White House Activism Against Corporations: A ridiculous argument against inversions

This is what happens when you get activists who think like communists in the White House. I received this email from them recently trying to build a consensus against the American corporation desire to create tax inversions for themselves to avoid the incredibly high corporate tax rates found in North America.  This is also what happens when corporations are demonized by a political class who wishes to believe that everyone underneath them is in the “middle class” and willingly submits to their gross miss management of national resources.  What the idiots who wrote the below letter conveniently forget is that it was they who spent too much money—not corporate desire to hang on to the profits they’ve earned that is the cause of the problem.  Read their ridiculous utterances here:

Here’s What Inversions Are Costing Us

You don’t get to pick your tax rate. Neither should corporations.

That’s why, earlier this week, the Treasury Department took initial steps to prevent U.S. corporations from using a tax maneuver to avoid paying taxes in America. This loophole — known as an “inversion” — lets a company avoid taxes by relocating their tax residence overseas while changing very little else about its operations or business.

And it’s costing Americans nearly $20 billion over the next decade — critical dollars that could grow and expand the middle class.

Take a look at why we are taking action to close the inversion tax loophole — then share it with everyone who needs to know.Inversions

Notice what type of presidents were in the White House during the periods of time shown on the graph.  Big government socialist types as opposed to conservatives.  When the White House says that it will cost $20 billion in lost revenue over the next decade what they really mean is that they have already promised too much money through mismanagement to future endeavors that cannot be paid for but through higher rates of taxation.  This is the same lunacy that comes from public school mismanagement when they sneak through school levies to pay for unfunded desires—like inflated wages, elaborate buildings, and ridiculously wonderful benefits packages.  What they all have in common is that they are government enterprises built by government minds that spend too much money so to remain in power—then expect tax payers to cover their costs out of some patriotic obligation.

No…………..

What this is called ladies and gentlemen is “mismanagement” of tax payer resources—not obligatory sacrifices to strengthen a middle class of subjects worshiping the feet of the political class.  When they say this “is what inversions are costing us” they don’t mean……”us” as in you, me, rich and poor—they mean the political class who desires under a socialist mentality to rule over everyone else.  They also want a blank check to waste as much tax payer money as possible then expect payment by their subjects without complaint.  But to make matters worse, because corporations don’t have the ability to vote except through lobby power—the government targets them to pay a disproportionate amount of corporate tax by demonizing them into compliance.  However, corporations in this new international trading system that the government so proudly sponsored is voting with their feet and leaving America for oversea tax shelters to protect themselves from a grubby government desiring to steal all the profits gained through production.  This is the inversion process that the White House is complaining about and rather than deal with the problem they caused they are using email activism to attempt and build an argument of democracy against corporations to protect the financial burdens they already committed America to through mismanagement to pay.

These same fools in government almost in the very next sentence promise that they want to create jobs—yet their proposal is to create more government positions paid for by tax payers forgetting that the only real jobs that directly contribute to the GDP of a nation come from corporations and small businesses.  They neglect to inform anyone that it is their mismanagement that is not only spending too much money, but also pushing jobs out of America making unemployment un-naturally high.  Government is the cause of both problems.

It is truly arrogant for a political class to assume that nobody sees what they are up to, yet there it is directly from the White House to my email inbox.  They are that audacious to complain about the life blood of the American economy—corporations—then promise jobs to people was if they had them tucked away in their back pocket like a condemn intended for use in a whore house.  They are that ridiculously foolish.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Socialism of Liz Rogers: Why Mahogany’s failed in Cinncinnati

It was obvious that Liz Rogers was going to fail at Mahogany’s on the Banks when she gave the interview on the radio shown below. She stated that she was guided by faith, not sight and that she was destined to bring an African-American owned restaurant to the plush riverside development in Cincinnati. The city to encourage the endeavor threw a lot of money at her—which was unprecedented, because they wanted the politics of the deal. They wanted the feel good stories, progressive political support, and a success for minority owned businesses. Liz had a nice place in downtown Hamilton that was working, so developers wanted her to expand to a second location. But there was baggage with her from the start, which everyone ignored and the Mahogany’s deal turned out to be a disgrace. In the end the restaurant failed and Liz asked people not to judge her based on what she owed monetarily—but on her love for food. What?????????????????????

Liz Rogers lives in my community and I think is a nice lady. I think her intentions were good. But her business approach belongs in the Twilight Zone, expecting judgment based on her personal desires to cook food, and that she approaches the business with feelings—not thought. In other words her approach to the Banks deal was similar to saying standing before a tall wall, metaphorically, “I have faith that I will be lifted above and beyond that wall.” But the lift never comes leaving her standing in the same spot stuck with ineptitude. The proper approach would be to say, “I will construct a rope and climb over that wall.” That is a plan that can lead to a profitable enterprise. Having faith doesn’t do it. Faith can help you get up in the morning, but it won’t deliver tasks completed.

