Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Each one of her videos gets upwards of 25 million views. She has clocked in over 1 billion views total.
Diane DeJesus in her porn star days (left) and at her local gas station in Orlando recently (right). The Brazilian has been named by neighbours as the woman behind the massively popular DC Toys Collector YouTube account
Struggling electronics retailer RadioShack has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and says it will sell up to 2,400 stores.
General Wireless, a subsidiary of Standard General, RadioShack’s largest shareholder, has agreed to buy 1,500 to 2,400 of the company’s U.S. stores. As part of the bankruptcy plan, Sprint may open mini-shops in as many as 1,760 of the acquired RadioShack stores.
The company, which has not turned a profit since 2011, still operates nearly 5,500 stores and employs about 27,500 people worldwide, according to its last annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
RadioShack, which was founded in Boston in 1921, started as a distributor of mail-order ship radios, ham radios and parts. In the 1950s, it entered the high-fidelity business, touting a device called the “Audio Comparator,” a then-novel switching system that allowed the customer to mix and match components and speakers in the listening room.
In 1977, the chain started selling the TRS-80, known affectionately by its users as the “Trash 80,” making the RadioShack as important in microcomputers as IBM or Apple.
Sadly, it seems that online suppliers and bog box competition finished off Radio Shack. Hopefully, the workforce will find other employment.
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor landed a $1.2 million job at the investment bank Moelis & Co., pulling down more money than his Tea Party-backed opponent spent defeating him in a Republican primary.
The base salary for “providing strategic counsel” to the firm: $400,000. He’s set to receive an “initial cash payment” of $400,000 and $1 million in stock, according to the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Next year Cantor’s “minimum incentive compensation” will be $1.2 million, plus $400,000 in stock. The company also will pay for Cantor to live in a “reasonable” New York apartment.
That’s a bump from his $193,400 salary as the U.S. House majority leader. After serving in Congress since 2001 and rising to his party’s second-highest position, Cantor lost the Republican primary in his congressional district near Richmond, Virginia, in June, to a Tea Party-backed newcomer, David Brat, a college economics professor.
Political neophyte Brat spent less than $400,000 on his primary challenge to Cantor.
“When I considered options for the next chapter of my career, I knew I wanted to join a firm with a great entrepreneurial spirit that focused on its clients,” Cantor said in the company’s statement. “The new model of independent banks offering conflict-free advice, in a smaller more intimate environment, was a place where I knew my skills could help clients succeed.”
France’s President began his term saying, “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose,’ referring to that favorite color of Communists, red.
At an April 2012 campaign rally after a torrential rainstorm, Francois Hollande, on the eve of being the first Socialist Party member elected President of France in 24 years, boldly proclaimed: “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose.” The crowd roared their approval of Hollande’s imagery communism red triumphing in France.
But as with all socialist policies, when they are tried in the real world, instead of just on paper, the outcome is predictable – they always fail.
On January 14th, 2014 Hollande solemnly acknowledged the failure of his collectivist policies by announcing his administration would cut $40.8 billion of taxes on companies and the self-employed, plus reduce social security charge paid by employers by 5.4%. More shocking to the Left, Hollande said he would pay for his supply-side policies by cutting $86 billion in public spending. Two decades later and again facing a collapsing economy, the Socialist Party of France is being forced to adopt the supply-side economics of President Ronald Reagan.
He promised a lower retirement age, higher wages, and penalizing taxation on the evil rich folks, to the tune of a 75% tax.
Hollande campaigned on an economic manifesto of reducing the retirement age from 62 to 60, a 75% income tax for high earners, constructing 500,000 units of government housing per year and the creation of 60,000 new public teaching jobs.
It’s important to point out that France went down this road in the early ’80s with Mitterand, to terrible results.
