"I hope people realize that bitter rhetoric can have unintended consequences," Bernie Sanders said after a madman went on a murderous shooting rampage at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in 2015.

It was a dumb thing for Sanders to say. It's false and dangerous, and today that standard could indict Sanders. But Sanders bears no blame for the shooting today, just as pro-lifers bore no blame for the Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015.

James T. Hodgkinson, named as the suspect in shooting Republican congressmen at baseball practice Wednesday, was reportedly a volunteer for Sanders and he used Sanders' picture on his Facebook page. He was also a prolific writer of letters to his local newspaper, where he showed his clear preference of liberal Democrats over Republicans and where his main theme was the need to tax the wealthy more.

"We need to get back to the Kennedy era rates," Hodgkinson wrote to the Belleville News-Democrat in 2012, "when we had 25 brackets from 14 percent to 70 percent and a top marginal rate of $1,424,600."

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Federal Reserve chairman," Hodgkinson wrote, "Marriner Eccles, brought us out of the Great Depression by raising taxes on the rich."

"During the 1920s three Republican presidents lowered tax rates leading up to the Great Depression."

"If the rich paid their fair share of taxes today," he wrote in July 2012, "we wouldn't be in this predicament. We need to vote all Republicans out of Congress."

After the Planned Parenthood shooting I wrote that Sanders' argument blaming pro-life rhetoric was totally wrong. The cause of these shooters' rampages is their own mental illness. Perhaps their politics determined the targets, but different politics would have just sent the same madmen to shoot at different targets.

Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's commentary editor, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesdaynights on washingtonexaminer.com.

Read the original:

Congressional shooter's liberal politics don't bear the blame - Washington Examiner

On Dec. 4 last year, less than a month after Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton, Austria held a revote in its presidential election, which pitted Alexander Van der Bellen, a liberal who had the backing of the Green Party, against Norbert Hofer of the right-wing Freedom Party. In May 2016, Van der Bellen had defeated Hofer by just more than 30,000 votes receiving 50.3 percent of the vote to Hofers 49.7 percent but the results had been annulled and a new election had been declared. Hofer had to like his chances: Polls showed a close race, but with him ever so slightly ahead in the polling average. Hofer cited Trump as an inspiration and said that he, like Trump, could overcome headwinds from the political establishment.

So what happened? Van der Bellen won by nearly 8 percentage points. Not only did Hofer receive a smaller share of the vote than in May, but he also had fewer votes despite a higher turnout. Something had caused Austrians to change their minds and decide that Hofers brand of populism wasnt such a good idea after all.

Left: Far-right candidate Norbert Hofer. Right: Independent presidential candidate Alexander van der Bellen.

Georg Hochmuth/AFP/Getty Images; Alex Domanski/Getty Images

The result didnt get that much attention in the news outlets I follow, perhaps because it went against the emerging narrative that right-wing populism was on the upswing. But the May and December elections in Austria made for an interesting controlled experiment. The same two candidates were on the ballot, but in the intervening period Trump had won the American election and the United Kingdom had voted to leave the European Union. If the populist tide were rising, Hofer should have been able to overcome his tiny deficit with Van der Bellen and win. Instead, he backslid. It struck me as a potential sign that Trumps election could represent the crest of the populist movement, rather than the beginning of a nationalist wave:

It was also just one data point, and so it had to be interpreted with caution. But the pattern has been repeated so far in every major European election since Trumps victory. In the Netherlands, France and the U.K., right-wing parties faded down the stretch run of their campaigns and then further underperformed their polls on election day. (The latest example came on Sunday in the French legislative elections, when Marine Le Pens National Front received only 13 percent of the vote and one to five seats in the French National Assembly.) The right-wing Alternative for Germany has also faded in polls of the German federal election, which will be contested in September.

The beneficiaries of the right-wing decline have variously been politicians on the left (such as Austrias Van der Bellen), the center-left (such as Frances Emmanuel Macron) and the center-right (such as Germanys Angela Merkel, whose Christian Democratic Union has rebounded in polls). But theres been another pattern in who gains or loses support: The warmer a candidates relationship with Trump, the worse he or she has tended to do.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron have both been the beneficiaries of the right-wing decline.

Gabriel Rossi/LatinContent/Getty Images; Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images

Merkel, for instance, has often been criticized by Trump and has often criticized him back. Her popularity has increased, and her advisers have half-jokingly credited the Trump factor for the sharp rebound in her approval ratings over the past year.

