Laws Are for Little People

From Mark Steyn, at National Review (at Memeorandum):

A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.

It's classic Steyn. More at the link.

And commenting is AoSHQ:

Does Howard Kurtz embrace that understanding of gun laws? Does Glenn Thrush? Do the various other know-nothings in the media -- who know both nothing about law and nothing about guns, but opine with great force and velocity on gun laws -- embrace this conception of gun laws, that gun laws should never target simple possession but only possession during the commission of a crime or possession with intent to commit a crime?

If not -- if they are less the right-wing gun nut than Ted Nugent (and even the Nuge might find this position too "extremist" for his taste -- then they are duty-bound to demand David Gregory's prosecution, as they would demand that any other Citizen Not On Television would be prosecuted.

They are endeavoring to explicitly create a High Caste with greater privileges than the lower castes, and immunities to the laws the lower castes suffer under, and that is a blood anathema to any real American -- and will be treated as such.

Also at Althouse, Ed Driscoll, Jawa Report, and Twitchy.

The Fiscal Cliff and Congressional Dysfunction

From David Boaz, at Cato:

Annual federal spending rose by a trillion dollars when Republicans controlled the government from 2001 to 2007. It has risen another trillion during the Bush-Obama response to the financial crisis. So spending every year is now twice what it was when Bill Clinton left office, and the national debt is three times as high. Republicans and Democrats alike should be able to find wasteful, extravagant, and unnecessary programs to cut back or eliminate. And yet many voters, especially Tea Partiers, know that both parties have been responsible. Most Republicans, including today’s House leaders, voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, the Iraq war, the prescription drug entitlement, and the TARP bailout during the Bush years. That’s why fiscal conservatives should look very skeptically at the “fiscal cliff” and “grand bargain” proposals, most of which promise to cut spending some day—not this year, not next year, but swear to God some time in the next 10 years. As the White Queen said to Alice, ”Jam to-morrow and jam yesterday—but never jam to-day.” Cuts tomorrow and cuts in the out-years—but never cuts today.

If the “dysfunctional” fight that has sent us to the edge of the fiscal cliff finally results in some constraint on out-of-control spending, then it will have been well worth all the hand-wringing headlines. But that doesn’t seem likely. The problem is not a temporary mess on Capitol Hill and not a mythical default; it’s spending, deficits, and debt.

The entire political class is the problem, but again, the first order of business is getting the Democrats out of power.

Fiscal Cliff: $536 Billion Tax Hikes Over the Edge; Recession Risk

At IBD, "Fiscal Cliff: $536 Billion In Tax Hikes Over the Edge":

Even for those who aren't afraid of heights, peering over the fiscal cliff may be dizzying. The plunge in after-tax income that would occur in a worst-case scenario likely would put the economy back in a deep recession.

Yet a peek over the edge now seems unavoidable, at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

"It looks like that's where we're headed," Reid said in a Senate floor speech on Thursday.

So here's what the view looks like. The fiscal cliff is composed of $536 billion in 2013 tax hikes, the Tax Policy Center says.

The biggest tax hikes would be an end to President Bush's 2001 and 2003 income and investment tax cuts and President Obama's 2 percentage point payroll tax cut.

But that's just the beginning. Nearly 90% of households would face an average tax increase close to $3,500.

The fiscal cliff also would trigger roughly $115 billion in automatic spending cuts.

More at the link.

And at Instapundit, "COMMENT OF THE DAY":

“For ten years we have been told that the Bush tax cuts applied mostly to the rich. Now it is imperative that we extend them further or the middle class is going to take a big hit.”

Progressives suck.

Fiscal Cliff Reveals Long-Term Partisan Divide

Following up on my report yesterday, "America's Crisis of Big Government Cronyism and Corruption."

Here's Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "The Fiscal Cliff's Greatest Threat Is to American Unity":

The real issue in the frantic final flailing over the fiscal cliff isn’t whether Washington can balance its books. It’s whether blue America and red America are capable of, or even interested in, mediating their differences. The evidence is growing more discouraging.

Across almost every front, the process of pulling apart that has reshaped the political landscape over the past generation appears to be accelerating.

At the national level, President Obama and Mitt Romney mobilized almost mirror-image coalitions. Over 40 percent of Obama’s votes came from minorities; nearly 90 percent of Romney’s votes came from whites. Obama won three-fifths of voters under 30; Romney won more than three-fifths of white seniors.

Compared with Democrats, Republicans since the 1980s have been a more ideologically homogenous party that is more resistant to compromise—as last week’s rejection of House Speaker John Boehner’s fiscal “Plan B” demonstrated. (Electoral incentives help explain that imbalance: Because self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals among voters, Democrats in most places need to carry more moderates to win than Republicans do, and that creates greater pressure on Democrats to compromise.) But after an election in which Obama won despite historic deficits among the blue-collar and older whites that once anchored the conservative end of his party’s coalition, ideological cohesion is rising among Democrats too.