His (Hollande’s) policies were a throwback to the 1981 election of the last French Socialist Party President Francois Mitterrand and his Communist Party allies who nationalized 38 banks and 7 key industries, raised minimum wage, cut work-week hours, increased public sector wages, created 250,000 government jobs, increased social welfare payments and radically expanded the nation’s money supply. But as public debt tripled by 1983, the French inflation rate jumped to 14.5% and unemployment rate rose to over 10%.
When it looked darkest for France amid Mitterand’s policies, Reagan’s plans saved the day.
With France about to be kicked out of the European monetary system, the Socialist Party was forced to adopt the supply-side economic policies of cutting taxes and dramatically slashing public spending that President Ronald Reagan was championing in the United States. Two years later, inflation had fallen to 4% and unemployment stopped rising. Although they kept the red rose as its symbol, the Party for twenty years abandoned socialist policies in all but name and adopted free-market liberalism.
So the socialists were beat back – for a while. After the near worldwide economic crises of 2008, the French Socialist Party got it’s sea legs again and started gaining support.
What’s that saying about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?
They claimed their manifesto of higher taxes and economic stimulus projects would lead to full employment and eliminate the budget deficit. But the Hollande administration’s deficit spending has driven France into the same crisis as Mitterrand’s government 30 years earlier. The French government now spends 56% of the nation’s GDP, making it one the highest-spending governments in the European Union. Hollande’s vast public sector and punitively high tax rates have driven the rich to take their wealth and leave and for businesses to relocate production off-shore. Franc’s annual deficit has doubled and the nation’s unemployment rate is now at a 15-year high of 11%. Chronic youth unemployment now tops 26% and still rising.
So Hollande did something in France that Obama will never do in America. When he saw his policies weren’t working, he decided to try something different.
Yes, really. Then chaos ensued.
Before his speech, Francois Hollande was already the most unpopular president in French history according to a poll showing that only 26% of the French people have a positive opinion of his leadership. But after his press conference, members of his cabinet had to perform rhetorical acrobatics to deny that the president was adopting conservative policies. Members of former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative “Union for a Popular Movement” were baffled on how to respond after the Hollande essentially co-opted their center-right agenda. It is unclear how the speech will help the Socialist Party, but it did unify the far left, which denounced the president as selling out to pressure from corporations and financial markets. The French business lobby MEDEF praised the announcements, but asked for more details.
Now before we apply sainthood to Hollande for doing the right thing, keep one thing in mind. He evidently is a good student of history because he knows that when Mitterand reversed course, France’s economy made a rebound and Mitterand was re-elected in ’88.
Francois Hollande in his speech sought to show that the Socialist Party, like the party of Francois Mitterrand in the mid-1980s, understands France’s problems and is willing to reverse policies and adopt measures known in France as the “tournant de la rigueur” (austerity turn) to fight inflation and regain competitiveness. Hollande is keenly aware that after the Socialist Party adopted supply-side economics in 1983, the French economy did recover and Mitterrand was re-elected in 1988.
Let’s remember what Ronald Reagan said about how governments view the economy.
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: ‘If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'”
That those with money leave places that take said money from them should be obvious, and need no explanation, but there are democrats in the world. So, in my own sarcastic and demeaning way, I seek to educate the willfully ignorant. Wyblog helps considerably…
New Jersey’s high taxes may be costing the state billions of dollars a year in lost revenue as high-earning residents flee, according to a recent study.
The study, Exodus on the Parkway, was completed by Regent Atlantic last year but held for publication until after the November 2013 elections. The study stated it “intentionally” held its results “as 2014 is not an election year for state legislators” and it will “hopefully encourage a serious and objective dialogue aimed at addressing and solving the challenges that New Jersey currently faces.”
The study shows the state has been steadily losing high-net-worth residents since 2004, when Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey signed the millionaire’s tax into law. The law raised the state income tax 41 percent on those earning $500,000 or more a year.
That millionaire’s tax is still on the books. Oh sure, Chris Christie promised us a tax cut. Several times, actually. He just never bothered to deliver on it.
