Taxes

There are some simple truths to the matter of taxes:

1. Fewer people are paying an ever greater share of the tax burden collected by the federal government. More and more are getting "services" or income from those fewer people without being directly taxed on income themselves.

2. The progressive tax scheme came straight out of the Communist Manifesto. That, and other teachings of Karl Marx, led to mass slaughter and squalor in the 20th Century.

3. You have more rights if you are suspected of serial murder and hiding the bodies under your flower beds in your backyard, than if you are suspected of tax evasion by the IRS.

4. Even if you are among the 47% who pay no federal income tax, you are still taxed through the gills through such means as taxes on the company you buy your food from, sales taxes, fuel and energy taxes, and anon. Rich or poor, we are all being robbed.

5. Yes, taxation and wealth redistribution are theft! If you're walking down the street and you had a beggar a $5 bill, you're virtuous. If, however, I hold a gun at your head, take your wallet, and hand it to that very same beggar you are NOT virtuous. You are a victim of armed robbery. This is exactly what the IRS is all about, since you will be faced with armed officers trying to arrest you (violence against you as an individual) should you disagree with any of the government's plans for your property -- that is, your money.

6. Capital gains taxes are punishments for success. The investments that result in capital gains create jobs and more wealth. Taxing such gains only discourages investment and job creation, impoverishing us all.

7. Your money, from whatever source, is the symbol of your labor. As such, it is your property. Neither I nor the government have any right to any of your money beyond what the Constitution allows the federal government to do. Were the Tenth Amendment to be enforced, fully 80% of the federal budget (probably much more nowadays) would be illegal and have to be returned to the people from whom it was confiscated.

8. A low, flat tax, with payments due from every taxpayer every month like a phone bill, would solve any number of ills facing America today: folks would see right away just how much the government was taking and start voting for lower tax rates, resources spent on accounting will go to more productive uses, the economy would flourish and jobs created, and the federal government would have far less power than it has today. All of these things would be better than what we have today.

9. The tax code, as it has become since FDR, is not to raise money, but to engineer society. This flies in the face of American ideals of Liberty. It is an attempt to control the very lives, thoughts and choices of every American who should otherwise be free.

10. Tax cheats aren't all bad! I mean, the Left loves Tim Geitner, Charley Rangel, David Dinkins, etc. Of course, for Republicans, it would be career ender. But for Democrats? Just like sex scandals, cheating on your taxes can be a resume enhancer.

Copyright April 19th, 2010

DOPENHAGEN

Yup!  You read that right, my Friends!

"Dopenhagen" is the only way to spell that fiasco!  The only folks who have anything to cheer about are those of us on the Right.  The Left are almost apoplectic about the abysmal failure of the United Nations to achieve the stated goals of the the grand conclave in Denmark.

And what were those goals?  Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley  has already said it best.  But, in a nutshell, allow me to state those goals in my own words:

1. The establishment of a world government with no provisions for elections, legislatures, or any other form of representative governance.
   
   
2. The transfer of vast sums of money and property from the developed world ( read that as "the United States") to the Third World in order to satisfy our "climate debt".  Ostensibly, these are a form of reparations for the "destruction of the environment" due to our profligate burning of fossil fuels.
   
   
3. Enforcement of these nefarious provisions, without any sort of popular representation or ballots, thereby condemning the Western World to poverty and squalor through the ruining of our economy.  Incidentally, this will also condemn the Third World to abject poverty, since it will, in effect, be turned into a massive and expensive welfare client.  Students of history should be aware of the failure of welfare states to improve anyone's state in life.
   
   

Thankfully, the Copenhagen Conference failed to achieve those stated goals.  They accomplished neither a binding treaty nor even an agreement.  What they came up with was merely an "Accord".  Totally non-binding, it is nothing more than a further statement of desired goals, with none of the Marxist trappings the UN was hoping for.

This silver lining isn't without its cloud, however.  It still provides for vast sums of money and property to be spent on the Third World.  The Copenhagen Accord is still a failure, albeit a very expensive failure.

Now, lest anyone doubt that the goals of the Copenhagen Conference were, indeed, Marxist and totalitarian, please take note of three very well-received speakers at the festivities:  Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Robert Mugabe.  Jonah Goldberg, in today's New York Post, can give you all the details.  One national-socialist dictator after another blamed capitalism in general, and the US in particular, for all the ills of the world -- real and imagined.

