beltway and are divorced from the reality of the main streets of America. They are power-hungry, unethical, and more or less scum bags. Out of all the coverage I heard about the State of the Union, only The Blaze Radio Network articulated my feelings accurately. Listen to Doc Thompson’s hilarious broadcast covering the day after the State of the Union Address. It’s well worth the time. Grab a snack, turn off the television, and turn this broadcast on in the background and enjoy the next couple of hours.
Glenn Beck, who runs The Blaze had even more fun to share about his impressions of the State of the Union. I’m not the only one who makes frequent comparisons to the fictional film Star Wars these days—Beck saw much what I did in Obama’s speech. Obama might as well have been Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars series. I remember when the film Revenge of the Sith hit theaters, many film critics from the left thought that the primary saga villain reflected George W. Bush’s constant lusting to start wars so to fill the pockets of Halliburton. That president was the one who brought us The Department of Homeland Security, and paved the way for all the NSA abuses we see today. But Obama far surpassed Bush with his 2014 State of the Union speech which was almost word for word what was said by Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith. Obama surely wasn’t even intending to copy the Star Wars villain—yet he did regardless. Obama’s power grab was driven by human innate desire—the desire to acquire power, and isn’t specific to Obama—but the people who put Obama in power. That was the point of the Star Wars films, and in the case of American politics on both political sides, fantasy reflects reality all too well. Watch Beck’s radio coverage on this topic.
The idiots looking for Obama’s autograph slobbering over themselves to shake the hand of the president knowing full well that the guy was planning to rule with Executive Orders paints the whole picture accurately. These guys are scum, they are addicted to power, and they are out to hurt us all. They aren’t legislating on behalf of the American people. They are a joke—and they really think so little of us that they will talk bad about the president to his face playing the media angle representing their side—then they turn around and slobber all over him hoping Obama rubs up against them in the hallway so they can die happy soldiers of solidarity.
The only–and I mean, only media outlet that even attempted to cover main street USA’s American perspective was The Blaze specifically Doc Thompson and Glenn Beck. Obama really thinks he’s a ruler—and his fellow politicians are perfectly willing to play the role. They are selling us out—every one of them. Every idiot who stood in line to shake the hand of an American Emperor contributed to the cause.
If I were there would I have shaken the President’s hand? I knew you were going to ask that question dear reader…………F**K NO! I might have politely shunned him and if he tried to force his hand into mine, I would have slapped it away. If I were invited to The White House under this president, I would not go—under any circumstances. I certainly would not stand in line to “touch” the dude.
This folly is not the fault of President Obama. It is a failure of the human condition, the desire to be led about and ruled which comes to us from the distant past when mankind was ruled over by a village chief who designated who made fires, who hunted for food, who had babies and when, and who would be sacrificed to the sun in order to keep it burning in the sky. One would hope that after several hundred thousand years of evolution the human being would have migrated away from such primitive thinking—but we haven’t. The slack-jawed idiots of Congress, the wishy-washy Senator, and the many guests drooling from the gallery were mostly enamored by the grace of America’s symbol of an Emperor—the one who rules them all. Very, very few of the people present were there to defend the Republic of America. Those who have defended America have been label radicals, nut-cases, and right-winged extremists by those who desire to look at Obama as the embodiment of an American Emperor.
Even Bill O’Reilly from Fox News is ga-ga over Obama. He’s actually proud that he is conducting the pre-Superbowl interview with Emperor Obama. Over the last couple of weeks O’Reilly came out in favor of Obama’s minimum wage increase of $10.10 an hour. That should make the pre-interview handshake more pleasant between O’Reilly and Obama. Both guys are wealthy beyond comprehension and are clearly out of touch. O’Reilly doesn’t care where the money comes from for the small business person. He doesn’t care that all the many workers who were making $10 an hour previously will suddenly want $12 and $13 an hour for the same work because now the minimum wage is $10 driving up all wages with inflationary value all over the country. He’s just another sell-out. I still watch him—occasionally he does some good reporting–about as good as any media outlet in the mainstream does these days, but he’s still too far to the left for me.