Consider the profile of Obama and Romney voters that Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz traces in an upcoming paper. In the Election Day exit poll, three-fourths of Obama voters said that government should be doing more to solve problems, while over four-fifths of Romney voters said that it is already doing too much. More than four-fifths of Obama voters wanted to maintain or expand his health care law, while nearly nine-in-10 Romney voters backed its repeal. Three times as many Obama voters as Romney voters supported legalizing gay marriage.

This same pulling apart is evident in the states. Eighteen states—what I’ve called the “blue wall”—have voted Democratic in at least the past six presidential elections. After November’s ballot victories in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, seven of them have now authorized gay marriage and six others have approved civil unions or broad domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. Depending on how legislative or court fights unfold, it’s conceivable that California and New Jersey, two blue-wall states, could approve same-sex-marriage ballot initiatives by 2016. Meanwhile, virtually every Republican-leaning state has barred gay marriage.

Similarly, 14 governors have agreed to join the expansion of Medicaid that represents one pillar of the Obama plan to cover the uninsured; Nevada’s Brian Sandoval is the only Republican among them. Almost all Republican governors also let the deadline pass earlier this month without establishing the online exchanges that comprise the other big coverage expansion. Even after Obama’s victory eliminated the possibility that his health reform bill would be repealed, Republican governors are continuing what amounts to a sit-down strike against it.

This centrifugal tendency is now embedded in Congress’s DNA. As split-ticket voting has declined, fewer legislators in each party are elected, in effect, behind enemy lines (by voters who usually prefer the other party for the White House).

Michael Franc, vice president for government studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, correctly observes that because of that dynamic, during a confrontation like the fiscal cliff, most legislators are more likely to face demands to stand firm than complaints about inflexibility. “When everybody goes back home, I don’t think they are feeling the heat from their constituents” for failing to reach agreement, Franc says. “If anything, they are hearing the opposite. So ... there’s no rational political incentive to back down.”

There's more at that top link. Brownstein concludes by lamenting the nation's "fraying sense of common purpose." Actually, that's not what the data are telling us. All those constituents back home in the red districts don't want America moving further into the socialist orbit, becoming a Sweden, or worse, a Cuba. The Democrats cling to power with a coalition of dependents. The Democrats welcome all manner of hard-line socialists and collectivists into their midst. And the president himself leads the morally bankrupt intransigence in government. It's all about punishing the successful demographics in the name of fairness. Screw these people. Republicans need to stay strong against the onslaught.

PHOTO: The White House Flickr page.

America's Crisis of Big Government Cronyism and Corruption

The January/February issue of Foreign Affairs is now available online. I just finished reading Fareed Zakaria's marquee essay, "Can America Be Fixed? The New Crisis of Democracy." While I disagree little on the problems we face, I differ substantially on the remedies he identifies. (And my respect for the man has plummeted over the years amid his increasingly predictable progressive sensibilities, but especially of late because of the allegations against him this year of plagiarism, for which he acknowledged and apologized for publicly, with permanent damage to his reputation.)

The article is gated but a quick summary and block quotes are sufficient for the purposes here. Zakaria sees the fiscal cliff stalemate as a signal of our political immobility. The gridlock we're facing means that the political establishment once again is delaying needed reforms on some of the biggest problems facing the country, most notably for Zakaria infrastructure and entitlements. The fatal flaw of the piece is that Zakaria's a hopeless advocate for expanding the size and scope of government. He actually offers an excellent discussion of the entitlement problem, but he refuses to see any role for markets and for the possibility of scaling back government commitments. His biggest problem is on infrastructure. Again, while he puts his finger on the problem quite deftly, he ignores some facts that make his case problematic --- one of the biggest being the fact that the U.S. spent nearly $1 trillion in "infrastructure" and "investment" in the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus legislation, and the country has virtually nothing to show for it in terms of long-term economic growth. Indeed, the administration's stimulus was a crony capitalist boondoggle that will likely be repeated again and again if the so-called investments Zakaria proposes are to indeed become public policy. In any case, some key block quotes. Here's a bit on the problems identified in the paper:

As the United States continues its slow but steady recovery from the depths of the financial crisis, nobody actually wants a massive austerity package to shock the economy back into recession, and so the odds have always been high that the game of budgetary chicken will stop short of disaster. Looming past the cliff, however, is a deep chasm that poses a much greater challenge -- the retooling of the country's economy, society, and government necessary for the United States to perform effectively in the twenty-first century. The focus in Washington now is on taxing and cutting; it should be on reforming and investing. The United States needs serious change in its fiscal, entitlement, infrastructure, immigration, and education policies, among others. And yet a polarized and often paralyzed Washington has pushed dealing with these problems off into the future, which will only make them more difficult and expensive to solve....

Is there a new crisis of democracy? Certainly, the American public seems to think so. Anger with politicians and institutions of government is much greater than it was in 1975. According to American National Election Studies polls, in 1964, 76 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "You can trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always or most of the time." By the late 1970s, that number had dropped to the high 40s. In 2008, it was 30 percent. In January 2010, it had fallen to 19 percent.

