Piers Morgan Threatens to Self-Deport

My dad always had guns in the house, most memorably a WWII-era M1 carbine, with a small-capacity clip kept in his top dresser drawer in the master bedroom. And he was a die-hard Cold War Democrat. He's gone now, but I doubt he'd be pleased with the left's ignominious child-death exploitation and its depraved push for extreme gun control measures. In his last few years, when he was in his 80's and 90's, my dad kept a small handgun on the pillow next to him while he slept. He had it just sitting right there. He felt safer with it.

Anyway, I'm just thinking about this while reading Piers Morgan's commentary at London's Daily Mail, "Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws... I may deport myself says Piers Morgan" (at Memeorandum):

I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party to the Czech capital Prague a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns.

It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting. But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.

Rarely has the hideous effect of a gun been more acutely laid bare than at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, two weeks ago – when a deranged young man called Adam Lanza murdered 20 schoolchildren aged six and seven, as well as six adults, in a sickening rampage.

He gets all whiney and admits that losing his cool with gun rights advocate Larry Pratt triggered the massive public relations campaign against him. Boo hoo. What a freakin' baby. A baby who wants to confiscate guns:

President Obama seems to agree it’s time for action. After four years of doing precisely nothing about gun control in America, he finally snapped after Sandy Hook and said he’s keen to pursue a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And he wants a closure of the absurd loopholes that mean 40 per cent of all gun sales in America currently have no background checks whatsoever – meaning any crackpot or criminal can get their hands on whatever they want.

These measures, which will be resisted every step of the way, won’t stop all gun crime. Nor all mass shootings. There are too many guns out there, and too many criminals and mentally deranged people keen to use them. But the measures will at least make a start. And they will signal an intent to tackle this deadly scourge on American life.

Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one.

Either you ban these assault weapons completely, and really mean it, or you don’t.

It won't be just "assault" weapons, but progressives won't tell you that.

Continue reading.

At the essay's last line Morgan declares that he'd consider deporting himself if the laws don't change to reflect his decidedly un-American outlook.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, brother.

BONUS: A must-see entry at This Ain't Hell, "OK, CNN, you’re disqualified from the gun discussion."

UPDATE: EBL links, "Remember Piers Morgan is laughing all the way to the bank by making money off the blood of children." Thanks!

Fiscal Cliff Talks Down to the Wire

At the clip, Charles Krauthammer praises Obama for his "ruthless" partisanship.

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Both Sides to Meet at White House; Any Deal Likely to Be Limited":

Congress and the White House took small steps toward breaking the budget impasse Thursday, but Democrats and Republicans grew increasingly fearful they won't be able to avert the tax increases and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff, a prospect that is unnerving consumers and investors.

President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday afternoon for a last-ditch effort to broker a deal, as the Senate returned to Washington on Thursday. House GOP leaders said in a Thursday conference call with Republicans, who are growing nervous about their party being blamed for the deadlock, that the House will reconvene Sunday evening.

It is still possible the two sides can reach a deal, especially with the leaders meeting Friday. Any resolution would be a scaled-back version of the package Mr. Obama and congressional leaders had anticipated passing after the November election. The White House is pressing for the Senate to extend current tax rates for income up to $250,000, extend unemployment benefits, keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of additional taxpayers and delay spending cuts set to take effect in January.

The 11th-hour strategy carries enormous risk because it leaves no margin for error in Congress's balky legislative machinery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the prospects for passage of a bill before the last day of the year are fading rapidly. "I have to be very honest," he said. "I don't know time-wise how it can happen now."

Anxiety about Washington's ability to resolve its budget battles is roiling the economy. Conference Board figures showed that consumer confidence fell in December to its lowest level since August, driven by a pessimistic outlook for economic activity next year.

Stocks have swung on the latest news from Washington. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell sharply on Mr. Reid's pessimistic comments before recouping most of a 151-point drop on news the House would reconvene this weekend.