Mr. Goldberg even mentioned this delicious irony from the redoubtable Hugo Chavez:

In a typical stemwinder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."

I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wackos_pollute_the_eco_debate_bfMN07qTS6UVqTQUapwnoM#ixzz0aBKhYbQh

 And just how well-received were these tin pot dictators?  Warm applause and exuberant standing ovations.  This, according Lord Monckton, from even members of the developed world, industrial nations who should know better than to sway towards socialism.  And we have far too many of them.

The Messiah, President Barrak Obama, braving a blizzard of snow -- uh, I mean Global Warming,  flew in to Copenhagen toward the end to try to salvage the negotiations.  With much media fanfare, he angrily exhorted China, India, Brazil and South Africa to drop their intransigent demands that they be allowed to burn as much fossil fuel as they want.

Claiming victory in his negotiations (some of which he had to crash, as he wasn't even invited) Saint Barrak promised billions of aid to the Third World and folded to the Group of Four in their demands that they be allowed to burn fossil fuel.

Immediately following this stellar example of diplomacy, The Messiah flew back to Washington, DC, to avoid the worst of today's blizzard that is blanketing the East Coast.

Let's ignore, for today, the delicious irony of The Gore Effect.  What we need to focus on is the reaction of the Left.  It is most instructive:

• The UK Guardian reports on the almost universal reaction that the summit was an abject failure, quoting almost exclusively Left leaning NGO's and environmental groups.
  
  
• The EuroNews web site reports that the Sudan is far from happy, quoting the African delegate, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping:  

“[The Accord] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact. It is a solution based on the values which, in our opinion, channelled six million people in Europe to the (Nazi) furnaces.”

•  The UK Telegraph reports the talks resulted in "a meltdown".
  
  
• SFGate's Thin Green Line blog said the accord was a " 'sham' and a 'greenwash' at best".
  
  
• GMANews.TV tells of Green protests at the summit against the Accord, quoting Bill McKibben, of 350.org:  "I don't know why we bothered to go and elect Obama."  At YouTube, you can see a video of these protests, complete with chants of "Yes We Can!  No They Won't!"

These are but a few of the reactions from the Left.  On the Right, however, that breeze you feel is a collective sigh of relief that global government and the enforced and totalitarian impoverishment of all the world has, for now at least, been averted.

But don't ever think that these crypto-Marxists are going to go away.  They'll be back and we'll have to be ready for them!

Copyright December 19th, 2009

 

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

One group of folks are never asked, by the Legacy Media at least, which American political parties they prefer. Yet, you can look between the lines of the Legacy Media and see a few signs.

Take the bombing of the New York City Army recruiting station in Times Square this morning. Who would do such a thing? Personally, I find it telling that eight Democrats from New York received letters ranting about America and including a photo of the station. Why would they send them to Democrats?

Then again, there's this story from South America. It seems that, when Colombian forces took out that FARC camp in Ecuador, they found a bit of intel. One of the terrorists killed in the attack had a laptop computer, which gave up all sorts of evidence that Hugo Chavez, the diminutive dictator of Venezuela, has been helping them along for the last ten years.

This laptop contained correspondence between Raul Reyes, the lead terrorist killed who also served as the "public face" of FARC; Manuel Marulanda, the legendary supreme leader of the Marxist group; and Ivan Marquez, FARC's man in Venezuela. The upshot of the documents on the seized laptop is that Venezuela is working with FARC to overthrow the government of Colombia, which is an American ally.

Also, little remarked upon in the Legacy Media, is this little datum: it seems that FARC and Chavez are rooting for Saint Obama in the US presidential race. Reports World Net Daily:

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
Reyes said the response he relayed is that the U.S. would have to publicly express that desire.

So, apparently, someone in Saint Obama's camp is working with Marxist narco-terrorist, who fund their operations with the poison sold to our people, who murder, bomb and kidnap, and who seek the violent overthrow of a government friendly to the United States. Where have we seen this before?

Looking at past behavior, one can be certain that the Democrats in Congress, as well as those vying for the Presidency, will not be entirely friendly with the Colombian government. After all, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) feted Fidel Castro, another friend of FARC, when he last visited New York. And more recently, he had a trip to Cuba partly funded by the Castro government.

