From around the blogroll

noted the swearing in of Governor Pat McCrory as the Tarheel State’s new governor. She also noted the folding of the Lincolnton Furniture Company, just a year after the President made a campaign stop to hail it as an example of his recovering economy:

Owner Bruce Cochrane, a fifth generation furniture-manufacturer, formed the company in 2011 with a $5 million investment and the hope he could make a profit off people who wanted to buy furniture made in America.

It was a move that caught the attention of North Carolina officials and those in the White House. Last year, Cochrane sat with the first lady during Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address. He also joined the president and other business leaders in a discussion about how to create more jobs at home.

That’s important. Mr Cochrane came up with a business model that he thought would work, and invested $5 million in it; he guessed wrong, and his business model didn’t work. His $5 million is gone now, and the people he hired are now out of work. Maybe he would have had the same results had he started up in 2003; there’s just no way to know.

But every business start-up is a gamble, and more businesses fail than succeed. To try, to take the decision to invest money and go into business, against the odds, gets to be an even harder decision when the potential entrepreneur sees the federal government as basically opposed to businesses.

Of course, the Democrats are also opposed to people’s rights, if those rights happen to be ones of which they disapprove. William Teach noted that on the first day of the eleventy-third Congress, Democrats introduced eight bills designed to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) submitted legislation which “would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18-21. I’m sure the young criminals who break the law regarding murder in Chicago will quickly ignore her.”

Your Editor knows of at least a few people under 21 who can be trusted to carry firearms, and who have, in fact, been issued firearms by the government of the United States. It is also true that the lovely Mrs Lee would make ineligible to own handguns the very people who are required by law to register with the Selective Service System and can be conscripted and sent out into the field, with firearms, to defend our country.

Ros asked, on Victory Girls, why we surrendered our independence:

Losing Independence

by ROS on JANUARY 4, 2013

The Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, the Revenue Act. What do these have in common? All were taxes that summarily incited a particular group of men to rise up and claim independence from those who levied the aforementioned. They were so compelled to rail against The Man for their own possessions, monies, and FREEDOMS that they felt their only course of action was to risk certain death to ensure them.

And fight they did- for Principle, for Integrity, for Freedom. They fought for the rights they felt were inalienable, unable to be taken away, not negotiable, not fuckwithable.

So how did we get here? How did we get to a point in our country’s history where we depend on the government we’re supposed to limit to provide for us? How did we get to a point where so many of our fellow Americans believe the government WE are supposed to tell what to do is supposed to protect us and tell US what to do? At what point did we decide to make negotiable those freedoms which so many fought to secure 238 years ago? We allow that same government to tax every aspect of our lives to line their own pockets and further their own political agendas with our money and freedom, encourage it even. We do so under the misguided notion that doing so helps those with less because the majority of Americans don’t want to actually have lend a hand to a neighbor themselves, but would rather let the government do it- a complete contradiction to the Founding Fathers’ vision.

More at the link.

Karen noted just what a clunker for the environment President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program turned out to be. She’s also warning us to Get Ready For The Trillion Dollar Student Loan Bailout. It kind of makes you wonder: why should anybody sacrifice and try to do things the right way, when all it means is that they will be taxed more to bail out those who didn’t.

Donald Douglas noted that liberal talk-radio host Thom Hartmann wants the United States to outlaw billionaires:

I think we should have a wealth tax in the United States and I think all wealth over $1 billion should be taxed at the 100 percent rate. If you can’t make it on a thousand million dollars, a billion dollars is a million dollars a thousand times, if you can’t make it on a billion dollars, well, there is no therefore. There’s nobody who can’t make it on a billion dollars. So, any wealth over a billion dollars, a hundred percent of it goes to help those of us who have less. You can call it redistribution of wealth, that’s fine, I am perfectly comfortable with that language. I think we should outlaw billionaires.

More at the link, including the video.

Apparently, for Mr Hartmann, success and wealth are along the lines of President Obama’s “you didn’t create that” meme, and you just shouldn’t be allowed to be too successful. Never mind that billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates donate huge sums to charity, the federal government just knows better, and Will Have The Money.

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain noted what was obvious to all conservatives:

Having just raised taxes — before the “ink from the autopen” is even dry — Democrat Maxine Waters is demanding still more:

The first thing that we’ve got to do is look at where we still have unfairness in the tax system and make sure that the people of influence, the billionaires and the millionaires and the corporate interests are paying their fair share.

The Republicans who control the House of Representatives agreed to the tax increase on America’s top producers for one reason: that tax increase, plus more, would have occurred automatically had something not been done about the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Now that the legislation has set the new tax rates as a permanent structure — meaning that Congress will have to vote to raise taxes again — there is no pressure on the GOP to follow the idiotic Miss Waters’ or the loony Mr Hartmann’s proposals.

Of course, it isn’t just the idiotic Miss Waters and the loony Mr Hartmann who weren’t satisfied with the tax increase on the most productive Americans; Patterico noted that President Obama feels the same way. He quoted from our Fearless Leader’s weekly radio address. The president said he was open to seeking spending cuts generally as part of an effort to reduce the country’s deficit, but he stressed that such reductions can be made:

without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st century economy.

Spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code. The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.

The obvious translation: the President will not agree to any spending cuts, or perhaps just some minor ones, unless taxes are raised even more than was just done.

Now, your Editor thought that the Republicans caved in on the tax increase because going over the fiscal cliff, raising taxes even more and cutting spending, was going to throw us into a recession. Wasn’t that what we were told? Yet, our 44th President has just said that if the Republicans agree to raise taxes even more, then the President will agree to spending cuts. Wouldn’t that be a proposal to do exactly what we were just told would cause another recession?

Of course, I don’t believe President Obama for a second. Yeah, he’d “agree” to spending cuts, if the Republicans would just cave in again on raising taxes on the top producers, but once he got those tax increases, the spending cuts would never materialize. Democrats have pulled this trick on Republicans before, and, like Lucy promising Charlie Brown that she won’t pull the football away this time, they’re perfectly willing to try it again, until they find out that the Republicans aren’t stupid enough to fall for that trick yet again.

Finally, from Duffy at The Colossus of Rhodey:


Oh, this is too rich. I thought this had to be from The Onion but no.

Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister“A decade ago, Al Jazeera’s flagship Arabic-language channel was reviled by American politicians for showing videotapes from Al Qaeda members and sympathizers.”

Sounds like their politics line up with Current quite well.

“Al Jazeera did not disclose the purchase price, but people with direct knowledge of the deal pegged it at around $500 million, indicating a $100 million payout for Mr. Gore, who owned 20 percent of Current. Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.”

Hmmm…that’s odd. It’s almost as if he were changing his behavior to avoid taxation. That can’t be right. The Keynsesians have been telling me that doesn’t happen. I guess Gore is just some weird statistical outlier.

More at the link. As if there were really any proof required, it’s a damned good thing that Al Gore lost the 2000 election. When al Qaeda attacked, President George Bush responded by going after the attackers. It looks to me as though had Mr Gore been our President at the time [shudder!] he’d have offered Osama bin Laden free TV time to explain to the American people just why he felt he had to do it.

Comments are closed.