THE INARTICULATE BARACK OBAMA

By Michelle Malkin

The next time an MSM outlet describes Barack Obama as "articulate," I suggest you send them this audio link. My friend Jessica McBride sent it along, and man, is it painful. It's from his speech yesterday in Milwaukee--tying the Virginia Tech massacre to Iraq, Darfur, Don Imus, and everything but the kitchen sink. Jessica provides a bit of transcription:

He said we are a violence obsessed culture. "We glorify it, we encourage it, we ignore it." In what honestly was a very boring, dry, rambling speech, he then listed a litany of examples of how violent we are. He excoriated "verbal violence" and specifically mentioned Imus but, tellingly, not Ludacris. Then, he mentioned violent crime in Milwaukee, and other examples of how violent we all are. In one bizarre example, he said that he was also talking about the "violence" of men and woman who lose their jobs to other countries. HUH?

And then he mentioned IRAQ...He started out by saying that our culture of violence is rooted in our supposed incapacity to understand we are all connected fundamentally as people (kumbayah!). We are still trapped in a belief that we can impose our wills on each other and differentiate ourselves and make ourselves feel better from one another because of the accidents of birth or race or gender, he said. We still think about our role in the world and foreign policy as if the children of Darfur are somehow less than the children here, and so we tolerate violence there. And then he said in that context:

"We base our decisions in terms of sending our young men and women to war not on the necessity of defending ourselves but the belief that somehow with military force we can achieve aims that should be achieved through diplomacy and alliances."

Really, just try listening to the whole thing. This man wants to be leader of the free world.

GUN CONTROL

This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.

There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.

The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.

Now here's something that I have yet to see reported in the mainstream media. Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government --- unless you are on a college campus. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus --- with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. After the bill was thrown out up steps Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, who says "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

So .. how safe did these students and faculty in Norris Hall feel yesterday?

Now nobody can say for certain, but If it had been legal for students, employees or faculty members with permits to carry guns on the campus, is it at all possible that there might be some students alive today who didn't make it through the carnage? Do you think the actions of the Virginia General Assembly stopped the gunman from getting his guns and carrying them to the campus? Of course not. Reports are that the guns had their serial numbers scratched off. The were acquired outside of the normal channels of commerce and illegally carried to the Virginia Tech campus. The law meant nothing to the shooter. It meant something to the victims though, and perhaps that's why there wasn't one person anywhere near the shooter with a gun that might .. just might have been used for self defense.

There are those out there who think that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus is an absurd idea. Why so? Just how is a college campus that much different than our society as a whole? Diverse people living together in common environment pursuing different goals. Where's the big difference? What is so special about a college campus that students should not be allowed to own firearms? What if some student in the dormitory had a gun? What if he heard the argument in an adjoining room and had accompanied the student advisor when he went to quell the disturbance? Could that student with a gun have stopped this carnage before it even began? We'll never know. But is there anyone out there who can say for a certainty that the day might have played out quite differently?

Some of the less educated will come forth with lines of thought like "We don't want to return to the wild, wild west." Why not? What research have you put into your clever little "wild wild west" line? Do you know anything about the actual crime rates in the so-called wild west? Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most American cities now? And why would that be? Because people were armed, for one thing. People were armed, and the bad guys knew that people were armed. Tell me ... just what chance do you think a lone gunman would have had in those days in lining up people against a wall and then calmly picking them off one by one. No ... I'll tell you. Slim to none. Oh he might get off a shot or two, but by then he would be the object of some rather intensive target practice.

And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation? Again .. check the statistics. People with concealed carry permits are among the most law abiding people in the nation. Oops ... another little preconception shot to hell, so to speak.

Let me ask you another question. In fact, let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm.

Now believe it or not, there are people out there (we generally call them liberals) who would say; "Oh no, I don't want anyone else to have a gun! They might try to shoot the killer and innocent people might get caught in the crossfire!" Well you can try to find a rational basis for that argument from now until pigs fly, and you will fail. There is no rationality in that argument. It's an argument based in mindless hysteria.

Let's couch the argument a bit differently. Let's say you are the parent of a college student. You get a call from the campus police saying that your child is being held hostage in a classroom on the campus. The hostage-taker has a gun and has already shot one student. The police tell you that they have developed a plan whereby they are going to be able to sneak a gun into the hands of one of the students in the classroom, a student known to the police to be proficient in the use of a handgun. Before the police can take this step they need the unanimous consent of the parents of the students in that class. While you're thinking it over the hostage-taker executes another student. OK ... your decision. What do you say? Are you going to say "No, I don't want any of those students to be armed. I don't care how qualified they are with a gun." Or are you going to allow the gun to be passed to the student.