The White House is just a building with a bunch of bricks in it. I’ve been there and was not impressed. It is a symbol of an American Republic that no longer exists—it is a ghost of its former self and looters like Obama and most of the modern-day politicians are simply using that ghost to advance their lust for power. The White House is not sacred, it is not magical, and it is not enchanting. It is just a building and the people in it are flawed human beings corrupted by the imperfections of the flesh. They are small minded—lackluster collectivists weakened by an evolution of mankind which started in villages and is still functioning from those primal yearnings. The same dust-covered tribes of hunters and gatherers who spent all their waking moments trying to appease the king or chieftain sacrificing goats to the gods of the sun and moon are the same damn fools standing in the aisle of Congress wanting to shake the hand of a puppet in Obama. The whole event was just a ceremony designed to make human beings feel “safe.” To know that their place in the universe is protected by some symbol of authority—in this case it’s Obama. In the past it was Bush, Clinton, and Reagan. In the future it will be more watered down feel-good candidates even more useless and ceremonial as human evolution regresses further year by year until the whole thing collapses.
The humor of the situation is the declaration of dictatorship that completely went over the heads of all present—except those with a mind to notice. It was for me the funniest State of the Union yet. It was like watching Hulk Hogan standing in the center of a ring challenging all comers to a battle to the death—but knowing that off the stage, all the participants were making plans to go out to dinner and roll in the wealth of their falsehoods. Taken in that context, the entire event was quite funny—and entertaining—where it used to be just sad. There was no sadness this time—because I no longer even take it serious. It’s just entertainment by actors who aren’t even good—just cheesy marionettes of global interest.
Thank goodness yet again for The Blaze and blog sites who covered the situation for what it really was……………a travesty of justice cowering in the ghost-like mist of an American Republic.
I have heard for as long as I’ve interacted with people how my enjoyment of fantasy is an escape from reality brought upon by a desire to not deal with the facts of circumstance. People who desire that the earth is only 4000 years old because thinking outside of those parameters wrecks the foundations of their very lives—do not like things that rock their boat of perceived reality. They are often content to view the world as it has been prepared for them by politics, public relation firms, and religion—and react with disdain toward those who wish to think outside of those boundaries. I find such people grotesquely ignorant, small-minded, and foolishly reckless to not only their lives, but those who they come in contact with. The older I get, the more I despise those people. They are detriments to intelligence. Fantasy is the vehicle to take the mind out of circumstance and into places where new ideas are born. In the context of intelligence the need for fantasy, imagination, and out-of-boundary thought is the specific human need for mythology. Dogs, cats and gold-fish have no need for mythology—they are driven by the basic need to eat, dispose of their waste, and reproduce. Nothing else. The human being thinks—giving mythology a much more important role to their vivid imaginations bringing logic and fantasy together to consider “what if.” This important process was never so brilliantly exhibited than in the Make-A-Wish Foundation story of 5-year-old Miles Scott who is currently in remission from leukemia. Watch this!
It would be difficult to be alive and not have heard this story as the media blitz on it was ferocious. The other day during the interview I did with Matt Clark on WAAM radio, I brought up the kind of things that unify people who appear to be radically different. We talked about the “Tapestries of Ideology” and once they are removed from their lives, common ground can be achieved. One of the most powerful “Tapestries of Ideology” is the power of mythology to overcome the ignorance of political boundaries. This is often what happens in a Star Wars movie where I find I have as much enthusiasm for George Lucas’ creations as Arianna Huffington does. She is a radical progressive, I am a staunch conservative—but we both love Star Wars for many of the same reasons. We both love the plight of the rebellion against an evil empire. She envisions that government should be the way that fairness is given to human kind, and I see it as the destroyer of mankind. That is where the tapestries of ideology come into play where the color, shape, size and all other factors that go into those ornaments are shaped by society, education, and history. But the mythology of Star Wars has the power to extend beyond those tapestries to the actual truth—which is why I always emphasis the importance of mythology in society. It is far more important than politics, or reality as it is shaped by orthodox sources like The New York Times, The Cincinnati Enquirer, or the nightly local news.
