Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles – Washington Times

Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles – Washington Times.

By Jessica Chasmar – The Washington Times

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel appeared on MSNBC this morning to opine about the assault weapons ban getting dropped from the Senate gun-control bill.

He made a few claims about politics as usual and the power money can have in this type of a case, but his most noteworthy comment was about his knowledge on crime statistics.

“I’m ashamed to admit it but its politics and its money, The NRA has taken this position, there is no reason, there is no foundation. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting,” the Democrat told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing.

A0cohaHCQAAztNM.jpg large“We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons,” he continued. “Were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue…”

The FBI’s 2011 data says only 323 people were killed by rifles, compared to 728 people who were killed by hands, fists, feet etc. Handguns are much more likely to be used in a homicide with 6,220 killed nationwide in 2011.

 

Krauthammer On Reid: This Is As Low As You Can Go – Political News Video

 

Krauthammer On Reid: This Is As Low As You Can Go – Political News Video.

 

“The hypocrisy of Democrats on this! You remember, it’s Democrats and liberals in the media who take endless pride in having opposed McCarthyism. The essence of McCarthyism is to use a high place – high office – to make innuendo, unsubstantiated charges, and then destroy other people by means of doing that.”

 

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Back in April, I explained that I would accept a tax increase if “the net long-run effect is more freedom, liberty, and prosperity.”

I even outlined several specific scenarios where that might occur, including giving the politicians more money in exchange for a flat tax or giving them additional revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

But I then pointed out that all of those options are unrealistic. And I’ve expanded on that thesis in a new article. Here’s some of what I wrote for The Blaze.

The no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform generates a lot of controversy. With record levels of red ink, the political elite incessantly proclaims that all options must be “on the table.” This sounds reasonable. And when some Republicans say no tax hikes under any circumstances, there’s a lot of criticism about dogmatism. Theoretically, I agree with the elitists.

So does that make me a squish, the fiscal equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts?

Nope, because I’m tethered to the real world. I know that there is zero chance of getting a good agreement. Once you put taxes “on the table,” any impetus for spending restraint evaporates.

But even though I’m theoretically open to a tax hike, I am a de facto opponent of tax increases for the simple reason that we will never get a good deal. We won’t get sustainable spending cuts. Not even in our dreams. We won’t get real entitlement reforms. Even if we hold our breath ‘til we turn blue. And we won’t get the “Simpson-Bowles” tax reform swap, where taxpayers give up $2 of deductions in exchange for $1 of lower tax rates. Let’s not kid ourselves. In other words, reality trumps theory. Yes, there are tax-hike deals that would be good, but they’re about as realistic as me speculating on whether I’d be willing to play for the New York Yankees, but only if they guarantee me $5 million per year.

I then point out that a budget deal inevitably would lead to bad policy – just as we saw in 1982 and 1990.

Here’s the bottom line: There is no practical way to get a good deal from either the Democrats in the Senate or the Obama Administration. Notwithstanding the good intentions of some people, any grand bargain would be a failure that leads to higher spending and more red ink, just as we saw after the 1982 and 1990 budget deals. The tax increases would not be relatively benign loophole closers. Instead, the economy would be hit by higher marginal tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. And the entitlement reform would be unsustainable gimmicks rather than structural changes to fix the underlying programs. Ironically, when a columnist for the New York Times complained that Republicans were being unreasonable for opposing tax hikes, she inadvertently revealed that the only successful budget deal was the one in 1997 – the one that had no tax hikes!

The last sentence is worth some additional commentary. As I explained in a previous post, the only bipartisan budget agreement that generated a balanced budget was the 1997 pact – and that deal lowered taxes rather than increasing them.

Some people try to argue that Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike deserves some of the credit, but I previously showed that the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget admitted – 18 months later! – that the nation would have triple-digit budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s.

And when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink.

RIP Andrew Breitbart – Tea Party Nation

Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

RIP Andrew Breitbart – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Andrew Breitbart has died.  He was 43 years old.