So, when you make something cost too much, less people buy it. If you make it too expensive to live somewhere, people will move away. Of course, the only solution seen by democrats is to make all states suck equally. Of course, within a few decades, the whole country will look like Detroit, but at least social justice will finally be fully implemented.
Do I need to remind everyone that East Germany had so much social justice that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from escaping?
Other people’s money is very powerful thing; it can be stolen by government, wasted, and a small fraction spent on making a problem worse. Unions can extort if from companies until there are layoffs, or entire industries are relocated or regions suffer (rust belt, anyone?). Most Americans have no problem spending other people’s money. But, there is a strange phenomena to report. When other people’s money turns into MY money, the tune changes, and fast!
Hey all, why would you want to go out and be accosted by union goons, occupods, or even other shoppers? You’ve heard the stories of people being robbed, tazed, or pepper-sprayed. Holiday shopping is now a hazardous affair. So, to keep my readers, and their loved ones safe, here are some great deals from Amazon, that you can access right here!
On the other hand, many don’t go out. Many don’t want to be crushed in a wave of smelly, low information voters, or don’t want to catch a disease from an occupod. Some don’t agree with making retail workers sweat on a family oriented holiday. I get that. So, you could, mind you, come this this humble internet abode, and do your shopping here. I’ll be posting Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and Cyber Monday sales right here on the CH 2.0! You can stay in the warm comfort of your own home! Why fight with a redneck in a ’75 Pinto for a parking space, when my virtual mall is full of goodness, and is accessible from your comfy couch or recliner? You don’t even have to put down your beverage.
The scope of federal government spending and deficits is sobering. Yet the government’s reach extends well beyond the taxes Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing. Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars every year over and above the costs of the official federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.
Highlights of the report:
• Total costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. For the first time, this amounts to more than half of total federal spending. It is more than the GDPs of Canada or Mexico.
• This is the 20th anniversary of Ten Thousand Commandments. In the 20 years of publication, 81,883 final rules have been issued. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day.
• The Anti-Democracy Index – the ratio of regulations issued to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president – stood at 29 for 2012. That’s 127 new laws and 3,708 new rules – or a new rule every 2 ½ hours.
• Regulatory costs amount to $14,678 per family – 23 percent of the average household income of $63,685 and 30 percent of the expenditure budget of $49,705 and more than receipts from corporate and personal income taxes combined.
• Combined with $3.53 trillion in federal spending, Washington’s share of the economy now reaches 34.4 percent.
Please take a moment and think about the figures that I put in bold. Every time a new law or regulation is written, the federal government has a little bit more control over our lives. As the power of the federal government grows, the opportunities to abuse that power also increase. And, think about the costs. Think of all these laws and regulations as a huge anchor that the private sector economy has to drag along while it tries to grow.
There is a small favor for which we should be grateful. There are so many laws and regulations that the government can not possibly enforce them all uniformly. Imagine if the government agencies like the IRS, the EPA and, OSHA had enough enforcement agents to make every citizen and business to comply with the letter of every regulation. The economy would come to a screeching halt. And so, the laws and regulations are selectively enforced. And, that in itself is a form of tyranny.
So how did we get in this mess? The short answer is that it is the nature of governments to accumulate more and more power. Even in this very special place we call America with our government Of The People, By The People, and For The People where our founders created a constitutional republic that included specific limitations on the power of the federal government, by its very nature it was destined to grow in power. Think about our two house legislature. We call the people we elect Senators and Congressmen. But, there is another name for them: Lawmakers. And so, for about two hundred and forty years our “Lawmakers” have been making laws and every law gives a little more power to the government. The Executive branch of our government is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws passed by the Legislative branch. But, before the Executive branch can enforce the laws of Congress, it, through its bureaucracy, must first write enabling laws and/or regulations before it can carry out the wishes of Congress. And, We The People have been complicit in this growth of government. Every time something bad happens somewhere I cringe when someone invariably reacts by saying THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! That’s true, isn’t it?
The insanity in the asylum will just keep getting more insane.