As much as I despise President Obama, I shared with the guy a love for little Miles Scott. As much as I think San Francisco is a haven for progressivism, I loved that much of the city turned out to help make Miles Scott’s wish to become a superhero into a reality. Because of the little fellow’s intense desire to be a superhero like the mythical Batman—this is where fantasy can take the mind out of the grim reality of a situation to take mankind to a higher place. Reality says to this child that he has leukemia and that he will die. Mythology says to this child, there is hope if you can become a superhero—so the survival instinct of Miles Scott chose life over death—and to fight instead of accepting his fate.
Thank God for the Make-A-Wish Foundation showing an interest in this child. But more than that, thank God the politicians of San Francisco joined in the effort with an army of similar volunteers. I have never seen such a fine example of the power of myth applied to reality. Out of all the characters that Christian Bale will ever play, none will be more important than his Batman character because none will ever obtain the ability to pull a city like San Francisco together the way that mythology did. It started with the fantasy of Batman and his ability to overcome personal issues to fight crime in the actual comic. Then Miles using that mythology to ask the question “what if.” Then it took the Make-A-Wish Foundation to give the kid a chance at his dream while he is still healthy and alive—before leukemia attacks him again. Then it took normal every day people to help make that fantasy into a reality for little Miles. But in this case, Miles Scott was the focus—the reason for the event, and in a metaphorical way, he saved not just San Francisco—but the entire nation.
Make-A-Wish does this kind of thing all the time. They are a great organization. Recently they made a child in Anaheim Batman’s sidekick Robin and a Seattle child a secret agent. But before they can organize such things Make-A-Wish needs creative people to plant the seed of hope into the mind of a child so that something greater than their circumstance can be comprehended—so that they can make a wish. This is why superheros, comic books, fantastic movies, and big ideas expressed creatively are so important to us all. For many kids not suffering the way that Miles Scott is, the same power holds for them as well. Superheros like Batman are good for the healthy as well as the sick and give hope where reality provided none.
The reason I get so damn mad at those who proclaim that fantasy is an escape from reality is that they are essentially saying that the world would be better off without these influences. They believe that reality was shaped by the politics of the Greeks and solidified by religion 2000 years ago—and that is just stupid. Those periods were just small steps in human progress toward creating a mythology that pushed up against the limits of reality to seek something more than the world currently provides. In the case of Miles Scott and the massive world-wide fanfare that ensued from his desire to be Batkid for a day, somewhere a scientist determined that nobody should suffer death by leukemia. Likely long after Batkid has come and gone from this earth, there will be a cure that was inspired by Miles Scott’s Make-A-Wish dream and the saving of lives won’t just be a fantasy played out on the city streets of San Francisco. It will become a new reality—inspired by fantasy and a new ceiling of human limitation will be revealed—and we will all be better off for it.
That is the power of myth, and the beauty of defying reality through fantasy. Miles Scott saved society for a day by removing the “tapestries of ideology” which divide us all, and put the question on the table—why, and how can “I” fix it?
That! Is Christopher Nolan’s next film……………………..and I will be going to see it!
After listening to Meryl Streep attack Walt Disney while honoring Emma Thompson’s rabid feminism, it does not surprise me that many men these days seem to prefer the stinky exit of the human body’s digestive system as opposed to a heterosexual relationship with these modern “man hating females.” But I am not one of those guys. Even the vilest feminist is a better option in my book. As progressives would label such a position “homophobic” I would call it sanity, clarity in thinking, and the best option available. Some people have phobias of spiders, some of snakes, some of heights—mine has and always will be that of the poop particle. I have one real fear out all possible fears and that is of the remnants of material left over after the digestive process. I have never liked seeing cow patties on my grandfather’s farms, I hate watching dogs defecate—and worse yet—eat it—and I have absolutely no desire to ever pursue an orifice that creates such matter in pursuit of sexual pleasure. With that hatred of poop particles in mind, this educational film from the late 1950s reflects my impression of the “homosexual.”
