Mlive.com ^ | March 11, 2013 | Eric Lacy
Posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 7:22:13 PM by cripplecreek
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Expression for undergoing a voluntary financial strike or decrease in income.
An individual might choose to do this in order to protest the amount of money going to the government, or to protest what they feel are unfair taxes (if they earn less, they will be taxed less, therefore hurting the government).
The term is taken from a character in Ayn Rand‘s novel “Atlas Shrugged“; the main character John Galt leads a movement where the wealthiest individuals leave their jobs for low-paying jobs in order to protest the socialist economy.
Poll: man who created 7,000 jobs tells his employees what he’ll do if Obama gets reelected and raises taxesDavid Siegel is the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, a real estate and timeshare company.
In a recent letter to his 7,000 employees, he wrote:Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7,000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive.
This article will give greater meaning to Barack Obama’s outrageous declaration in Roanoke that, “If you own your business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” (didntbuildthat.com)
Obama’s minions in the press claim that highlighting the president’s Roanoke quote is ripping an incidental remark out of context or bungling his intended syntax. Taking together all the president’s actions since assuming the throne in the Oval Office, it’s easy to see his remark in Roanoke fits quite well with his agenda: ATTACK THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL.
John Gault Day! Why Not? by Brian Wilson… (“Think about it: *”Gone Galt” signs hanging in business windows everywhere!”)
In a Friday the 13th speech to supporters in Roanoke, Va., Pres. Obama said, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
“Business Owners Furious at Obama Insult”
“Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” Enrages Business Community”
“Slap In The Face To Hard-Working Americans”
you are not your brother’s keeper.
Rather, your primary purpose is to the live the best life that you possibly can. This means being your own master and living on YOUR terms. You will be the most successful when you are the freest to pursue your goals and dreams. Unfortunately, this important debate is all but ignored during most political campaigns. Until we address this threshold issue, not much human progress will be made
As Dr. Brook puts it, all statistics and collectivists assume your purpose on Earth is to care for your brothers in need, whether you want to or not.
American Thinker ^ | 12/30/2011 | Don Feder
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 11:49:57 AM by SeekAndFind
To “get” Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism — an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn’t had many wins — electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.
The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.
Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul), Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism. Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called “prohibitionist” drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support “personal liberty” (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy — isolationism.
How, people wondered, could Rand have foreseen all this? Was she a prophet? No, she answered. She had simply identified the basic cause of why the country was veering from crisis to new crisis.
Was the solution to “go Galt” and quit society? No, Rand again answered. The solution was simultaneously much easier and much harder. “So long as we have not yet reached the state of censorship of ideas,” she once said, “one does not have to leave a society in the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged. . . . But you know what one does have to do? One has to break relationships with the culture. . . . [D]iscard all the ideas—the entire cultural philosophy which is dominant today.”
…..Our use of the terms “Left” and “Right” originated in the days of the French Revolution “when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left.” While it is indisputably true that the French left-wing was responsible for monumental bloodshed and terror, it would be a mistake to think that the right-wing was pure as the driven snow. There would have been no revolution had the French aristocracy not been largely arrogant a—holes. They were certainly no friend to the people. Link
The reason I bring this up is because it would be a grave mistake for us to assume that because someone opposes the Far Left, it automatically means that they are on the side of the angels. America has its ruling class, its “aristocracy,” and they are interested in acquiring and keeping power, not in protecting the rights of “we the people.” They come in a right-wing version as well as left, and “we the people” best take them into account.
In order to join the aristocracy you must above all things be a conformist. As S. T. Karnick noted in his article “The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy,” “the ruling class is by no means a meritocracy. On the contrary, what is required is conformity, and it is enforced without pity.” Link
This subject deserves its own article, so I’ll not pursue it here, other than to say that it is important that we start recognizing some of the differences between, for example, a true constitutional conservative, a faux conservative, a reactionary, and an “aristocrat.” True conservatism is always moving forward, evolving, improving—there is nothing reactionary in it, and most certainly there is nothing aristocratic about it…..
“Get out of the way.” With this statement, John Galt articulated the simple and necessary policy solution to the disastrous centrally-planned economy in Atlas Shrugged. It’s also sage advice that President Obama should consider before he unveils his latest jobs plan before the Joint Session of Congress tonight.
This advice is strikingly prescient as our nation’s economy moves ever-closer to mirroring the calamitous state of affairs that befell society in Rand’s novel.
During his two and half years in office, Obama has crushed the labor market with a pro-statist agenda, which includes ObamaCare, the stimulus package, coziness to Big Labor, crony capitalism, and green-energy initiatives.