Commentators are prone to seeing the challenges of the moment in unnecessarily apocalyptic terms. It is possible that these problems, too, will pass, that the West will muddle through somehow until it faces yet another set of challenges a generation down the road, which will again be described in an overly dramatic fashion. But it is also possible that the public is onto something. The crisis of democracy, from this perspective, never really went away; it was just papered over with temporary solutions and obscured by a series of lucky breaks. Today, the problems have mounted, and yet American democracy is more dysfunctional and commands less authority than ever -- and it has fewer levers to pull in a globalized economy. This time, the pessimists might be right.

And here's the key bit on "infrastructure investment":

If the case for reform is important, the case for investment is more urgent. In its annual study of competitiveness, the World Economic Forum consistently gives the United States poor marks for its tax and regulatory policies, ranking it 76th in 2012, for example, on the "burden of government regulations." But for all its complications, the American economy remains one of the world's most competitive, ranking seventh overall -- only a modest slippage from five years ago. In contrast, the United States has dropped dramatically in its investments in human and physical capital. The WEF ranked American infrastructure fifth in the world a decade ago but now ranks it 25th and falling. The country used to lead the world in percentage of college graduates; it is now ranked 14th. U.S. federal funding for research and development as a percentage of GDP has fallen to half the level it was in 1960 -- while it is rising in countries such as China, Singapore, and South Korea. The public university system in the United States -- once the crown jewel of American public education -- is being gutted by budget cuts.

The modern history of the United States suggests a correlation between investment and growth. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government spent over five percent of GDP annually on investment, and the economy boomed. Over the last 30 years, the government has been cutting back; federal spending on investment is now around three percent of GDP annually, and growth has been tepid. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence has noted, the United States escaped from the Great Depression not only by spending massively on World War II but also by slashing consumption and ramping up investment. Americans reduced their spending, increased their savings, and purchased war bonds. That boost in public and private investment led to a generation of postwar growth. Another generation of growth will require comparable investments.

The problems of reform and investment come together in the case of infrastructure. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the country's infrastructure a grade of D and calculated that repairing and renovating it would cost $2 trillion. The specific number might be an exaggeration (engineers have a vested interest in the subject), but every study shows what any traveler can plainly see: the United States is falling badly behind. This is partly a matter of crumbling bridges and highways, but it goes well beyond that. The U.S. air traffic control system is outdated and in need of a $25 billion upgrade. The U.S. energy grid is antique, and it malfunctions often enough that many households are acquiring that classic symbol of status in the developing world: a private electrical generator. The country's drinking water is carried through a network of old and leaky pipes, and its cellular and broadband systems are slow compared with those of many other advanced countries. All this translates into slower growth. And if it takes longer to fix, it will cost more, as deferred maintenance usually does.

Spending on infrastructure is hardly a panacea, however, because without careful planning and oversight, it can be inefficient and ineffective. Congress allocates money to infrastructure projects based on politics, not need or bang for the buck. The elegant solution to the problem would be to have a national infrastructure bank that is funded by a combination of government money and private capital. Such a bank would minimize waste and redundancy by having projects chosen by technocrats on merit rather than by politicians for pork. Naturally, this very idea is languishing in Congress, despite some support from prominent figures on both sides of the aisle.

The same is the case with financial reforms: the problem is not a lack of good ideas or technical feasibility but politics. The politicians who sit on the committees overseeing the current alphabet soup of ineffective agencies are happy primarily because they can raise money for their campaigns from the financial industry. The current system works better as a mechanism for campaign fundraising than it does as an instrument for financial oversight.

In 1979, the social scientist Ezra Vogel published a book titled Japan as Number One, predicting a rosy future for the then-rising Asian power. When The Washington Post asked him recently why his prediction had been so far off the mark, he pointed out that the Japanese economy was highly sophisticated and advanced, but, he confessed, he had never anticipated that its political system would seize up the way it did and allow the country to spiral downward.

Vogel was right to note that the problem was politics rather than economics. All the advanced industrial economies have weaknesses, but they also all have considerable strengths, particularly the United States. They have reached a stage of development, however, at which outmoded policies, structures, and practices have to be changed or abandoned. The problem, as the economist Mancur Olson pointed out, is that the existing policies benefit interest groups that zealously protect the status quo. Reform requires governments to assert the national interest over such parochial interests, something that is increasingly difficult to do in a democracy.

Every now and then we see a new story on some collapsed bridge tragedy or massive urban flooding from busted water mains or broken levees, and on cue progressives start wagging their fingers about how we've got to start spending on infrastructure. I don't research this area but my regular reading on the politics of the stimulus isn't very reassuring. The administration's push for "investments" was mostly about the Democrat politics of job creation, and that didn't turn out so well. Conn Carroll has a good example, "$787 Billion in Stimulus, Zero Jobs “Created or Saved”." And while Zakaria's obsessed with government spending as "investmnent," there's little in the record of the last couple years that recommends doubling-down on it. See Romina Boccia, "New Stimulus Plan Same as the Old: Spend, Spend, Spend." And notice while Zakaria minimizes the corruption inherent in "infrastructure" spending as possibly "inefficient and ineffective," the facts of the past few years are devastating to his case. See Veronique de Rugy, "Stimulus Cronyism." And Michelle Malkin, "Obama's $50 Billion Union Infrastructure Boondoggle."

