"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Thursday, June 15, 2006

As the Deficit Continues to Plummet, National Media Silent

Will Malven

You won’t hear about it from the Paleo-media.  You won’t see it on the television unless you’re watching Fox News.  It’s a sign of the success of President Bush’s economic policies and tax-cuts. 

What is it? 

It is the rapidly declining federal deficit.  For the past two years now the deficit has been severely under-performing.  It has been consistently falling short of the projected levels at a rate of about $50 billion/year.

You read it right; the federal deficit is dropping like a stone. 

Yep, in spite of the Clinton recession, in spite of the events of 9-11-01, in spite of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of the global war on terrorism, in spite of record pork-barrel spending by a congress out of control, in spite of historically high gasoline prices, in spite of the Katrina/Rita hurricane disasters, and in spite of all the Democrats can do or say to drive down public confidence in the economy, President Bush is on track to beat his target of halving the federal deficit 3 years ahead of schedule.

How can this be? 

Tax-cuts work!  The Presidents economic plan is and has been working better than even he could have hoped.  Because of the tremendous health of the national economy brought on by the Presidents tax-cuts, federal revenues are up substantially, even outstripping the growth in spending.

The record annual deficit of $413 billion occurred in FY 2004.  Since then the deficit has been sinking fast.  Last years deficit came in at $319 billion and this years projections by the Congressional Budget Office now put it below $300 billion.  The original estimates for FY 2005 projected a deficit of $350 billion.

The math is simple, thanks to a booming economy brought on by the tax-cuts so maligned by the Democrats, revenues this year are up 12.9% compared to the same time last year.  Spending, in spite of all Congress could do has been held to a robust 8% annually.

With numbers like these and the continued growth in jobs, one would think everyone in America would be rejoicing and lauding the tremendous success of the President, but that would avail Democrat politicians little.  So the Democrats have made it a point to distort the numbers and flat out lie about the economy at every turn.

Employment is at an all time high, the Democrats tell us that the jobs that have been created aren’t worth having.  All of the “good” jobs are going overseas. 

The truth is that the “flood of jobs going overseas” is actually a trickle.  Yep outsourcing, the great bugbear cited endlessly by the John Kerry-Heinz/John ”Shyster” Edwards campaign has proven to be a tempest in a teapot.

In an economy which, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, employs 144 million people (non-farm payroll), the number of jobs lost due to “offshore outsourcing” continues to be around 200,000/year.  The current unemployment rate is 4.2%.

You would never know it from the Paleo-press, but we are in a booming economy. 

Let me repeat, tax-cuts work, they always have.  Democrats know this, but they will never acknowledge it because it goes against everything they stand for, vis. big government programs, the nanny state, socialized medicine, a tightly controlled economy, you know, socialism (if not communism).

As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the current deficit is below its halcyon days of the 1980’s.  If Congress can keep its meddling hands off of our money and extend the tax-cuts enacted at the behest of President Bush, there is a very real probability that America will see reductions in the national debt in the next 5 years.  Though that sounds like a long way off, it is well before even the rosiest estimates of this administration.

Of course Congress refraining from raising our taxes is a major caveat, especially if the Democrats take over our government.  Clinton was the beneficiary of an artificial and unsustainable tech bubble and his drastic reductions in the size of our military (an economic artifice for which we are now paying). 

Virtually all of the so called reduction in the size of government President Clinton took credit for in balancing the budget came from cuts in our military.  This short-sightedness has been directly responsible for the Democrats loud lamentations over the difficulties we have faced in sustaining our troop levels in Iraq.

It was left to President Bush to rebuild our military to appropriate levels (an ongoing process) and to re-equip our troops to enable them to achieve their mission.  Additionally, the changed nature of combat brought about by the new tactics of asymmetrical warfare as practiced by the terrorists has changed the requirements for equipping our troops.

Hummers, the vehicles intended to be the work horses of our army for the foreseeable future, have proven to highly vulnerable to the tactics of the terrorists in Iraq.  As such, the military has been forced to spend billions in retro-fitting them with upgraded armor.  This unanticipated complication has also led to various crash programs to design new more suitable vehicles to replace the hummer.

