Top Dog Dogs Tax Havens

America, Barack Obama, Economy, EU, Private Property, Taxation, UN

The swindler-in-chief’s shakedown efforts have taken a predictable turn today. Reports a sympathetic Bloomberg:

“President Barack Obama proposed raising about $190 billion over the next decade by outlawing three offshore tax-avoidance techniques. Obama’s plan also would make it riskier for Americans to stash money in tax-havens.”

Note how the efforts of private property owners to retain what is theirs by right are criminalized with the use of terms such as “stash away,” “tax avoidance,” “abusive,” “hiding money.” But state theft of said property is framed as “raising money,” “closing loopholes,” and conducting a “tax overhaul.”

The tax code is “full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share,” Obama said at the White House today, as he outlined the plan [and as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner looked on with that evil-gnome scowl of his].

In 2001, I had the unusual occasion to commend the Bush Administration for refusing “to support an attempt by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to clamp down on tax havens. If the junta of high-tax governments has its way,” I wrote in the Financial Post, “not only will there be no place left to run to, but by eliminating what tax havens offer, these governments will have eliminated tax competition, and with it the imperative to downsize their fiefdoms.”

In “The War on Tax Havens,” I strongly condemned the coercive efforts of the OECD to strangle, “sanctuaries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Malta, Mauritius and San Marino are rolling over.”

The sentiment applies to the Obaminator in spades. I fully expect him, moreover, to fulfill the UN’s dream of establishing an international tax collection organization, so as to better co-ordinate the confiscation of private property.

Incidentally, a few weeks back the administration (and Bush would have been of the same mind) sanctimoniously castigated Castro for taxing remittances from the US. Pot. Kettle. Black. And oh the hypocrisy! The US is one of the few nations to tax the income that nationals earn outside its borders.

Recommended: “The War on Tax Havens”

Madonna Accessorizing Again

Africa, Celebrity, Hollywood, The Zeitgeist

Ankle biters are still a chic accoutrement in Hollywood. You know, “Angie” has not yet launched a trendy, new fashion line, so brown babies are still very much “in” with the idiots.

As toxic as a Madonna-style upbringing will be, you must admit that it is far preferable to growing up in Malawi.

Also, when “the Malawian man thought to be the biological father of a four-year-old girl Madonna hopes to adopt says he’s opposed to it,” you just know he’s looking to be bought out—enticed away from the baby bidding business.

“James Kambewa,” reports the Christian Science Monitor,” wears a necklace he made bearing his daughter’s name, has never held or even met her, and says he’s only seen her ‘in newspapers and TV, not face to face.'”

Suffer the children.

Update VI: The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL

Canada, Europe, Healthcare, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Objectivism, The State

The excerpt is from my new, WND column, “The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL.” If you miss the column on WND.com, you can catch it weekly on Taki’s Magazine, the following day. It’s now up. (May 2)

“Whether they are armed with bombs or bacteria, stopping weaponized individuals from harming others—intentionally or unintentionally—falls perfectly within the purview of the ‘night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory,’ in the words of the philosopher Robert Nozick. …

“A well-policed barrier is the definitive, non-aggressive method of defense against these ailments and afflictions. You don’t attack, arrest, or otherwise molest undesirables; you keep them at bay, away.”

“Libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever.”

Read “The Swine Are Loose,” (Taki title) to learn what “the quintessential ‘Renaissance woman,’ the late, dazzling, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq.—expert aviator, health-care policy analyst, marksman, and musician—had to say about “the effects on the health system of the bleeding Southwestern border.”

Update I (May 1): I don’t think I’ve made any dogmatic statements about Objectivist thinking per se. What I will say is this: From all warring Objectivist sources, I’ve read oodles about waging war on the world, but very little that is coherent about stopping the Third World from invading the US.

As I wrote in 2004, “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin.” I have seen no evidence that “real” Randians have departed from this neoconservative perversion.

Yes, some Objectivists say borders ought to be protected against dem terrorists, but has any dared to venture that defending the country’s borders may have more than just a security dimension?
By all means, enlighten me (with citations/links, please).

The title of my near-complete book manuscript, Into the Cannibal’s Pot, is meant as a metaphor, and is inspired by Ayn Rand’s wise counsel against prostrating civilization to savagery. I have no doubt she’d have been appalled by the free-for-all on the border with Mexico — and not just because of the possibility of infiltration by a couple of malevolent Muslims.