Now if your answer is that you would allow the gun to be passed to the student, they please explain your rational for the position that the student in question should not have been permitted to have a gun in the first place with a concealed carry permit? You may have difficulty in understanding this, but it really is rather difficult to arm these students after the fact. And insofar as the shooter is concerned ...you do understand that there is no way in hell to have prevented him to come on to that campus with guns once he made up his mind to do so, don't you?

Here's another question for you to ponder. What if the Virginia legislature had passed HB 1572 and it had been signed into law? Then the shooter would have known that there was a strong likelihood that there would be some students, professors and administrators on the campus with a gun. Is there any chance at all that this might have caused the shooter to set aside his plans for carnage? Can you say for a certainty that things would have played out as they did?

TIME TO SCRAP THE TAX CODE

By Mark Davis

I love all weekends, but one that empowers me to ignore April 15 is extra special. The annual tax deadline is extended to Tuesday this year because the usual deadline is today, a Sunday.

What better opportunity to review the efforts of those who strive so that we might ignore April 15 every year?

If we ever get around to scrapping the current tax code - and enormous majorities always say they want to - a new battle will ensue: What do we replace it with?

The two main combatants are the sales tax and the flat tax. I am energized by both, but I've always leaned toward the flat-tax option. Maybe it has to do with my tendency to bond with whomever occupies Texas' 26th Congressional District. I spoke with Dick Armey scores of times on this topic during his years in that seat, and incumbent Michael Burgess is a friend dating back to his decision to stop delivering babies and start crafting laws.

Whether it was the "file on an index card" plan favored by Mr. Armey and his ally Steve Forbes or the Freedom Flat Tax introduced this year by Mr. Burgess, the concept is the same: Turn the IRS into little more than a processing center for a fixed rate of taxation to be paid by all Americans.

It has always chapped me that we are punished for our success. Obviously we should pay more tax as we make more money, but not as a function of percentage.

The only truly fair form of income taxation is to figure out the rate needed to run the government if you take it from every wage earner regardless of income. Make twice as much next year? Pay twice as much in taxes, not three times as much, which happens to many Americans as a punitive slap for their industriousness.

But I'm a flat-tax purist: Everybody pays in my world. Most proposals from politicians contain an exemption so that taxpaying doesn't begin until, say, $35,000 for a family of four.

While this protects them from charges of burdening people who are living paycheck to paycheck, it also effectively removes entire communities from the tax rolls. I shudder at the notion of millions of voters not caring one whit on that unavoidable day when someone suggests boosting the flat-tax rates. Taxpaying is a part of civic life, from the pauper to the billionaire.

If that's a little severe for your tastes, the sales tax advocates are here to soothe you with a glorious future of no IRS at all. Taxes would flow to the federal government from a 23 percent tax attached to every transaction for goods and services. And that's in addition to your state's sales tax.

Yes, you'd be shelling out roughly 130 bucks for that $100 item, but you'd be paying for it with something you've likely never seen before: your whole paycheck. Welcome to a land of no withholding - no payroll taxes, no Social Security or Medicare taxes - nothing to interrupt the flow into your pocket of every dime you earn.

The sales tax forces have even absconded with the most treasured adjective in this battle, referring to their proposal as "The Fair Tax."

It is fair, but so is the flat tax. I would take either one in a heartbeat over the insufferable status quo, but I'll lean toward the flat tax because it seems that the flow of taxes from citizens to the government should be stable.

Incomes don't vary much from year to year; consumer spending certainly might. I'd hate to run out of money for border patrol officers because we didn't buy enough refrigerators one year.

Also, bartering might remove billions of dollars from taxability, as Acme Office Supply trades file cabinets for sofas from XYZ Office Furniture rather than each company buying retail.

Tastes will differ. On this April 15, pick your favorite tax reform plan and dream the sweet dreams of a future when taxes are lower, simpler and fairer. Then shake yourself awake to the harsh reality of a federal government that will probably never allow it to happen.

NOW THAT THE DUST HAS SETTLED

OK ... It's been about four days since CBS pulled the plug on Don Imus. We've had a weekend to calm down and think about things. So .... are you sitting around today and wondering just what in the hell happened here? I suspect a lot of people are wondering just how this incident over a bad jock joke became a 24/7 news story that cost an iconic broadcaster his career. Sure ... what Don Imus said was mindless and cruel. He admits it. But it was nothing that heard every day of the week on hundreds of rap stations across America. The big difference here? Al Sharpton stormed into the picture and the media ran with the story ... big time.

This a story about rhetoric ... racial rhetoric. Just where in our culture has the true degeneration of rhetoric occurred? Has the rhetorical rot advanced more from the era of white racists like David Duke to Don Imus, or from the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Al Sharpton? Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for a little over 8 minutes during that march on Washington in August of 1963. Al Sharpton was about 9 years old then, and the combined effect of every word that Sharpton has uttered from that date can't add up to King's eight minutes.

