The US was the first, last, and only place that true individual freedom existed – as written into the architecure of our government

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Every social studies class should begin with your wonderful post

I was reading Swedish news. Christmas at the Daycare:

However she chose to be an angel.
Unfortunately, her teachers denied her wish.
When she asked why, they explained that angels were not on the list of culturally mandated Swedish Christmas characters.

The insensitive brown Gingerbread Man

A 10-year-old was told he could not dress up as a gingerbread man at his school’s traditional Lucia celebration as all references to the cookie had been banned in order to avoid offence.

Meanwhile the list of new laws for the new year in the micromanaged world of Sweden

The prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, described Depardieu’s behaviour as pathetic and unpatriotic at a time when the French are being asked to pay higher taxes to reduce a bloated national debt.

It is exquisitely French to described the man you failed to rob as ‘pathetic’

This brings to memory the Maginot Line, the line of defensive bunkers France built along the German borders, as if to dare the Germans to cross

While the fortification system successfully prevented a direct attack, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans invaded through Belgium, defeating the French army. Flanked the Maginot Line, through the Ardennes forest and via the Low countries, completely sweeping by the line and conquering France in about 6 weeks.[1] As such, reference to the Maginot Line is used to recall a strategy or object that people hope will prove effective but instead fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that “generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it” – wikipedia

So they have won the cow, but the calf got away. How unpatriotic, this fattened calf

Descartes, 1637: Je pense donc je sui. I think, therefore I am

France, 2012: I eat, therefore I tax

Depardieu went Galt.

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

Perhaps he might continue to work and get paid in Euros in a fashion that can be taxed, but he could also choose to do more social work, get paid in kind or benefits, or just plain retire. Depends on where the necessary tradeoffs lead him.

“It’s selfish to steal what is not yours”.

See progressives always use moral arguments in tax debates.

They claim it’s immoral not to help the poor.

Yet it’s their immoral desire to steal that’s a huge contradiction.

It’s moral to GIVE to the poor.

It’s IMMORAL to STEAL and then supposedly give to the poor.

And the bankers, and the unions, and the green energy companies..

They’re completely and entirely immoral.

Going Galt means removing your talents from the world altogether until the world comes to its senses.

I’m not sure John Galt believed the world would come to it’s senses. He and his followers believed they had to let the world destroy itself before they could rebuild it.

“He stepped to the window and pointed to the skyscrapers of the city. He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done.”

Canada is culturally similar to the United States, and there is a Conservative Prime Minister. I’m sure people far wealthier than I am have noticed this also.

thuja on December 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The big problem with Canada is that it still has the silly Euro-style, collectivist, party-oriented parliamentary system that is leftist at its very foundation. There might be glimpses of some sort of American-style conservativism from time to time but the overarching path of all such nations is towards leftism, as their governments are founded on it and based in it. You can never be secure in a country such as that as there is no real separation of government branches and no real limits on what they can do. Just by normal entropic pressure, they always move left over time.

We have seen how hard it is to maintain these important aspects of government – decentralized, individualistic, and limited – when they are part of our law. You can imagine how much more difficult such a mission is in a nation where those aspects aren’t part of any law and are, generally, foreign to their governance.

The US was the first, last, and only place that true individual freedom existed – as written into the architecure of our government. That’s why the leftists refused to leave America but made it their mission to break us … and they finally have with their ineligible Indonesian. It just gets uglier from here. This is why the only real solution is either to move to a nation you have a specific attachment to (as you will find that it is not like America and will never be) or for us to have a national divorce to re-establish a nation that will carry the American creed into the future, as the American Socialist Superstate is certainly not that vehicle.

I take issue that leaving France isn’t going Galt. It is. Depardieu stopped living in France, and is, for tax purposes of France, gone Galt. John Galt of Atlas Shrugged didn’t have anywhere else to go, and the U.S. was the only ‘motor’ still running. Depardieu has just shut down his part of France’s ‘motor’ and is now contributing to a country that is not so punitive.

http://conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289

Oddly, Conservapedia mentions the open source movement “information wants to be free” but fails to mention that information costs money to develop, and that patents allow the inventing entity time to take advantage of its invention to recoup those costs and reward the inventor.

