Politics Kamala Harris Wants to Turn the Page How can an incumbent be the change candidate? In her recent appearance on The View, Kamala Harris was asked if there is anything she would have done differently than President Biden. Harris responded: “There is not a thing that comes to mind … and I’ve been a part of … the decisions that have had impact.” Harris’s fidelity to the Biden agenda is not surprising. She has boasted in the past about being the last person in the room with Biden when he made the disastrous decision to abandon Afghanistan, give up the vital American air base at Bagram, and open the door to a rapid government takeover by the Taliban. Harris also is on record as enthusiastically embracing Bidenomics, with its recklessly high spending and record-high inflation. It is mildly perplexing that Harris would not change a thing from the Biden legacy given that five short years ago she opposed fracking, endorsed an open border, wanted to eliminate the phrase “illegal aliens” from the nomenclature, advocated starting “from scratch” to replace the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), and supported Medicare for all. What seems more curious than her admission that she would not change any of Biden’s policies, despite their unpopular outcomes, is Harris’s attempt to transform the election into a referendum on the president who Biden defeated four years earlier. In the Harris camp (which includes a large share of the media), the Trump administration, not the Biden/Harris regime, is the root cause of all of today’s problems. It’s as though Harris is starring in a sequel to the movie Back to the Future. Time travel makes it possible to turn back the clock to the Trump era and erase the history of the recent past. In the Harris screenplay, the role of Biff, the bully, is assigned to Donald Trump, who becomes the scapegoat for all problems, past and present. Harris’s running mate Tim Walz appeared to embrace the Back to the Future theme when he told a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania audience: “We can’t afford four more years of this!” Was this a Freudian slip? In a literal sense, Walz is correct. We really can’t afford four more years of the disastrous inflation sparked by Bidenomics, which has become synonymous with overspending. More likely, Walz did not mean for us to take him so literally. Like Harris, he really wants to lay the blame for the problems of the recent past on the prior four years of the Trump administration. This is a feat that defies both logic and common sense.  The notion that an incumbent administration can blame all of the nation’s problems on the candidate four years removed from power is opportunistic, but not realistic. Nonetheless, the Back to the Future theme appears to have gained some traction in that recent polls suggest a large share of voters see Harris as the candidate of change. In an October New York Times/Siena poll, Harris took a lead of 46 percent to 44 percent among respondents who saw the vice president, not Trump, as the candidate most likely to provide a departure from the status quo. Even Houdini may have found it difficult to escape this paradox! While Harris’s comments on The View suggest complete agreement with Biden’s policies and programs, her rhetoric on the campaign trail has been all about change. On Day One, lots of stuff is going to happen! She has exclaimed at nearly every campaign stop that “We need to turn the page!” We definitely need to turn the page, but just whose policies are we turning the page on? The compliant media refuse to acknowledge that Harris can’t really turn the page on inflation or illegal immigration, or the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, much as she has tried to attach blame for all of the Biden/Harris era woes to their predecessor. In an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, Harris said: “We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the past four years, before we came in.”  Are we turning the page on the open border that Kamala Harris endorsed in 2019? ICE recently released data indicating that the sheer volume of border crossings (which quadrupled under Biden/Harris) has resulted in superficial screening and enforcement of immigration policy. ICE indicates that a large number of illegal immigrants, who have been charged with or convicted of serious crimes in their home countries, are now in the United States. In one such case that received much attention, Victor Martinez Hernandez of El Salvador was charged with the rape and murder of Marylander Rachel Morin. Martinez Hernandez entered the United States illegally in February 2023 after murdering a young woman in El Salvador a month earlier. We do need to turn the page, but not for the reasons Harris presumes. We need to turn the page, for example, on the Biden/Harris administration’s excessive spending, including nearly $1 trillion in the erroneously named “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022. Under this act, billions were allocated to provide subsidies for electric vehicles, including federal tax credits of up to $7,500 per car for wealthy folks to purchase their new Teslas! Billions of additional dollars were allocated for climate programs, including $22 billion for “Environmental Justice,” broadly defined. The bill also included $80 billion to hire more IRS agents to audit American taxpayers and small businesses, and included provisions to make sure restaurant workers pay taxes on their tips—clearly contradicting Harris’s promise not to tax tips. And of course, Harris would like us to turn the page on the fact that as vice president she boasted about casting the tie-breaking vote for this legislative boondoggle, which helped fuel out-of-control inflation.  