At best, leaders are looking at a narrow bill that could be passed at the last minute. At the meeting Friday, Mr. Obama will outline the elements he thinks should be in a deal and could get majority support in both chambers of Congress, according to a person familiar with the matter. He won't put forward a specific bill or legislative language, the person added.

Continue reading.

And at Telegraph UK, "Barack Obama will meet congressional leaders today at the White House for last-minute talks on a "fiscal cliff" deal to avoid automatic tax increases and broad spending cuts that threaten the US economy's recovery."

PREVIOUSLY: "America's Crisis of Big Government Cronyism and Corruption."

Thanks Democrats: Sluggish Economic Growth Locked-In for 2013

At IBD, "Economy 2013: Mediocre Growth Will Be the New Good":

Next year may be when Americans stop waiting for faster economic growth to make everything better again and finally learn to accept the current modest pace as good enough now and good enough later.

Even if lawmakers reach a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff's full impact, tax rates will still go up for many Americans, and government spending will go down.

Incomes, which have seen little growth during the recovery, are unlikely to start shooting higher. Aging consumers haven't regained their lost net worth and aren't ready to load up on new debt.

"It's a very different economy than what we've seen in the last 20 to 30 years," said Steve Blitz, chief economist at ITG Investment Research.

Gross domestic product has expanded at an average rate of just over 2% a year since the recession ended, and many economists expect more of the same in 2013.

That assumes a fiscal cliff deal. But the chances of a pact before year-end are now looking increasingly bleak, and a prolonged standoff could deal another blow to the fragile economy. The U.S. could fall back into recession, the Congressional Budget Office has said.

Even without a "cliff" shock, the National Association for Business Economics, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Monetary Fund all see 2013 growth at or just above 2%.

ITG's Blitz also thinks the U.S. will expand by about 2%, with some positive momentum in housing but not much improvement in consumer spending.

"What the economy is not going to do is accelerate toward the trend path where we were pre-recession," he said. "We're not going to make up that lost ground."

More at that top link.

While I think both parties suck, it's definitely the Democrats who're by design seeking to hold the economy back by punishing wealthy high-achievers in the name of social justice. Even far-left hack Jamelle Bouie admits it, "Why Democrats insist on upper-income tax hikes."

NBC's David Gregory Under Investigation by Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police

Wiilliam Jacobson has been all over this story, "NBC News stonewalls inquiries regarding David Gregory and “active investigation” by D.C. Police":

As previously reported, last Sunday David Gregory held up what he described as high capacity AR-15 ammunition magazine, which would violate the District of Columbia’s gun law if the magazine were real.

My multiple attempts last Sunday to obtain a response from NBC News as to whether the magazine was real were met with stone cold silence. None of the three senior communications executives with responsibility for Meet the Press responded.

Now there is news via Breitbart.com (h/t Drudge) that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is investigating.

I spoke with Officer Alali, the spokesman on duty today at the MPD, who refused any further comment except to confirm that there is an “active investigation.”

It may be even worse for Gregory and NBC News. According to an e-mail received by The Patriots Perspective website, which originally broke the Gregory story, NBC News had inquired whether it was permitted to use the magazine and was told that it was not permitted. The authenticity of the email has not been verified.

More at the link.

And following it, here's Warner Todd Huston, at Big Journalism, "DC Police Investigating NBC's Gregory for Brandishing Illegal Magazine." Also at Patriot Perspective, "David Gregory Violated DC Gun Laws After Being Denied By DC Police?"

And here's a kicker, at the Weekly Standard, "W.H. Petition: 'Press Charges Against David Gregory' for Breaking D.C. Gun Laws." (Via Memeorandum.)

Two Firefighters Shot and Killed Responding to Fire in Upstate New York

At USA Today, "4 firefighters shot, 2 killed at Webster, N.Y., fire."

More video here: "Firefighters report 2 dead on dispatch audio.