The same people who have communicated this same-sex type of lifestyle are the same people talked about in my article yesterday attacking monogamous marriage. They have an agenda and from my vantage point it is destructive—and disgusting. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. It’s not that I want to return America to the 1950s. For me, that period of time was too liberal. I’d prefer 1750 to about 1790 myself, but that’s just me. In that video shown above, I wouldn’t even tell a kid to inform a teacher—as the parent is the last and only line of defense that matters in a child’s life. But in the video at least the film makers addressed the kind of threats that might come to a child so they could learn to defend themselves from the vile acts of adults who are clearly screwed up in the head.
We live in a society where declaring that sex which involves fecal matter is healthy, proper, and naturally good. If anyone disagrees they are called a “homophobe.” This behavior has paved the way for the child raped by his teacher in Michigan. CLICK TO REVIEW. Likely, that teacher wouldn’t have even been a teacher in the type of society ran by those who made the homosexual video above, as that society would have spotted his antics in the light of day. As things are today, nobody is comfortable calling out any kind of homosexual behavior that might lead to abusing children, because they don’t want to be attacked by progressives calling them “homophobes.” In 2014 that is nearly as bad as being called a “sexist.” If you don’t support feminism, you are a “sexist.” If you don’t support poop particle sex, you are “homophobic.” Both carry a social stigma created by a progressive establishment and those types are directly at fault for creating scenarios where teachers like the one in Michigan have the ability to destroy the lives of his students. The fault is squarely on their shoulders.
As much as progressives hate the naivety of the 1950s and all the times that came before it where tradition and family value paved the way for strong healthy lives—the world they have created is far, far worse. Can anybody in their right mind declare that feminism has worked? Can anybody declare that the Michigan teacher was not mentally insane because of his sexual prerogative? Can anybody think that Meryl Streep would be a fun date? Progressives have created these problems, and they suppress a value judgment against them by calling sane people names for trying to identify the problem. At least there was a time in America where bad behavior was identified and a warning to future conduct was attempted. It may have been fear based, it may not have encompassed the entire enormity of the homosexual complexity—but at least a social norm identified for the benefit of a majority of the population was considered. At least children were getting a warning of what to look out for among perverted adults. Back in the “old fashioned” days, such people hid their behavior. Today they run labor unions and make decisions right out in the open.
The way society is today people who might otherwise warn children away from parasites like that Michigan teacher keep their mouths shut because they don’t want to be called a “homophobe.” But is that such a bad name? Is it really a negative to be told that a person doesn’t enjoy poop particle sex? It isn’t to me. It states that my mind is not confused into behaving like a dog but would prefer even a feminist over a homosexual. I may feel sorry for the person attracted to such things, but that doesn’t make them superior to the biological structure that was bestowed on mankind for the sake of mating rituals and human evolution. The warnings of the 40s, 50s, and very early 60s were valid even if they were rooted with fear and religion into conforming society around a set of values that were being recognizably lost.
As despicable as Meryl Streep’s political views of men hatred are, she would still be a better dinner date than the eventual peril of the poop particles in a man’s hairy ass. That to me is the gauge of sanity in our modern time where such judgments are forbidden to even be discussed, let alone dealt with. In my family we have a couple of dogs and I watch often in horror when one sniffs at the other after urinating, or defecating and becomes quite excited about the occasion jumping around as though they just found out they won a million dollars. We also have a cat, and sometimes that animal will puke right in the middle of the floor and the dog will come and lick it all up clean. This behavior is disgusting by every measure of human value judgment—except the homosexual leaning beings. For them, this behavior has appeal, and from my point of view—is reminiscent of an illness of some kind. Such illnesses could be treated if they were identified, but instead they are promoted. That lack of proper danger recognition is what lead to the kind of rape case that happened in Michigan between a union president—teacher, and his student. In a society that called such behavior bad, the rape and abuse likely would have been averted.
