If you thought the last round of protest idiocy was counterproductive, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. Just when you think they’ve hit rock bottom, the liberal protests hit new lows. The Guardian recently published an article detailing a revival in “tax resistance,” which is a practice of not paying your taxes to “resist” government:
Andrew Newman always pays his taxes, even if he hates what the government is doing with them. But not this year. For him, Donald Trumpis the dealbreaker. He’ll pay his city and state taxes but will refuse to pay federal income tax as a cry of civil disobedience against the president and his new administration.
Newman is not alone. A nascent movement has been detected to revive the popularity of tax resistance – last seen en masse in America during the Vietnam war but which has been, sporadically, a tradition in the US and beyond going back many centuries.
“My tax money will be going towards putting up a wall on the Mexican border instead of helping sick people. It will contribute to the destruction of the environment and maybe more nuclear weapons. I think there will be a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy elite and Trump’s campaign for the working man and woman was an absolute fraud. If you pay taxes you are implicated in the system,” said Newman, an associate professor of English and history at Stony Brook University on Long Island, part of the State University of New York.
It is quite amusing that an educator from SUNY academia, which is in part financed by federal funding, managed to list everything he had issue with, while at the same time omitting everything the state does that he does not object to… notably paying his salary.
Early this morning, the FT leaked news of a takeover bid to be launched by the American food conglomerate Kraft Heinz to acquire the British-Dutch Unilever. Unilever quickly rejected the proposal, as seen below:
But as Zerohedge covered, the news from the deal already had a profound impact on the share prices of both companies, sending Unilever shares up 11%, and Kraft Heinz shares up 4% in pre-open trading.
Yesterday, it was revealed that the Russian military (secretly) deployed the ground-launched SSC-8 cruise missile. Of course, the mainstream media attempted to spin this as a “major test” for President Trump:
Russia has secretly deployed a new cruise missile that American officials say violates a landmark arms control treaty, posing a major test for President Trump as his administration is facing a crisis over its ties to Moscow.
The new Russian missile deployment also comes as the Trump administration is struggling to fill key policy positions at the State Department and the Pentagon — and to settle on a permanent replacement for Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser who resigned late Monday. Mr. Flynn stepped down after it was revealed that he had misled the vice president and other officials over conversations with Moscow’s ambassador to Washington.
The NY Times made sure to lead with the Trump-bashing, and gave scant details and/or commentary on the specifics of the system, or its significance. Reuters filled in the key blank from the administration that the NY Times left out:
James Baker, George Shultz, And Hank Paulson
Last week, it was reported that a carbon tax was back on the table. I expected it to be from Democrats, as part of a “proposal” that would never pass muster under a Trump administration that all but squashed the idea during his campaign. However, I was in for a shock, when I saw who was actually proposing it – a group of allegedly anti-tax (neocon) Republicans:
A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders backing a tax on carbon dioxide were taking their case Wednesday to top White House aides, including chief economic adviser Gary Cohn.
The group, including former Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and James Baker, is pressing President Donald Trump to tax carbon dioxide in exchange for abolishing a slew of environmental regulations. They unveiled their plan with a press conference in Washington and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
“We know we have an uphill slog to get Republicans interested in this,” Baker said before heading to the White House. But “a conservative, free-market approach is a very Republican way of approaching the problem.”
I actually had to do a double take when I read that last sentence. What is exactly conservative and/or free-market about a regressive, useless tax that hurts the working class (whom elected Trump) the most?
Shortly after Trump took office, and before Rex Tillerson was even confirmed as Secretary of State, a slew of State Department officials were removed from their positions (or were forced to resign) as part of an effort to “clean house” at the State Department. The whole affair was haphazardly covered by the media, especially by Jeff Bezos’s blog, which insinuated that the departures were “an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”
Further analysis revealed that the officials were actually removed from their positions shortly after Tillerson visited the State Department office in Foggy Bottom prior to his confirmation:
“Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong,” one senior State Department official said. “These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house.”