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Suspect in fatal N.Y. firefighter ambush killed grandmother in 1980."

Counterterror Agents Monitored Occupy Movement

At the New York Times, "F.B.I. Counterterrorism Agents Monitored Occupy Movement, Records Show."

The were considered domestic terrorists. You think?

Low- and Moderate-Income Taxpayers to Face Biggest Burden if U.S. Goes Over Fiscal Cliff

Here's an excellent Fox & Friends segment from over the weekend, especially the second half, "If Bush Tax Cuts Expire - What Would It Mean For Your Taxes?"

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Cliff Would Strike Low Incomes Hard":

If the U.S. goes over the "fiscal cliff," some Americans may fall harder than others.

The biggest impact in sheer dollars would land on relatively affluent households, particularly when it comes to the tax increases that make up the bulk of the cliff. But in terms of percentage of tax increases, low- and moderate-income taxpayers will face the biggest burden—an often overlooked part of the budget debate that's now getting attention as the year-end deadline nears.

Households earning $10,000 to $20,000 would see a large increase in their overall federal tax burdens, from an average of $68 to $605. The blow would be especially harsh for married couples and households with children. The fiscal cliff "clobbers low-income households with children," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. "It is striking how large some of the increases are."

A household that makes between $10,000 and $20,000 in income and has a child would get a $2,761 payment from the Internal Revenue Service under current rules, thanks to various tax breaks and credits. After the cliff, that would be cut by $1,324, or about half.

Married couples earning $20,000 to $30,000 today would get an average $15 payment from the IRS under current rules. In January, they would owe an average $1,408 to the IRS, because several of those breaks would be narrowed or eliminated.

Budget talks were mostly quiet Sunday, officials on both sides said, after a week when efforts between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to cut a deal collapsed, and the House failed to pass a backup plan.

Some leaders, including Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), attended a memorial service for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye in Honolulu. Mr. Obama said he would cut his holiday vacation short and return to Washington this week to work on an agreement.

The so-called fiscal cliff comprises about $500 billion in tax-break expirations and government spending cuts that are set to take effect in early January, unless Congress acts. With little more than a week to find a solution, Democrats and Republicans are focusing on the real-world impacts of the fiscal cliff and seeking to shift blame for it.

"We're taking…this incredible mallet and [are] about to smash America," Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "People are going to be cut out of programs that support the poorest Americans….This is really what bothers me right now."

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), said on Sunday: "Given the impact on all segments of the economy, it's disappointing that Democrats are so cavalier about letting the country go off the cliff."

The Obama administration contends Republicans would let much of the fiscal cliff's impact happen for moderate-income families, by allowing Obama-era breaks to expire.

If Congress misses its year-end deadline but quickly restores the expired tax breaks, the tax impact on lower-income households could be modest.

One problem, however, might be unavoidable: a delay in sending tax-refund payments that normally arrive between late January and March. The IRS already has warned lawmakers it might have to postpone the tax-filing season by several weeks, possibly for everyone.

Much of the tax debate has focused on upper-income Americans, who will likely see taxes rise in some form next year. If no budget deal is reached, households making more than $100,000 would absorb more than 50% of the total tax increase, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. And those earning more than $1 million would see their taxes rise by an average 24%, from about $1.1 million to about $1.3 million.

At the other end of the income scale, the risk comes from the expiration of less-heralded parts of the Bush-era tax code, as well as Obama changes that expanded several breaks for lower- and middle-income households.

About two million people also face the prospect of losing unemployment checks starting in January, with the expiration of extended federal unemployment benefits. "For the long-term unemployed, their entire income may disappear," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

See also, "How 'Cliff' Talks Hit the Wall: Behind Scenes, Boehner Failed to Sell Republicans on Taxes, While Obama's Spending Plans Rankled."