We’ve all been told that we need to be open to other ways of thinking and embrace the “progressive” view of the world which states that feminism is more important than traditional value, and that same-sex practices are equal to traditional heterosexual practices. But they are not. One involves poop particles and the other doesn’t, and poop particles are not good, healthy, or delightful……..unless one considers themselves a dog. And that would be an insult—and nobody wants such a thing leveled in their direction. So what do we call such people? For all the faults pointed out by progressives toward films like the training film against homosexuality in the 50s, nothing has been offered as a modification or replacement to the attempt to at least identify bad behavior that might truly endanger children. Instead, we are told to look the other way and ignore the faults that progressives have brought to us all in pain, suffering and misery. And not even the fine acting of Meryl Streep can disguise her cover of a truly disgusting premise behind the progressive platform—that of the poop particle and the terrible expulsion of human waste that propagates from such unions in a sexual ritual centered purely on pleasure like a mindless animal—instead of the continuation of the human race. At least in the 50s they considered the impact that such behavior would have on children. The modern progressive does not—instead they seek to use children for their own pleasure and attempt to excuse the behavior as a “learning” experience that will pave the way to adult behavior that will never be able to relate to traditional value—which was always the real goal of their maniacal strategy.
I will give credit to the gay community and the progressive in general for one aspect of their strategy which is brilliant–the use of Meryl Streep as a growing advocate of feminism, erosion of Second Amendment rights, and general liberal causes. Many men who do not find such revulsion toward fecal matter as I do are choosing the gay life than a life shared with a feminist man-hating radical which substantially bolsters their numbers. The way to make more people turn toward homosexual behavior among men is to provide them with Meryl Streep as a spokesman for feminist causes…….brilliant.
Scott Sloan from 700 WLW reminds me of Peter Griffin from the popular Fox cartoon, Family Guy. Sloan is much thinner, and less grotesque, but his mind seems to work in much the same way. He lacks firm convictions and comes across as a guy happy to be less than perfect. This became most noticeable when he did good work with me on the No Lakota Levy arguments—but then turned around and called me a sexist because his Realtor wife wanted to take a pro levy position to help sell homes around Mason. He knew what was going on and why it was going on, but he made his decisions based on the pressure of the typical school levy supporters—people who make their livings using passed school levies to sell homes to neurotic thirty something child factories insecure about their parenting skills. (I say child factories because these typical school levy supporters only produce children, they don’t often take an active job in parenting them. They leave that to the public schools.) I’m sure 700 WLW is struggling to deal with the numbers in his time slot as listeners like and respect people with conviction—but their strategy with Sloanie was to appeal to the “middle of the road” voter listening to talk radio, which isn’t very attractive to most people. If people want to hear opinions like that, they’ll just strike up a conversation at the water cooler with a co-worker. Because of Sloan’s lack of beliefs and conviction I have stopped listening to 700 WLW all together committing my time to The Blaze where Doc Thompson is now my preferred talk radio entertainment. I have listened to 700 WLW since I was 5 years old when I received my first AM radio as a Christmas gift—but now I never listen unless someone tells me to catch a podcast of their recordings—which is how I came to learn about Sloan’s coverage of the controversial Macy’s Parade in New York on Thanksgiving Day. The topic was the segment featuring the dancers of the popular Broadway Show; Kinky Boots and Sloan’s opinion was painful. Listen to it below.