The Nixon mantra in 1972 was “Four More Years!” George H.W. Bush’s theme in 1992 was “Stay the Course!’ Those were honest, forthright rallying calls. You either liked the record of the incumbent president and his administration’s policies, or you didn’t. Harris has admitted that she would not have changed any of Biden’s major policies, so how did we reach the point where the second-in-command of a troubled administration can sound the theme “We Need to Turn the Page”? We should not assume that Harris’s concept of “turning the page” means closing the border, or reducing massive federal spending on green energy boondoggles, or permitting fracking in Pennsylvania. The Biden/Harris legacy has largely been written and it will be difficult to delete or edit the fine print of what has occurred since January 20, 2021. We cannot simply turn the page. The post Kamala Harris Wants to Turn the Page appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The Vance Vibe Shift? Things have been on the upswing for the GOP since the vice-presidential debate. It appears, with just a little over three weeks to go in the election, that the Trump-Vance ticket is building some momentum. The Republican ticket captured an 10-point lead in Polymarket odds, took important swing state leads in RealClearPolitics polling aggregation, and prompted public concern from leading Democrats. There is a political eternity between now and election day, but halfway through October, Republican “vibes” are decidedly positive.  To date, there have been a handful of distinct “vibes” that have overhung the 2024 election. In the run-up to the Republican National Convention, and certainly after the Butler assassination attempt, Republicans by-and-large felt triumphant. Joe Biden’s fragility, Trump’s personal courage, and the public’s sense of national chaos seemed to guarantee impending victory. After Kamala’s coup, the cringeworthy “brat summer” adrenalized Democrats and delivered marginal polling leads to their candidates.  As Kamala’s basement campaign carried on into the fall, however, vapidity was exposed as an insufficient communications strategy. Polling tightened throughout September and another down-to-the-wire electoral fight, circa 2016 and 2020, felt likely. That was until early October’s vice-presidential debate, which marked the beginning of a fortuitous streak of developments for Republicans. The current vibe shift, which I’ll dub the Vance vibe shift, renewed early-summer’s prospects of a comfortable Republican win.  The vice-presidential debate was a rough one for Democrats. Tim Walz, who carried the manner of a deer in headlights, failed to reassert his campaign’s narrative that Senator J.D. Vance is “weird.” He instead spent a considerable portion of the night agreeing with Vance, subtly discrediting the media’s crafted narratives of extremism. Vance’s relatable persona and command of the issues, by contrast, carried the night for the GOP. Though no polling implied that Vance swayed a critical bloc of voters with his performance, elite media’s subsequent praise for Vance seemed to trigger a strategy change inside of the Harris campaign. The New York Times called Vance’s performance “dominant.” POLITICO dubbed it a “very midwestern debate” before conceding that “Vance won.” The Harris campaign’s ongoing media blitz, consisting mostly of eyeroll-inducing softball interviews, started within days of these Vance-friendly headlines.  The Harris campaign committed to a litany of traditional cable appearances including 60 Minutes, The View, and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Notably, Harris started to branch out into non-traditional media, making an appearance on the crass but popular Call Her Daddy podcast among other programs. Harris’s struggles in the polls, immediately following immense media exposure, suggests that sunlight may be the GOP’s best disinfectant. After two election cycles, Vance’s debate forced the DNC out of the “basement” and back into the sunlight.  Barack Obama’s recent comments at a Democratic field office in Pittsburgh reflect liberal unease. Obama warned a smattering of volunteers that “based on reports I’m getting from campaigns and communities, is that we have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all quarters of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running.”  