The Democrats just do not respect life.  I am not referring to their president-elect's extreme positions on abortion, or 'reproductive freedom'.  What I am referring to is the Democrats' intention to let the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts expire come 2011.  This essentially provides financial incentives for people to die faster.  While I admit this tactic does shore up support among the coveted population control enthusiasts, it is an otherwise hideous employment of activist government.

 

Given the results of the 2008 elections, it looks like this is one promise of 'change' the Democrats may be able to deliver on.  By allowing the 2001 Tax Cuts to expire, the inheritance tax resets to it's 2001 level of taxation after 2010 (values greater than $1 million are taxable at a rate up to 55 percent).  The way the law stands today, the amount of taxable inheritance has dropped, and will continue to drop, through 2009; culminating in zero amount taxable in the year 2010 (therefore, the optimal year to die is 2010).  Thus, the Democrats are providing an incentive for the elderly to kick the bucket before 1 Jan 2011.

 

We all know the fairness of the Democrats' intentions to tax wealth that someone else is trying to keep in the family.  After all, economic justice has no sympathy for those who have worked hard and taken on risks and sacrifices throughout their lives to earn their wealth.  We all now know that a seeming majority of voters accepts the fact that we have an obligation to 'spread the wealth'.  I can certainly see the logic in attempting to balance the scales of cosmic justice.  However, blatantly encouraging people to die by a predetermined date sets a new precedent for the Democrtat Party's disrespect for life.

 

 

In response, I say:  "Democrats and their fellow Leftists believe in the callous and cynical notion that people who don't have wealth are entitled to have it given to them from those who do, at gunpoint by the government." 

 

This tough-to-beat political strategy makes for a loyal constituency of ignorant and/or lazy voters. 

* Sent to Sarah Palin

 

Dear Sarah,

 

Thank you for your service to the conservative cause.  I am sorry Virginia went blue but it's been a trend the last few years in this once-red state.  I grew up in the 1980s of Reagan outside of Quantico, VA and now live and work in Fairfax, VA.  I have noticed the blue trend with dismay over the last twenty years.  With all due respect to John McCain, your inclusion on the presidential ticket energized so many of us, not just in Virginia but across the country.  Proof was seen at the campaign rallies, one of which I attended in Fairfax with my brother and Dad. 

 

I feel the need to thank you for your efforts in the campaign.  I also feel the need to let you know that there are many of us out here who are perceptive enough to realize what was done to you.  I don't want to revisit the details, but I am thoroughly disgusted at the treatment you received from the news networks, comedy shows on TV and other mainstream media psuedo-intellectuals.  The complete disregard of impartiality, the sacred mission of journalism, reached its apogee (so far!) in the 2008 presidential campaign.  The attacks initiated against you have been cruel and prove an incredible lack of character on the instigators' parts.  It has been a shameful display of arrogance and ignorance.  Especially when compared to the free pass given to the woefully inexperienced Democrat candidate with the highly questionable background.

 

It is two days after the election and I am hearing the slanderous reports leaking from some in the campaign.  I do not pretend to know anything about any of that and don't care to.  I defy anyone to emerge without difficulty after experiencing what you must have been through.  I feel that you are not the type but please do not despair, for we out here remain in stalwart support. 

 

Your record tells objective thinkers all they need to know.  This record includes your clear bipartisanship and willingness to take on the status quo as well as your own party when necessary, and to do so with enormous courage and success.  Others who have famously claimed to hold the mantle of "change" and bipartisanship cannot point to this factual historical record as you can.  Just as important, you seem to be the only politician who has a record of doing something for our country's energy independence.  Although this has inexplicably faded from the public view, it remains one of the most critical issues of the day.

 

If you decide to re-enter the national scene I will proudly stand with you in support, as will many Americans.  We are mad as hell at what we witnessed these last few months and very motivated to help however we can.  Those in the mainstream media who performed such a hideous disservice to the public will resume their onslaught, so if you choose not to rejoin national politics, I and surely most others completely understand and respect your decision.

 

I apologize once again for my fellow countrymen and women who do not deserve your commitment to conservative principles or your unimaginable sacrifices.  God Bless you and your wonderful family.

 

A great man said, "The Washington Times, the Washington, D.C. area's PREMIER news journal."  The Washington Times is an institution of American greatness at both the local and national level.  Surrounded by the standard uber-majority of left-leaning newspapers, conservatives in the Washington, D.C. area fortunately have the Washington Times to rely on.  A healthy alternative to the foul and bitter-tasting Washington Post, the Washington Times provides factual sustenance on current events, unflavored by the usual leftist tendencies and blatant agendas of the Post.  While the Post reeks of grievance and entitlement in its pages, a reasonable and informed fragrance wafts from editions of the Times.

 

Having enjoyed the Washington Times over the last twenty years, I have also noticed vast improvements in their Sports page, particularly the Redskins coverage.  Believe it or not, some who shun the Washington Post's overt leftist pandering have nevertheless been an accessory due to their perception of the Post's superior sports coverage.  I can attest with expert testimony that the Times' Sports page was indeed inferior to that of the Post as recently as ten years ago.  However, within the last ten years, it is my opinion that the Times Sports page is a cut above that of the Post.  The benefit of choosing the Times vice the Post is that one can enjoy great sports coverage without contributing to the Left's propaganda machine.