Well. that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
There is a thought-provoking article in Forbes titled We Can’t Save Capitalism Unless We Denounce Its False Prophets. The author, Bill Frezza, makes the point that when it comes to trying to save the “economic soul” of America, and by that he means the free market capitalist system, the Right vs Left dichotomy is not working and is counter productive. He rightly states that there are not two sides to this important issue; but three:
In one corner we have the traditional market capitalists, the bedrock of American exceptionalism and the source of our prosperity. These businesses, both large and small, pursue profits by trying to do a better job than their competitors at pleasing customers. Often referred to by the press as “Main Street,” most market capitalists seek neither special privileges from government nor regulatory shackles for their competitors.
In an adjacent corner, claiming a common heritage, are the crony capitalists. These are generally large companies with substantial lobbying operations. Contrary to popular belief, crony capitalists love regulations—especially when they get to write them. Nothing chokes off up-and-coming competitors better than a thicket of incomprehensible and expensive new rules. Crony capitalist enterprises have a well-oiled revolving door that allows their key people to seamlessly enter “government service” (sometimes taking huge severance bonuses with them), while welcoming former bureaucrats, congressional staffers, and elected officials seeking to cash in on their connections. And while crony capitalists have been with us since the friends of Alexander Hamilton cornered the Revolutionary War bond market, never before has their raiding of the public till so focused the public’s attention.
This brings us to the third member of the triad—the federal Leviathan. Bloated beyond recognition, the beast in Washington has reached the point where it can only be kept alive using borrowed and printed dollars. Contrary to some Republicans’ small-government rhetoric, both parties have contributed to its growth over the last half century. And neither is doing anything substantive to restore fiscal sanity, as they engage in cosmetic battles that do nothing more than tinker around the edges. Even worse, while Congress claims to maintain oversight, it is no match for the crony capitalists and career bureaucrats who run the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, particularly when they join their corporate brethren to shout “crisis” and demand more of the bailouts that have allowed firms to socialize losses and privatize gains.
The author then goes on to describe how the Leviathan and the crony capitalist corporatist work hand-in-hand against all of the rest of us, whether we are politically on the left or on the right.
The Leviathan’s business model is simple: 1) Collect tribute in the form of taxes from market capitalists and redistribute it to favored constituents in return for votes; and 2) collect campaign donations from crony capitalists so that incumbent politicians can remain in office and expand their power. In return for said contributions, those politicians regale their crony capitalist supporters with special favors, including subsidies, tax loopholes, and regulations designed to cripple their competitors.
Mr. Frezza is right, isn’t he? He goes on to urge conservatives to denounce cronyism whenever we see evidence of it. I agree! That is fine as far as it goes. But, there is a dilemma that he doesn’t address. We on the right have a common enemy with those on the left: crony capitalists. They are false capitalist, as the author points out. We on the right know that. Those on the left so not know that. They haven’t the foggiest idea what free market capitalism is about. The think all capitalists are crony capitalists. Therefore, they think we support the TBTF banks and the General Electric’s and the Monsanto’s and all other corporatist ( a word that is not in their vocabulary).
The fact of the matter is that the sum of those on the right and the left that hate the crony capitalist are a great majority of Americans. If both sides would recognize that the tag team of the Leviathan and the Crony Capitalist is what is destroying this country, then together we could defeat them at the polls. Sadly, that is unlikely to ever happen. Although the left hates the Crony Capitalist as much as we do, they love the Leviathan and do not realize that their love is in bed with the Crony Capitalist. What a shame!
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Katie JM Baker writes for Jezebel.com and I want to offer her my most HEARTFELT THANKS for doing a bunch of work for me that I no longer have to do. You see, she wrote a blistering column against the “bigoted” companies who are daring to fight Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate. She advised her readers to “stay far away” from these 18 companies. So I thought, well, why reinvent the wheel? Now that she’s grouped the companies all together so conveniently, I don’t have to look them up, and now you can share these with your networks far and wide, and tell people to VISIT and PATRONIZE THE CRAP out of these fine establishments.