The nature of this war has also exposed the need for all of our troops to be supplied with personal body armor, another unanticipated expense in the pursuit of our military objectives.  As with the equipment needs, the changed nature of warfare has added the additional burden of revised training for our troops.  New tactics and new techniques in fighting a determined insurgency have led to the building of new training facilities and training in public relations as well as those new tactics.

Yet, in spite of all of the difficulties inherited by this administration and these new and unanticipated costs for the military, the deficit is now beginning to fall. 

Even as that happens, the Democrats continue their ill-advised and moronic drumbeat for increased taxes.  They would have the tax-cuts instituted by the President expire so that they can pursue their own private agenda of buying the votes of special interest groups and instituting their utopian socialist state.

I can think of no action more certain to wreck the economy than to follow the advice of these socialist dinosaurs.  Increasing taxes is the most certain way to stall the economy and plunge America back into the doldrums we experienced in the closing years of the Clinton administration.

President Clinton’s legacy (aside from a stained dress and multiple charges of sexual assault) was a weak military, Osama bin Laden, and a recession. 

President Bush’s legacy, if Congress doesn’t lose its nerve, will be a free and democratic Iraq, a strong flexible military, a robust economy, record employment, a more secure nation, and a declining deficit.

That’s a pretty good legacy by any standard.  Short of a stronger more enforcement oriented policy on illegal immigration, something I continue to find to be a severe failing on the President’s part, I couldn’t ask for a greater record of accomplishment form President Bush.

President George, you da man!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Reckless Endangerment of Our Troops: Murtha, Kerry-Heinz, and the Anti-War Press

Will Malven

“I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.”

Thus says Representative John Murtha (D-PA) about the incident in Haditha.  This “Hero” of the Democrat Party has designated himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the Marines involved in the Haditha affair, all without hearing a single bit of testimony. 

What a guy! What a fair minded Congressman.  What a jerk!

Statements like the above and stories the press carries in which conclusions are reached and accusations are made without a shred of evidence deserve to be called what they are, reckless, uninformed, dangerous, politically motivated hate speech toward our troops and their mission.

Comments from the Leftist bloggers leave no mistake as to their opinion of our military.

From Arianna Huffington:

“jaw-dropping accounts of drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out U.S. troops, "killing the wrong people all the time..."

“ the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians.”

Nothing like an adoptive American (she’s a naturalized citizen) slandering our troops. Maybe she needs to be sent packing,

Murtha served in Viet Nam, so what?  Benedict Arnold was a hero of the Revolution just before he betrayed his nation. 

Brave John Murtha.  John Murtha of The “Cut and Run” Strategy.  

  • Twenty-three years ago, John Murtha recommended to President Reagan that he should pull the troops out of Lebanon.
  • Thirteen years ago he advised President Clinton to cut and run from Somalia.  
  • A year ago he proposed that the troops be withdrawn in 6 months—and redeploy them to Okinawa, a mere hop, skip and monstrous jump from Iraq. 
Now that’s what I call a determined leader, dedicated to the principle of freedom and democracy.  Sort of a “So long! Oh and thanks for letting us get rid of Saddam Hussein, you guys are on your own now.  Have a nice day.”  With friends like Murtha, Iraq doesn’t need any more enemies. Nor, it seems, do our troops in Iraq. 

Looks like every decade or so, Mad Captain Jack Murtha’s feet start getting antsy and he hankers to “cut and run” like a Democrat.

As for Senator John Kerry-Heinz—who served in Vietnam, by the way—he is also part of the “cut and run” Democrat strategy.  It is his turn to call for a total withdrawal in 6 months. 

On Monday he introduced an amendment to the Military spending bill that would require President Bush to bring all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by year's end.  He too is a man of strength and commitment. Just don’t rely on him to be consistent. 

Who knows, depending on what the poll numbers say, next week he may introduce another amendment demanding President Bush pledge to keep our troops there for the next 2 decades.  These weighty matters require serious study and (political) analysis.  One doesn’t just go off half-cocked.  I mean what if the people decide they want to stay the course?  Poor John, he has so many decisions to make and so small a brain. Too bad he can only flip in one direction at a time.