Now Liz is out of the Banks location and she is looking to make a deal with the city—which should have never been involved in the Rogers endeavor from the start. She is threatening to sue Cincinnati for her failure on the grounds that the types of development city government promised her would take place—which never quite manifested the way they proposed. What is unfathomably naive about her threat is that she actually believes that the fault of her business is the city’s problem. Her location was right next to The Holy Grail and was plugged numerous times on 700 WLW—most of the time in a favorable way regarding her food. She failed to retain the curiosity customers by making them into repeats. Good or bad press she has had loads and loads of free advertising—the name of Mahogany’s has been on every television station, radio station and received plenty of news print. She has had her chances to take a freak show and turn it into a legitimate business opportunity—which is much more opportunity than any other business have had in Cincinnati in years. Just getting the name out for a new enterprise is difficult at best.   If anything, the city gave her a golden opportunity to become gloriously rich—and she failed epically. The city responded to her threat with the following article:

The city of Cincinnati won’t take up Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers‘ offer not to sue it in exchange for forgiving the balance of a $300,000 loan the city made for her to open the restaurant at the Banks.

“In a letter last week, the city expressed its position on this matter,” said Rocky Merz, a spokesman for City Manager Harry Black. “Due to the potential for litigation, we have nothing further to add. We wish Ms. Rogers all the best in her future endeavors.”

Rogers wrote a letter to the city offering not to sue it over promises she says were broken when she agreed to open a restaurant at the riverfront development, including that there would be a hotel and office workers there. She also proposed that for $12,000 the city would sell her the furniture and restaurant equipment the city’s $300,000 bought. Rogers, who said she would open another restaurant in Cincinnati, gave the city until Thursday to take the deal.

Mahogany’s closed last week after it was evicted by its landlord, NIC Riverbanks One. Rogers has denied allegations made in the eviction letter sent by the landlord.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/16/cincinnati-to-mahogany-s-owner-no-deal.html

It is obvious that Liz Rogers is a believer in socialism as she does not attribute her actions to success or failure of her business, but in the promises of government to provide or not provide. She brought with her business venture an obvious lack of embrace in capitalism which scared away her potential customers. She failed because of her philosophic position. She was the one given a gift, nearly a million dollars in opportunity—loads of free advertising and a site across from the Great American Ballpark and one of the hottest developments with residential living right over her head—nearly guaranteed customers if she produced a decent product. But, there was a lot of competition, and she couldn’t hack it—and due to her failure, she sought socialism and racism as the excuse. That is absolutely pathetic.

I didn’t write much about her at this site because part of me felt sorry for her, and I didn’t want to pile it on. I knew from the first time that I heard her speak that she would fail, so it didn’t come as a surprise to me when she did no matter how many opportunities were placed before her feet. But what did surprise me was that she actually believes she has the right to sue Cincinnati because of her failure. That is really astonishing and is a direct symptom of a very broken society that people actually believe such things. Liz Rogers failed because her product wasn’t very good. Her food may have been good, but the experience in dinning in her restaurant as opposed to other places did not have appeal to enough people. That is the whole issue. She was given an opportunity to give Cincinnati visitors at the Banks “soul food” and they rejected it. She may do better in Over-the-Rhine or even Forest Park, but at the Banks—people expect other options and they voted with their wallets. And she went out of business—and because she was not using her sight—she failed to make corrections to her presentation so to keep her customers and make them want to come back. Nobody wants to spend good money in a restaurant where the owner is a victim. They want to brush elbows with success—because it makes them feel good to do so. Instead of Mahogany’s Liz’s customers likely went on down to the Moerlein Brewhouse on the river and conducted their dining experience at that establishment for similar value for the dollar. It was up to Liz to figure out what they were doing and to adjust—but she didn’t. Instead she blamed everyone but herself for a failure that is in her sole possession. If the city government did anything wrong it was that they tried to help her in the first place giving false hope to a person who had not earned a chance that wasn’t theirs to give in the first place.

Rich Hoffman  

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

The Grinding Hurt of Betrayal: John Aglialor’s ‘Atlas III’ interview with Nick Gillespie

The third and final installment, Who is John Galt? hits theaters on Friday, Sept. 12, 2014 and John Aglialoro sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to discuss the completion of the Atlas Shrugged films, their negative critical reception, and the enduring influence of Ayn Rand’s thought. As usual when it comes to Gillespie, it was a good interview and covered a lot of ground. It is a tough task to adopt a film from a novel that means so much to so many people, yet a movie is the perfect gateway to bringing more people into the Objectivist philosophy. Many hard-core Rand fans from the novel want the salacious sex that Ayn Rand wrote about—which was greatly removed from John Aglialoro’s renditions. Personally, I’m grateful as the sex could easily overpower the story in such a movie and I appreciated the tastefulness that it was handled by the Atlas Shrugged trilogy.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/09/08/producer-john-aglialoro-on-ayn-rands-imp

Every time I watch Aglialoro in an interview it is easy to see the hurt behind his eyes. Like Rand, who thought that the unspoken and neglected businessmen would flock to her support of them after the release of her 1957 novel, most cowered in the darkness like idiots paralyzed by the political left into silence. Aglialoro during the second film premiered Atlas II in Washington D.C. right before the 2012 election. Not a single politician, not Ted Cruz, not Rand Paul and certainly not Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan showed up for the movie as they tried to maintain their political distance—so not to have people from the left call them names. Ryan had been an open Ayn Rand supporter before being put on the national ticket with Mitt Romney. Nobody from the political class showed up in Washington D.C. to show their support of a conservative leaning movie featuring ideals that the political right should have openly embraced with great enthusiasm. Republicans played it safe and guess what………….they lost in the 2012 elections all across the nation.