 

I would like to close by fully disclosing that, at my household, we do receive the weekend edition of the Washington Post.  This is because my wife uses the weekend edition's coupons to save money when she goes grocery shopping.  I cannot argue with a financial incentive such as this, being a committed capitalist.  To balance the scales of my conscience, I save the Sunday editions of the Post and use them as a drop cloth for when I clean my guns.  The inherent pleasure of cleaning one's gun is enhanced significantly when smattering bore cleaner all over Post columnists such as Jean Robinson, Dave Broder and EJ Dianne.

“I don’t believe in missile defense.” This is like a defensive coordinator on a football team saying “I don’t believe in defensive backs” for fear of provoking the opposing QB into throwing the ball against him all game. Presumably, what president-elect B. Hussein Obama meant by this statement was his belief that a defense against InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) launched at us is a provocation. This fear of provocation has been shown throughout history to be an open invitation for an aggressor and the results have most often been needlessly disastrous, if only proper preparations had been employed.

B. Hussein Obama may also have meant that he doesn’t feel that missile defense technology is ready for prime time or worth it. Complex technology such as missile defense is, admittedly, a tough nut to crack. Successful demonstrations have occurred recently, however, unlike in the arena of other difficult and expensive government-financed experiments (“universal” healthcare comes to mind). The other difference is that the consequences of no missile defense just may result in actual massive loss of life and property. Simply put, to most, missile defense passes the cost-benefit-risk formula far more than other possible uses of national resources.

 

B. Hussein Obama instead claims that “tough diplomacy” will somehow convince potential threats to leave us alone. Unfortunately, anyone who would lob ICBMs at us either 1) hates us (thinking of radical Islamic countries, one in particular which has lately tested launching missiles from sea-based platforms) or 2) puts their own national interests, ahead of our own. Obviously, neither of these would seem to be susceptible to “tough diplomacy” (although direct appeasement may work). Therefore, if conciliatory give-aways in the face of direct physical threats is your preferred method of dealing with threats, B. Hussein Obama is your man.

 It was with keen interest that I read of Rolling Stone's recent message about downsizing their magazine.  The official statements speak of "lowering production costs" and the need to "maintain competitiveness".  But rest assured the content would remain the same, advertising costs remain the same and so on and so forth.  We all know the official statement from Rolling Stone is jive turkey for "We are laying some people off to help meet our profit goals."  It sounds like news of the so-called death of capitalism has not reached the offices of Rolling Stone.

 

In fact, for the people who didn't mind trashing Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, I can only issue the following insult:  Rolling Stone is a capitalist business trying to reach profit goals.  Wait a minute, I understood Rolling Stone to be a merry band of socialist self-proclaimed progressives.  Right, here it is:  I can only say that Rolling Stone is a psuedo-intellectual group of hypocrites who talk a good Marxist game but walk like greedy capitalists.  Their embrace, and subsequent denial, of the very things they rail against in their latte-fueled psychotherapy sessions they call articles is predictably ironic.

 

Back to the trashing that Rolling Stone issued against John McCain and Sarah Palin.  I only read one article on each, but one was enough for me.  Actually that is a stretch as I was unwilling to continue reading either of the adolescent rants after the first few paragraphs.  I didn't mind the f-bombs so much, these were expected.  What I found hard to digest was the sheer hatred of a system (directed at defenders of this institution, McCain and Palin) that has allowed so much opportunity for the entire Rolling Stone community.  Including it's readers who I remember from my college days as do-nothing, yet smug, know-it-alls who march to the magazine's ideological tune.

I'm not exactly sure who Phil Gramm was talking about recently when he noted that 'we have become a nation of whiners', referring to folks whining about the economy.  I do know for certain whom he wasn't talking about.  The people Phil Gramm wasn't referring to are those who have watched the value of their assets (in many cases these are retirement funds), which represent years of struggle and adherence to the rules, sacrificed at the altar of self-congratulatory policies.

 

The feel-good, "socially-just" policies I refer to, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, may result in good sound bites such as a small percentage increase in home ownership for particular demographic groups.  Making risky loans, in the name of fairness, to those who cannot afford them comes with costs, as do all economic transactions.  These costs often result in a vast imbalance when compared to the supposed benefits these policies espouse.  This is especially true considering the perspective of those who have followed the rules.  This cost-benefit imbalance can result in severe economic hardship, scarce credit and a significant decline of retirement assets.

 

Too often costs are not considered when it comes to government responses to conceived problems such as a lack of diverse representation in home ownership.  More cynically, these costs are ignored in favor of short-term, politically rewarding benefits.  The realization of punishing costs to those who were responsible for the policies is expected, some say deserved.  Far more difficult to swallow is the punishment faced by those who have stayed within a reasonable financial framework.

 

No, the people Gramm referred to as whiners are not the aforementioned who work hard, make sound financial decisions and play by the rules.  But if anyone has a right to gripe at this juncture, it is they.