His guest came on Sloan’s show expecting to speak to a conservative audience understanding why they were outraged at the Kinky Boots presence on a family program. I was watching the Macy’s Parade and was enjoying it until the Kinky Boots bit. My wife and I turned it off once it came on because we thought it was bad. I watched the Macy’s Parade to see the SpongeBob float, the Mickey Mouse tributes and other popular culture references. The Kinky Boots thing was too much—it reminded me of The Rocky Horror Picture Show which I despise because both are progressive productions intent to erode away family value. I don’t believe there should be some protest to Kinky Boots or Macy’s, I believe in freedom of speech and I voted by turning off the television—just like I turn off Scott Sloan’s Show these days. I vote for things with my participation in them. But listening to Sloan’s articulation of the Kinky Boots defense was astonishing. In the cartoon Family Guy Peter Griffin is the dunce of modern fatherhood. He’s not very thoughtful about anything, and is perpetually accident prone. Yet because of his intellectual handicaps, he often imposes on the world his brand of stupidity which ruins things for everyone around him—and that was what I thought about listening to Sloan’s analysis of Kinky Boots.
I wouldn’t go to see the play Kinky Boots if someone gave me tickets and back stage passes. It is not art I support, it is not representative of traditional America, and I have little interest in ever wasting a few hours of my life watching a play about a topic of drag dressing guys exploring alternate lifestyles. The progressive movement uses this kind of entertainment to advance their political platform and within that platform is the acceptance of alternate forms of raising families—which does not work. Many of the failures we are seeing socially in 2013 come from the infestation of progressive value where traditional beliefs were perfectly adequate. When progressive film makers, financiers and actors made the film—The Rocky Horror Picture Show with catchy songs and sexual deviancy which was an easy sell, the plot of the film was the break down of the main protagonists who were straight average Americans. Over the course of the movie the young traditional couple newly married are converted by the end into gay loving, lesbian kissing Susan Sarandon’s. The film was a cult classic that still plays on many college campuses with special midnight showings where attendees dress up in drag and throw popcorn at each other and yell at the top of their lungs with mass celebrations of collectivism. The Rocky Horror Picture Show was designed to sell progressive ideas by ridiculing conservative ideas—and I hate it. I don’t support it—although I have seen it to understand what all the fuss was. My reaction to the movie was that it is one of the worst films ever made, although it has catchy songs designed to get people humming the tune. The result of the film is to plant seeds of sexual deviancy into traditional America and destroy the concept of the family unit as the strength behind individuals. For proof, just speak to the producers of the film and it becomes clear. The producers intended the film to be a gay rights activism endeavor—and were openly blatant about it.
Kinky Boots is just a modern spin to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and the intentions are the same—the desensitizing of Americans from conservative values to progressive beliefs—namely sexual tendencies—sexual equality, and an anything goes mentality. I watched about half of the Kinky Boots Macy’s Parade segment, and found the images grotesque—so I turned it off. I didn’t think it was funny. I didn’t see any social value in it. And I saw it as an attack on my way of life in the same way that progressives would find it repulsive if I paraded my lifestyle in front of them—where my wife brings dinner to my chair every day, cooks all our meals, does all the shopping, changes all the diapers, and makes crafts for all the family members throughout the year–blankets, sweaters, and country decorations. She gets out of the arrangements a man who puts her on a pedestal, frees her of producing income, and takes care of any trouble that might come toward her family. People like the producers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show are very intolerant of the way my wife and I live our lives—so it’s only fair that I show the same intolerance for theirs. This live and let live crap is for pussies, and it hasn’t worked. It never has, and it never will.