Obama's ball-busting budgeting. And I'll tell you, the Republicans aren't coming out too pretty here either. That video at top says the average tax hit for incomes over $108,000 would be more than $14,000. The liability would be enormous especially for people making over $1 million (around $100,000), but still. The bill comes due in April, as we're talking about the 2012 tax filings that will be affected, unless the IRS is able to reset the deadline. I doubt there'd be a better impetus to a new American tax revolt than going over the cliff, but perhaps an agreement will come at the 11th hour. We'll see.

Guns and the Right to Bear Arms at Saberpoint

My friend Stogie at Saberpoint has been posting some excellent material on the gun debate.

See: "The NRA: Target and Scapegoat for the Hyper-Angry Left," and "'An Opinion on Gun Control" Article Goes Viral'." (And more here and here.)

PHOTO: Women with Guns on Tumblr.

Newsweek's Last Print Issue

Via Twitter:

And from Andrew Romano, at Newsweek (Online), "‘The First Rough Draft of History’."

Newsweek was my favorite political magazine when I was in college. I used to get both Time and Newsweek in the mail, but Newsweek was always more hip --- and funnier. I rarely read it online nowadays but I'm not pleased to see it going out of print. All sides should be represented in the marketplace, but, alas, the marketplace has spoken in this case. The online version might not last that much longer. But we'll see.

Jake Tapper Joins CNN As Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent

That's great news. I've been recently posting ABC News World Tonight segments with Tapper. He's an excellent journalist who defies the goon stereotype of the Democrat Media Complex.

CNN reports (via Memeorandum):

Accomplished Washington journalist Jake Tapper, who has served the last four years as ABC’s senior White House correspondent and is a best-selling author, joins CNN as anchor of a new weekday program and CNN’s chief Washington correspondent, it was announced today by Ken Jautz, executive vice president of CNN/U.S.

Tapper has been a widely-respected reporter in the nation’s capital for 14 years and his most recent book, The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor, is currently on The New York Times best seller list. In his new role at CNN, he will be a key Washington, D.C. anchor and correspondent for CNN.

“We are thrilled to have Jake join CNN and take the helm of a brand new weekday program,” said Jautz. “Jake is an exceptional reporter and communicator, and we look forward to developing a program that takes advantage of all of his strengths, his passion and his knowledge of national issues and events.”

More at the New York Times, "Jake Tapper Leaves ABC News for CNN."

No word yet if Zucker's giving Soledad the boot. One can hope in the meantime.

Added: From ABC News President Ben Sherwood, "ABC News Announces New Correspondent Assignments in Washington D.C. Bureau."

It's Jonathan Karl and Martha Raddatz. I met Karl at CPAC in 2011. He seems fairly independent, although I don't know his reputation. I was talking with Dave Weigel when all of a sudden Karl walked up. So who knows? Maybe they're all a bunch of JournoListers not to be trusted. You can't be too sure about these people. I mean Martha Raddatz? Well, I think she did a better job moderating the vice presidential debate than Candy Crowley the following week for the national security debate between Obama and Romney. I still shake my head at Crowley's abjectly terrible performance. Nope. You can't be too trusting with these people. The blogosphere's the independent press nowadays, the fourth branch, so to speak. Conservative patriots can't let their guard down. Things are bad enough already. Sheesh.

More later ...

Do You Believe the NRA's 'Grip on Congress' is Threatened?

I got a pretty good laugh out of this front-page story at yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "Gun lobby's grip on Congress threatened":

WASHINGTON — The gun-control debate sharpened Tuesday as President Obama backed an effort to revive the assault weapons ban spearheaded by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is poised to have a powerful new role as the head of the Senate committee overseeing gun laws.

Calls for federal gun restrictions were mounting following last week's shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. — even from lawmakers who had rejected them in the past. The National Rifle Assn. and its allies have successfully kept such efforts at bay for years, but the slayings of 20 children have roiled the politics of gun control and now challenge the gun lobby's hold on Capitol Hill.