I have felt the bite of that kind of pain a time or two, most recently when I was on 700 WLW radio dealing with a controversy—a sexist accusation by my political enemies who were trying to the same smear tactic used against Rush Limbaugh and Mitt Romney at the time. Unlike those guys, I defended my position proudly. In 2012 I was a spokesman for a group standing against higher school taxes, which was a very unpopular position. I had in my circle a number of high-profile movers and shakers and was proud of them for supporting such a controversial topic. My plan with the pro tax people was in full swing, they were attacking our side by calling us greedy businessmen, so I attacked back with the truth—that a majority of the pro tax advocates were fat assed, out-of-touched parents. Of course they didn’t like it—because the truth hurt. I meant for it to. So I was on the air ready to defend our position and those prominent local businessmen and politicians sent a press release to the station while I was on the air distancing themselves from me. The controversy I didn’t mind at all. The betrayal did bother me. I shut off interviews for the rest of the day as I recalibrated my position. It hurt terribly to trust people then watch them fall for the old liberal tricks of guilt abasement. I couldn’t let that hurt come out in my public statements—which is a really tough thing to do when an entire city is ready to pounce on your every word.

The motivations of those fearful dissidents are the same at every spectrum, from Ayn Rand, to John Aglialoro, to me—we have all been left at the alter by those we were trying to help. It feels like being cheated on by a spouse—just as you are declaring your love for that significant other, you learn that they have been doing the horizontal shuffle with the very people you are fighting—and it hurts. It hurts whether it is sex or politics—in both cases you end up screwed. It is that screwed look that Aglialoro has on his face with each interview he does. He was much more hopeful after Atlas I did respectable opening night numbers, but by the time Atlas III hit theaters he had a hurt look on his face from all the betrayals he had experienced over the last couple of years, while making the movie. For him he continued to make the movies even though very few supported the endeavor. The enemies of the movie were perplexed as to why he continued even though the films were box office failures and did not have majority support from the public. What those same people did not understand was that John Aglialoro made the movies for himself, not for the public. He did it to accomplish a task, not to win approval as a second-hander. Since most of society functions as second-handers, they don’t understand Aglialoro, or his movie. So there is sadness when he talks about the films. He knows as the words leave his mouth that nobody really is going to understand why he made the films—yet he does it anyway in a hope that something will change—someday.

Atlas III won’t be any different. People who understand it will love it, various others who have skin in some type of political game, even within Ayn Rand circles, will hate it. They’ll hate it for Aglialoro’s point of view in making the movie—they’ll complain about the lack of sex, the lack of depth, the lack of good actors, the lack of budget, the lack of public support, the lack of technical aptitude, and every lack of anything else they can think of. But what they can’t accuse John Aglialoro of is a lack of heart and determination. What he did was hard and deserves admiration in the face of much hurt which only those who have been betrayed in a similar fashion can understand.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

‘Who Is John Galt’ Vegas Premier: The Real life 20th Century Motor Companies

It is a shame that Leonard Peikoff and most of the people at the Ayn Rand Institute did not embrace more openly the John Aglialoro Atlas Shrugged films.  I’ve read Peikoff’s book on Objectivism and would have thought that he would have supported the endeavor which premiered in Las Vegas last night showing the third and final film—which is clearly the best of the three film series.  All the Atlas movies were good, but this third film certainly puts the proper end cap on the long cinematic journey which took so many years for Aglialoro to achieve.  The key to the third film is in meeting for the first time the long talked about John Galt and seeing the kind of life that he inspired in a hidden valley called Atlantis.  The Atlas Shrugged filmmakers have been very open to those who are part of their online world called Galt’s Gulch and after several years of work had a special showing for them in Vegas which was a wonderful idea.  As for the work of Ayn Rand, I can’t think of anywhere better that Objectivism has gained the most ground than with the group that has emerged out of Galt’s Gulch at the Atlas Shrugged web site—and that would not have happened without Aglialoro’s films or his team behind one of the most ambitions independent films ever done.image

The third film is titled, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt and is clearly a work of philosophy draped with a love story between Dagny Taggart and John Galt.  It has a wonderful message and for those who think in such a way was a comfortable place to spend a couple of hours.  For the rest of the world—those who live their lives as second-handers—they will hate the movie.  Because of the effort involved, I wish John Aglialoro would have had a larger presence from the Gulch and that online media buzz would have been more robust.  But it has been ignored by virtually everyone, including The Ayn Rand Institute which has done a fantastic job over the years of keeping Rand’s books published and teaching Objectivism to people hungry for a functioning philosophy that actually works.  I can’t think of a bigger Objectivist event than Atlas Shrugged Part III premiering in Vegas and opening to the world on September 12th, but on the morning of the premier, there was not a single mention of the film by the Institute even though they have their big benefit dinner in New York City on September 23rd.  The closest that they have is that Yaron Brook is one of the guest speakers who was also a consultant for the movie.  But there is no direct mention of Aglialoro or the new movie by the official gatekeepers of Ayn Rand’s legacy.