Obama added the problem “seems to be more pronounced with the brothers.” Recent polling does suggest that black men, in particular, are breaking towards the Trump camp in unusual numbers. They are joining Arab Americans and a steady stream of Latinos in their exit from the Obama coalition. Weakness with previously dependable electoral blocs, combined with decreased mail-in ballot requests in Pennsylvania, provide good reasons for the 44th president’s concern. Left unstated was the incumbent president’s muddle in the southeast, a region that now understands that FEMA’s disaster relief is a tertiary concern for an administration miring the United States in two overseas conflicts. Clearly, the Democratic Party’s electoral woes are many.  Given Donald Trump’s decade-long tenure as the media’s public enemy no.1, it’s doubtful we’ll see any politically damning information about him emerge in the coming weeks. October surprises, if they mean anything in our fractured media environment, are likely to break for Trump’s benefit at this stage of his political saga. Discounting possible Israeli strikes in Iran, which will spiral in unknowable ways, there are no obvious developments that could alter Trump’s current momentum.  Still, a political eternity remains before November 5. Harris is continuing to consolidate her gains with white, college-educated voters. Abortion remains a tough political topic for the GOP. Polling and prediction models are hardly wholly reliable, and campaigns tend to make mistakes. But self-inflicted wounds or egregious polling misses notwithstanding, the Trump ticket is in a better position today than it was in 2016 or 2020. The race is still too close to predict with confidence, but with three weeks to go, conservatives have much to cheer. The post The Vance Vibe Shift? appeared first on The American Conservative.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/a-matter-for-the-australian-people-charles-to-stay-out-of-republic-debate-during-royal-visit/news-story/b921071cb9a472c6837221e0631709da UTL COMMENT:- King Charles is here because he is Freemason, Rothschilds Pawn & WEF tool... With thanks to:- https://rumble.com/user/THEWHITERABBITAUSTRALIA

The ugly sounds of pure rock. The post “That doesn’t sound right to me”: The classic song Billie Joe Armstrong thought sounded ugly first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Well of course. Here in the heart of Pennsylvania’s 10th congressional district, we are lucky enough to be decidedly well represented by Republican Rep. Scott Perry. The congressman is a decided conservative, willing and able to take on the Washington Swamp and its various swamp dwellers in their various incarnations. The congressman never hesitates to speak out — which is exactly why Democrats have targeted him for defeat.  This time around, Democrats have been joined by a group calling themselves “Republicans Against Perry,” with the group sprinkling their signs around the district. But, pray tell, who exactly are the self-labeled “Republicans”?  Take a close look at the group and one finds — not shockingly — that they are decidedly not Republicans. Oh sure. Some of them may be officially registered as Republicans. But as any politically aware soul has learned long ago, there are, alas, political types out there who claim to be registered in this or that party but who are not in the least hesitant to oppose that party’s decidedly well-known principles. So let’s take a look at “Republicans Against Perry.” To start, the group is laughably lacking a sense of self-awareness. A trip to their website and right there, front center, is Rep. Perry pictured giving a presser behind the podium bearing the sign: “House Freedom Caucus.” The House Freedom Caucus, which at one point was chaired by Perry, is a group of seriously principled conservatives in the House who are unafraid to stand up for conservative principles.  Among other things, Perry and the Freedom Caucus have opposed the Biden administration’s reckless spending that has launched serious inflation. Its members have worked to secure our southern border and, no small thing, defended our constitutional freedoms in the House of Representatives. For doing that, Republicans Against Perry have opposed Perry. The congressman is utterly unafraid to stand up for conservative principle, saying in an ad:   After I voted against every Democrat tax increase, they despise me. And after I opposed my own party’s reckless spending of your money, I lost friends. But here’s the thing, you didn’t send me to Congress to make friends. Tellingly, in the world of Republican politics, there is a member of the group boasting of his support for “H.W.Bush.” Nary a mention of Ronald Reagan, mind you. No, it’s the establishment GOP where these folks hang their hats, not the Reagan conservative folks. Which speaks volumes as to why they can’t abide a Reagan conservative like Scott Perry. One section of the website makes it crystal clear they oppose honest, free, and fair elections, weaponizing the government to shut down opposition to the Washington and political/legal establishment. Which is to say, if they can target Scott Perry — they can target you. But tellingly? Very, very tellingly? Scroll to the bottom of their website, and it says that the “Republicans Against Perry” site is: “Paid for by WelcomePAC”  And a trip here to Welcome PAC reveals that, yes indeed, “Republicans Against Perry” is financed by … Democrats. The Welcome PAC site reads:   We need a Democratic Party that reaches out to mainstream Americans — not just those who pass all the progressive purity tests.  