I doubt it. The president's task-force on firearms is supposedly designed to freeze the politics of gun control. But even if it doesn't I don't think there's much support for gun control beyond a couple of token measures to make the left's extremists happy. We'll see. A good indicator going forward will be the direction the NRA takes in its press conference on Friday. The group exists to protect the rights of gun owners. It's not going to take all these pathetic attacks lying down. Word has it that the group's going to hammer mental health failures and the pop culture's glorification of violence. This oughta be good.

Obama Invokes Newtown Massacre to Attack GOP on Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

From Bryan Preston, at PJ Media, "Disgraceful: Obama Invokes Newtown Massacre to Pressure Republicans to Go Along with His Tax Hikes":

This has to be one of the lowest moments of a very low presidency. Why should the Newtown killings bring any sort of “perspective” to a spending crisis that Barack Obama has created?

More at that top link, and watch Krauthammer rip into the disgusting one, at the Right Scoop, "Krauthammer: Obama invoking the massacre of children to say GOP needs to accept his terms is a SACRILEGE!"

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?"

Erik Loomis Implosion: Do You Need a Ph.D. in Historical Dildology?

Robert Stacy McCain rips Professor Erik Loomis, who, before deleting his Twitter feed, was bragging about the awesomeness of dildo history. See, "Herbert Marcuse, Wile E. Coyote and the Auto-Beclownment of Erik Loomis, Ph.D":

The epic saga of University of Rhode Island Assistant Professor of History Erik Loomis shall live long in blogospheric lore. Twitchy is taking a victory lap over the professor’s unfortunate metaphorical seppuku: He had to delete his Twitter account, but not before Tweeting this:

“I love teaching books on the history of sexuality. I talked about dildos in a completely appropriate way in class today.”

Yeah: The taxpayers of Rhode Island (and the parents of university students) are paying Erik Loomis to teach kids the history of dildos.

Do you need a Ph.D. to do that? Where do you get a doctoral degree in Historical Dildology? Are there federal research grants available?

Humor aside, Instapundit exposes Loomis’s pretzel logic:

The anti-NRA syllogism seems to work this way: (1) Something bad happened; (2) I hate you; so (3) It’s your fault.

This is how people “think” when the object is not to find truth, but to justify their own prejudices. This is the dangerous logic of scapegoating. The characteristic viciousness of the Left stems from a radical certainty of their own moral and intellectual superiority and, by the obverse, the inferiority of the Right...

More at the link.

My previous entries on that violent idiot are here.

ObamaCare Medical Device Tax Will Deal Crushing Blow to Orange County Businesses

My previous report is here, "Democrats Seek Delay of ObamaCare Medical Device Tax."

And here's this at the Orange County Register, "A prescription that kills innovation":

No state will be more adversely effected than California by the 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices, which the Obama administration expects to raise nearly $3 billion over the next decade.

Indeed, while the United States is the world leader in medical devices and diagnostics, the Golden State is by far the nation's leader, accounting for a fifth of total U.S. sales and employment.

The threat of the federal tax hike on medical devices will be especially damaging to Orange County, which is the hub of California's medical device and diagnostics sector. The sector accounts for more than $11 billion in economic activity within the county, according to life-science association BIOCOM Southern California. The average O.C. salary for those employed in the sector is $108,799.

The Medical Device Manufacturing Association points out that the Obamacare tax hike will be levied on a company's total revenues, regardless of whether it makes a profit.

That means that many companies will owe more in taxes than they generate from their operations.

As MDMA President and CEO Mark Leahy recently told lawmakers in the Nation's Capital, "We are already seeing the negative impact this onerous policy is having on jobs and innovation, and America's med-tech innovators can't afford to find out what implementation of the device tax would bring."

That's why we urge senators Feinstein and Boxer to add their voices to those of their fellow Democratic senators to delay, if not repeal altogether, the scheduled implementation of the innovation-killing tax hike on life-saving medical devices.