 The cause of death has not been released and honestly it is none of our business.  The fact he is gone is bad enough.

 Andrew Breitbart was an unbelievable personality.  He has been described as an author, publisher, and entrepreneur. 

 He could also be described as fearless and in some ways, the wild man of the conservative movement. 

 He was famous for being very willing to mix it up with liberals.  In 2010, at the massive Tea Party Express rally in Searchlight Nevada, when union thugs threw eggs at the Tea Party Express bus and other cars, Breitbart went into the union crowd, refusing to back down and daring them to do something to him.   Less than a month ago, he was at CPAC and when the Occupy protestors decided to act like the fools they are, Breitbart was the guy who went outside and confronted them. 

 I met him two years ago, when we did the National Tea Party convention.  Breitbart was someone who early on recognized the value of the event, even more than we did.  He reached out and helped in a number of ways.  He never asked for anything in return.

 There was a point where the convention almost failed.  Some leftist groups were working hard to make the convention fail, thinking it would embarrass the movement. 

 At one of the most crucial moments, we reached out to him and he went above and beyond the call of duty to do something that saved the convention.  Perhaps one day the entire story will be told but the bottom line is he did not have to but he did.

 Not everyone agreed with him on a lot of issues.  I certainly did not.

 But today is not a day to talk about past differences and past fights.

 Breitbart relished fighting those who would destroy this great country.

 He loved this country, he loved what he was doing and he was an amazing patriot.

 Rest in Peace.

Alice in Liberal Land – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative

 

The White Rabbit in a hurry

Image via Wikipedia

Alice in Liberal Land – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative.

Alice in Wonderland” was written by a professor who also wrote a book on symbolic logic. So it is not surprising that Alice encountered not only strange behavior in Wonderland, but also strange and illogical reasoning — of a sort too often found in the real world, and which a logician would be very much aware of.

If Alice could visit the world of liberal rhetoric and assumptions today, she might find similarly illogical and bizarre thinking. But people suffering in the current economy might not find it nearly as entertaining as “Alice in Wonderland.”

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

For example, if the economy is going along well and you happen to take a notion that there ought to be more home ownership, especially among the poor and minorities, then you simply have the government decree that lenders have to lend to more low-income people and minorities who want mortgages, ending finicky mortgage standards about down payments, income and credit histories.

That sounds like a fine idea in the world of Liberal Land. Unfortunately, in the ugly world of reality, it turned out to be a financial disaster, from which the economy has still not yet recovered. Nor have the poor and minorities.

Apparently you cannot just tack on your pet notions to whatever already exists, without repercussions spreading throughout the whole economy. That’s what happens in the ugly world of reality, as distinguished from the beautiful world of Liberal Land.

The strange and bizarre characters found in “Alice in Wonderland” have counterparts in the political vision of Liberal Land today. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.

In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys. Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors of Liberal Land feel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, “We’re facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country.” People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.

But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, “as a country” — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices “as a country” cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made “as a country” — which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland.”

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people’s lives, such as banning circumcision — and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.

KRAMER: Occupy envy – Washington Times

The Seven Deadly Sins (ca. 1620) - Envy

KRAMER: Occupy envy – Washington Times.

Covetousness is morphing from sin to virtue

By John E. Kramer – The Washington Times

There is a deeply disturbing message coming out of the Occupy Wall Street movement – one of the few consistent messages thus far. It is the same message President Obama and his political allies have hammered home for much of his administration. Simply put, it boils down to this: We must punish success; we must organize envy.

Envy used to be condemned as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It was something to be avoided and discouraged. Consider that at least two of the 10 Commandments explicitly discourage envy in one form or another. Now envy is held up as a virtue not only by the occupiers but by members of the left’s political class in a bold but transparent move to gain greater power over those with the means to challenge their authority.

Our response to them should be equally simple: Envy isn’t an American value.