But before I pluck them right out of her handy dandy article and list them out for you, I wanted to bring to your attention the amazing stupidity that Katie JM Baker displays in her piece. For example, let’s look at her opening line. She says, “When conservative blowhards argue that women should pay for their own damn contraception, they really mean women should pay for their own sluttish decisions; religious right talking heads never tire of asking why employers should subsidize sinful lifestyles. But here’s the real question: why should women bear the cost of their employers’ noxious moral beliefs?”
Apparently $9 a month is out of reach of women? During the Sandra Fluke propaganda campaign, it was pointed out that a local Target store sold a month’s supply of birth control pills for all but $9. Perhaps JM Baker is sexist for assuming that women cannot earn enough to pay $9 a month? And, of course, Mock points out the highly hypocritical, and hilariously entitled liberal thinking that while government should stay out of vaginas (which they should-paging Bill Clinton), they also demand that government pay for the upkeep of said vaginas. Not only do the feminists want to have their cake and eat it too, they want us to pay for it!
At any rate, here is the list of companies that JM Baker of Jezebel suggests we patronize…
1.Tyndale House – An Illinois publishing company focusing on Christian books. Katie’s all in a tizzy because the company’s founder equates certain contraceptives with abortion. Here’s an idea. If you want contraceptives, go buy them. And/or don’t work at Tyndale House. Problem solved.
2. Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics – Ohio-based produce companies. They have signs in their stores which state, “It’s not a choice, it’s a child” and their benefits plans exclude contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs. Katie’s MAD about that, y’all. HOW DARE a company owner have an opinion based on faith? HOW DARE they run a business the way they see fit?
3. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation – PA-based cabinet manufacturer run by Mennonites. They have nearly 1000 employees, but who cares that they’re providing jobs and livelihoods? What matters is that they won’t provide Plan B pills. OMG ARREST THEM ALL.
4. Weingartz Supply Company – MI-based company which sells outdoor power equipment. Catholic owner.
6. Domino’s Farms – MI-based property management company, with ownership held by the same guy who started Domino’s Pizza. He’s against some forms of contraception, to which Katie says, “Oh, go f*ck yourself and your overly saucy pizza.” Ooooo – good one, Katie. Way to make a compelling argument. Well done.
7. Infrastructure Alternatives, Inc. – MI-based contractor dealing with environemental dredging/water treatment, etc.8. Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. – IL-based construction company with Catholic owners, who “wish to conduct business in a manner that does not violate their religious faith.” Katie says, “Awww, they make prioritizing your own beliefs over dozens of people who work for you sound so polite.” Yes, Katie, dozens of people who WORK FOR THEM BY CHOICE. They are welcome to go elsewhere. Or, they can stay employed and simply GO TO TARGET AND BUY SOME FREAKING BIRTH CONTROL.
9. Triune Health Group – Illinois-based company helping injured workers get back to the workforce. They recently won an award for being exceptionally woman-friendly. But that’s not good enough for Katie. Katie wants them to violate their religious conscience so that women employees can have sex on someone else’s dime. It’s only FAIR!
10. Grote Industries – Indiana manufacturer of car safety systems. They do not want to cover abortifacient drugs, contraception or sterilization. So if you want those things? Don’t work for them, or work for them and reach into your own wallet to cover those items. EASY PEASY.
11. Tonn and Black Construction, LLC – Indiana construction company.
12. O’Brien Industrial Holdings – MO-based company that processes ceramic materials.
13. American Pulverizer Company – MO- based business that deals in scrap metal recycling. Katie’s furious that they care about “hypothetical embryonic lives” more than they care about their 150 employees. Oh, Katie. Dear, naïve Katie. Do you see the difference between destroying the life of an embryo and making an adult pay for something at a drug store? I suppose you don’t.