Clueless freakin' progs.

'Speaking out is one thing, calling for someone to be killed is another thing entirely...'

Professor Erik Loomis has deleted his Twitter account, but the backlash against him isn't slowing down.

Loomis' problem isn't just the one tweet calling for Wayne LaPierre's head on a pike. It's his entire personal footprint online. He's showed himself over and over again to be a vocal advocate for violent responses to political opponents, even retweeting specific calls for murder. Reading back over at the comments at Campus Reform, Sarah Spooner Curran, a moderate, explains how Loomis crossed the line:

Another embarrasement from RI. And another democrat wolf trying to wear sheeps clothing. Why does he go straight for the divisive card, suggesting that all NRA members must be republicans? I thought a college prof would be more thoughtful, as an RI taxpayer I do not want him teaching my children hate. A terrible thing happened, but I think we first must look at mental health issues and reforms before storming the doors of the nra, looking to lay blame on them. Mentally ill people need help, and parents need resources to help them. We need to also consider as a society how much we want to restrict ourselves, and while I agree that I see no need for a person not in the service/police to ever have a semi automatic weapon, I am not willing to say we should ban all gun ownership. I have a family member who is an avid sportsman, and is a member of the nra, and is the furthest thing from a "terrorist". URI needs to take a long hard look at mr loomis, for speaking out is one thing, calling for someone to be killed is another thing entirely.

There's lots more comments at the link, including some who've contacted the university's administration. Considering how Lawyers, Guns and Money is implicated, no doubt there's some karmic burn at work here. These people dish out the most vicious hate day after day and act with impunity, and now it's coming back to bite on Loomis, and hard. It doesn't look good for him at this point. He deleted his Twitter account and all kinds of people are contacting his university. The police visited him. It can't be fun, but you reap what you sow and in this case he's got a long trail of violent comments, advocating murder of his opponents. That's over the line for most people.

Again, check that Twitchy curation to recall the depravity, "University of Rhode Island professor’s retweet: Murder anyone who thinks teachers should be armed; Update: Police met with prof."

Plus, there's a Memeorandum thread linking Leslie Eastman at Williams Jacobson's College Insurrection, "Rhode Island prof demands NRA chief's “head on a stick” (Update - deletes Twitter account)." Also at Legal Insurrection, "Violent rhetoric for we, but not for thee (Update – Twitter account deleted)."

See Instapundtit as well, "MORE WITH THE anti-gun anger issues," and "ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC."

More at The Other McCain, "Is It ‘Metaphor’ to Suggest Erik Loomis Should Be Sodomized by Orangutangs? UPDATE: Is Professor ‘Head on a Stick’ Now Under State Police Protection?"

Well, I suspect he got a warning from the police, although the way it's going I wouldn't be too careful about some right-wing crazies showing up in that neck of the woods. Some folks might not take too kindly to Loomis' threats. The guy should be more careful.

Expect updates...

Obama and Progressives Exploit Child Killings to Advance Far-Left Agenda

Let's be clear about some things.

The response on the left to Newtown has been unanimous. Before the facts were known ghouls from every segment of the far-left political establishment went to work, exploiting the dead --- before families had even collected their loved ones --- and pushed to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens and to strip them of their constitutional rights to bear arms. This is not the odd left-wing wacko. This is the entire Democrat establishment from the president on down. And the politics is getting as extreme as I've seen in some time, and that's saying a lot considering how bad things have gotten since Barack Hussein's election in 2008.