We all remember, also, the hapless Jimmy Carter, who allowed one ally of the United States after another to fall to Marxist and Islamo-fascist forces. And the Democrats who sided with Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, while President Reagan, whose power it was as President, was trying to unseat the Marxists and let the people of Nicaragua have a chance at electing their own government.

Well, Ortega got elected el Presidente of Nicaragua last year, and he's been pretty chummy with Chavez and the Castro boys. Now, he's dabbling in American politics. The International Herald Tribune reports Saint Obama has received the endorsement of formet Soviet lackey and Marxist thug Daniel Ortega.

It just gets more and more surreal, folks! Not only does Saint Obama have a rather sordid and Marxist past (see It's An Obama-Nation!) he is now garnering the support of noted, if not in all cases still breathing, Marxists from South America.

Is he walking and quacking enough like a duck yet?

Aaron Kline, the Israeli journalist and author of Schmoozing With Terrorists, has documented exhaustively the preference of Jihadists and other Islamo-fascists for Democrats and Liberals in American politics. Take any video or audio tape by Osamma bin Ladin, for instance. Every point he raises comes straight out of the Democrats talking points memos.

The Democrats, I've often pointed out, cannot be trusted to define, let alone defend America's national interests. Historically, they have been on the wrong side, every time:

• The sided with the Confederacy


• They promulgated Jim Crowe and fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964


• The started (with a lie) the Viet Nam War and then tried to hang Nixon with it, in the end causing us to quit, rather than to achieve victory.


• They opposed the liberation of Kuwait.


• They opposed Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.


• And now they oppose America actually winning another, more dangerous, war, the War on Terror.

With a track record like this, is it any wonder that America's enemies are rooting for Saint Obama?

Copyright March 6th, 2008

HOT AIR

"Hot Air" is a recurring title here at Montag's World. Usually, it is applied to the subject of Global Warming. I want to stress that I am a big believer in Global Warming. I am also a big believer in Global Cooling. In fact, I am a big believer in Montag's Immutable Law of Nature No. 5: "The only thing about the climate and the weather that stays the same is that it just keeps changing."

Generally speaking, when one uses the phrase "Global Warming", we are not talking about an Indian summer or a heat wave. Nor are we talking about natural fluctuations in the Earth's average temperature. No, it has been drummed into our heads that "Global Warming" -- always capitalized, never lower case -- refers to Man-made Global Warming.

My problem is with that man-made part. You see, I just can't see how we are changing the environment to any great degree. Nor do I understand how Al Gore and Arnold Scharzeneggar can claim that any changes we make are all that bad. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that Modern Environmentalism has become the new home of the Marxist Left. Follow along with me here, folks! You'll understand as we go along.

Author's note: I receive no money from oil companies, nor am I in the pay of anyone funded by the oil companies. The conclusions of this column are totally and exclusively my own!

I decided this evening to write this column when I was going through my e-mail. My good friend, Bill, from Colorado sent me a link to a Global Warming Test. Well, I took the test, and guess what? I got every answer right. Now I don't agree with anything Al Gore has to say about the climate, other than that the Earth has gotten a little over half a degree warmer in the last 100 years. But I'll bet that Al Gore would have gotten only one or two of these questions right.

Why am I so skeptical about Man's part in climate change? Well, there are several reasons. First and foremost is a bit of humility. I'm not talking about personal humility, but humility about Man's place on this Earth. You see, I just don't think we're all that big enough to really harm our world. In fact, if we are making any changes at all, then we are no different than any other species that has ever evolved.

For example, there's a composite photo of the Earth floating around the Internet, that shows the Earth at night from the point of view of someone in space. The continents and the oceans are all marked out with the lights of Man's cities. But there's one thing that struck me: never mind the oceans, which cover 75% of the Earth's surface. most of the dry land is absolutely dark! That's right, the vast majority of the Earth's surface has no lights from human activities. So what does that mean? Well, usually, where there are no or very few people, there are no lights to be seen from space. What the Paul Erlich's of the world call over population is really just a matter of everybody wanting to live in just a few places.

It has been demonstrated mathematically that, if you really wanted, you could split the entire population of the Earth into groups of four people, give each group of four a house on a quarter acre of land, and then fit them all into the State of Texas, without going off the dry land area. Now, no one is suggesting that this would be a good idea, but it does put things a bit into perspective, doesn't it?