By contrast, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has a warmer relationship with Trump. She was the first foreign leader to visit Trump in January after his inauguration, when she congratulated him on his stunning electoral victory. But she was criticized for not pushing back on Trump as much as her European colleagues or her rivals from other parties after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accords on June 1 and then instigated a fight with the mayor of London after the terrorist attack in London two days later. Her Conservatives suffered a humiliating result, blowing a 17 percentage point polling lead and losing their majority in Parliament; its now not clear how much longer shell continue as prime minister. Trump was not Mays only problem, but he certainly didnt help.

Lets take a slightly more formal tour of the evidence from these countries:

Geert Wilders.

Carl Court/Getty Images

The Netherlands Geert Wilders, of the nationalist Party for Freedom (in Dutch, Partij voor de Vrijheid or PVV), hailed Trumps victory and predicted that it would presage a populist uprising in Europe. And PVV initially rose in the polls after the U.S. election, climbing to a peak of about 22 percent of the vote in mid-December potentially enough to make it the largest party in the Dutch parliament. But it faded over the course of the election, falling below 15 percent in late polls and then finishing with just 13 percent of the vote on election day on March 15. Those results were broadly in line with the 2010 and 2012 elections, when Wilders party had received between 10 and 15 percent of the vote. The center-right, pro-Europe VVD remains the largest party in the Netherlands.

Marine Le Pen.

Chesnot/Getty Images

Reciprocating praise that Le Pen had offered to Trump, Trump expressed support for Le Pen after a terrorist attack in Paris in April and predicted that it would probably help her to win the French presidential election. But over the course of a topsy-turvy race, Le Pens trajectory was downward. Last fall, shed projected to finish with 25 to 30 percent of the vote in the first round of the election, which would probably have been enough for her to finish in pole position for the top-two runoff. Her numbers declined in December and January, however, and then again late in the campaign. She held onto the second position to make the runoff, but just barely, with 21 percent of the vote. Then she was defeated 66-34 percent by Macron in the runoff, a considerably wider landslide than polls predicted.

Le Pens National Front endured another disappointing performance over the weekend in the French legislative elections. Initially polling in the low 20s close to Le Pens share of the vote in the first round of the presidential election the party declined in polls and turned out to receive only 13 percent of the vote, about the same as their 14 percent in 2012. As a result, National Front will have only a few seats in the French Assembly while Macrons En Marche! which ran jointly with another centrist party will have a supermajority.

Theresa May.

Jack Taylor/Getty Image

While the big news in the U.K. was Mays failed gamble in calling a snap parliamentary election, it was also a poor election for the populist, anti-Europe UK Independence Party. Having received 13 percent of the vote in 2015, UKIP initially appeared poised to replicate that tally in 2017 (despite arguably having had its raison dtre removed by the Brexit vote). But it began to decline in polls in the spring, and the slump accelerated after the election was called in April. UKIP turned out to receive less than 2 percent of the vote and lost its only seat in Parliament.

UKIPs collapse in some ways makes Mays performance even harder to excuse. Most of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives, providing them with a boost in constituencies where UKIP had run well in 2015. But the Conservatives lost votes on net to Labour (although there was movement in both directions), Liberal Democrats and other parties. Its perhaps noteworthy that Conservatives performed especially poorly in London after Trump criticized London Mayor (and Labour Party member) Sadiq Khan, losing wealthy constituencies such as Kensington that had voted Conservative for decades.

Frauke Petry.

Markus Schreiber/AP photo

The German election to fill seats in the Bundestag isnt until September, but theres already been a fair amount of movement in the polls. Merkels CDU/CSU has rebounded to the mid- to high 30s from the low 30s last year. And the left-leaning Social Democratic Party surged after Martin Schulz, the former president of the European Parliament, announced in January that hed be their candidate for the chancellorship (although the so-called Schulz effect has since faded slightly). Thus, the election is shaping up as contest between Schulz, who has sometimes been compared to Bernie Sanders and who is loudly and proudly pro-Europe, and Merkel, perhaps the worlds most famous advocate of European integration.

The losers have been various smaller parties, but especially the right-wing Alternative for Germany (in German, Alternative fr Deutschland or AfD) and their leader, Frauke Petry, who have fallen from around 12 to 13 percent in the polls late last year to roughly 8 percent now. Meanwhile, both Schulz and Merkel have sought to wash their hands of Trump. Instead of criticizing Merkel for being too accommodating to Trump, Schulz instead recently denounced Trump for how hed treated Merkel.