14. Annex Medical Inc. – medical device company in MN.
15. Sharpe Holdings, Inc. – MO company involved in dairy farming.
16. Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. – MO plumbing company. Katie thinks that even though the owners are Catholic, they should “host a debate with their 370 employees” to see what they think about not being given contraception coverage. Because apparently, Katie believes that company owners owe it to their employees to provide them with whatever they want, irrespective of how much it may violate their religious beliefs.
17. Hercules Industries, Inc. – CO company in HVAC.
18. Hobby Lobby – OK-based crafts chain. You might’ve heard of them.
Mock’s slicing and dicing here is hilarious. So get over to Chicks on the right, and read the rest of the sarcastic commentary. You will not regret it. And, if you have the opportunity, patronize some of the businesses on this list.
In the world of business, especially in the corporate world, they make use of short-term, mid-term, and long-term planning. Typically this begins at the department head level. Someone(s) further up the chain then consolidates these plans into plans for the division and those plans will be consolidated to produce short, mid, and long.term plans for the corporation. Short-term might mean one year, mid-term might mean three years, and long-term might mean ten.years, just as an example. The short-term plans are typically the basis for annual budgets. Mid-term plans alert management to many things they need to be doing in the way of more detailed planning. An example might be that a new product is scheduled to come on-line in that three-year period and, therefore the marketing people must begin finalizing their marketing approach for the new product. Long-term plans typically don’t change much from year to year. They are useful for many reasons one of which is that they often show certain trends that are appearing that must be watched because if they continue they can have major impacts on the business.
Obviously, planning is useful in many, if not all, aspects of life, right? And, one more thing before I end this short lesson of the principles of planning. There is a Cardinal rule in planning. This cardinal rule states that a plan is not a plan until it is put in writing, A plan that is not put in writing is not a plan. It is an idea. Plans and ideas are two very different things. Plans in writing are never cast in concrete. Plans can always be modified, changed, and improved upon. In other words, plans are living documents.
Let’s talk briefly about how America got in the mess it is in today? There is no single or short answer to that question. But, an important part of the answer is that some people applied some very effective short, mid, and long-term planning to make America what it is today.
About 100 years ago, some serious thinker who truly believed in the teachings of Karl Marx arrived at the conclusion in groups and by individuals that their dream of a workers paradise, their dream of defeating capitalism was not going to be achieved by the use of force. These people concluded that they would have to take the long-term view of gradually defeating capitalism from within. They looked at the United States of America, the bastion of capitalist free enterprise and realized that they had a serious problem. They realized they would have little chance of convincing America’s working class that their worker’s paradise was a better way to go. The reason, of course, was that the American working class was enjoying great benefits from America’s capitalist economy. Their quality of life was improving rapidly. It never occurred to these socialist thinker that they might be wrong; that maybe capitalism was better than their ideas. These thinkers were convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that their worker0s paradise was the very best way for mankind to live together. For them it was like a religion. And so, they began putting together short, mid, and long-term plans to destroy capitalism in America from within. And yes, they put their ideas into writing and, thereby, converted their ideas into plans. Articles and even books were written and circulated among like-minded people so that they could add to, and modify them, or write plans of their own and circulate them. In this way they developed, although somewhat vague, at first, plans for remaking America. They were convinced that by this approach, Americans would one day wake up and find that they were living in a socialist country. These plans were not secret. They were not bashful about talking about their plans in public.
Well, it is now 100 years later and we all know how well their plans have worked out for them, don’t we? America today is almost where they want it to be.
Tell me something. How many times over the last couple of years have you heard/read a conservative blogger or pundit cry: “What is wrong with we conservatives? Why can’t we learn from the successes of the left and use some of their same strategies and tactics to slow down their progress and eventually reverse the course America is on?” Many times, right? But, what I haven’t seen, although they may be out there somewhere, is any of us converting our ideas in to plans.
What I am asking you, dear friends, is isn’t it time to face reality and accept that we are not going to get our America back in the short-term. Short of a miracle, that is not in the cards, is it? So, isn’t it time for conservatives to start converting our ideas into short, mid, and long-term plans?