The United States is not some developing country that's going to be eviscerated by "draconian" spending cuts or devastated by some horrible "austerity package" that leaves the poor to fend for themselves. That's Krugmanite scare-mongering. We need to unleash the natural dynamism of the American economy. To put it as plainly as possible: We need robust and sustained economic growth, in the 4 or 5 percent range. We need to increase incentives for private investment. We need to reduce regulations and taxes on business job creators. And we need to rely on the system of federalism to shift real infrastructure investment from the federal to state governments. This isn't rocket science. The solutions to America's economic problems are self-evident. And the political crisis is largely one of a dramatically changed American electoral and political demographic. As the population base of the Democrat Party comes to increasingly favor policies of dependency, the productive, working sectors of the economy are required to bear a heavier load to keep everything afloat. Tea party Republicans, bless them, are resisting higher taxes because they know that'll be more of the same. As noted here yesterday, President Obama's not interested in fixing our politics or avoiding a recession should we go over the fiscal cliff. He's obsessed with punishing the most productive members of society in furtherance of his class warfare agenda of reducing inequality and promoting social justice. As long as we have one party that is objectively uninterested in growing the economy to create a rising tide that lifts all boats we will continue to have a crisis of political immobility. The electorate can fix the problem by choosing a government not fatally infected with cronyism and corruption. Both parties are implicated, although getting the Democrats out of power is the first order of business. We need to restore our faith in liberty and markets and unleash the innate innovation and dynamism of the individual. Our crisis is one of big government. Obama hasn't even been sworn in for a second term and its already clear that the public was duped in November. We must keep on with the hard work of real reform, which is what the tea party has represented, smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Without that we'll continue to stagnate and ultimately perish like the beached whale on the sand at Barbra Streisand's oceanfront estate.

BONUS: Zakaria dismisses the late Samuel Huntington's work in this report from the '70s-era Trilateral Commission: "The Crisis of Democracy." But our prospects for reform would be immeasurably greater if had more voices like Huntington's a less of those like Zakaria's.

ADDED: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur and Lonely Conservative. Thanks!

Firm Hired to Overhaul California's State Government Payroll in 'Over its Head' and 'May Be Unable to Reach its Goal'

It's utterly asthounding, the amount of money burned up by the endlessly voracious bureaucratic entitlement state. But California keeps throwing up example after example. One of these days it's going to be a bunch of road warriors out here. We're just counting down to the fiscal apocalypse.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Overhaul of California government payroll system at risk of collapse":

SACRAMENTO — One of the state's biggest technology endeavors, a $371-million overhaul of the government payroll system, is beset with problems and "in danger of collapsing," according to the state controller's office.

The company hired for the project is in over its head and may be unable to deliver on its promise to update a payroll system so old that even simple salary adjustments can tie it in knots, the controller's chief administrative officer said in a letter.

The state has spent at least $254 million so far on contractors, staff salaries, software and more for the system upgrade, which is five years overdue and has nearly tripled in cost since lawmakers authorized it in 2005.

"The project … is foundering and is in danger of collapsing," administrator Jim Lombard wrote to the contractor, SAP Public Services, in October. Lombard said the new system is not capable of processing "any portion of the state payroll population, let alone the full population of approximately 240,000 employees."

An SAP spokesman, Andy Kendzie, said the company is meeting its contractual obligations.

"Considering the project's complexity, and the many requirements involved in payroll processing, there have been some challenges," Kendzie said in a statement. "Despite these, SAP remains committed to the overall success of the project."

Technology quagmires have become a hallmark of California state government, with delays and cost overruns common...

Do tell.

Go finish reading at that top link.

Not to worry about yesterday's failed Mayan apocalypse prophecy. The ethnic wizards of our once-Golden State will be sure to see that puppy through!

California Auditor Uncovers Misuse of Funds, Lack of Competence in State Government

Well, what do you know?

At the O.C. Register, "Much tax money lost to theft, malfeasance":

As the Romans said, "Who watches the watchmen?" They meant: Government watches out for crime and corruption in private society. But who will do so for the government itself? In the early days of America, government was small, and the people could keep a close eye on it themselves. But nowadays government is so gigantic, especially at the national level and for the state of California, that the people get only glimpses of what's really going on.

California at least has the state auditor, currently Elaine M. Howle. On Dec. 11, she issued a report, "Investigations of Improper Activities by State Agencies and Employees." It's shocking reading for anyone who believes that government is a sober, clean operation that deserves more of the taxpayers' money. No actual names of culprits were provided.

It should be shocking, these revelations, but it's business as usual in the once-Golden State.

RTWT

Gun Sales Surge After Newtown

At the Jackson Clarion Ledger, "Gun sales spike, armored backpacks promoted after Newtown shootings."

And from CNN last night, an interesting segment:

More at Bloomberg, "Guns Out of Stock at Wal-Mart as Magazine Prices Surge on." (At Memeorandum.)

Chuck Hagel Under Fire as Possible Defense Sec. Nominee

It's no surprise that he's O's favorite for Defense. They're like brothers in their Israel bashing.

