Who is John Galt? ~ By Lord Monckton

Lord Monckton

Lord Monckton asks if freedom-loving tycoons will begin to vanish

You will find this column by Lord Monckton to be very informative as it examines the similarities and differences between Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and the real world of today:

Prescient though Ayn Rand was, she could not have foreseen the sheer, staggering number of deaths caused directly by socialism in its various hateful, hate-filled forms over the past century.

And now these murderous creatures propose to establish no less than a totalitarian world government, with overriding powers of taxation, of regulation and of enforcement. There is to be a new climate court to bring to heel the few nations whose leaders have found the courage to speak out against the screeching harpies of environmentalist socialism.

In the past, those who wanted to escape national or international socialism could escape from Germany or Russia or China. But, when very nearly every nation on Earth has signed the new and tyrannous Treaty of Paris, where shall we go, those of us in whose breast still burns that flame of freedom?

So, who is John Galt? You won't find that out in this commentary and blog post. You'll have to read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand to find out. But at the same time, you may just learn that there may be a very nefarious reason why the Obama administration fears tea partiers more than ISIS. Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

Who is John Galt?

Last year, the Ayn Rand Institute was kind enough to send me a copy of "Atlas Shrugged," the masterwork of that great prophetess of liberty and of free markets. I read all 1,100 pages in two days. For, although the novel has a powerful political message, and one that America is ignoring at her peril, it…

People don't get rich by being dumb ~ By Patrice Lewis

When the time comes that the government removes too much of the money my husband and I work so hard to earn, we will be too poor to move. In many ways we already are.

But the rich are not. And unlike the useful idiots, rich people are smart enough to know when enough is enough. "Atlas Shrugged" is not fiction. It's a blueprint.

Video provided by iwanttomarrycarrie

I think I understand what Patrice is saying here. Unfortunately, other people will think they understand what she is saying, and it won't be quite the same thoughts I have. I am betting that Patrice knew when she wrote this that many would misunderstand her column, and that she already has her responses written for those that don't get her point.

Right off the bat, there will be people that will think she is saying that people that don't ever get rich are dumb. Those people that would think that are wrong. No, because Patrice would know as well as anyone that there are many people that are not dumb that never get rich. In fact, she is also probably aware that there are people who are rich that may be dumb. Of course, there will always be people that are rich because of the luck of the draw: Inheritance of a large family fortune, winning the jackpot in a multi-state lotto, or getting a large settlement in a law suit. It happens.

That being said, those that focused on the relationship of wealth and intelligence probably missed the main point of her column. Patrice was saying that those with the financial freedom to move to a location with a lower tax burden or less regulatory restrictions or without high union wages, will do so. The states that assume that the producers are not aware, or too dumb to know, that other states have a better business atmosphere, will lose the potential revenue of the businesses and the jobs that could be provided. So, who are the dumb ones? Just sayin'...

I realize it's counterintuitive for politicians to allow people to keep more of their own money, but it's an indisputable fact that lower taxes (for everyone) stimulate economic growth through job creation and discretionary spending.

But politicians still prefer to dress up their redistribution schemes in pretty words about egalitarianism and helping the poor. My goodness, after 50 years of hearing such nonsense you'd think people wouldn't fall for that kind of twaddle, but I guess I'm wrong. Some people still believe politicians are working for our good rather than chaining us into government dependency. Some people still want something for nothing. "Those evil rich people should give me some of their money," is the logic, "because they have too much and I don't have enough. They should share." It's immaterial that the sharing isn't voluntary; it's theft at the point of a gun.

Meanwhile, elite liberal professors at elite liberal universities reinforce this mantra to their students, thus ensuring another generation of useful idiots who will toe the Marxist line. Oooh, this makes me mad.

People don't get rich by being dumb

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



A long time ago, I visited some friends who lived in a tiny town of about 500. Everyone knew everyone else. Like most of the folks in and around the area, these people were low income. One day at the grocery store, my friend's mother wrote a check for some groceries. "If this check bounces," she joked, "we'll have to skip town."

"Nah," the clerk replied with a smile. "You're too poor to move."

I was surprised at the implied insult and later asked my friend's mother to explain. "We're all poor around here," she said. "Even if we wanted to move and even if we could find someone who wanted our house, we couldn't sell it for enough money to afford a house anywhere else, so we're stuck."

I've remembered that incident for almost 30 years because I realize how true it is. Poor people are often too poor to move.

Rich people are not.

In this week's column, John Stossel explains in his typically blunt style that rich people, when taxed too much, simply choose to move away rather than surrender more of their money to government goons. It's a simple case of Atlas Shrugged. "Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be 'given' more money," he writes, then adds, "A tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some – by force – and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated."

To me, this is perfectly logical. If conditions are not suitable where you live and you have the resources to move, then you leave. That's the purpose of having individual states, which can compete with one another for citizens and, by extension, tax revenue. If someone doesn't like the taxes levied upon him in one state, he can move to another – and the left-behind state loses the taxes it might have collected from that person.

Astoundingly, politicians seem unable to grasp this concept.