What is it with the Democrats and the 6 month thing?  Is there something magical about the number 6?  Senator Harken has also come out for the 6 month idea.  Hmmm...666.  You don’t suppose...nah, can’t be...can it?  You never know. The anti-Christ is supposed to come from central Europe and old “I actually voted for the funding, before I voted against it” Kerry-Heinz is a wanna be Frenchman.  France is in central Europe...sort of.  Lord knows the Democrats want to take back the reigns of our government so badly that they would sell their souls to achieve it; maybe they did.

Alright, I’ve had my fun. Now let’s get back to my original claim.  I did call these critics of the war dangerous, didn’t I? So let’s see why.

In combat situations, events happen in the blink of an eye.  Consequently our troops have to be able to make instant decisions in order to save their lives and those of their brother soldiers (apologies to the other services, for expedience I’m going to use the terms soldiers and troops interchangeably even though in the specific instance of Haditha we are talking about Marines).  In those situations, to hesitate is to die. 

When their actions are criticized and unsubstantiated charges are made against them for doing their jobs as they are trained to do, then doubt can creep into their minds.  They may begin to think:

“Should I clear this room in which I believe there is a hostile presence or should I  make sure there are no civilians in there?  I don’t want to get into trouble for doing what I believe is right.”

In a combat situation this is frequently a fatal doubt.  These soldiers suffer enough over the “collateral” casualties they cause, without the weight of presumptive guilt being lumped on them by a bunch of arm-chair generals peering over their shoulders looking for mistakes in hopes of scoring political points.

You don’t have to take my word for it, just ask Sgt Ilario Pantano who was falsely accused of executing two Iraqi civilians in 2004.  The ordeal he went through was terrible, yet he said that what these marines are going through is far worse because of all the political one-upsmanship going on by critics of the war. 

Sgt Pantano only had to deal with a military tribunal, not a bunch of Democrat politicians and Pulizer pursuing reporters seeking to score points off of what has turned out to be a nightmare. In an interview on Hannity and Colmes, he made the very points that I have been making.  This kind of accusation and conviction by the press, without even allowing the targets to respond, undermines the safety of our troops. It causes them to hesitate.

Our troops have clearly laid out procedures for entering a suspected hostile environment.  It is called “clearing.”  If they suspect that hostiles are on the other side of a door, they are to burst the door open, roll in a grenade, and then follow up with a large volume of small arms fire.  Not very discriminating perhaps but it saves the lives of our soldiers.

We also know that the terrorists with whom we are fighting have no compunction at using civilians as shields.  In fact they do so on purpose hoping to make headlines of the sort we are now seeing.  It makes great propaganda for them and the Democrat Party. 

If you’re willing to explode a car bomb in the middle of a market to exact the maximum number of dead Iraqi civilians, what do you care about the few you are using as a shield?

Now for a bunch of politicians (the Democrats) who continually express outward concern for the welfare of our troops and who follow the daily American death toll and punctuate every sentence about the war with the current numbers of American dead and wounded, I find it curious that they would be so cavalier in their leap to convict our troops of wrong doing in the absence of any real evidence (the simple existence of civilian casualties is not that evidence).  They must know that undermining the confidence of those same troops can only further add to the danger they are in. 

Could it be that they wish for more casualties so they can use them in their campaign against the war and against the President?  I wouldn’t go so far as to assert that they don’t care about the welfare of our boys in Iraq, but one does have to wonder.

Why are they so quick to believe the worst about our soldiers?  Why are Democrats more willing to believe the claims of the Iraqis than the word of our own troops?  Why are they more willing to believe the words of terrorists who have been released from detention than they are the troops who are assigned to guard them? 

Clearly one reason is that Democrats and more specifically Liberals have always feared and distrusted our military.  They are the same folks who always seek to blame America first.

Finally let’s discuss the aid and comfort those on the Left are giving to our enemies. 

Rest assured that the terrorists and insurgents are reading, watching, and listening to every word that appears in the media.  Every grandstanding political speech against the war, every accusation made against our troops and our government, all of it is fodder for their propaganda mill.  Everytime they hear Senator Kerry-Heinz call for a quick cut and run withdrawal of our troops they think they can outlast us. 

Not only that, but everytime an Iraqi citizen who is not quite sure whether he should give his allegience to the elected government or to one of the insurgent faction hears those words, it gives him cause to reflect, another reason to doubt.

For people who actually are compassionate, not merely paying lip service, the only possible course is to see the war through.  The only compassionate action is to make sure that the Iraqi people get their chance to build a safe, stable, democratic, and open government.