Al Sharpton, the man who once referred to "Greek homos", "White interlopers", and "diamond merchants" (as a euphemism for Jews), was the man who sat in judgment of Imus. Imus, though edgy and often crude, is a man with a giving spirit. Someone please tell me just where Sharpton's home for children with cancer is. If you can't give me that information, perhaps you can tell me when Sharpton had his last radio fundraiser for charity. Sharpton does have a radio show, you know. Last week while Sharpton was stirring the racial brew Imus was busy raising over a million dollars for charity. Sharpton the good guy, Imus the bad.

Al Sharpton holds his National Action Conference convention this week. Virtually every single Democrat presidential candidate will show up. Every single appearance at this convention by a Democrat candidate serves to further legitimize Al Sharpton and to excuse the bigoted and hateful statements he has made in the past. During the past few days we've heard media and political figures say how bad they felt about appearing on Imus' show -- with his objectionable rhetoric now in the limelight. These same people have no problem showing up at Sharpton's conference. Al Sharpton --- a man with the blood of innocents on his hands --- beckons and the Democrats come running. Imus lays out his retirement plans.

KILLING THE GOOSE

Rising tax burden threatens revenues

Democratic politicians have been complaining all century about the Bush tax cuts. So why does the tax man seem to bite harder this year? Well, it's not you who is confused.

While President Bush was reducing taxes in 2001 and 2003 for the poor, middle class and rich alike, a rising toll from state and local governments was making up much of the difference.

Indeed, the tax burden from state and local governments this year has hit a 25-year high, consuming an average 11 percent of income, according to a new report by the Tax Foundation. Californians pay 11.5 percent, a load that has increased steadily since 1979, when state and local levies skimmed 9.2 percent.

Combined with federal taxes, various governments take a staggering 34.3 percent of Americans' incomes.

And yet, this raid on our pockets is just getting started. Lawmakers are busy cooking up the largest tax increases in U.S. history.

In Washington, the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill has unveiled 5-year budget plans that would repeal the Bush tax cuts. What's more, congressional leaders have imposed “pay-as-you-go” budget rules that exclude the existing entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, which dominate federal spending. So “paygo” is really just political cover for new taxes to support new spending.

Meanwhile, cash has been pouring into the treasury. The Bush tax cuts, together with Federal Reserve policy, stimulated the economy into six years of impressive growth. By far, the wealthy gave the most; their job-creating investment binge has triggered a historic surge in government revenues.

So Washington has plenty of our cash. This year federal tax revenues will come in at 18.6 percent of the total U.S. economy, above the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet Democrats say they will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Revenues could actually decline, because higher taxes are likely to damage the economy.

In California, a similarly reckless culture of tax-and-spend is gaining steam. Despite pledges against new levies, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a government health insurance plan that would impose new taxes on employers and health care providers. More fundamentally, lawmakers have badly out-spent revenues, despite record gains from property, sales and income taxes.

Now, as the economy slows, state budget deficits are poised to widen. With Democrats refusing to cut spending, the looming fiscal crisis will test Republican promises to resist tax hikes.

Then there's San Diego, which is drowning in pension debt, losing police officers and neglecting its infrastructure. Mayor Jerry Sanders, who inherited the mess, rightly refuses to ask voters for a tax increase until the city streamlines operations and solves its pension crisis. But the union-backed City Council is less austere.

At every level, politicians have squandered the Bush economic boom. As they turn to higher taxes, and thus discourage work and investment, they jeopardize the fiscal engine of their ambitions.

SACTOR HIGHLIGHTS----AND THE REAL AL SHARPTON

By Michelle Malkin

Video from last night's show here.

I think I was about to hurl when Geraldo called Al Sharpton a "great man" and one of the nation's top "civil rights" leaders. You can hear me mutter "whose civil rights?" Certainly not the rights of innocent prosecutor Steve Pagones, who was truly scarred for life by the lying, conniving Sharpton machine. Jeff Jacoby summarizes Sharpton's "great" record:

1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.

If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

Israpundit has more.

There is, contrary to Geraldo's assertion, a world of difference between Imus's career of dumb remarks and Sharpton's career of malicious racial demagoguery.

There is no ideological difference between the hate-mongering likes of Malik Shabazz and Al Sharpton.

Sharpton, with the help of willing media, is exploiting the Imus matter to further rehabilitate his image without having to renounce any of his past poisonous behavior. Now, he's playing martyr with the latest reports of death threats against him.

If the media--broadcast, cable, print, and radio--really wanted to do something to "heal" race relations, they'd keep this charlatan (and all his mini-mes like Shabazz) off the airwaves and off their news pages. The only place they deserve to be is under the headline "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day."

***

Get rid of Sharpton. Meet Jason Whitlock. Here's his Real Talk archive.

***

Here is an interesting self-examination from ABC News about the media's decisions to inflate the Race Charlatans' role in the Imus story.