So if youre keeping score at home, right-wing nationalist parties have had disappointing results in Austria, the Netherlands, France and the U.K., and they appear poised for one in Germany, although theres a long way to go there. I havent cherry-picked these outcomes; these are the the major elections in Western Europe this year. If you want to get more obscure, the nationalist Finns Party underperformed its polls and lost a significant number of seats in the Finnish municipal elections in April, while the United Patriots, a coalition of nationalist parties, lost three seats in the Bulgarian parliamentary elections in March.

Despite the differences in electoral systems from country to country and the quirky nature of some of the contests, such as in France its been a remarkably consistent pattern. The nationalist party fades as the election heats up and it begins to receive more scrutiny. Then it further underperforms its polls on election day, sometimes by several percentage points.

While theres no smoking gun to attribute this shift to Trump, theres a lot of circumstantial evidence. The timing lines up well: European right-wing parties had generally been gaining ground in elections until late last year; now we suddenly have several examples of their position receding. Trump is highly unpopular in Europe, especially in some of the countries to have held elections so far. Several of the candidates who fared poorly had praised Trump and vice versa. Hes explicitly become a subject of debate among the candidates in Germany and the U.K. To the extent the populist wave was partly an anti-establishment wave, Trump the president of the most powerful country on earth has now become a symbol of the establishment, at least to Europeans.

There are also several caveats. While there have been fairly consistent patterns in elections in the wealthy nations of Western Europe, we have little evidence for what will happen in the former nations of the Eastern Bloc, such as Hungary, which has moved substantially to the right in recent years. (The next Hungarian parliamentary election is scheduled for early next year.) Turkey is a problematic case, obviously, especially given questions about whether elections are free or fair there under Tayyip Erdogan.

And even within these Western European countries, while support for nationalist parties has generally been lower than it was a year or two ago, it may still be higher than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Politics is often cyclical, and endless series of reactions and counterreactions. Sometimes, what seems like the surest sign of an emerging trend can turn out to be its peak instead. Its usually hard to tell when youre in the midst of it. Trump probably hasnt set the nationalist cause back by decades, and the rise of authoritarianism continues to represent an existential threat to liberal democracy. But Trump may have set his cause back by years, especially in Western Europe. At the very least, its become harder to make the case that the nationalist tide is still on the rise.

Link:

Donald Trump Is Making Europe Liberal Again - FiveThirtyEight

This morning, someone who specifically wanted to kill Republicans sprayed more than 50 shots at a GOP Congressional baseball practice, wounding at least five including Congressman Steve Scalise (R-La.). Within minutes, the sadly inevitable Tweets began:

Yes, it is too soon.

I have never been a gun guy, and Ill leave it to others to argue gun control vs. gun rights and how they relate to issues of safety, security, and freedom.

But the rush to blame Scalises own political stances for his misfortune should shock the conscience of Americans, and I reject the idea that both sides do it. While Republicans sometimes point out the way Democrat policies (generous welfare, the minimum wage) hurt the people they are supposed to help, virtually none of us gloat and seek political advantage when Democrats face death or grievous bodily injury.

Yet during the health-care debate, I heard some liberals openly wish Republicans who supported Trumpcare would themselves suffer painful illnesses, or witness them among family members.

Were seeing the same vengeful point-scoring today.

As the saying goes, conservatives think liberals are wrong; liberals think conservatives are evil. Democrats often seem certain that Republicans choose economic policies from malice toward the poor; health-care proposals out of indifference to sick people; and attitudes toward affirmative action due to racism.

And when Republicans take NRA money (for their campaigns, not themselves) in exchange for supporting policies that objectively lead to the deaths of children, its simple greed.

The smug idea that conservatives would abandon their positions if they affected them personally is a bedrock of the liberal cultural stance. Countless TV shows have portrayed traditionalist characters who dont support gay marriage until a family member comes out. A Republican Senator in a recent off-Broadway, Church and State, sees the light about gun control after a shooting at the elementary school his children attend. Liberal newspapers trumpet confessionals by women who were pro-life until they got pregnant.

Todays tweets are particularly obnoxious when they offer thoughts and prayers. Thats a manifestation of what is known on the internet as concern trolling pretending sympathy for the other side to undermine its case. Anyone who really seeks prayers for Representative Scalise calls for prayers for him, and joins in. They dont attack Scalises policies and his campaign donor list while they do so.