I have been criticized (surprise) for accusing those speaking out against the war of being traitors. They ask, “Can’t we even criticize the war?  Isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about?”  Short answer, if it endangers our troops, if it endangers our security, NO! 

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.  Undermining the moral of our troops in a time of war is treason.  Being an advocate for the enemy is...treason.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, June 9, 2006

Ann Coulter: Our Golden Haired Truth Teller

Will Malven

Oh my! How rude!

Ann Coulter has dared to tell the truth about the Democrat political ploy of trotting out “widows and orphans” to make their anti-President Bush, anti-military, anti-America arguments under the assumption that their status of “victimhood” would protect them from any direct criticism.

As a reward for this truth-telling, she has been loudly reviled by the paleo-media pundits and such “moderate” (read lift-wing) luminaries as New York Governor Pataki, the “Prince of Pretense” Bill O’Reilly, Hilary “Stand by Your Man” Clinton, and, of course, the numerous extreme left-wing blogsites.

These critics are aided and abetted in their campaign by a press that carefully edits the words of Miss Coulter to convey the impression that, rather than simply criticizing those four women, she was attacking all 9/11 widows, something patently and demonstrably not true.

Lies are ever the currency of the left.

The MSM would have you believe that these four, self-labeled “The Jersey Girls” are speaking for all women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  However, the fact is that these hateful political activists have been roundly criticized by many of their fellow sufferers. 

That kind of straw man attack tactic is typical of liberals.  They accuse someone of saying something they didn’t say then attack them for saying it.  They are incapable of making their arguments without lies or distortion, because they are attacking someone who is telling the truth.

We have been treated to an endless parade of “unassailable” hate mongers hiding behind the screen of their own self-proclaimed suffering or military experience.  The so-called “Jersey Girls,” Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, John “Mad Captain Jack” Murtha, John “Purple Heart” Kerry-Heinz (he served in Vietnam, you know); no matter how shrill and venomous their accusations and hate speech, we are not to dare criticize them.

This is nothing more than a new variation of the old worn out “chicken-hawk” argument.  It is the false claim that you cannot comment on some event, unless you have been personally touched by that event.  This is pure horse-hockey.  These “victims” have injected themselves into the discours politique and are therefore legitimate targets for criticism.

I, of course, have never felt any compunction in attacking these false spokesmen.  Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen American hero Casey Sheehan, was so intensely saddened by her son’s death that she failed to erect a monument on his grave; rather, she threw herself into a self-aggrandizing stalking campaign of hatred and slander against President Bush, virtually accusing him of pulling the trigger of the gun that killed young Casey.

A woman who can so callously abandon her family to their sorrows so that she can become a heroine of the left deserves no sympathy, only contempt.  The same holds true for these “Jersey Girls.”  I haven’t heard that any of these grieving widows has refused or returned any of the millions of dollars, much of which came from this “evil government” they seem so avid to denounce.

Again, people who place themselves in the position to be the faces of the Democrat political agenda by their own efforts (even “widows and orphans”), cannot be considered immune to criticism.  Those on the left, who routinely level far more hateful personal attacks against President Bush on a daily basis, most sourced in lies and distortions, are suddenly outraged when someone on the right dares to criticize, or even worse, state the truth about their liberal icons.

Are we supposed to let Representative John Murtha’s scurrilous attacks against President Bush and the troops in Iraq go unanswered simply because he served in Vietnam?  Are we supposed to allow Senator John “Kerry-Heinz’s lies to go unanswered simply because he received a Purple Heart for a (self-inflicted) wound during his short stay in Vietnam?

Not a chance.  Representative Murtha’s cowardly cut and run strategy for losing the war in Iraq deserves to be slammed for the evil it is.  I will remind the readers that this same John Murtha was instrumental in our cut and run strategy in Somalia . . . yep, that was his recommendation.  Such cowardly advice deserves and will receive no quarter from me or any other truth teller.

Are we to excuse Senator Kerry-Heinz’s tow-faced stands on the Iraq War and his vote against funding the troops in Iraq (he actually “voted for the funding before [he] voted against it”] because he spent a few months in Vietnam? 

Not I.  While I salute those who chose to serve for their willingness to do so, these acts of selflessness in no way insulate them from criticism of their subsequent actions and speeches.