In the 2020 primaries, we welcomed the independent voters who stayed with us to beat Trump. In 2022, we supported leaders who reached out to independents and “future former Republicans” to put flippable red districts into play from Ohio to California.   In 2024, we’re taking the fight for our democracy to more battlegrounds nationwide. Which is to say, “Republicans Against Perry” is financed by … Trump-hating Democrats or those supporting Trump-hating Democrats. And their support for Perry’s Democrat opponent Janelle Stelson is nothing more than Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) supporting a Democrat. And speaking of which? Since this business is entirely dishonest, has it been denounced by Stelson? Answer: Absolutely not. Which itself speaks volumes about Stelson and her unwillingness to be honest with her potential constituents about the real nature of this group supporting her and who is financing them. In short? “Republicans Against Perry” is nothing more than a con job designed to give the impression that Rep. Perry is some sort of extremist, not what he, in fact, actually is: a mainstream Reagan conservative.  Not only are “Republicans Against Perry” decidedly not telling the truth about their group, what they are really about is a clear attempt to mislead voters about Scott Perry in particular — and conservatives in general — in search of their goal to create “flippable red districts” and make them Democrat blue. It not only won’t work — it shouldn’t. The post ‘Republicans Against Perry’ Are Not Republicans appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I have spent the last three weeks in the Carolina mountains and in coastal Florida. I’ve been there not as a storm-tossed reporter with a nose for news, but rather as a man blessed with the chance to work remotely who has chosen to live in two of the boskiest dells God ever made. This is a tale of two hometowns. For both, it has been the worst of times. For one of them, it has been unimaginably bad. Here is what I saw, uninformed by media accounts, to which I had no access until last Friday. Over the first eight days of Helene’s rampage through western North Carolina, I did not encounter in or around my mountain town a single representative of the federal government. No house check. No leaflet. No email, no phone call, no text. There were rumors of a FEMA outpost setting up at a shopping center in Brevard, which is in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains 45 minutes to the east. Three of my neighbors, in one formulation or another, had the same reaction to those rumors: “Damn. If I could get to Ingles, why would I need FEMA?” (Ingles is to North Carolina as Publix is to Florida. It’s a beloved supermarket chain that, along with the kitchen staples, offers propane, hydrogen peroxide, prescription drugs, an ATM, and a place to exchange hopeful information.) By day three or four of Helene’s rampage, “FEMA” had become a verb, meaning, of course, to screw people over by overpromising and underdelivering. For some reason, public disdain has been directed not so much at the head of FEMA, or even at our addled commander-in-chief, as at Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. I would advise him not to helicopter in for a self-congratulatory tour. The visuals would not be good and the audio would be X-rated. How bad was Helene’s rampage? Unimaginably bad. A “mountain community” is an area where most of the people live up a mountain road from the interstate. In many cases, there’s one way up and one way down. When rocks slide over the road, or when rushing mudwater tears it apart, or, most frequently, when falling trees block it, there’s no way up and no way down. Your only option is to shelter in place. If you still have a place. So, to answer the first question from you (mostly post-industrial) readers: Yes, you can survive on rainwater and small animals and serving as your own doctor for most injuries. What you may not know is that it will take you all day to do so. Survival is a full-time job, unless, I suppose, you happen to have attended Army Ranger school. And to address your second question: Yes, some people stood up and stood out. My experience has been that you never know who those people will be — those people who will rise to a rough circumstance even as others are defeated by it — and I want to bear-hug them here: Franklin Graham was here, there and everywhere, bringing water and other basics to parched survivors in their battered shelters. Elon Musk fought through bureaucratic barriers to bring his marvelous Starlink technology to some mountain people cut off from family, friends, and co-workers. Local law enforcement — sheriffs and deputies — left their uniforms and squad cars at home, jumped in their pickups, and joined volunteer chainsaw gangs clearing impassable roads. They served and protected lives during long days. And