With that kind of in-fighting there is no way that the rest of the nation or the  world can be expected to get behind an ambitious project like a film adaption of one of America’s most monstrously successful novels.  Like it or not, Atlas Shrugged is the great American novel and is much better—and more relevant than any of Mark Twain’s work or John Steinbeck.  Atlas Shrugged is what America was and will always be about and those who wish to change that definition absolutely hate the novel and refuse to recognize it—even though the public has bought the book for over half a century on pure word of mouth.  It is the biggest underground classic in print, and the Ayn Rand Institute has helped make that so.  They will only benefit from the John Aglialoro film as viewers wanting to know more will buy the book to get more details after watching.

To understand Atlas Shrugged and specifically this third film I recently drove my son-in-law who moved here from socialist England through the city of Norwood, Ohio.  In the movie, John Galt gives a speech to the owners and workers of a manufacturing facility called the 20th Century Motor Company that is being overtaken by a socialist plan hatched by the company’s inherited owners.  The labor union adopts socialism at the company which destroys the plant leaving it vacated of any life within a few years.  What they made at the facility becomes quickly lost to history.  Driving through modern-day Norwood I showed my son-in-law how the same thing had happened to that poor city just north of Cincinnati, Ohio.  I showed him the vacant spot where the Cincinnati Milacron plant used to be.  I worked there when I was young and felt very much like a young John Galt—the speech in the film hit home to me and was all too autobiographical.  Shortly after I left Milacron, the company destroyed itself with socialism and is no longer there.  It used to be a large sprawling campus in Oakley, but now it is empty except for a few small office buildings.  Just a few miles to the west are the remains of the old General Motors plant that built Cameros during the hot selling 70s and 80s.  Now it is an empty parking lot.  Across the Norwood Lateral used to be the largest movie theater house in Cincinnati, the Showcase Cinemas of Norwood.   I used to see small art films there like Clint Eastwood’s White Hunter Black Heart which played nowhere else in the city.  It only played there because they had so many theaters they could afford to dedicate a few of them to pictures that were more philosophic than commercial.  Back then, it was the kind of theater that would have shown Atlas Shrugged Part III.  Now that theater is gone, it’s an empty parking lot.  As Cincinnati Milacron died and the General Motors plant along with many other smaller businesses all for the same reasons—the investment money moved north to flee the high taxes of the city and parasitic nature of local governments who gain fame for themselves by spending other people’s money.  Norwood is essentially a ghost town today after only 20 years of failed economic policy—just like the 20th Century Motor Company in the movie.  The only theater that Atlas is playing now is where the money is currently, about 20 miles north in Mason, Ohio at the Regal.  Many of the people who reside in neighborhoods around that theater moved from areas like Norwood years ago leaving only the parasites living through socialism to inhabit which collapsed the economy.  Some of those Mason people understand the message of Atlas Shrugged because they have been through it, so the movie is showing there.  But for the people of Norwood who are typically on welfare, jobless, and from families with several baby daddies coming in and out of their lives—the Objectivist message of the Atlas films are lost to them.

Burger King along with almost every large corporation is seeking to move their headquarters out of America for the same reasons that large companies closed in Norwood—the taxes were too high, and the socialism from their local governments were simply too intrusive, and costly.  America has a corporate tax rate of 39.1% which is the highest rate in the entire world which is simply ridiculous.  For anybody who has had to actually earn money it is known that for every dollar lost from productivity, that additional productivity must be generated to offset the cost.  For an average parasite that is just happy to have food in their bellies, and cable television to watch, they may not wish to be productive so to earn extra money to pay for nice cars, expensive vacations and a life style that is generally comfortable.  So they can’t conceive why a CEO would need millions of dollars to run a company because they have no concept of the risks involved in doing so, or the responsibility.  When the profitability of responsibility becomes no longer worth it, most CEO’s knowing that they cannot possibly generate enough sales to offset their margins will simply cash out and retire—doing essentially what John Galt and his friends did in the new Atlas film.  In the best cases they move their company somewhere where the tax rates are not so high, or they just shut down and retire off their earnings letting the world go to hell.  That’s what happened in Norwood leaving the residents there to deal with the mess they created by electing socialist community leaders who thought that taxation could always be proportionally increased.  They were wrong, the empty buildings and terrible real estate values are testimony.

When I was a kid my grandfather used to take pigs to slaughter at a meat market near Union Terminal.  Back in those days there were several breweries, packaging houses and much industry along the Western Hills Viaduct.   Now it is an area mired in poverty driven by an overload of the welfare system.  The Viaduct itself is falling apart and nobody can figure out where to get the money to fix it.  The Brent Spence Bridge just to the south of the Viaduct is also falling apart and needs replacement.  It is major highway artery from the north of the United States to the south, but there are no politicians with any answers even as the highway runs by Paul Brown Stadium which hosts only eight events a year during football season costing $455 million to build in the year 2000 numbers which equates out with inflation to $623 million.  Just the spike in inflation rates should be alarming in only 14 years.   But worst than that, it was some of the only new construction to take place in downtown Cincinnati in decades.  That construction is driven by pure entertainment value which is hardly sustainable for long-term growth and profitability.  There has to be industry which actually makes things in order to sustain other businesses and landmarks like the Western Hills Viaduct.  The city of Cincinnati is dying just like what was seen in Atlas Shrugged Part III.

