Pelosi: Remember The Victims of the "Tragic Accident" in Tucson

RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi Calls Tucson Murders A "Tragic Accident That Took Lives"



Oh, ok. So, Jared Loughner went to an event with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in attendance and "accidentally" pulled out a semi-automatic and "accidentally" shot 20 people and killed six of them, including a 9-year-old girl born on 9/11 and an Arizona judge.

Why would she try to minimize this tragedy? This wasn't an "accident" it was an act of lunacy and a senseless massacre. What alternative reality is she living in?

Luckily, Rep. Giffords, who was the main target of the attack and was shot "point-blank" in the head, is expected to pull through and live a relatively normal life. I don't think that her, the other victims, or their families appreciated that Pelosi downplayed the tragedy.

Mission Not Accomplished: 57% of Americans Don't Blame Political Rhetoric For Gifford's Shooting

Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.

Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ): You Know Who Is to Blame For the Giffords Shooting?...Fox News

Today was a sad day. Conservative, Blue Dog Democrat Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords (AZ) was shot "point blank" in the head. Thank God because she went through surgery and is expected to pull through.

Of course, the far left bloggers quickly pounced on this to blame Sarah Palin for it because of a “hit list” that she posted on her website. Of course, she only meant that she would be a target for the TEA Party to challenge in the polls, but the left is all too eager to imply that she meant for Giffords to be shot.

Now, a NJ Democrat has his own theory on who is to blame for the shooting…Fox News:

Two New Jersey Democrats who work with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords said Saturday they were shocked by her shooting and hoped it would lead to more civilized debates about public policy.

"This hostile rhetoric, I hope we put it behind us and try to work on things to move this country forward," said Rep. Albio Sires, D-West New York, who sits next to Giffords on the western hemisphere subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"Nobody knows why this guy shot all these people or shot her, but I just think this rhetoric has to change."

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-Paterson, said he feels the nation is approaching the status of a banana republic where there is no law and order.

"There's an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it," said Pascrell.

This is just pathetic for him to exploit this tragedy to score political points. Palin and her “hit list” is no more to blame for this than is Daily Kos for his own ”target list” that included Giffords, too. To imply otherwise makes them just as bad as the one that shot her because they are gleefully taking advantage of her tragedy for their own personal political gain.

While they are actively trying to portray the shooter as a member of the TEA Party and a hard right-winger, they are, of course, totally ignoring that his YouTube account shows that he has a very interesting books in his reading list. I don’t think that the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf is a favorite of the right wing, contrary to popular belief on the left.

In the end, neither side is to blame for this. No one else is to blame, other than the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. Sometimes, a nut is just a nut.

The Obligatory “War On Christmas” Post: NPR’s Totenberg: I’m Sorry, I’m Going To Say the Word Christmas?

Sorry, this is a bit late. It came out this morning, but I was out and about all day running errands. I couldn’t pull the embed off of my phone, and I didn’t want to post this without the video. So, here it is.

Apparently, Nina Totenburg was so embarrassed about even saying the word Christmas that she had to promptly apologize for saying the word before she even said it:

“I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party,” NPR reporter Nina Totenberg interjected on Inside Washington in the weekend’s oddest cautionary separation from a common description for a common event, seemingly embarrassed to invoke any religious terminology for Christmas. She didn’t say what she’d prefer for parties this time of the year to be named. “Winter solstice party”? Just plain old “holiday party”? Or a “seasonal gathering”?

Ridiculous.

Here’s the transcript:

I want to say one thing about the budget that didn’t get passed, the omnibus bill. You know, we talk a lot about – we just passed this huge tax cut in part because business said, you know, we have to plan, we have to know what kind of tax cuts we have. Well, these agencies, including the Defense Department, don’t know how much money they’ve got and for what. And I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party at the Department of Justice and people actually were really worried about this. These are law enforcement people don’t know exactly what kind of money they can spend for what.

Ed Morrissey pointed out that there was just as ridiculous gaffe behind the more obvious one that deserves some attention, too:

Really? They don’t know what laws to enforce based on continuing resolutions? The CRs provide the ultimate in continuity; by locking in the previous year’s budget plan, they maintain the status quo. In government, it doesn’t get more consistent than a CR.