And it needs to be said: the shooter was not a conservative. He stopped to check the political affiliation of the practicing legislator-athletes before opening fire. Seriously? Democrats have gone back to defending gun control today as a means to control their own people from murdering Republicans? Words cannot

Were already seeing conservative responses online to the blame-guns crowd, pointing out that if the shooter had not been himself shot by armed guards the event would have been a massacre. Those debates will likely continue for weeks. But its not too early to upbraid those who waited but minutes to exploit a legislative opponents tragedy to score political points. Shame on you.

David Benkof is a columnist for The Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Go here to see the original:

Liberal Shoots Republicans; Democrats Blame GOP Gun Policies - The Daily Caller

Tim Farron has resigned asleader of the Liberal Democrats, following a furore over his beliefs concerning gay sex.

The politician admitted some of his comments concerning the matter could have been wiser when asked if homosexuality is a sin he had previously responded: We are all sinners.

After the matter refused to go away and surfaced again during the election campaign, Mr Farron said it had felt impossibleto be both Lib Dem leader and a Christian.

Earlier on Wednesday Lib Dem Lord Paddick, a gay former senior Met police officer, resigned from his post as the partys home affairs spokesman.

In a statement, Mr Farron said: I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.

In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society. Thats why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

He said that from the very first dayof his leadership he had faced questions about his Christian faith and that he had tried to answer with grace and patience, adding: Sometimes my answers could have been wiser.

But with the vital election campaign kicking off and the Lib Dems desperate to capitalise on any anti-Brexit feeling, Mr Farron said the issue was distracting attention from the partys message.

When the results came in last Friday the party had gained four seats, leaving them with 12 not as many as had been hoped for in the wake of the EU referendum.

Mr Farron added: Journalists have every right to ask what they see fit. The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.

Tim Farron says it's 'bizarre' journalists keep questioning him on faith

A better, wiser person than me may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to have remained faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment.

Taking to Twitter earlier in the day, Lord Paddick said: Ive resigned as Lib Dems Shadow Home Secretary over concerns about the leaders views on various issues that were highlighted during GE17.

The announcement clears the way for one of the other well known figures in the party to step forward and take on the top job.

Potential contenders include Jo Swinson, newly returned to Parliament, former cabinet ministers Vince Cable and Ed Daveyand ex-health minister Norman Lamb.

Original post:

Tim Farron resigns as leader of Liberal Democrats - The Independent

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Almost six out of 10 American voters are angry and dissatisfied with how the media is covering politics, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Someone has finally united us, and its through rejection of the 24/7 media (read liberal) hate-fest of President Trump.

Thats a good sign for the country, but not so much for the business of news or for the Democratic Party. Its indicators like this that should be considered seriously by the Democrats and their still failing water carriers. Their spoiled, elitist hatred for the president is not translating well for the American people.

As Obamacare continues its collapse and terrorist attacks around the world are an almost daily event, New Yorks elite remain rabidly enraged at Mr. Trump. Ironically, hes the only person so new to the political scene to not have had a hand in any of the governmental schemes currently ruining peoples lives.

Yet, its Mr. Trump who apparently should be murdered because, you know, after 144 days hes a tyrant or something. According to Rasmussen, consumer confidence is the second-highest its been in the indexs history. The market cap of the U.S. stock market has risen more than $3 trillion since Mr. Trump was elected. Small-business confidence has surged to a 12-year high. In May, the unemployment rate hit a 16-year low.

Yeah, for New York limousine liberals that amounts to a tyranny, especially because their political bread-and-butter relies on victimhood. Mr. Trump is threatening the only thing the Democrats have left suffering.

Whats a panicked gang to do? Much is being made of the New York Public Theaters play featuring the murder of Mr. Trump. Sure, its titled Julius Caesar, but we know thats an inside joke. For those not living in the pretend-world of liberals, the people in charge of the New York Public Theater are using Shakespeare simply as cover for their horrific fantasy, as its rather likely their creative process first involved wanting to kill the president, then they went scrounging around to find the fitting Shakespeare.

How clever they are, as they no doubt assure themselves.

Drowning in smug, the theater released a statement which, in part read: Our production of Julius Caesar in no way advocates violence toward anyone. Shakespeares play, and our production, make the opposite point: Those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save.

How kind of them. Americans appalled at the presentation of the murder of our sitting president are reprimanded by our artistic betters for not understanding Shakespeare, and the message of Julius Caesar.