Of course people who don’t wish to acknowledge these issues will hate the Atlas films for bringing it to their attention.  They wish to remain second-handers forever and don’t want to give up on their illusions of socialism.  But for the few who are bold enough to look at the situation squarely—and with honesty, Atlas Shrugged Part III is a blessing.  There are already an extreme minority who find that kind of subject matter enjoyable and they are lucky that John Aglialoro made a film for them.  It’s not financially profitable to do such a thing, but for a producer like Aglialoro, money can always be made.  What cannot be recovered is the American nation and if one truly does love their country—they would obviously try to save it.  The Atlas films are an attempt to save the country before everyone simply leaves.   The new Atlas film might be called Who Is John Galt, but I suspect that John Aglialoro has more in common with Dagny Taggert from the film than John Galt.  Aglialoro is still functioning in the world trying to warn people of what’s coming with his movie.  The people at the Atlas Society are already in Atlantis and hope to see it all crumble away—which is the likely anxiety between the two groups.

I thought all this while watching the scene where Dagny decided to leave Atlantis and return back to the world and fix her railroad problems.  John Galt, who is the leader in the Gulch decides to leave with her much to the shock of his friends.  Because of his attachment to Dagny, John Galt is put in danger of being looted off of once discovered because the world is desperate for someone with some kind of answer.  If Dangy had stayed put, it is likely that their paradise would survive forever as the world around them crumbled.  But because Dagny chose to leave and continue to fight—it brought John Galt back into the world to provide a deciding blow against socialism.  The Atlas Society wants to stay in the Gulch and John Aglialoro—at least a time or two more, wants to fight it out to save America.  And that is the crux of the matter.  It is a shame; because the Atlas Society has a lot that they could do and if they worked with the Atlas III film, would find that the cause of Objectivism is ripe for the many millions of empty minds out there looking desperately for something to fill them.  For the Atlas Society to not attach themselves to the film Atlas Shrugged Part III, they are missing a strategic opportunity that won’t easily come again.

As for where I stand in the film, it is the character Ragnar Danneskjold.  John Galt simply wants to cut off the parasites from their theft against the productive.  Ragnar wants to take back what was stolen along the way.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

THE NFL IS CORRECT: Bruno Mars should pay to sing in a Super Bowl

Labor unions have quietly been percolating in the background trying to repair their image after several years of close scrutiny. They are trying to re-tool their public presence carefully which they unleashed shortly after their Labor Day holiday by providing their intrusive input into the upcoming NFL season of which largely consists of labor union representation. When it is wondered why Hollywood leans left no matter what the industry—music or motion pictures—it is because they are all members of an entertainment union. And within those unions progressive values are constantly espoused. I should know, the Writers Guild of America came close to representing me during the 90s on a few occasions putting me on their mailing list and I received a constant parade of pro Bill Clinton propaganda. I was also a part of a manufacturing facility around the time of the controversial Al Gore, George Bush election of 2000, and clearly the labor union was in support of Gore. Typically when speaking with these types of people I have always taken a hard-line in favor of conservatives which has most of the time been a deal killer for my projects—so I know all about discrimination against conservatives in labor unions—especially in entertainment and manufacturing.

Recently the NFL floated a proposal that their half time acts at the Super Bowl should pay them for the public exposure on such a large stage which was met with a general utterance that the football sports organization was acting greedily. Union pushback is mounting. The AFL-CIO’s Department of Professional Employees just joined the American Federation of Musicians in condemning such a plan.

“No one should ever pay to work. No organization should ever get a kickback from a worker they employ,” the labor organization said of the plan, first detailed in the Wall Street Journal. “The Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, its affiliates in the entertainment industry, and the other unions, 22 in all, will stand with the AFM in condemning and will fight back against any attempts to make workers pay to perform,” the group said of the plan to convince music acts to cough up cash to play the halftime show, most likely in the form of a cut of post-show ticket sales, downloads, etc.

“It’s not like the NFL and its Super Bowl organizers don’t have any money and can’t afford to pay for halftime show performances, it’s about the insatiable thirst for profits at the expense of great musical entertainment and those who create it,” AFM President Ray Hair said last week. “You can find kickback schemes like this coming from unscrupulous bar and nightclub owners, but for the NFL to descend to such depths would be unconscionable.”

http://deadline.com/2014/09/super-bowl-halftime-pay-to-play-afl-cio-fight-nfl-827894/

The dialogue against the NFL by most people—especially union leaders like that Ray Hair fellow–is wrong especially in regard to the entertainment unions who on one hand preach against greed while they force collective bargaining agreements for their players valued at millions of dollars for kids in their mid-twenties fresh out of college. Musicians who are superstars are in much the same boat and are typically young and fall hook line and sinker for the union propaganda that comes with their memberships. But they are all confused as to what creates value and who is responsible for what.