But then, the intelligence level of politicians has always been questionable. "Politicians are not economists," my husband notes caustically. "Most get elected for being photogenic and having the best speaking ability." We expect politicians to be experts in economics when in reality they're merely experts in pretense.

This simple, basic concept – that rich people provide jobs, and if they're harassed to the breaking point they'll simply depart and take those jobs with them – is apparently beyond the understanding of politicians and progressives alike. More than two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson noted, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

To me, punishing people for being rich is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you keep the goose alive, it gives gold forever. If you give rich people the ability to keep more of what they earn, they create endless jobs in the private sector. As the saying goes, I've never seen a poor person give anyone a job.

Now, before all my progressive readers e-mail and tell me why rich people are scummy jerks who receive endless government back-scratching deals and therefore deserve to be taxed to death – let me say that I agree with you, to a point. Doubtless there is as much of an unholy alliance between the government and some rich people as there is between the government and bankers (too often it's the same people).

But the fact remains, we need the wealthy – and not for the money we can steal from them. We need them to provide private-sector jobs for the rest of us poor saps who don't have the brains, capital or drive to start multi-million dollar companies that employ hundreds of thousands.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Taxing Atlas ~ By Patrice Lewis

John Galt, this one's for you! 

Patrice Lewis has a rant that I am sure all of us can understand about this time of the year, especially if you are in the half of the American population that DOES pay taxes!

And because of the theme of this great column, I threw in a couple related items at the bottom of this page. A video that I uploaded yesterday morning discusses just how OUT OF CONTROL the U. S. Government is. Deficits, debt, and then the ultimate crisis that is going to happen for the very reason that Patrice will mention here. People are going to just quit their businesses, end their non-profit charities, and basically, we can then ALL put out our hands for the government to take care of us. At the end of the video, there is a very special segment where somebody says, "Tick-tock, Mr. Bauer, you're running out of time..."

Well, that brings me to the final part of MY rant, in the related story: Did America already commit Obamcide? You decide.

So in this season of filing taxes and proving how complicating our government is, we should think long and hard about the kind of hope and change that will lead to further complications by introducing yet more government rules and regulations and red tape.


Otherwise the real Atlas – that sleeping giant of middle America – may shrug, give the government the "finger" and watch the economy collapse.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: April 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The following column can officially be termed a "rant." Sometimes I just need to vent, and this is one of those times.

Taxes have been on my mind this week. That's because I finally finished our taxes on Tuesday night, in time for our appointment on Wednesday afternoon.

Taxes are a complicated business for us. We have four sources of self-employed income, and that means all sorts of fancy paperwork that needs to be filed. Thankfully, our tax preparer, Valerie, is incredibly competent at making sense out of nonsense.

But poor Valerie's business has become more complicated. "Look," she said, pulling a notebook off a shelf. "These were the tax amendments we studied from last year's continuing education class." The notebook was half an inch thick. "And here is this year's notebook." The notebook was three inches thick. I'm not exaggerating.

It's not just personal income taxes that are getting complicated (like they were ever simple, right?). All nonprofit organizations in the U.S. are suddenly being required to provide preposterous amounts of paperwork, documentation and other proof that they are, indeed, nonprofit. It's like the government is trying to bleed all the joy out of being charitable.

But the government is desperate for money, and who knows how many of those evil and secretive nonprofits are engaging in nefarious behavior to elude paying their fair share of Planned Parenthood's operating expenses? So now nonprofits are required to pony up paperwork demonstrating their worth and status.

And on and on it goes. Prove this. Document that. Take everything – employment, personal lives, charitable endeavors – and reduce it to nothing more than a dipping pot of money for an ever-increasing and ever-intrusive government, which wants nothing more than to seize control of your assets and resources in order to, um, spread the wealth.

And of course most of your wealth is not spread to individuals or groups (deserving or not), but to the government oversight of those individuals or groups. In other words, any time a government entity runs a "charitable" organization – spreading your wealth – it skims off a huge percentage for (cough) administration costs. Gotta pay all those bureaucrats, after all.

And of course there's always the Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security that robs Peter to pay Paul. What's wrong with this picture?

While no previous administration was ever innocent of increasing the size of government, there's no question the pace has intensified drastically in the last decade. We are being micro-managed to death. Our driving habits, our health care, our energy usage, our lighting options … the list is endless, and endlessly humiliating. I mean honestly – we're supposed to be grown-up men and women, independent and responsible. We shouldn't have to report to Big Brother for permission to live decent ordinary lives.

Now we learn that nearly half of U.S. households escape paying federal income taxes. This means that half the people in this country are paying for the other half's share of benefits.

Unlike liberals, I don't resent the wealthy. They're the ones who create jobs. They're the ones who keep the economy going. And if they're taxed to the point where they decide it ain't worth it, what then?

And you don't have to be wealthy to reach the breaking point. At what point will small businesses simply conclude all the increasing hassle of government red tape and excessive micromanagement isn't worth it? At what point will charities conclude it's too much trouble to comply with federal interference and throw in the towel? At what point will nonprofit groups grow tired of proving themselves and decide it's not worth continuing their efforts?