Get ready to shake the wrinkles out of your brain: Name one species that evolved on Earth that didn't change the environment, did not wipe out some other species, and did not make new homes for new species that evolved with the changes that weren't madeby that first species.

Try Google or some other search engine and get back to me. If you can't find the answer to this question, that's only because there hasn't been a species that appeared on Earth that didn't change the environment, didn't wipe out other species and didn't make new homes for new species. It is call evolution and it's happening all the time. Get used to it!

The point is, there is no difference between our hypothetical species and us. We've had some impact on our environment, we've wiped out some other species. But we've also made homes for other species. Take the common house fly. It first appeared in Africa, millions of years ago. But it never left Africa, until humans took it with them. Now, it thrives everywhere. That's just one example. You could find many, many others.

Is a warmer Globe all that bad? Well, let's look at history: 1000 years ago, the Vikings found a place that had plants growing all over it. In fact, it had so many plants that they named it Greenland. At this time, vineyards were growing all over England and Scotland, places that hadn't seen them before, and which don't have them today. But 1000 years ago, there were streets and towns named for these vineyards, names they still hold today. Historical documents from the time tell a story of relatively easy living, with little famine and much higher living standards.

By the way, the polar bears did just fine, thank you, during these warmer years. I know you'd be concerned.

Just a few hundred years later, we entered into what we today call the Little Ice Age. Suddenly, things got really tough for people. The Vikings lost their colonies on Greenland and Newfoundland, due to sea ice that didn't melt in the summer. In Europe, those who didn't learn to grow potatoes and other cold resistant crops simply starved. Beer and hard liquor replaced wine in northern areas, since grapes would only grow in Southern Europe. George Washington wintered at Valley Forge during the Little Ice Age, daring a frozen Delaware River to attack the Hussein troops on the other side.

The Little Ice Age didn't end until the early years of the 19th Century. Is it any wonder that the Earth's temperature is still rising? We haven't gotten back to the heights of the Greenland days.

What about all our greenhouse gases? Aren't they helping to warm the planet? In a word, no. One volcanic eruption spews out more greenhouse gases than all of human activity throughout the past. And just how many erputions occur each and every year? Once, I would have said twenty or thirty. But then I learned differently. Just visit Prof. Robert W. Felix's web site, Not By Fire But By Ice. This is just one of the places that, apparently, Al Gore has never heard of. For instance, did you know that snowfall in Antarctica has doubled over the last 150 years? Or that Global Warming is going on right now on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Triton, Saturn, and Pluto? And what are we to make of the palm trees in China, right now, that are covered in snow? Oh, yeah! did you know that there are some 3 million active volcanoes on the ocean floor? Could that be, maybe, just maybe, what is warming the oceans?

Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who might take an opposing view towards Global Warming. "The science is settled," he says. "There is a clear consensus that Global Warming is happening and that it is man-made." Well, then, perhaps Al should take a look at the list of scientists Prof. Felix has compiled who beg to differ. I'm sure that not all of them are in the pay of Big Oil.

John Stossel, of ABC News did a report on the skeptics. The BBC did a full documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Hoax. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an extant copy of this piece online, however, the link will get you to the BBC's page about the film.

OK! So maybe the science isn't really all in on Global Warming, and maybe humans aren't the cause. But how do I make the link between Global Warming and Marxism? Well, let's look at the proposed solutions to the threat of Global Warming:

• Al Gore tells us -- from his private jets, huge mansions, and lengthy limosines -- to cut back on everything we use, most especially electricity and oil. He's so serious that he took mass transit to his Nobel Prize Award ceremony. Of course, his luggage went by limo, but it's a start.


• Bill Clinton: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."


• The Herald Tribune headline: California Wants To Control Home Thermostats

Do I need to list more? This is only the beginning of a list of infamy. The politics of Global Warmism are all about control of you and I. The only way to get us to surrender our Liberty in such an atrocious fashion is to frighten us. We no longer believe the nonsense of the workers versus the capitalists, and we've seen the horrors of the Socialist Revolution, so they need something else, something a little more scientific, if you will. It's just too bad that many of the premier Global Warmists were known purveyors of the idea of the impending Ice Ages only thirty years ago!

Well, that's today's look at Hot Air. And that's enought hot air out of me. I'll revisit the topic from time to time.