The NFL has created the value which all these parties seek to be a part. The NFL Super Bowl was created in its value by the efforts of the National Football League. Aerosmith, Prince, or any other headline acts which plays at the Super Bowl did not create the value of such a large game—it was created by the NFL owners who put a product on the field that millions of people enjoy. Players come and go, but the product of the NFL continues on season after season because the management of that product is successful. Yet the labor unions want and expect equal value for their participation—which is clearly barbaric and ignorant—if value is the measuring unit utilized. Players are not equal to owners, and halftime acts are not equal to the players which make the Superbowl such an exciting enterprise.

Most musical acts benefit from sales of their recordings after they perform for over a billion people on live television. I would argue that groups like the Rolling Stones and Aerosmith are equal to the NFL in value and should just be honored to be a part of the festivities. Those classic bands who are household names have built their reputation to such a level that they benefit very little from performing at a halftime show during the Superbowl. Their participation is purely out of respect and nostalgia. But for smaller acts like Lady Gaga or Bruno Mars, they will receive a spike in sales just for appearing in a Super Bowl and they should pay for that advertising just like every other vendor trying to make money off the product that the NFL created.

Every labor union who argues that their members participate equally to the product of the NFL just because they show up and play a part during a few years of their life are thinking about the whole thing incorrectly—their philosophy is framed by socialism, not capitalism. The NFL itself is a capitalist organization, and it is not greedy to expect payment for using their product—their intellectual property. People who have a problem with this are functioning socialists. It is anti capitalist to refer to the NFL as greedy for expecting compensation from those riding their product to success.

If Bruno Mars sings a song in the middle of the woods deep in the mountains, nobody cares. If the Superbowl puts him on stage for billions of people that they organized for the event Bruno Mars benefits as does the NFL. But the NFL has to make a business decision as to who should play in their halftime show and it is up to them if they want payment in financial compensation, or if they want to honor musical legends like the Stones or Aerosmith with a free party and chance to have some fun during one of the biggest American events of the year. The players, and other entertainment professionals participating in the Super Bowl do not make the value of the game. They simple play a part. If they refuse there are other Russell Wilsons in the world who are willing to throw a football in front of millions of viewers. Some people would do it for free just for the opportunity to do it. The unions have only one function that is anti-capitalist in its desire and that is to loot off the productive enterprise of value creators like the NFL create. They are leeches that are beneath contempt and are dead wrong in their assertion about payment regarding halftime entertainment. As usual the collective bargaining agreements of these labor unions are more appropriate in Soviet Russia during the 60s and 70s than in capitalist America during a football game that embodies the economy of the most successful country on earth. The labor unions are purely second-handers looting value from those who created it and trying to make it appear that those who created that value are greedy for not wanting to “share the wealth” with their members. Their basic premise is that the NFL has money and we want it. That is the bottom line—and why the labor unions are wrong.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Help Burger King–Buy a Whopper Today: The vote of tax inversions against progressive politics

To a large extent progressive politicians who wish to redistribute the wealth of America to smaller—less productive countries created this monster—but now those same politicians are feeling the wrath of their failure surrounding the tax inversion tactics created by the federal government. Tax inversions are where United States corporations move their headquarters to other countries to avoid paying corporate taxes. While those same progressive activists in government wanted this to happen to some extent—they did not bother to do the math on the potential impact to loss in the United States treasury. When Burger King recently announced that they were about to move to Canada to avoid the high corporate taxes in the United States, it forced politicians like Obama and Ohio’s Sharrod Brown to confront the issue as “unpatriotic.”

To the progressive politician patriotism means supporting their system of government schools, their high monopolistic wages for road maintenance, their social infrastructure created by government for government through an intrusive tax system. Obama’s response to the Burger King exodus was that their failure to pay future taxes would lead to tax increases for individual citizens who would be forced to cover the federal bill for services rendered. However, it never occurred to Obama, or Brown that their progressive policies which cost a lot of money—their wealth redistribution schemes, their ridiculously inefficient education system, their welfare policies were unsolicited by a large portion of the thinkers in the United States. Just because the producers, thinkers, and general entrepreneurs are in the minority in America does not mean that the masses through democracy can vote themselves the legal ability to loot and pillage enterprise. Corporate taxes in America are among the highest in the world because of intrusive progressive politicians representing the degenerate masses. They did not consider what would happen if those corporations picked up and left because the looting of their profit would be deemed too costly.

President Obama intensified his criticism of U.S. firms that shift their headquarters overseas Thursday, arguing the tax-saving tactic is unfairly “gaming the system.”

“This is basically taking advantage of tax provisions that are technically legal,” Obama said in an exclusive CNBC interview, referring to a surge of U.S. corporations transferring their official addresses to Ireland, Bermuda or other lower-tax jurisdictions.

“But I think most people would say: If you’re doing business here, if you’re basically still an American country, but you’re simply changing your mailing address to avoid paying taxes, then you’re really not doing right by the country and by the American people,” said Obama.