then they saved lives, off the clock. And the Baptists. I will never again look at a Baptist in the same way. Within 24 hours, it seemed that every Baptist church in the mountains had spontaneously morphed into a field hospital, a childcare facility, a food distribution depot, or some other hive of charitable activity. Uninvited, people would stop at a church parking lot and drop off a few bottles of water, a packet of bandages, an armful of firewood. Uninstructed, young families would gravitate to the church, pop the trunk, and pack away as many diapers, as much formula, as the volunteers could spare. People came for a shower, to borrow a satellite phone, to seek tips on missing relatives, or just to embrace another human being. It was a bloody miracle. By last Friday, on our mountain at least, it was all systems go. Internet and cell service had been restored, the power was on, even the plumbing had moved back indoors. A kid with a new toy, I did a bit of channel-surfing and spotted several brand-name TV reporters updating the nation on developments in the “mountain community” of Asheville, North Carolina. It’s a small city, Asheville, with good hotels, fine restaurants, toney art galleries, and a regional airport. It’s full of yoga instructors, aging hippies, affluent retirees, and Harris voters. In other words, it’s unlike every other part of western Carolina. All of those TV reporters telling us about the “mountain communities” were filmed wading through the flooded streets of downtown Asheville. Which should have been a tipoff. In the Smokies, water tends to run downhill. It collects not in the mountains, that is, but at the bottom, in what’s called a valley. I don’t know about you, but there are moments when my confidence in the media wavers. Florida is different. I live on a barrier island that the locals feel no embarrassment in calling Paradise. Life is perfect, but those of us of a certain age know that perfection has never found firm footing in the human condition. Most Floridians suspect that we’re living on borrowed time: Sooner or later a hurricane, inevitably to be known as the Big One, is going to get us. (Which calculation led your shrewd correspondent to buy a mountain home as a refuge from hurricanes. But enough about me…) How bad was Milton’s rampage? For those directly in the path, it was the worst of times. Pets, property, precious things — all gone. Hopes and dreams — most of them gone, all of them deferred. (McDonald’s reopens in 60 days. Mom-and-pop retail, what makes a town a town, disappears.) For the rest of us, those outside the path, it was a feeling of bone-deep relief; it was the exhilaration, as they say, of being shot at without result. We knew that the recovery would begin immediately and that we would be in good hands. Rick Scott, who served as Florida’s governor from 2011 to 2019, set the standard. He enlarged the governor’s job description from chief executive officer to chief executive officer and director of hurricane preparation and recovery. Ron DeSantis has raised the standard by another notch. My wife and I saw his handiwork as we dashed back to the mountains the day before Milton was projected to make landfall. As we made our way up I-95 through Georgia and South Carolina, we saw a tree-removal truck moving in the other direction. Then a linesman in a power company truck. Then trailers with earth-moving gear. Later, there were clusters of trucks, and, finally, a long convoy, all of them heading south to Florida. Ron DeSantis must have been working the phones, calling in help from across the region. When it comes to FEMA, DeSantis had their number a few storms back. The operative word in that Federal Emergency Management Agency name is not, as popularly supposed, “Emergency.” From my personal observation, FEMA doesn’t search for people. FEMA doesn’t rescue people. FEMA provides the “Management” for the people who do that vital and dangerous work. FEMA does the more refined work described by the soft nouns of Washington bureaucracy: FEMA does liaison. FEMA does outreach. FEMA does collaboration. Like clockwork, it convenes meetings to set the time and place for the next meeting. Last week, DeSantis blurted out what he believes to be the truth about FEMA. He says that he sees it as a kind of bank, as an institution that can provide financial resources to those who do the real work of search and rescue and recovery. Everybody needs a bank. It will shake out in due course whether FEMA will be as generous with the bank’s depositors — taxpaying American citizens — as it has been with illegal immigrants. The post Search and Rescue appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Whether you’re running for the White House or dog catcher, renowned political consultant Louis Perron’s new book, Beat the Incumbent, brings objective, data-driven, academic eyes to the world of political campaigns. For candidates, consultants, and citizens, Perron peels back the curtain to provide a step-by-step breakdown of winning (and losing) strategies in modern politics. He teaches readers how to do exactly what the title of the book suggests: “Beat the incumbent.” After