On Thanksgiving day, I came across an article by Andrew Klavan. I have to admit that I didn’t know that Andrew Klavan wrote articles. I thought he only made his “Klavan on rhe Culture” videos that we enjoy so much, it goes to show how out of touch I can be. The title of his article is “The Long Game“ . Interestingly the article was published on November 7, 2012, the day after we all learned that Barack Obama had won a second term. Unlike most of us armchair quarterbacks, he was not pointing fingers or making suggestions about what the Republicans must do now. Instead, Mr. Klavan took and idea and turned into a written plan. He is taking a long-term view on what conservatives need to be doing. The tag line to his article says: “Three areas the Right should address, financially and intellectually.” The three themes he addresses are:
The mainstream news media
The entertainment industry
Religion for intellectuals
I hope you will read Andrew Klavan’s article because I would like to hear your opinions on a few things. First, I would like to know if you agree that is time for conservatives to start taking a longer view and develop the short, mid, and long-term plans to get our America back. And, there are two things about planning that I should have mentioned at the start. One is that no matter the term of the plan, the starting point is always the goal or objective of the plan. Once there is agreement on what the goals or objectives are, only then can we begin to fill in the details of a plan on how to achieve those goals. The other important point is that the short and mid-term plans need to fit or complement the over-all or long-term plan. It doesn’t matter if the long-term plan is vague. That’s the norm. The short and mid-term plans over time will improve and clarify the long-term plan.
Besides that, I would like to know what you think about…. I almost said his ideas, but it is more than ideas it is something approaching a plan….the three aspects of Klavan¡s plan. Do you agree with what he is saying or would you have other key themes in your plan? And, most importantly for me is, do you think Klavan’s plan could be a seed to provoke other conservative thinkers to turn their ideas into suggested plan that other can chew on and eventually arrive at a good but vague long-term plan that conservatives will buy into and begin the long process of getting America back; if not for us, then for future generations of Americans.
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?.
The guilt-tripping airheads who write for the New York Timesask:
Is it a good goal for everyone in the world to have access to air-conditioning — like clean water or the Internet? Or is it an unsustainable luxury, which air-conditioned societies should be giving up or rationing?
The only thing unsustainable in modern times is the insufferable arrogance of the Left, whose card-carrying members actually believe they should set ‘goals’ for everyone on the planet. Internet access for humankind? Universal air-conditioning? This is the kind of ‘chicken-in-every-pot’ blather which bombastic stump speakers employed to try and bamboozle back-country rubes a hundred years ago. But it’s the progressive way — invent an injustice, then offer a solution which only government can implement. It’s also a non-refundable ticket to totalitarianism, but that’s never bothered any Leftist worth his fair-minded salt.
Altruism did not invent the air conditioner — nor the automobile, airplane, personal computer, or any of our other modern conveniences. These things were invented by free men, manufactured for profit by businessmen and their investors, and offered finally for sale in the marketplace where they were obtained by others using the income they’d earned from the sale of their labor or the return on their own investments. That’s the system under which we Americans live and under which most of us thrive, at least we did up until the advent of Obama. The system is called capitalism, and not a one of the world’s sweltering poor is entitled to its bounty merely because they happen to inhabit the same planet as its practitioners. But the socialist would always have you believe that one plus one equals three. Access to clean water is morally equivalent to surfing the Web or air-conditioning a Third World hovel. The socialist insists that wealth be redistributed and everyone receive his share, earned or not, until all humans are equally happy, or, as the case may be, equally miserable. All right then. The sweaty souls of the world are waiting. I suggest that the good people at the Times begin by giving away their own air conditioners this July. After all, it’s only fair.
If you listen to the occupods, the mythical 99% are being completely fleeced by the equally mythical 1%. Class warfare is a stubborn thing, but reality always wins in the end. Bunkerville has the meme bustage…
Just thought this would be a factoid worthy to report. Reality can be difficult to deal with. Not mentioned is not only do the non-payers not pay, but get money back from the 400. I don’t think 400 come to “The one percent” do you?