See my point? The more the government complicates our lives, the more we reduce our efforts to start businesses, act charitably, do something for the public good, or simply follow our dream (pursuit of happiness, remember?). There goes the economy.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEO:

April 09, 2010 ~ "Deficit, Debt, Crisis," or should that be, 'Tick, tick, tick... We're running out of time"

I think you will understand the meaning of this video just by watching the last minute of the video. But, you should see the whole thing. It is the budget deficits, the national debt, and the oncoming crisis that all has to do with the unemployment problems: How we got here (deficit spending), where we are now (huge national debt), and where it will go from here (crisis) that will determine what happens in the next few months.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

RELATED STORY:
Did America Commit Obamacide? ~ By John Kubicek

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Who is Wesley Mouch? ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: January 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Tomorrow, my Fox Business Network show about Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" will finally air. That should stop the e-mails like this one from Karen Cooper: "Oh for the love of God! 'Atlas Shrugged' explains about 99 percent of what's wrong in all of the arenas of topics: health care, education, climate change, unions, the economy, etc. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE cover 'Atlas.'" Cooper makes a good point. Even though Rand published "Atlas" in 1957, her descriptions of intrusive and bloated government read like today's news. The "Preservation of Livelihood Law" and "Equalization of Opportunity Law" could be Nancy Pelosi's or Harry Reid's work. The novel's chief villain is Wesley Mouch, a bureaucrat who cripples the economy with endless regulations. This sounds familiar. Reason magazine reports that "as he looks around Washington these days," Rep. Paul Ryan "can't help but think he's seeing a lot of Wesley Mouch." Me, too. I also saw a lot of him under George W. Bush. So I'm conducting this unscientific poll: Who is our Wesley Mouch? Hank Paulson? Tim Geithner? Barney Frank? You can vote here. Personally, I think Chris Dodd's ridiculous financial proposals ought to win him the honor. But he isn't among the choices on Fox's list. As I write this, Geithner, President Obama and Barney Frank lead the voting. My first guest on the show (FBN, 8 p.m. Eastern Thursday, repeating at 10 p.m. Friday) is BB&T chairman and "Atlas" fan John Allison. Allison's bank, the ninth largest in America, is doing very well, but he's angry the government forced him to take TARP money. Allison once told the New York Times, "To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it's bad because he's alive." READ FULL STORY >

My first show on Fox Business ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: December 09, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 People keep forwarding me e-mails and blog posts saying ABC fired me. Internet forums claim I was fired because I aired a story about the downside of government-controlled health care. This is silly. It's not even logical. No one can broadcast anything on "20/20" without ABC's approval. The truth is that my departure from ABC was by mutual consent. I left to go to the Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network because I want more time to report on free markets and economic liberty, the kind of reporting I do in this column. With two 24-hour news channels, Fox has more room for that. Tomorrow, finally, my new Fox Business show begins! It will air every Thursday at 8 p.m. (and will repeat Fridays at 10 p.m. – opposite "20/20" – heh, heh, heh). My first show will be on the "climate crisis." Or it might be on Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." I've prepared both shows because I can't decide which I should do. What do you think? I'm partial to an "Atlas" show because I reread the novel recently and was stunned. It was as if Rand had seen the future. Writing half a century ago, she predicted today's explosion of big government in shockingly accurate detail. The "Preservation of Livelihood Law." The "Equalization of Opportunity Law." The "Steel Unification Plan." Don't these sound like laws passed by the current Congress? All were creations of Rand's villain, Wesley Mouch, the evil bureaucrat who regulates business and eventually drives the productive people out of business. Who is today's Wesley Mouch? Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? Tim Geithner? I'll ask my TV audience to vote. "Atlas" is still a big best-seller today. This year, it reached as high as No. 15 on Amazon's best-seller list. Pretty amazing. Clearly there's some magic in "Atlas Shrugged." The Library of Congress once asked readers which books made the biggest difference in their lives. "Atlas" came in second, after the Bible. READ FULL STORY >

When will Atlas shrug?

By John Andrews What is the breaking point? Where will the resistance form? Heavy questions, but unavoidable in the current political climate. The productive members of society can only be pushed so far, some say. What they envision is not defiance of law or a reversal of the election. It is people's growing disengagement from a new economic order that punishes effort and rewards envy — the creepy future that Bill Ritter and Barack Obama intend for us. Columnist Michelle Malkin calls that withdrawal "going Galt." Malkin was the first speaker last weekend when several hundred Coloradans gathered for a free-market leadership conference in Colorado Springs. Her reference was to John Galt, the individualist hero of Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged." She told of seeing a placard at the protest rally for Obama's stimulus bill signing that warned: "Atlas will shrug." So what, you ask. In human behavior, incentives matter. People are choosers, not automatons. Mess them over enough and they're out of here. All history proves it. "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." That bitter joke among Soviet factory drones sums up collectivism's ultimate failure wherever tried. [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by my good friend Janinco

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years?

By STEPHEN MOORE Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster. Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit. Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible. For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism. [Continue reading] Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

digg story, submitted by jaybol