an election, there’s usually no shortage of opinions or Monday-morning quarterbacks on the outcome. Any outcome awaits an avalanche of commentary (with self-assured certainty) about who won, who lost, and why. In the recently published book Beat The Incumbent (Radius Book Group), Perron takes readers back to the foundations — to proven strategies, tactics, and decisions that lead to victory at the ballot box. Campaigning successfully is a hurdle for everyone: incumbents, challengers, and the professionals who advise and support them. Lengthy wars of words muddy the waters for voters and observers. Many incumbents and their staff fail to read the public mood from one issue to the next, while challengers (and the electorate in general) struggle to comprehend the business of politics and politicians’ behavior. Yet if Brexit, the presidential elections of 2016 and 2020, and the wave of electoral earthquakes still unfolding in 2024 taught us anything, it is that winning modern races is all about managing the chaos and unpredictability of today’s political setting. As the author assiduously notes, “Politics is the mastery of words,” and to master the right word, at the right time, to the right audience, requires preparation, sound strategy, and a plan. Perron observes that more than 100,000 challengers are running for various offices this year all across the country, and based on history, most will lose. Today, everything about candidates gets scrutinized — private lives, relationships, indiscretions from over two decades ago, and even off-the-cuff jokes or remarks. To carry the standard on any issue today is a hazardous job — and as 2024 has shown, it includes physically violent risks. A challenger seeking to serve their ideals should be fully prepared for the “cage match” of modern campaigning.  In Beat The Incumbent, Perron offers readers a full understanding of the ups and downs of running for office. Whether you’re campaigning for the White House or dog catcher, the strategies are similar. Tactics might differ, but the game of winning elections is one of mastery, like professional sports. Skilled competitors make it look easy; only when rookies and spectators step onto the field against professionals do they realize how underqualified they are.  To be effective as a modern politician, one must have a rational mind (to align oneself with data and process) and an intuitive sense to perceive and respect the unseen and unspoken — culture, context, and emotion. With a doctorate-level background in political science and 17 years of advising presidents, senators, and governors, Perron can interpret and dissect both dimensions, giving candidates an impartial and objective guide to victory. For incumbents, where he has a near-undefeated track record as an advisor, Perron offers solid advice for doubling down on strengths, leveraging media, and using the bully pulpit to extend the life of a political career. For challengers, he teaches the art of successful campaign strategies, contrasting themselves with opponents, and assembling a top-tier campaign team.  But for voters and observers, the piece-de-resistance of Beat The Incumbent is Perron’s play-by-play, behind-the-scenes perspective, like a master sports color commentator. Keeping his political opinions to himself, Perron instead breaks down successes and strengths of winning campaigns into bite-sized pieces — on both sides of the issues. Despite the win-lose similarity between politics and sports, Perron notices that few athletes become politicians. Campaigning has far greater appeal for paid rhetoricians such as lawyers, actors, media personalities and speakers. When you finish reading the book, you’ll walk away with an enhanced perspective of how, as Ronald Reagan once said, “Politics is just like show business.”  For his fluency in analyzing and interpreting modern political theater, Louis Perron has earned the trust of politicians and consultants from one end of the spectrum to the other. From Philippine President Bongbong Marcos to prominent US consultants like Mark Mellman and Donna Brazile, the verdict is in: Beat The Incumbent will help you do exactly what its title implies. Craig Shirley is a public relations consultant and a presidential historian. His latest book is The Search for Reagan. The post How to Win an Election appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The push for lab-grown meat as an alternative to natural meat is coming to a halt. Recent endeavors in creating lab-grown meat have proved this practice to be infeasible both economically and environmentally. In this episode of The Spectator P.M. Podcast, hosts Ellie Gardey Holmes and Lyrah Margo discuss how the process of cultivating cells to become meat can be hazardous and costly — and yet the elitist Left still wants to fund these experiments. Tune in to hear their discussion! Read Ellie and Lyrah’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Rumble. The post <i>The Spectator P.M.</i> Ep. 83: Lab-Grown Meat Proves to Be a Failed Experiment appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Kamala Harris Wants America to Have the World's Highest Death Tax