By all means, provide links to a coherent, Rand-stamped, non-neoconservative view of immigration that does not focus exclusively on security to the detriment of cultural components, which are as essential to the survival of American liberty.

Update II: I don’t buy the allegation that views on immigration among Objectivists are shaped by the validity/legality of Ayn Rand’s visa. Rand was not swayed by positive law. Likewise, Objectivists would—or should—argue from the natural law.

Update IV (May 2): The Hispanic influx into the US is unprecedented. Writes my WND colleague, Vox Day:

“To describe the discourse concerning the mass inflow of foreigners that has taken place over the last 29 years [as] ‘the immigration debate’ is to use a misnomer. What has taken place since the 1980 U.S. census is nothing less than a mass migration of the sort that irretrievably transformed historical civilizations everywhere from Hellenic Greece to Moorish Spain. In 1980, the number of Hispanics living in the United States was 14.6 million. In 2008, it was 45.5 million. Hispanics now account for 15 percent of the total population, and because they are the fastest-growing population segment, the census bureau expects their numbers to increase by a further 67 million by 2050.”

Update V (May 3): Sigh. “The Swine Are AWOL (Or Loose)” was not complicated, at least not to the sensible, straight-thinking.

* The dread diseases delineated in the column happen to hail not from the first world, but from Latin America, with which we have an open border.
* The state has a minimal duty. It is not to “control disease” or test every human being crossing the border, but to enforce a border.
* Currently about a million, poor, deprived, and often depraved, ill people cross over each and every year into the US. By enforcing the border, so that far fewer get through, the number of locals killed or sickened by criminals or carriers will be reduced. Not eliminated; reduced. Is that simple logic unclear? I don’t think so.
* This policy should not be egalitarian, naturally. Canada and Europe are first-world destinations. The diseases making a come-back in the US do not come from North America or the Continent. We have a contiguous border with the first-world Canada, and the third, or second-world Mexico. We do not share a border with Europe, naturally.

Update VII (May 4): Jack writes:

Hi

Seems that the comments are closed for this item, so will send just one of the citations/links you asked for.

Within the narrow confines of the original article, I thought it was in writing but the only reference I could find was Yaron Brook stating that people carrying infectious diseases is one of the groups that would be excluded from coming into the country. (Bottom of the page, last video, within the first minute.)

Cheers
Jack

Updated: Conservatives Add Another Blond To The Brain Trust

Celebrity, Christian Right, Conservatism, Gender, Homosexuality, Intelligence, Pop-Culture, Republicans

Michael Musto, the Village Voice’s machine gun, on Miss California: “This girl is a ding-dong. She’s not just a boob, but a fake boob. (An allusion to Carrie Prejean’s breast augmentation.) A beauty contestant with falsies and an opinion. Let the babe who needs a brain implant deflate. You’re telling me a lot of beauty contestants are fake? Next you’re going to be telling me their personalities are artificial too. There is no talent, no personality to these contestants, just parading down the runway like a ding-dong trying to cure cancer and find the right handbag to match her navel.”

Ding-dong has been stumble-bumbling on the morning shows. Expect Hannity’s Great American Panel to be next, the slutty Kim Kardashian having already blazed a trail with her famous tail on that Fox News show. I never thought I’d come to think of “Hannity and Colmes,” “Hannity” in his previous incarnation, as an intellectual high-water mark for this “news” program.

From the bimbo burlesque, let’s move on to the ding-dong’s area of expertise, same-sex nuptials. This is from my “MARRIAGE AND THE MANUFACTURING OF RIGHTS”:

“Not conferring the benefits of marriage on homosexual unions does not violate the rights of gays. Not if we adhere to the libertarian definition of rights as the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Since these are the only rights libertarians wish the state to enforce, equality under the law is thus the requirement that the state not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process. …

“If we define rights properly, we must conclude that gay couples are not being denied their individual rights.” …

“Ideally, government should be entirely divorced from the nuptial business. But from the fact that the state upholds traditional marriage, why does it follow that it is violating the individual rights of same-sex couples who clearly don’t fit the definition or the profile?”

“Religious institutions ought to act as the ministers of marriage. If marriage were privatized, conservatives would have to accept that some liberal churches and synagogues (the mullahs in their mosques would resist) will wed homosexuals.”

Update (May 1): To read about other “conservative,” blond, ding-dongs, see:

A Cow Is Born

Elizabeth Hasselbeck