As Miss Coulter said, the Democrats expect us to refrain from objecting to fetal stem-cell research simply because they trot out the late Christopher Reeves or Michael J. Fox to speak in favor of it.  If we then take a stand based on our beliefs in the sanctity of human life, even that of the unborn, we are called “heartless” or “unfeeling.”  If we oppose abortion and speak of passing an amendment protecting the life of the unborn, they trot out the old worn-out line about women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, as it they used to stack the bodies of those poor unfortunate women like cord wood in the days before abortion became legal.  Of course those unborn children don’t matter in the culture of selfishness promoted by the Democrat Party

For the left, taking responsibility for one’s actions is unimportant—it might even be immoral.  In my opinion, “choice” occurs when an individual decides to engage in unprotected sex, not in deciding whether or not to kill the resulting unborn child.

The “right to privacy” ceases to exist once one decides to kill a human being.  Whether that “someone” is an adult or an unborn child, it is murder.  It is the state sanctioned taking of a human life without due process of law.  It is an abridgement of their divinely “endowed” right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Democrats are cowards and bullies.  They hide their agenda behind the skirts of those like Cindy Sheehan and the “Jersey Girls,” because they know that the American people would reject their policies entirely, unless presented by these sympathetic figures.  We know that for a fact.  It has been proven time and again through the elective process.

If Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and Harry Reid were to come out promoting the arguments that these women have, they would be exposed as the political hacks they truly are, so they use these surrogates to make their arguments for them, in the mistaken belief that their suffering grants them immunity from contradiction.

The truth remains the truth, even in the face of such an emotionally charged attack.  The unfortunate circumstances which led to the unexpected celebrity of these people, do not exuse the boorishness and hateful nature of their attacks. 

If one chooses to dance in the political arena, she must be prepared to pay the piper.  The constitutional right of free speech is a two-way street.  That which guarantees the right of these women to speak their minds, even in hatred, guarantees the right of those of us who disagree to respond in kind.

Those on the left are ever dishonest and hypocritical when they lash out against a critic like Ann Coulter in feigned indignance.

Martyrdom is not an invitation for unbridled, uncivil discourse.  Every time one of these “victims” makes the choice to launch a politically motivated attack, they have, by their own choice, made themselves eligible for an equally spirited response.  The have abandoned the protection from criticism that their initial suffering granted them and have opened themselves up to attack.

I applaud Ann Coulter for having the strength and courage to speak the truth.  Would that more so-called “conservatives” displayed such courage to an equal degree. 

It is time to take on these purveyors of hatred whenever they speak out, rather than tucking our collective tails and cowering in fear.

The truth will out, if we have the courage to speak it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Estate Tax: Legislated Envy

Will Malven

There is nothing more revealing of the liberal’s mindset than any casual discussion of taxes and taxation.  Such a discussion inevitably devolves into an argument about “fairness” and “greed” as in the “greedy rich people” never have to pay their “fair share” of the tax-burden.  “The middle class and the poor bear the lion’s share of the tax burden, while the wealthy don’t pay any taxes at all.”  The persistence of this myth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, can be maddening to those of us who live in the real world.

Liberals remain convinced that no one can achieve success and wealth without “lying, cheating, or stealing” or being “unduly lucky” in some way.  It simply is not “fair” that some people are wealthy while others in our society live in poverty.  It remains a matter of faith for liberals that success is evil.  It is inconceivable to them that an individual, through hard work and intelligence, could be successful without resorting to some sort of flummery. There is no villain in society more reviled than the successful businessman.  In their narrow view of life, private enterprise is the most corrupting influence in America.

The American liberal’s sad adherence to the failed philosophies of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and Joseph Stalin causes them to see the natural occurring disparities, evident in any society based on “capitalism,” between the wealthy and the poor not as due to inherent differences in an individual’s industriousness and frugality, but more as due to inequalities of opportunity inherent in a society that rewards evil behavior with wealth.

Liberals, sitting on their coffee breaks pontificating on the “sad lack of fairness” in the world, eye each hard working individual with suspicion and arrogantly label any industrious coworker as a “brown-noser” or a “suck-up.”  They view the small businessman who spends 16 hours a day struggling to make his business successful as greedy and suspect that he can’t possibly become successful unless he “cheats” in some way.