Radical historian Erik Loomis is doubling-down on his attacks on the NRA and is upping the ante with calls to repeal the Second Amendment:

The NRA pushes for policies that make it complicit in mass murders in the US and Mexico. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
— Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

It turns out that Loomis is getting some hard push-back after his calls for the assassination of the NRA president, discussed here. And now this idiot has written a post so stupid that it genuinely calls into question this man's qualifications, and his sanity, "On Metaphors and Violence." Loomis is blaming everyone else for his outrageous F-Bomb Twitter tirade. His tweets were filled with all kinds of violent agitation, retweeting calls for death to gun rights supporters, as this Twitchy curation shows, "University of Rhode Island professor’s retweet: Murder anyone who thinks teachers should be armed; Update: Police met with prof." Pretty much all of Loomis' violent tweets at that link, plus an apt observation:

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the need for access to mental health services. We hope Loomis seeks the help he so obviously needs.

For sure.

But again, it's the hardline progressive agenda that's the source of such violent ideological outbursts. Here's IBD's commentary on the president's statements at the Newtown vigil, "Obama Call For Change Exploits School Massacre":

By using the massacre in Newtown, Conn., to fire up the left's anti-liberty agenda, President Obama and other prominent liberal Democrats are taking Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's infamous maxim — "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" — to new depths.

At a Sunday night prayer vigil in Newtown, the president delivered words that on their face appear soothing, hope-filled and decisive — exactly what's expected of presidential leadership. "These tragedies must end," he said. "And to end them, we must change."

But when Obama repeats that single-worded slogan from his presidential campaign, we know what kind of "change" he wants.

Instantly after the attack, New York City Rep. Jerry Nadler declared war on the National Rifle Association: "We have to go to war against the people who enable the gun violence, the people who stop us from keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, of felons, and that means the NRA leadership."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, proposing a massive package of federal gun-control measures, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and declared, "We don't need people carrying guns in public places."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is introducing an assault weapons ban, and second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois announced there will be Senate hearings on gun control.

Beyond banning assault weapons, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Charles Schumer mulled limiting clips to 10 rounds and acting to keep guns from the mentally unstable. Schumer's laughable idea of compromise with the right is to "admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms" — which would be kind of hard to deny since the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision confirmed it.

All this amounts to an attempt to take political advantage of the butchery of children. But Anders Breivik's slaughter of 69 attendees of a youth camp in heavily gun-controlled Norway last year shows the ineffectiveness of gun-ban laws, as does the violent crime in the big U.S. cities — such as Bloomberg's New York and Emanuel's Chicago — with the strictest gun control.

Indeed, as criminologists Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser found in an exhaustive 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study of gun laws and violence rates in the U.S. and Europe, "many high gun-ownership nations have much lower murder rates" than low gun-ownership-countries.

As the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin notes, "liberals' religious-like faith in government and in the ability of legislation to control and even perfect the human condition" is no protection against mass murderers, whose crimes do "not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies."

As you can see, the gun control fanatics are having an orgiastic outburst of gun confiscation fervor. I've been posting on freaks such as MSNBC's Ed Schultz and the stupid faux conservative David Frum. And Sunday's "Face the Nation" was a veritable who's who of fanatical anti-gun zealots.

Their program has the imprimatur of the man at the top of the left's political hierarchy, and the sick exploitation lobby goes down from the MSNBC journalists spouting editorial points while purportedly reporting the news, to the academic grandstanders among the left's professoriate, to the Democrats in Congress hot off the news pushing for new legislation, to the left's ghouls on Twitter trying to silence reasonable comments on the right to bear arms, and to the ASFL fever-swamp bloggers pathetically pushing the left's disgusting talking points.

This is a truly depraved time in this country. The threat to liberty and goodness is on the left. The country needs to mourn after these tragedies. And we need to think about how mental health services intertwine with the right to bear arms. But blanket calls to ban guns and strip Second Amendment rights from law-abiding Americans is pure political extremism, sick and reprehensible left-wing political extremism.

Added: At Twitchy, "Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis deletes his Twitter account."

The epitome of an Adult Sick Fuck Loser. Pray the dude gets the help he needs before he goes off on someone.

Radical History Professor Erik Loomis Calls for Assassination of NRA's Wayne LaPierre

This idiot gets more violent every time.