Bottom Line: A small group of 400 of America’s most successful earners in 2009, about the number of residents living in a typical apartment building in Washington, D.C., paid almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom half of America’s 138 million tax filers, which is a population equivalent to the combined number of residents living in America’s 29 least populated states, plus the District of Columbia.
We hear all the time that the “rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes” (123,000 Google search results for that phrase). Here’s an analysis using recent IRS data that suggests otherwise.
Get over to his place to see more, including a handy graph.
Um, how to we get these people to pay, “their fair share,” when they’re already paying more than 138,000,000 people already? Or, is this just another liberal scam to vilify success and install communism? I think you all know the answer to that.
Of course, under a Marxist regime, the 400 would be put to death, as well as a few million of the 138,000,000, but if you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs, right?
Via Small Dead Animals I found this 2 minute video from Senator Jim DeMint(Republican, South Carolina) which explains how big government is making it harder for Americans to find jobs and more difficult for small businesses to succeed. As the video shows in an amusing way, when big government puts too many burdens on America’s economy, it forces jobs and investment overseas instead of here at home. It also makes it harder for middle class small business owners to compete against large corporations (who receive exemptions and build loopholes into legislation through their lobbying), discouraging real competition and job growth.
While Barack Obama hones his class warfare rhetoric in anticipation of a presidential election against that evil rich guy, Romney, Solyndra, the company who scammed American taxpayers for a half billion dollars is taking hypocrisy to another level.
Even though they are in bankruptcy proceedings and attempting to sell lock, stock and barrel to try and meet creditors’ demands, Solyndra is literally shattering millions and millions of glass tubes, rather than try to find a buyer.
So it would seem that the old axiom about profit being a driver of inspiration is true. Were it private money that Solyndra had gotten, instead of a taxpayer handout, then you can rest assured that they would be finding a buyer for those tubes.
As we go into the election year, we’re going to see some familiar themes. As usual, the statists will couch their ideas in kind sounding terms in an attempt to sugar coat their desire for power and control. Since these little platitudes are going to be coming in torrents over the next few months, I thought it might be a good idea to parse them. First up, the latest meme from the Democrats…
This one is designed to appeal to our more egalitarian nature. After all, how do products get made without workers? How do they get to the local store without truck drivers, and warehouse workers? What about the It does seem to fit, but they leave out one important thing…there has to be someone who has a vision, and is willing to work tirelessly to make that vision a reality. For example, without Steve Jobs, the truck drivers and warehouse workers that transport, handle, and sell I-pods, I-pads, and I-phones would be idle. This thinking applies to the local pizza shop as well. Can the person make the pizza without their workers? Probably not. But, without the person with the vision and drive to start the pizza shop, there would be no workers.
This thinking also display a disdain for freedom. Yes, we all rely on each other to get things done. But, in the private sector, this reliance are based on voluntary contracts. If you are working for the local pizza shop, you can choose to work for another, go work in another area entirely, or even go off and start your own shop. We choose to engage on mutually beneficial relationships with employers, and the employers do the same, both ends are based on choice. Also, businesses, both large and small, try to keep costs low, and services high, in order to gain these voluntary contracts. But again, these are voluntary systems, and in a real free market, “free” is the operative term.
The problem with the government’s intervention in these areas is the denial of that choice. Government dictates-it is force. In a condition in which force is applied, there are no choices. They intend on forcing the pizza shop owner, or the CEO of a large company, to part with more and more wealth to make things “fair.” Then, to make up the losses, the business has a choice, which might include…
Lay off workers
Eliminate positions by attrition
Do not expand and avoid hiring more workers
Of course, in a high tax, high regulatory environment, others may be discouraged from even starting businesses, which, again, eliminates choices for consumers, employees, and employers. And, by reducing employment opportunities, it creates more dependency on the government, and therefore, more Democratic voters. In the end, it does grant the government more power, and therefore, control.