And, just a few weeks after the fact, it appears we know why Tillerson was so quick to purge existing staffers: he just didn’t trust them. It also appears his mistrust was more than justified.
Yesterday, President Trump met with the National Sheriff’s Association at the White House. Like so many Trump comments, this one took a strange turn when Trump (jokingly or not) threatened to “destroy the career” of a Texas state Senator:
During the meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told President Trump about a piece of asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug cartels…here’s the full conversation:
Eavenson: “There’s a state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”
Trump: “Do you believe that?”
Eavenson: “And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”
Trump: “Who is that state senator? I want to hear his name. We’ll destroy his career…”
Though the major point of conversation was about Trump’s threat to a state legislator, the bigger story should be the implicit support Trump gave to civil asset forfeiture, whether he realized it or not. And if you are not aware what civil asset forfeiture is, it is (surprisingly) something that is agreed by both sides of the aisle to be unjust and unconstitutional, and rightfully so.
These days, the “climate change” movement is constantly looking for ways to justify taking fossil fuel power plants offline, via any means necessary. Whether it’s over-regulation or the ubiquitous “carbon tax,” the global warming team has deemed that fossil fuels are a plague that must be eliminated from the planet (but really just western nations) at any cost.
While they might not ultimately be entirely wrong, they sure are blind to the people harmed the most – those who are local to fossil fuel generated power, NOT the global scale of “carbon pollution” that is constantly mentioned. For instance, China’s smog is as bad as it is not just because of transportation-fueled pollution, but because of how prolific coal-fired power is in China. As MishTalk points out, the Paris Accord was ultimately useless and irrelevant:
Plenty of mainstream media outlets have been critical of the Trump executive orders regarding immigration and “vetting” of refugees. There are too many to list, but I will use an excerpt from a U.S. News article to drive the general point home:
When the United States accepts refugees from countries with a significant Muslim population, we undermine the anti-American hatred that underlies Islamic State group recruitment. Closing America’s door to Syrian refugees, therefore, is not only a heartless hiccup in our nation’s history, it also validates Islamic State group propaganda, advances the group’s agenda and drives refugees back into the arms of dangerous terrorists. By turning away Syrian refugees, Trump is plunging America into a national security nightmare.
The “fact-check” website Snopes (which has previously been outed as being heavily liberal-biased, being run by a “failed liberal blogger”) also gets in on the act, saying that Syrian kids aren’t holding guns, instead labeling them as “Pakistani”:
I’m on record as stating how unproductive, foolish and dangerous the recent liberal protests have been, and that’s before you even bring the hypocrisy factor into play. But a liberal protest against Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)? That is taking hypocrisy and idiocy to a whole ‘nother level.
In spite of their previous relationship and the money Trump has donated to Schumer in the past, Schumer has opposed Trump at every turn since he became the Republican nominee for President. Schumer has used his position as Senate Minority Leader to stump against Trump at every possible opportunity, starting on the very day Trump took office:
GotNews posted an article yesterday about a “refugee problem” America has, referring to approximately 20,000 Americans who have renounced their citizenship under Obama’s leadership, and suggesting America “repatriate” said citizens:
America has a refugee problem. Not the Syrian refugees. No, not the Afghan ones. No, not even the Cuban refugees. I’m talking about the born-and-raised American citizens who got fed up, gave up their U.S. citizenship, and escaped Obama’s America while they still could.
Yes, that’s right: nearly 20,000 American citizens left Obama’s America and forfeited their American citizenship while Obama was President.
Nearly 20,000 U.S. citizens voluntarily gave up their rights to vote, run for office, and the freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, while Obama was in office.
We shouldn’t be allowing anyone from the violent and dangerous Middle East, including so-called “refugees”, into the United States right now. The only refugees who should be entering the United States are the American refugees who fled Obama’s America. Not only do we have that duty to our fellow Americans, but they pose no threat to us like Middle Eastern “refugees” do.
What was missing from the article? Discussion of the Obama-sponsored law that caused many citizens (mostly expats) to renounce their citizenship: FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).