At Campus Reform, "Professor calls for assassination of NRA CEO."

Dear Republicans, Do you know the definition of family values? It's not having our kids FUCKING SHOT AT SCHOOL!! Fuck the NRA.
— Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

Also at the College Fix, "PROFESSOR’S TWEETS SEEK NRA CEO’S ‘HEAD ON A STICK’."

Loomis is yet another objectively bad person, a leftist literally pocked through with visceral hatred. (And right at home with his fellow ASFLs* at Lawyers, Guns and Money.)

PREVIOUSLY: "Erik Loomis, University of Rhode Island History Professor, Calls for 'Decades-Long Fight to the Death' Against Conservatives." He's obviously not kidding.

* "Adult sick-fuck loser" (cf. Amy Alkon).

Susan Rice Bemoans Partisanship in Whiney Withrawal as Secretary of State Nominee

It's all partisan politics with these people, all the time. And keep in mind it was moderate Senator Susan Collins who was the most implacable opponent to Rice's confirmation in the Senate. (And it was a chorus of leftist Democrats and journalists who've been leading the weeks-long opposition to Rice, but the White House never lets the truth get in the way of an epic smear against the right.)

And Rice took to the pages of the Washington Post to explain her withdrawal? She's a backbench bureaucrat. Nobody needs an op-ed to figure out what happened. Democrats are just horrible people. We watch it roll before out eyes every day. See: "Why I made the right call." (At Memeorandum.)

First Rule of Defeating Leftists: Don't Call Them 'Liberals'

I'm 41 posted an excellent entry the other day, "The Blogger’s Rules For Defeating Liberals."

However, I cringed with all the references to "liberals." These goons are not "liberal." They're progressive collectivists (as the most hardened of them self-identify) or, frankly, simply radical leftists.

Zilla has more:

I can’t stand to see them called “liberals” because there is nothing “liberal” about them. Words matter, as they say. Call ‘em what they really are: LEFTISTS. The edit to the [blog] title is from me, because I don’t want to see the freaks called by their preferred misnomer at any place that I have editorial control over.

When referring to "liberals," the proper meaning makes reference to those early thinkers evoking the ideology of individual liberty and limited government, most importantly John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith. The Democrat Party until roughly John F. Kennedy espoused a form of "modern liberalism" that by default drew on America's constitutional foundations in liberty but increasingly sought an expanded role for the state in promoting economic equality and social welfare. Yet, the left today is almost completely unrecognizable from the Cold War liberalism of Kennedy and Harry Truman. Today's left is a quasi-Marxist, state-collectivist ideological apparatus, intent to delegitimize private property and wealth accumulation and to elevate extreme ethnic tribalism as the blunt cudgel of radical redistributionist class warfare. President Obama is the chief class warrior and national divider in this mode, the perfect vessel of the vengeful fever swamp ghouls of the Democrat Party.

Zilla might not even be this charitable, although that's the pretty well-understood ideological bastardization of "liberalism" over the last couple of generations. Today's leftists are the Orwellian zombies who spout tolerance but practice extreme racism, anti-Semitism and viewpoint intolerance. These ghouls preach "peace" and "respect" as the highest principles but instead practice union thuggery and anti-speech bullying and lawfare as standard operating procedures. And more than ever, the left phantasmagorically operates under a false consciousness of objective lies as progressive truth. The "tent trutherism" coming out of Lansing is just the latest manifestation, but President Obama's 2012 campaign will perhaps be remembered by traditional historians as the most dishonest (and morally reprobate) in post-modern history, marked especially by a media empire in service to state power, with journalists effectively functioning as party apparatchiks for the endlessly voracious tax-and-spend regime of the soul-crushing collectivist machine.

That's why people should simply refuse to call these people "liberals." They are precisely the opposite of the great classical liberals, and are indeed the very kinds of tyrants for which the latter developed theories to frustrate, prevent, and destroy.