The New York Times reports, "Comments on Israel by Top Contender for Defense Secretary Are Scrutinized."

And see Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal, "Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem."

Also at Pamela's, "Jew-Hater for Defense?"

Mental Illness and the Gun Control Debate

A thought-provoking essay from Robert Leider, at the Wall Street Journal, "Breaking the Gun Control Stalemate."

Read it at the link.

It doesn't make sense for gun control proposals to ignore the history of mental illness in all the recent shooting massacres. If progressives go after guns without mental health reforms, they'll have no credibility. And mind you, I'm being charitable as it is. I'm taking the president at his word, and Senators Feinstein and Schumer. Democrats will go for a big play on firearms. Of course, confiscating guns is what the left's program is all about. They don't give a s*** about the mentally ill except as a hammer to beat opponents. Once they get their legislation going it'll be all about screwing the "evil" gun lobby.

But again, I think Leider's piece is interesting. I just doubt far-left partisans will be as rational about things.

California Democrats Face the Supermajority Challenge

I don't see what's the problem. It's been a Democrat state for a while now. But come January there'll be no real legislative constraints. They'll be able to do what they want, which will be finding more and more ways to levy taxes on an overburdened populace. It's going to be interesting to see if Californians hold up against the onslaught.

At the New York Times, "With a Supermajority, California Democrats Begin to Make Plans":

LOS ANGELES — The Democratic Party has controlled the California Legislature for a nearly unbroken stretch of 42 years. Yet control goes only so far: it takes two-thirds of the Legislature to enact a host of important legislation in this state, meaning that even the diminished Republican Party has been able to easily frustrate Democratic ambitions.

But with a swell of electoral victories in November, the Democratic Party has now crossed that boundary and controls two-thirds of both the Senate and the Assembly, giving it the kind of unfettered power that no party has had here for 80 years.

This does not appear to be a passing advantage. Even Republicans say that changes in electoral demographics mean that, with the exception of a few brief lapses caused by vacancies, Democrats could hold a supermajority at least through the end of the decade.

Yet in the “be careful what you wish for” department, Democrats are beginning to confront the struggles and complications that come with being in charge of the store. This authority came at least two years earlier than most Democrats had projected. And it is unleashing years of pent-up Democratic desires — to roll back spending cuts, approve a bond issue to rebuild the state’s water system, amend the state’s tax code, revamp California’s governance system — that had been largely checked by the Republican minority.

At the same time, it is stirring concerns from Democrats, among them Gov. Jerry Brown, that the situation may inspire an overreach that could make the party’s reign brief. By contrast, some Democrats argue that handled correctly, the next two years could provide an opportunity to lock in long-term control.

Continue reading.

I don't think the "restraint" forces will have much of a chance. When has restraint been the order of the day in the past? Politics come January is going to be all about ways to change the state's tax system, to find more ways to confiscate the people's money and fund a bloated, tyrannical state bureaucratic monster. Meanwhile, California will continue to lag in all the leading indicators of economic and demographic well-being. The West Coast dystopia.

Shameful Media Coverage of the Newtown Massacre

A Matt Lewis commentary, at The Week, "The media should be ashamed of its Connecticut coverage":

...transparent society demands reporting newsworthy incidents — and this definitely qualifies. But it should be done responsibly. And that is not what we have witnessed. We have instead a feeding frenzy that is all about beating the competition — not disseminating information.

It's about being first, beating other media outlets, and making a name for themselves. It's a ghoulish mentality that stokes controversy and violence — for business purposes. It's a sort of "if it bleeds it leads" mentality that causes cable networks to create logos and theme music for such tragic events (all the while, they feign maudlin concern and outrage.)

Come to think of it, the media is guilty of doing what they criticize big business for — putting money (in this case, ratings, newsstand sales, and web traffic) ahead of humanity and decency. Just as greedy businessmen put profit and personal gain ahead of ethics, so too do our media outlets.

More at that top link.

Also see Hugh Hewitt, at The Washington Examiner, "The Media Vultures Gather."

It's a big story, no doubt, marred by lots of erroneous reporting and more of the same ghoulish Democrat politicization that we've seen after all of the last mass shootings, from Tucson to Aurora. And of course President Never-Let-a-Crisis-Go-to-Waste will be up with some gun control legislation faster than you can say political exploitation.

Gun Violence and the Mentally Ill

From Rick Moran, at PJ Media, "Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?"

And from Gabriella Rosen Kellerman, at the Atlantic, "Diagnosing Adam Lanza."

RELATED: From Robert Stacy McCain, "Criticism From a Friend: Can We Help Victims of Random Sarcasm Syndrome?"

President Obama's Speech at Newtown, Connecticut

The Washington Post has both the video and transcript, "President Obama’s speech at prayer vigil for Newtown shooting victims (Full transcript)." (Via Memeorandum.)

I have to agree with Dana Loesch. Obama turned this into a gun control rally, and he's not ashamed to do it. Clear as a bell.