I’m sure everyone with a modicum of wealth wants to pay more in taxes so the liberals can continue to spend other people’s money on their failed social experiments. Even the left, when good fortune smiles on them, squeals like stuck pigs when their ox is gored.

iamsaved on December 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Heh. Waiting for Meggie mac to chime in with her “emoticon”… /sarc

if she had an opinbion, I’m sure it’ll be on the side of “patriotism is paying what you’re asked to pay”.

So when a citizen runs away from a high tax Nation he is “unpatriotic” but if he waves the flag, believes in the Constitution and loves his Country for what it stands for and pays his taxes, he is a “Jingoistic” right wing neanderthal that needs to be eliminated so that Liberals can usher in the New World order.

Liberalism is a Mental disorder

So I guess he’s going to give back the millions French tax payers have given to subsidize the industry in which he made his fortune? Nope, I thought not.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Why should he?

He was hired to do a job (act) at a certain salary. He did the job and was paid his salary.

Why should he return anything simply because he has decided to relocate?

Of course, you fascists only believe in honoring a contract…until you don’t.

You fascists have no honor at all.

(I know. You don’t understand that…because you have been propagandized into believing that [we] owe everything to the state; and because of your inbred stupidity and mental deficiency, you aren’t able to reason for yourself and deduce why that is wrong. Don’t worry your little pin-head about it. Just stay content to be a serf and a lickspittle for your masters.)

Doughboy on December 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM

“Green Card” was pretty good.

Why is this relevant? Because M. Depardieu has profited from this system earlier in his career — when others did the paying — so I’m not exactly impressed that now, when it’s his turn to contribute, he is going Galt. I think it’s cool to be Clint Eastwood and deride Socialism, never having gone to the public trough for feeding. But in my book, Depardieu is just a freeloader.

Time Lord on December 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM

If you give a gift without asking for anything in return then don’t claim that you are owed anything. If you want something back for your transaction (which is, obviously NOT a gift) then make it explicit.

France didn’t subsidize films in order to enrich Depardieu or any other individual in films. They did it to give FRANCE a leg up in the world film industry. i.e. France did it for itself. If they wanted the subsidies to be nothing but loans, then they should have been civilized and written out such contracts. But, they didn’t. They subsidized their industry in order to beat Hollywood up (as if they could, LOL). Tough.

I really get sick of people who don’t understand even the simplest aspects of gift-giving. At least, I know never to accept any gifts from you, since they all come with serious strings attached – and who knows what you would demand in the future for your pathetic “gifts” now?

Either France is a free country or it isn’t. Either the EU is a borderless union or it isn’t. I get tired of the hypocrisy from the left. They are totally pathetic. And nasty, too.

Because to the liberals, it’s never ever enough.

Forget that this man has contributed more to the public exchequeur than two thousand of his countrymen ever will in a lifetime. He’s a rich person, and rich people are evil, and because.

Why is this relevant? Because M. Depardieu has profited from this system earlier in his career — when others did the paying — so I’m not exactly impressed that now, when it’s his turn to contribute, he is going Galt. I think it’s cool to be Clint Eastwood and deride Socialism, never having gone to the public trough for feeding. But in my book, Depardieu is just a freeloader.

So I guess he’s going to give back the millions French tax payers have given to subsidize the industry in which he made his fortune? Nope, I thought not.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The taxpayers subsidize comedy? Because comedy is his industry.

Perhaps someone here can help me out. I’m trying to dig up a recent post from, I believe it was either here at Hotair or over at Ace of Spades. The gist of the post was a breakdown about how a California household earning about a $65k income actually had less disposable income than a household earning $35k. Does anybody remember that post? Its driving me crazy.

Zetterson on December 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Here you go from the Daily Caller.

The cash value of welfare spending, according to the analysis, is $167.65 daily per household in poverty. The median household income in 2011 was $50,054 or $137.13 per day, according to the analysis, released Friday.

So I guess he’s going to give back the millions French tax payers have given to subsidize the industry in which he made his fortune? Nope, I thought not.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM

He’s paid 120 million since he was 14. I’ll concede I don’t know what if any the French Government subsidizes their entertainment industry. But he he pay it back all by himself? Should the French People who are beneficiaries of receiving that entertainment also pay?

You’re batting a grand for idiotic thought processes here today.

Where’s the E Unity?

The French-speaking Belgians will welcome the new member of their internal independence movement.