I expected a lot of the trouble I had when I called the levy supporters of Lakota Latté sipping prostitutes………….I knew there would be push back, and I laughed about it with Scott Sloan and his producer off the air the night before I was set to go on the air and talk about it with him. I had worked with 700 WLW for a few years on school levy issues and had thought Sloan was a man’s man, and actually valued his man card. After the position he took with me not just on our interview, but later that day, I had the feeling that I had misjudged Sloanie. He wasn’t a tough guy who was willing to take on the teacher unions with me—like he sold himself—he was just another guy trying to appease the women in his life hoping to keep peace in his household by any means necessary—and I was very disappointed in him. Like Peter Griffin from The Family Guy, Sloanie put his finger to the wind and took the position he thought the majority of people believed. I tried not to hold the incident against him and continued to speak to him through email for months after. But over time it became obvious that we were two different kind of men, and people can’t be friends or otherwise if they don’t share common values. The same person who calls me a sexist for distinguishing that there are dramatic differences between men and women and that traditional America had more right than wrong on the matter is the same person attacking a conservative advocate who found Kinky Boots appalling. Sloan took what he thought was a libertarian approach to the Kinky Boots issue stating that it was harmless entertainment that people can take or leave. But when it shows up on a public street, on a public broadcast, or on a largely watched family holiday program during Thanksgiving, it’s not just about fun and promotion of a Broadway play. It’s about advancing a progressive agenda—and in the defense of traditional value—men are needed, and there are too few of those these days to do the job. Men these days think it’s better to be open-minded and slap-stick stupid like Peter Griffin than rugged tough and rooted in conviction like John Wayne—and that is disappointing.
During Halloween this year a kid was dressed in drag, he had on very high heels, a super short skirt and a long blond wig. From a distance he looked like he belonged in a Whitesnake video played by a Victoria Secret model. He passed as an attractive woman until we came closer to him and heard his voice. He was very disruptive going door to door pretending to be a woman and giggling about the negative reaction he had from the homeowners after they had closed the door. He obviously lacked a strong father figure in his life and as a result filled his thoughts with progressive influence, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Kinky Boots. What kind of father would this kid grow up to be—what honor is there in such a life where pictures of him will show up many years from now dressed in drag as he is trying to raise a family? The answer is not a very good one—and that is the real cost of this kind of recklessness. When a man or confused boy dresses in drag, they are surrendering their man card, and in doing so; they surrender their authority to ever be a “father knows best” type of family man. Any off-spring he may have will want “a father knows best” type of person in their life. Daughters grow up and almost always have reverence for their fathers, and sons almost always grow up to become like their fathers and if that kid has two or three kids of their own later—those children will be denied a person in their life who sets the bench marks of acceptable behavior high enough to be proud of. And that is the cost of living a life lacking conviction. The cost of being a Peter Griffin dad is that you get a lot of laughs, often they are the life of a party—but when it really matters, they are a let down to their families and to themselves—and will end their lives being embarrassing disappointments to their off-spring.
Men like it or not are the pillars that hold up a family. Women often provide the love and nurturing that is needed, but men provide the needed reliability that gives a family roots to grow in. Progressives despise this ideal, as they wish to make the world need government services to equalize the world of the inequalities that exist. Not all moms are good ones and not all dads are honorable, so the progressive solution was to destroy all good dads and good moms so that everyone is equally penalized and let public schools do the child-raising. What productions like Kinky Boots are really up to is letting men know it’s OK to be a floor tile inside a family home instead of a pillar of strength that holds it up—walked on and discarded as useless. Dads are belittled routinely in popular media, and the effects are starting to show in mainstream attitudes. People like Scott Sloan have bought into this concept and many others who have grown up watching shows like The Family Guy featuring Peter Griffin as the bumbling fool of a dad setting the bar so low for their ambitions that they are walked on by society instead of holding it up. Kinky Boots is about finding your passion, overcoming prejudice and transcending stereotypes—and one of those stereotypes is that a man must be straight-laced, strong, and a pillar of strength in their family. And when a man can’t live up to that lofty height and stand by a set of convictions that their family can honor, and depend on—they call those traditional types of men a sexist—and hope their wife gives them a piece of ass two weeks after their last period, and consider themselves lucky for getting it. And in the quiet moments when they think nobody is looking, they dress in their wife’s clothing and pretend to be the authority of the house by wearing her pants—then they by a ticket to Kinky Boots.
You want to see hypocrisy, let a traditional family group put a float in the Macy’s Parade full of house wives and home schooled children……………and wait for the violent storms of rage from the gay community, and other progressive groups……….and the result of all their strategies will become very, very clear.