He just politicized a prayer service.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

If you want death threats from the peace and love "no guns" crowd, just say that you thought the president inserted politics into tonight.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

And here's this from Twitchy, "Dana Loesch says Obama’s speech at vigil was political; Libs unleash torrent of hate."

I seriously cannot keep up with all the "c*nts," "burn in hells," "all your fault" Tweets from progressives.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2012

That's a torrent of hate alright. Progressives are unleashing it all over the place following the shooting.

More from Twitchy, "Post-Newtown witch hunt: NRA president and members bombarded with death threats." And from Weasel Zippers, "Liberals Call For Murder of NRA President and Its Members…"

Well, I mentioned already that the left's gun control agenda is just the prelude to silencing the conservative opposition, the opening program toward stacking conservative corpses in the left's gulag archipelago. The progressive mouthpieces on MSNBC don't even try to hide this agenda. They just put it right out there, so folks shouldn't be surprised at what's coming down the pike, from Weasel Zippers, "MSNBC Knuckle-Dragger Ed Schultz Advocates “Confiscating” Guns From Law-Abiding Americans…"

Democrats Push Gun Control Legislation in Senate

I discussed Senator Charles Schumer earlier, who said the shooting put us at "the tipping point" for the (left's) national conversation on gun control, "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way."

And now here comes Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Sen. Feinstein to introduce gun-control bill next year":

WASHINGTON — Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Feinstein said the purpose of her proposal, a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, is to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

Officials have said that most of those killed in Friday’s massacre — a toll that included 20 children — were shot with a semiautomatic assault-style rifle.

Feinstein has been at the forefront of gun-control efforts nationally. The assault weapons ban that she pushed followed mass killings in a Stockton schoolyard and in a San Francisco office tower. Feinstein was also at San Francisco City Hall in 1978 when Supervisor Dan White killed Mayor George Moscone and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk. Feinstein saw White flee their offices and found Milk, memorably saying afterward that when she felt for a pulse, her finger slipped into a bullet hole. Feinstein, then the head of the Board of Supervisors, became mayor upon Moscone’s death.

Oh, she means well alright, but she'll have more credibility when she also starts pushing the discussion on expanding mental health services, with talk of involuntary placement of the mentally ill. That's not the hippest topic, of course, but it's the one we must have if we're going to have a legitimate "national conservation" on gun violence. See Leslie Eastman, at Legal Insurrection, "Mother recounts terrors of raising genius son with violence-oriented mental illness."

RELATED: From Politico, at Memorandum, "Schumer, Feinstein push changes on gun laws."

Obama to Speak at Prayer Vigil in Connecticut

USA Today reports, and Slone reacts on Twitter:

HERE HE COMES: President-never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste:President now on Air Force One and en route Newtown, CT #tcot
— slone (@slone) December 16, 2012

BONUS: Aaron Worthing's post from the other day, "A Few Thoughts About the Crime in Connecticut And Gun Control":

...while I am getting sick of the politicization of every tragedy, I am not going to overly object to people talking about gun control today.  I don’t support gun control, but let’s have this out.  If we can’t stand up for the Second Amendment today, we are just going to lose the argument.

The reality is the “lets ban all guns” theory is simply a bit of what I call “silver bullet utopianism”—that is the idea that a large and complex problem can be solved easily with a proverbial silver bullet.  And it is utopianism, with dangerous consequences in real life if we don’t wake up from it.

As I quipped today on Twitter, one only has to drive through downtown D.C. late into the night to see how successful the ban on prostitution is.  You see them, openly and notoriously operating on corners only blocks away from the White House.

(Must... resist... urge... to make cheap “politicians are prostitutes” joke.)

The same can be said for drugs and illegal immigration.  I can name for you several spots where the illegal workers line up.  Everyone can.  It’s no secret.  It’s open and notorious.

And it is downright bizarre to see many of the same liberals who advocate drug legalization, or open borders on the theory that “you just can’t stop the flow” simultaneously argue that banning guns will accomplish anything but disarming solely the law-abiding citizens.

And there are several other problems with banning guns.  For one thing, what liberals are advocating is that the government have a monopoly on the use of deadly force—or more precisely the government and the criminals who violate the law.  Good law abiding citizens shouldn’t protect themselves, the argument goes, the government should protect them...

Well, the left-wing sickos have no shame.

It's all about stripping law-abiding citizens of their guns. The left's "gun control" agenda certainly won't stop gun violence.

PREVIOUSLY: "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way."

Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way

I watched "Face the Nation" earlier. All the panelists were exploiting the tragedy to push for more gun control, with host Bob Schieffer being the most aggressive of them all, even broadcasting a big gun-control editorial at the bottom of the hour. It's really amazing to listen to this. Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer suggested the country was ready for action since Sandy Hook was "the tipping point" in the so-called national conversation. Surprisingly, Schumer sounded at times reasonable, especially when he slammed idiot progressives for wanting to take away Americans' guns. Here's the segment with Schumer's comments, "Is it time for tougher gun laws?" Also on the show was the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. Over the top, he said this massacre was the nation's "new 9/11" (and folks can just ponder the mind-bogging, incommensurable obscenities dripping from that remark). And what gun control love fest would be complete without the despicable "big thinker" David Frum, who befouled himself with a disgusting series of comments over the past few days. Frum's an objectively bad person and few have topped his inhuman posturing on this, and that's saying a lot.