Of these policies, ObamaCare poses the biggest obstacle to job creation. If it’s found constitutional, the employer-mandate, and thousands of pages of regulations and bureaucratic mandates will hammer businesses with exorbitant compliance costs. Making matters worse, the pending legal challenges are causing uncertainty that leaves the business community stagnant. It’s nearly impossible for businesses to plan for the future when they have no way of predicting the structure of their healthcare plan.
Obama’s deep reliance on crony capitalism is another major hindrance to economic growth. During his administration, Obama’s campaign contributors and favored industries have been the primary recipients of government’s largess. This approach has lead to massive spending with very little results.
Take the solar firm Solyndra as an example. As part of the administration’s goal to create “green jobs,” Solyndra was able to secure two loan guarantees worth more than $545 million dollars since 2009. Yet despite the administration’s best effort to pick a winner in the market place, Sylondra recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy – leaving 1,100 workers unemployed and costing American taxpayers over half of a billion dollars.
But the administration’s partnership with big-business doesn’t end there. After setting a goal of putting one million electric cars on the road by 2015, the central-planner-in-chief is working hard to meet this arbitrary deadline. The government subsidized the manufacturing of Government Motor’s Chevy Volt to the tune of $400 million. In addition, they offered a $7,500 tax credit to consumers as an incentive to buy this outrageously expensive car. Yet again, the president’s effort to micromanage the economy failed. In July, GM sold only 125 Volts – proving that Americans are voting against the president’s agenda with their wallets.
Obama also selected Jeffrey Immelt as the chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Immelt is the CEO of General Electric which hasn’t paid a penny in income taxes in over two years and has benefited from the government’s ban on incandescent light bulbs. Prior to the ban, GE had invested in Compact Fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) which it earns higher profit margins on by manufacturing in China.
Finally, one of the most blatant examples of Obama’s job destruction is his close relationship to labor unions. Through a recess appointment, Obama appointed radical labor advocate, Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Becker – former Associate General Counsel for the SEIU – now sits on the NLRB which is supposed to be an objective arbitrator of labor disputes. Because of other similar appointments by Obama, the NLRB recently delivered one of the most egregiously reckless labor decisions in history – forbidding Boeing to create a new plant in South Carolina. At a time when the unemployment rate exceeds 9 percent, this decision is unconscionable. Nevertheless, it’s the Obama agenda.
From a philosophical perspective, John Galt and Barack Obama are polar opposites. But the two figures do share one commonality: destruction. John Galt succeeded in destroying the economy by convincing the wealth creators to strike; Barack Obama is destroying wealth and prosperity through a flood of statist policies.
During the past several years, it has been common for tea partiers to hold up signs asking, “Who is John Galt?” But maybe they are asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should modernize this saying to reflect the true wealth destroyer in America. Today, the more salient question is: Who is Barack Obama?
Ayn Rand on the topic of a female president:
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 3:17:39 PM by ReformationFan
Ayn Rand’s response when asked about the topic of a female president.
Give Us Liberty: JEW-HATING “MADE-IN-AMERICA” OBAMA SELLS OUT ISRAEL…FROM ATLAS SHRUGS…: “In a jaw dropping speech by the ‘Made in the USA‘ President, Obama called for the tiny Jewish state to cut itself up into tiny pieces and retreat to indefensible 1967 borders. Since the re-establishment of the state of Israel, she has fought off Muslim invasions and war. Never at any time did the Muslim world of over 56 countries recognize Israel’s right to exist.
What other nation has ever had to give land away? What other nation has had its ‘legitimacy’ questioned by the world? What other nation has done more with less? What other nation has to justify its existence? Basta!”
Posted by Gunny G
Ayn Rand’s scary vision of government coming true
Ayn Rand’s scary vision of government coming true
coachisright.com ^ | April 17, 2011 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:28:03 AM by jmaroneps37
While you were sleeping, your industrious federal government was busy establishing new guide lines for 2011 washing machines that, according to my source, cut down on efficiency, deceive the customer into thinking hot is hot, cold is cold, and make her lights flicker.
Doing things on the sneak is a characteristic of the Obama administration that I find especially odious, and this “Energy Efficient Washing Machine” two step is cloying to say the least. My source, who is most reliable, reports she bought a new basic model, and was shocked to discover after doing her first load of laundry, “when set on HOT, the sensor automatically adds COLD along with the hot.” The warm is a mix of both and the COLD SETTING ADDS HOT AS WELL.”
Whittaker Chambers 1957 Review of Ayn Rand
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/ChambersAynRand.php ^ | 1957 | Whittaker Chambers
Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:49:59 PM by stfassisi
Big Sister is Watching You BY Whittaker Chambers
Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies.
The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could possibly take it seriously, and that apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: “Excruciatingly awful.” I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the “looters.” These are proponents of proscriptive taxes. Government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. “This,” she is saying in effect, “is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from.”
Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word………………………