And for a reporter, Totenberg has trouble getting her facts straight. Congress didn’t pass a tax cut. They passed a bill that maintains the current tax rates in the same status they’ve been for seven years. In fact, taxes went up because of the renewed estate tax; it just didn’t go up as much as Democrats wanted. It’s only a tax cut if government feels that they were owed that tax increase and the money it would have taken out of the pockets of citizens above what they have already taken over the last decade.

The DoD and DoJ will get ample notice about the remainder of this year’s budgets when the next session of Congress sits down to develop the budget that Democrats deliberately avoided producing. That won’t likely include more money for more regulatory efforts at the DoJ, and will almost certainly mean less money for some of the regulatory efforts they’re already engaged in performing. For that, Totenberg and the DoJ can thank the outgoing Democratic majority that punted on the budget all year long despite having large majorities in the House and Senate and one of their own in the White House.

This is the woman that NPR decided to keep on, after wishing Jesse Helms and his family catch HIV, but they had to fire Juan Williams. Really? Really? She needs to pay more attention to the facts than worrying about whether or not she might offend someone by admitting that there’s this holiday that we call Christmas.

San Francisco Wants to Charge $3 Per Trip To/From City

People in the San Fransisco Bay Area are beside themselves, after hearing the news that the city of San Fransisco is contemplating charging commuters $3 to leave and enter the city during rush hour:

Peninsula residents are upset about a proposal to charge commuters $6 each weekday to enter and exit San Francisco to the south, calling the plan "a slap in the face," "a crazy idea" and "ridiculous."

Already dealing with some of the nation's highest gas prices and, in some cases, hefty parking fees, drivers crossing the San Mateo County-San Francisco border would pay rush hour tolls to fund local transportation upgrades and, in theory, reduce traffic jams, under a proposal by San Francisco officials.

Officials said they would spend $60 million to $100 million to set up the electronic system, coupled with local transit improvements, starting in 2015. It would be the first local "congestion pricing" system in the country and could begin as a 6-to-12-month pilot program that, if successful, could become permanent.

Under the plan, drivers leaving or entering San Francisco at the southern border would pay $3 from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and another $3 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, with a daily cap of $6. Commuters would pay up to $130 per month, or $1,500 in a year, if the tolls last that long.

It'll reduce traffic jams during rush hours, for sure, because no one will want to pay. Instead, rush hour will be moved to 4am-6am and 6:30-8pm, or it'll move the traffic jams off the highways and onto the residential or commercial streets, as people exit off the highway, in order to go around and avoid the toll booths.

Really, this is about three things. First, they are trying to get money to pay the bills and debts that they are racking up with all of their wild spending and create an end-around to raising taxes. Second, they are trying to limit carbon emissions.

This would be a huge business and jobs killer for San Fransisco. Some people who cannot afford to pay yet another bill/tax and, because of family obligations, can't change their schedule to avoid the toll times may end up quitting the jobs that they have in the city and find jobs elsewhere. Plus, those that go into the city to do business and/or go shopping will shy away from going into the city and take their business elsewhere, if they are charged a toll. This is an example of the type of economy-killing ideas that are driving people away from such lunacy.

This could, also, start a toll war in between San Fransisco and the surrounding cities:

Daly City Councilman David Canepa said he thought the worst part of the plan was that it was being done "under the guise of trying to get people to take public transportation."

"It's absolutely nonsensical," said Canepa, who also called the plan terrible, atrocious and egregious. "It's a slap in all of our faces. They're trying to make San Mateo County residents pay a tax because over the years they haven't made proper investments in their infrastructure."

Locals also wondered why San Francisco would be getting all the money even though the border is shared by both counties, and what would stop other cities from copying them.

"We could do the same thing; it'd be a nightmare," warned Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, of a toll at the same border to fund Peninsula projects, or tolls at each of the borders of all the local cities. "It sounds like another crazy idea. Where do you stop nickel and diming people? You should be able to travel from city to city without paying a toll."

This will not end well, if it is implemented. However, because of all of the negative reactions to this idea coming from just about everyone and the high cost of $60-100 million just to start the program, I doubt that this will get off of the ground, but then again, this is the city that Pelosi is from and where ultra-liberal idiocy abounds and thrives without restraint. So, who knows?