In any case, here's Derek Hunter, at Townhall, "Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way":

I’ve said before how progressives will exploit anyone and anything to advance their agenda, but I’d always thought there was a line, somewhere, of decency they wouldn’t cross. I was wrong.

With the blood of the victims still wet, progressives began their call for gun control. They had no idea if the guns were purchased legally (they were, and stolen from the first murder victim, the killer’s mother), what kind of guns they were (they were pistols, not “assault weapons,” though a semi-automatic rifle was found, unused, in the killer’s car), or even if the killer was in custody or dead (there were stories of a hunt for a second shooter) before they succumbed to the siren call of their agenda.

Michael Moore, noted tragedy profiteer, took to Twitter with “Only minutes away from pundits & politicians say, "This isn't the time to talk about gun control." Really? When is that moment?”

A short time later he followed up with “The NRA hates freedom. They don't want you to have the freedom to send your children to school & expect them to come home alive.”

No fiction writer could do the sickness of that man justice.

But Moore wasn’t alone, David Frum was his usual self and joined a chorus of his fellow progressives that included Piers Morgan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and nearly the entire homepage of The Huffington Post in calling for more gun control.

Actress Rashida Jones tweeted, “Gun control is our only road to freedom. Freedom from the fear of senselessly losing children. I'm so saddened. WE NEED LAWS NOW.”

The stupidity of these people is self-evident. States with the most freedom to own and carry guns have the lowest crime rates. Meanwhile, cities such as Chicago, where it’s illegal to own a gun, have the most gun violence.

But although the side of liberty has the statistics, progressives play on emotion. Facts don’t matter in a world of crying children, and progressives know it. A complicated issue is offered a simple solution that appeals to the feeling of helplessness and promises to alleviate it. It’s a tactic used by despots throughout history.

Actually, Hunter is only partially correct on the weapons used. We didn't know that the Bushmaster was used until yesterday, when the medical examiner issued a report on the findings from the crime scene. Initial police reports said only that two handguns were used. But Hunter is right to note that the facts don't matter to the despicable gun-confiscation leftists. Just to mention that the gunman may have had a semiautomatic rifle was enough for radical leftists to launch the most heinous campaign of lies and disinformation. These people are depraved. As Hunter continues:

The president was reserved and presidential in his remarks, and the White House said this is not the time to press an agenda (we’ll see how long that lasts). But their allies would have none of it. Progressive activists and their fellow travellers in the media have a storied history of dancing on graves to advance their agenda, but rarely have they danced so gleefully on such tiny graves yet to be dug. Time will tell which argument wins the day, but I have my suspicions. As President Obama’s former chief of staff once famously said, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”

Dancing on the graves. The blood hadn't dried and horrible, horrible progressive ghouls were demanding immediate action on gun control in Congress. Never let a crisis go to waste for these people, even before families are able to collect their loved ones. Godless and inhumane. Progressives are destroying this country right before our eyes. Don't let them. Stand for decency. Stand for liberty. Stand for reason and what is right, all that is the exact opposite of what the authoritarian collectivist left is pushing.

Connecticut Killer's Mother Taught Him How to Shoot

This story's at the New York Times, "Killer's Mother, His First Victim, Was a Gun Enthusiast, Friends Say" (via Memeorandum), and Telegraph UK, "Connecticut school massacre: Gunman's mother taught him to shoot."

She loved her guns, apparently, which is fine. But notice this bizarre and internally contradictory passage at the Telegraph's piece:

The killings have once again pushed America’s lax gun laws to the top of the political agenda. It was claimed last night that he had even tried to bolster his arsenal by buying another gun on Tuesday — three days before his murderous assault — but was refused because he did not have a “proper” permit.

The authors didn't think that through, eh? Connecticut's gun laws are not "lax," a point made even more obvious in the case of the suspect, who was turned down for another weapon by those very same not-so-lax state gun laws.

More here: "Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack."

Madness, Deinstitutionalization and Murder

From Clayton Cramer's research paper at The Federalist Society (via Althouse):

Studies in New York and Connecticut from the 1920s through the 1940s showed a much lower arrest rate for the mentally ill. In an era when involuntary commitment was relatively easy, those who were considered a danger to themselves or others would be hospitalized at the first signs of serious mental illness. The connection between insanity and crime was apparent, and the society took a precautionary approach. Mentally ill persons who were not hospitalized were those not considered a danger to others. This changed as deinstitutionalization took effect.

Be sure to read it all. For example:

Patrick Purdy, a mentally ill drifter, used his Social Security Disability payments to buy guns, while having a series of run-ins with the law. After one suicide attempt in jail in 1987, a mental health evaluation concluded that he was “a danger to his health and others.” In January 1989, Purdy went onto a schoolyard in Stockton, California with an AK-47 rifle, murdered five children and wounded twenty-nine others, before taking his own life.