Newsflash for artistes: Context matters. Shakespeares intent was based on an historical personage for a reason. When you murder a living president, who is loathed by the very people making the presentation, you lose the right to point back at the original playwright who knew the difference between a historical lesson and contemporary provocation.

This is dangerous for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inuring of the public to the idea of violence being committed against the president. After the London Bridge terrorist attack, we were told by various media that Londoners were getting used to terrorism.

One man was lauded for keeping his beer with him as he ran from the carnage. The Associated Press headline: UK hails man who fled attack holding beer an unlikely hero.

This is what liberals everywhere want. Why? Because it keeps them from having to face the consequences of their actions. They create chaos and then have no solutions for the collapse of civil society, so the goal becomes to make obscene violence and chaos a normal, or as former Secretary of State John Kerry wished about terrorism, for it to be considered simply a nuisance.

There are many reasons why six out of 10 Americans are angry at the media, defending what the New York Public Theater has done is part of it (You ignorant fools dont understand Shakespeare), but also in purveying fake news. Former FBI Director James B. Comey told us the foundation story in The New York Times claiming Trump campaign collusion with Russia was dead wrong. CNN had to retract a story a day before Mr. Comeys testimony claiming he would deny he told Mr. Trump he wasnt under investigation. The opposite was true.

During an appearance on Fox News Fox & Friends, this columnist was on a panel that included a perfectly nice young man who, as a liberal, explained essentially that the president was unable to work because of the headlines surrounding his presidency. I responded, noting that headlines are not reality, despite the fact that for the years prior to new media and the internet, headlines and people like Walter Cronkite did control what the American people saw and heard. They did control reality.

When liberals lose that, their mask is ripped off as they produce photographs of the president beheaded ISIS-style, or a play featuring his torturous murder night after night.

But Donald Trump is the tyrant. Got it.

Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

Read more:

Trump and the liberal hate-fest - Washington Times

As authorities continue to investigate the motives surrounding the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and several others on Wednesday morning, some politicians and people online think theyve found the culprit: liberal rhetoric.

At least one Republican lawmaker suggested that the liberal rhetoric that has popped up since President Donald Trump took office led to the Scalises shooting at a baseball field in Virginia early Wednesday, according to the Buffalo News.

I can only hope that the Democrats do tone down the rhetoric, the Buffalo News reported Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) saying on a local radio station. The rhetoric has been outrageousthe finger-pointing, just the tone and the angst and the anger directed at Donald Trump, his supporters. Really, then, you know, some people react to things like that. They get angry as well. And then you fuel the fires.

Collins, the third-highest ranking member of the House of Representatives, continued: I can only hope maybe theres something here that would say: Lets tone down the rhetoric. We can disagree politically but we can be polite. Its gone too far.

While there have been recent incidents of left-leaning figures gaining attention for their over-the-top suggestions of violence against Trump, the president is no stranger to using incendiary rhetoric to fire up his supporters.

Trump drew fierce criticism forpraising violence against protesters at rallies during the presidential campaign and some fear his near-daily attacks on the press may cause escalation among his supporters.

Rhetoric was also blamed following the assassination attempt of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

Specifically, many people pointed out that former vicepresidential candidate Sarah Palin released an online map of different districts they hoped to turn in favor of Tea Party candidates (including Giffords), which used images of gun sights.

While Twitter was buzzing with debates over gun control in the wake of Scalises shooting, others seemed to agree with Collins that rhetoric on the left was to blame.

Leading the charge was the presidents own son.

People accused Trump aide Kellyanne Conway of perpetuating an anti-Republican angle to the shooting when she tweeted #breakingnews suggesting someone asked whether Republicans or Democrats were playing baseball on the field prior to the shooting.

Her tweet was quickly denounced by Twitter users:

Meanwhile, off the evidenceof social media profiles for shooterJames T. Hodgkinson, online communities are identifying him as a radical left winger.

See the article here:

Donald Trump Jr. and Twitter users blame liberal rhetoric in wake of Scalise shooting - The Daily Dot

NewsBusters (blog)

Hulu's 'Casual' Shoehorns Liberal Propaganda - NewsBusters NewsBusters (blog) The writers of Hulu's Casual are determined to stick in liberal propaganda wherever they see fit, as shown by Tuesday's episode, Troubleshooting. and more »

See the article here:

Hulu's 'Casual' Shoehorns Liberal Propaganda - NewsBusters - NewsBusters (blog)