In this nation, we are aspirational. We don’t just hope for a better life and seek to take it from others by force; we work for it. When we work for it, we hope and expect to gain the fruits of our labor. The messages preached by the occupiers and the president are more representative of the kind of European values our forbearers fled by the millions to come to the United States in hopes of forging a better lives for themselves and their families, a hope based on individual freedom rather than government-directed redistribution. Don’t take my word for it. Consider the words of rock star Bono, who said, “In America, the guy looks up at a mansion on a hill and says, ‘One day, if I work really hard, I’m going to live in that mansion on the hill.’ In Dublin, they look at the mansion on the hill and they say, ‘One day, I’m going to get that bastard.’ “

That’s the message the occupiers and those on the left are trying to sell to Americans – that it’s OK to take from the 1 percent because they are successful. We outnumber them, so that makes it acceptable.

Count me among those who don’t begrudge the rich what they own. Merely because someone is rich doesn’t make me poor. It is not consistent with the freedoms that we value and the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution that we should seek to use government power to punish success and limit the accumulation of wealth. I despise McMansions, for example. I think they are ugly and a waste of resources, and I would never live in one. But if some rich fool wants to build one as a boast and live in it on his own land, that is his business. He should have the freedom to do that and keep what he has earned. I’ll remain content in my humble brick rambler. If a person is not harming another, he should be left alone to do or to accumulate as he wishes. Remember that old expression: “It’s a free country.”

If you don’t like McMansions, don’t buy one. If you don’t like a corporation that outsources its work overseas to rake in big profits, don’t do business with that company. Better yet, start your own business that doesn’t do that. What you shouldn’t be calling for is punishing the successful who have broken no law but are merely working to make the world a better place as they see it.

America’s greatest value is that we aspire – we want better for ourselves and others. But that “better” we seek must be earned through private negotiation, not through government force. Occupy Wall Streeters need to be reminded that organized envy has no place here in our land.

John E. Kramer is vice president of communications for the Institute for Justice.

Book: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored (via Pesky Emotional Republican)

Book: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored By Nia-Malika Henderson and Peter Wallsten, Published: September 16 / Drudge Reports A new book claims that the Obama White House is a boys’ club marred by rampant infighting that has hindered the administration’s economic policy and left top female advisers feeling excluded from key conversations. “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind due out next Tuesday, details the rivalries amo … Read More

via Pesky Emotional Republican

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World – John Hawkins – Townhall Conservative

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World – John Hawkins – Townhall Conservative.

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.Charles Krauthammer

Even liberals who’ve accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn’t behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with…

1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal’s mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone’s liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you’re not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.

2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That’s not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they’re probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that’s wrong is saying that there’s an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering “why they hate us” because they feel incapable of saying, “That’s wrong,” and doing something about it. If you’re against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.

5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world — and he’s challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who’ve banded together because individually they’re powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago — as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.

6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who’s at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you’re dirt poor, starving, and haven’t worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it’s very difficult to understand cause and effect in people’s lives.

7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It’s a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you’re a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you’ve done nothing to earn it?

The Dept Man’s Magical Tax Payer Funded Campaign Bus Tour (via Village of the Banned)

The Dept Man's Magical Tax Payer Funded Campaign Bus Tour Obama‘s Magical Misery Dept End Bus Tour H/T to Keith Koffler If Obama’s Not Campaigning, Why is He Campaigning? by Keith Koffler on August 16, 2011, 12:18 pm White House officials have been insisting for a couple of weeks that Obama’s bus tour through the Midwest has nothing to do with campaigning. It’s just a way to get the president among the people, especially, um, the people in presidentia … Read More

via Village of the Banned

Obama’s Freefall in the Polls -19% and Dropping…..can you hear us now? (via Voting American)

Obama's Freefall in the Polls -19% and Dropping.....can you hear us now? Dear President Obama, “Now is the time for all American’s to rise up and speak with a loud voice.  2012 will be upon us before we know it and there is no time to waste.  This is the time to tell your family and friends to get involved.  This is the time to get them informed and this is the time to get them involved.  America hangs in the balance my friends.  Our very … Read More

via Voting American