In their idealized union environment, liberals tell the hard workers, “Back off!”  Those who chose to do more than their allotted measure of work, are chastised and coerced to limit their work.  Over performance, they are told, makes their brother workers, who only do what they are told and no more, “look bad.”  Over performance leads “management” to expect higher productivity from all workers.

Envy is one of the tenets of faith in the Religion of Liberalism.  When they see an individual of wealth, rather than being inspired to achieve more, rather than saying “I will work hard so that I too may become wealthy,” they wrap themselves in robes of envy.  “It’s not fair,” they cry.  “They have more than their fair share,” they whine.

Having made this determination, it is only natural that the solution they offer is to “level” the playing field through a confiscatory tax system.  That is the origin and purpose of our “progressive” federal income tax system.  The thought behind this progressive system is not simply, “You have prospered from living and working in our nation and using its infrastructure so you should pay your “fair share.”  It is “You have prospered “unfairly” and “disproportionately” from living and working in our nation so you should pay more than other, less industrious, people.”

What follows from that belief, that success should be punished through a progressive and confiscatory system of taxation, is the belief that no one should be able to profit “unfairly” from the industry of their forbearers.  “You didn’t earn the money; your parents did, so why should you benefit from their work.”  This is nothing more than a new way of whining, “It’s not fair.”

One caller on C-Span, the inspirational source for this editorial, thinking himself to be very “clever,” I’m sure, attempted, in sarcasm, to ridicule those of us who oppose any form of inheritance tax.  He adopted the role of a wealthy inheritor saying, “Why shouldn’t I profit because my father was smart enough to buy “XYZ” stock at $50 and sold it at $1000?  Just because other people weren’t smart enough to do the same thing is no reason that I shouldn’t profit from my father’s success.”  Of course the implication of such a call was that the caller would get rich without having earned it. 

So what, like…this is supposed to be a bad thing?

I wonder, how many of these envy ridden liberals would be so conscientious as to turn down an inheritance under these circumstances.  “No thank-you, I didn’t earn this so I want the federal government to have it all…” Riiihgt, I believe that, it happens all the time.  I wonder how many of the “fastidious Liberals” gamble.  I wonder if they pull the handle down hoping that they lose.  I wonder if they play blackjack hoping the dealer wins every hand.

I wonder how many of these “conscientious liberals” play their state lottery each week hoping to win $40 million in unearned income.  Oh, of course, they buy the ticket hoping to lose.  I’m sure there are some, a very few, who are so heavily indoctrinated into the culture of Marxism that they would refuse wealth no matter what the source, but most would switch their opinions and arguments overnight were they suddenly to find themselves in possession of wealth. I have seen this “miraculous transformation” personally in one of my closest liberal friends.  The sudden inheritance of unexpected wealth brought about a convulsive tranformation turning a “McGovern Socialist Liberal” into a “Reagan Conservative.”

That is the proof of envy. 

If you are among the very few who would refuse wealth were it offered to you, congratulations, you are a true believer—a fool—but a true believer nonetheless. 

If you would accept wealth if it was offered to you as, I suspect, 99% of these self-righteous prigs would, then you are nothing but a faddish socialist, a hypocritical jerk, and envy is your only motivation.

The “Death Tax” is an Envy Tax, nothing more.  It is based on the tired, old, failed, economic system of socialism.  The more you earn, the more successful you are, the more you should have to pay.  Success is evil so it must be discouraged at any cost so that the rest of us won’t feel stupid or inferior because we aren’t successful.

Perhaps, using this philosophy of “fairness,” we should handicap all citizens so that those of us who are “too-fill in the blank” are brought back down into the realm of the “average.”  If you’re “too smart” then you should be given a “stupidity pill.”  If you’re “too athletic,” you should have some portion of your body removed so that you will no longer think yourself better than others.  That is the ultimate result of the fairness argument.

Envy is a sickness.  It is a disease of a warped sense of morality.  It is, according to the Bible, a sin.  No one who indulges themselves in envy and jealousy can possibly be happy.  How can one enjoy what he has got, what he has achieved, if he is too preoccupied with making sure that others don’t have more than he does?

The so-called Death Tax is a bad idea and the time has come to eliminate it entirely.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!