He acknowledged that corporate executives and board members are paid to maximize company profits and expand business operations. “But people are also paid to be good corporate citizens, they’re also paid to make sure that they’re thinking about, in addition to shareholder value, how do you grow a company over the long-term,” said Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/24/obama-tax-inversions-criticism/13120369/

NEW YORK (CBS Cleveland/AP) — Burger King says it struck a deal to buy Tim Hortons Inc. for about $11 billion, a move that creates the world’s third-largest fast-food company and could accelerate the international expansion of the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain.

The corporate headquarters of the new company will be in Canada. The two brands will continue to be run as stand-alone chains, with Burger King still operating out of Miami.

Some analysts have suggested that Canada’s lower tax rates stand to benefit Burger King over time. But Burger King said that’s the not main motivation for the deal.

During a conference call with analysts and investors, Burger King Executive Chairman Alex Behring stressed that international growth possibilities are driving the deal. He noted that 3G Capital, the investment firm that owns a majority stake in Burger King, has turned the hamburger company into one of the fastest-growing chains since buying it in 2010. He said that experience will be applied to Tim Hortons.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is calling for a boycott of Burger King.

“Burger King’s decision to abandon the United States means consumers should turn to Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers or White Castle sliders. Burger King has always said ‘Have it Your Way’; well my way is to support two Ohio companies that haven’t abandoned their country or customers,” Brown said in a statement. “To help business grow in America, taxpayers have funded public infrastructure, workforce training, and incentives to encourage R&D and capital investment. Runaway corporations benefited from those policies but want U.S. companies to pay their share of the tab.”

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/08/26/dem-senator-calls-for-boycott-of-burger-king-tells-consumers-to-eat-at-wendys-white-castle/

Tax inversions, newly popularized by the law firm Skadden Arps Meagher & Flom four years ago, have taken on a new popularity this year as many corporations struggle to appease shareholders looking askance at growing corporate cash piles. While corporate cash piles act as a bulwark during recessionary times, the recovering economy has made the multibillion-dollar cash hoards look like bad financial management.

Many US corporations have complained loudly about US tax rates, even though it’s rare that they pay the full burden of 35% to 39%. Out of the Fortune 500 of prominent US companies, 288 paid an effective US federal tax rate of just 19.4% between 2008 and 2012, according to advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice.

The conflict really centers around the profits that US companies generate overseas. These foreign profits have flooded the coffers of US companies, making up the bulk of an estimated $1.5 trillion in excess cash. Some, like Apple, have burned down some of the money by returning it to shareholders in the form of dividends, or have bought back their own stock in an attempt to drive their share prices higher on the open market. Still, the trillions remain out of reach until the companies make peace with the taxes they will have to pay, and Apple CEO Tim Cook has testified to federal officials in favor of a tax holiday.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/26/burger-king-calls-obamas-bluff-tax

What is ignored by politicians like Obama, and Brown—progressives who falsely believed they could build an empire of dependents in America and that corporations and the productive entrepreneurs of industry would gladly pay for services, schools, roads, and government infrastructure that they don’t support—for the greater good as defined by those same progressives, is that people might not want to pay for their view of the world.   Brown’s statements specifically about Burger King was that the business of the fast food chain was built by those same infrastructure items and that the restaurant chain does not want to pay their fair share. But consider that roads to nowhere have no value unless there is a Burger King to drive to, or an Apple product to purchase at a shopping mall. Education has no value unless it is to prepare young people to live in the world created by entrepreneurs—people who will eventually eat at Burger King or drive a car to make an Apple Store purchase. In a capitalist society entrepreneurship comes first, dedication to social causes that win Democratic elections second. The “egg” comes first in that kind of society and it is under a capitalist society that Burger King was created. Socialist countries don’t create such places.

It is patriotic to leave America when progressives have infiltrated capitalism so ridiculously that it has weakened the capitalist system which built all these marvelous businesses. It is patriotic to say no to higher taxes because most taxes only serve politicians who benefit from the demographic receiving wealth redistribution. Most politicians, especially those like Obama and Brown have no ideal how two quarters are made into .50 cents and how the value was created to begin with. All they see is that somebody has money and that they feel it is their duty to social justice to take that money and give it to somebody who doesn’t have it. Most of their public education systems teach the same behavior and their road construction crews are artificially high in cost because of their monopoly on that particular construction industry. The system really only benefits progressives and their politicians—it does not benefit the job creator. Without a job creator there is no place for a road to go, or even the need for an education—because the destination is created by the few for the many. Not the other way around.

I don’t normally eat at Burger King, but this week I will to support the restaurant chain in their desire to use a tax inversion to save some corporate tax. Not paying a tax is the only way to vote against the big spending wealth redistribution policies of typical progressives who attack everything about the system of job creation that they can without restraint. Progressives should not wonder why Burger King and many other companies want to avoid the tax—if they understood the nature of profit and how important it is to any economy—especially a capitalist one like the United States. But Obama and Brown are career politicians—they get paid to steal the wealth of companies like Burger King, and to give it to those too lazy to be enterprising. So their befuddled nature in this case is amusing. What is insulting is when they insist that others will have to pay the taxes Burger King is avoiding because in their minds they have already spent the money. It is in that condition that they prove themselves to be so detrimental to the human race and intelligence of any kind. So help Burger King by purchasing a Whopper today. I am!