Lots more examples like that at the link, but Purdy's is interesting. His crimes led to the passage of the federal assault weapons ban in 1994 (which expired in 2004). The left always uses these horrific killings to take away guns, and the media's working hard now to exploit Sandy Hook for the same purposes. See: "Media Sets Gun Control Narrative, Shuts Down Mental Health Debate."

  RELATED: At The Other McCain, "Guns Don’t Kill People …"

Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

More details on the Sandy Hook Massacre, and an update to my previous report, "Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation."

At the Wall Street Journal, "Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack":

SANDY HOOK, Conn.—The 26 victims who were shot inside a Connecticut elementary school on Friday were each hit by more than one bullet, most of them from the high-powered semiautomatic rifle wielded by the 20-year-old suspect, the state's chief medical examiner said on Saturday.

Authorities worked into Saturday morning at a temporary morgue on the school grounds to identify the bodies, H. Wayne Carver II said, as state authorities released the names of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

On Saturday afternoon, authorities revealed the truth behind the grim numerical toll: a list of names, overwhelmingly female, heart-rendingly young. Twenty of the 26 victims in the school were just 6 or 7 years old.

"I believe they were all first-graders," Mr. Carver said.

Six adults also were killed in the school, including school psychologist Mary Jo Sherlach, the oldest victim, at age 56.

Mr. Carver said his staff would perform an autopsy Sunday on the two remaining dead in the spree: the suspect, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who took his own life at the school, and his mother, Nancy Lanza, 52, whom Mr. Lanza shot and killed in the house the two shared in town.

Mr. Lanza's body was found close to the rifle and two handguns he carried, police said, and he is believed to have taken his own life.

Continue reading.

It wasn't until today that the medical examiner could release these details, including the information on finding the suspect's body and the weapons used. As the report continues:

The forcible entry helped solve one of the many unanswered questions about the massacre Friday: how a heavily armed young man was able to pass through the locked security doors of an elementary school.

School staff members saw evidence of forced entry as they were ushered out of the school, said Mary Ann Jacob, a clerk at the school library who hid with others in a storage room during the shooting spree. As they left the building, Ms. Jacob said she saw that the plate-glass window next to the building's front door was broken.

But much remained unanswered, and much of what had been assumed in the rush of the crisis turned out to be wrong. It was incorrect, Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police said, that Mr. Lanza's mother had had any connection to Sandy Hook Elementary, where early reports suggested she had been a teacher.

Law-enforcement officials initially said an assault rifle had been discovered in a car in the school's parking lot. In fact, said Mr. Carver, the medical examiner, it had been the primary weapon used in the killings.

Robert Stacy McCain live-blogged developments yesterday. In an update he mentions the dramatic shifts in what was known throughout the day, "Chris Rock Was Right":

When I got up Friday morning, live-blogging a mass murder was not part of my plan for the day. In fact, at the end of a post Friday morning about labor union violence in Michigan, I promised further developments on that story. As I was researching that, however, the TV kept updating with news about a shooting at a school in Connecticut and I figured this might be a story worth mentioning on the blog.

The original 12:15 p.m. ET post relayed reports that “three people have been wounded or injured and one person, the suspected shooter, is dead,” but added the caution that “early reports on events like this can be often be confusing and/or inaccurate.”

To say the very least.

By the time I added the first update, NBC was already reporting 20 dead and next it was 24, then 26, then 27, and all these changing numbers were coming amid a welter of confusing (and, as it turned out, largely wrong) details about the shooter, about the victims, etc. And this kept going for about six hours. Everything is still pretty sketchy, but we now have the bare-bones facts of the story.

Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:

@damkina Because the #NRA is partnered w/ #ALEC, which is fueled by the #Koch brothers. Unending $$$. We can't tackle this in bits &pieces.
— Angie Coiro (@Angie_Coiro) December 15, 2012

RT @leftonmain: NRA Under Twitter, Facebook Attack After Shootings huff.to/U17j8V \\ Only a taste of what's coming to them & #ALEC.
— Angie Coiro (@Angie_Coiro) December 15, 2012

Yes, "Only a taste of what's coming to them."

Stalin couldn't have stated his plans for liquidation of political enemies any more clearly.

The right to bear arms guarantees citizens the individual protection against the state. That's the central liberty guarantee extant in the Second Amendment. Along with freedom of speech, it's perhaps the most important right Americans have to defend against tyranny. And the radical left would strip those rights in a split second, obliterating the civil liberties of millions of law-abiding people who had nothing to do with this massacre or any one before it. Indeed, mass shooting like Sandy Hook are possible explicitly because upstanding citizens obey the law and come to places of work and school unarmed. It's the criminals who violate those so-called gun free zone to wreak unfathomable evil. The left's policies facilitate the killing, and then these sick-fucks exploit the murders to bring about even more draconian policies that will ultimately bring about even more killing. It's the progressive death loop of ever-expanding gun confiscation. This is the evil the Walter James Casper III tweeted out yesterday in his utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate the left's lies. They know where it leads. They know the left's policies will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." The leftists just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain.

Stand tall against it. Stand for liberty. Stand against the left's program of death and destruction of the individual.