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

COMMUNISM IS BEHIND THE MIDDLE EAST TROUBLE: The strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘The Project’

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened”. – Norman Thomas Socialist Candidate for President of the United States 1944.

I hate to say I’m right, but I am. For those who have wondered if my many articles about communist infiltration of public schools, labor unions and the Democratic Party in general were inflammatory, and over-the-top—now you understand how right I was and how wrong you were. The plot all along in America was for the prophesy proclaimed by Norman Thomas so many years ago to come to pass.   Small “c” communism was always the plan and it wore the mask of socialism to make it seem more appealing. The evidence is overwhelmingly obvious and beyond refute. But what is more disgusting for many is that they will soon learn that it is communism that is also behind the Muslim Brotherhood—which uses religious ideology to mask the economic desire to fully spread communism to every corner of the planet—especially in the tribal nature Middle East. I started to cover this in a recent article which can be seen by CLICKING HERE. Further proof can be seen in the following video.

 Didn’t see that on the American news networks, did you?  Yet there it is.

Even European media deeply troubled by the radical amount of Muslim extremists so prevalent in the many nations of the European Union are seeing the comparisons which should have always been clear from the outset.   While studying the behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood a German media group finally started to connect the dots centering on “The Project” a 20-year-old document established to take over the Western world with a strategy eerily similar to the Communist Manifesto, also covered previously at this site.   Apparently, this is the first time any German media outlet has ever told the truth about the global hegemonic aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its resemblance to Nazism, Communism, and other totalitarian political movements.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/12/18/german-tv-compares-the-muslim-brotherhood-to-communists-and-nazis/

Again, from Frontline magazine they state, “one might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

“If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

“In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4476

Rather than focusing on various terrorist groups or organizations, the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West.” Tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project, drafted in 1982 when tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. The Project is extremely discerning for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades. Investigate various Islamic organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, Muslim Brotherhood in key agencies our government like DHS, DOJ, DOD. Research Socialist/Communist influence in Muslim countries during WWII and the two will be found to be jointly aligned. Below are the intentions outlined by The Project which can be seen active in the modern age and at the core of the current caliphate movement surrounding the Mediterranean Sea area cultures.

  • Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
  • Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
  • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
  • Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
  • Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
  • Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
  • Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
  • Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
  • Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
  • Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
  • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
  • Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
  • Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
  • Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
  • Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
  • Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
  • Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
  • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
  • Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
  • Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
  • Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
  • Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
  • Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/pulling-masks-communists-muslim-brotherhood/

Most of the radical Islamic groups rising to power all over the world who are involved with the Muslim Brotherhood have under their masks of religion the political philosophy communism at its back. They are following the playbook of The Project to implement their strategy.

There will never be peace in the Middle East so long as the masses are following communism and specifically The Project designed by the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy the Western world. At the heart of every matter are beliefs like the ones above, and behind those strategies is the old foe of communism that wears the mask of Islam like a mask to penetrate western societies featuring capitalism as a Trojan horse to get behind enemy lines to destroy those cultures. There is no mistake in the intentions. Any group that does not discuss this Muslim objective is purposely participating.

When it is wondered why the popular media gives a free pass to Islamic terrorism, but chooses to chastise Christian and other religions—it is because they are following the teachings of The Project. Like the communist threat of yesteryear where the hazard was identified by name, it now wears the mask of Islam to hide its vile conquest of capitalism and the freedoms of the West. The situation is further exacerbated by the large number of organizations that have a difficult time discussing the evils of ISIS (ISIL) and the events of turmoil centering around the Middle East with everything but the truth. The problems in the Middle East are not as complicated as everyone pretends. The reason is that behind all the actions of the aggressors is a push for communism. The complication comes from trying to explain the irrationality of the Middle East without talking about communism—which is impossible. It is the reason why nobody is given the real story of what is going on behind the Palestinian HAMAS, the greater efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS—because they are all groups advocating communism with the same bravado as the Bolsheviks did in Russia during 1917.   Marxism and communism were inventions of Germany, and during World War I it was they who lost the Middle East ally of the Turks causing great trouble with resolutions given to them by the Treaty of Versailles. Germans sent communists to Russia to overthrow that land from the previous Tsarist regime. After World War I Germans and Russians under communist command did the same in the Middle East and the result to this day are the Muslim Brotherhood and all their offshoots. Using Islam, they have hid their intentions of communism behind the face of a religion following the Quran. But now dear reader you know otherwise—and it is best that you began to take action to fight it off. Now you know how they have arrived in your life and can take action to remove them—decisively.

But do not make the mistake again that what I am telling you is over-the-top and inflammatory—don’t wait for a magic moment to confirm these results. Because there isn’t any time. Act now, or find them at your doorstep with haste. When they arrive, they will not show mercy.   Communists—unlike Muslims—do not recognize individuals. They only serve the collective whether that collective is dedicated to Allah, or economic theories—it is all the same.

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com