Posse Incitatus

The futility of the surveillance state

There is much discussion on the right side of the blogosphere as to just how damning the recent revelations about data-mining and gathering phone records are to the new administration.  On the one hand, the Wall Street Journal and Bush-era officials defend the practice as essential to national security.

Rising in opposition are conservatives who rightly point out the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats embracing and expanding programs they once denounced.  These people are in turn called hypocrites because they tolerated similar programs under Bush.

Long-time readers of this blog know that we are naturally sympathetic to the needs of national security and the imperative of protecting the public.  This need transcends politics and the change of adminsitration.

That being said, there is a thing called a "learning curve" and what we have discovered since the dark post-Sept. 11 days is that all the data-mining in the world is useless without the will to do anything with it. 

The most recent terror attacks were not developed by skilled covert operatives whose clever and encrypted communications could only be discovered by the most sophisticated equipment available.  Far from it - the Boston Bombers were self-proclaimed jihadis that we were warned about by the Russians who openly traveled to get their terrorism training under the very noses of our security.

Similarly, Maj. Hassan Nidal openly proclaimed his desire for jihad and the U.S. Army did nothing about it.  No amount of data-mining will overcome the political correctness that has blinded our institutions to even the most obvious threats.

At the same time, we have learned that the IRS, EPA and other agencies determined that the Tea Party was the one enemy they would pursue to the ends of the earth, using every tool in their possession to destroy.  This is the realization of the classic paranoid conspiracy theory - the government builds up its power in response to an external threat and then uses it against domestic opponents for utterly unrelated reasons.

One need not be a rabid libertarian to now undestand that these agencies and their secretive powers are a threat to our freedoms - one must only have a healthy dose of common sense.

For all its computing power, the NSA was helpless to find the Boston Marathon Bombers - that fell to a guy checking his boat.

Similarly, all the phone records on the planet couldn't stop a radicalized Army major from shooting up his own base.

I should make it clear that I do not blame the NSA for its efforts.  Like all bureaucracies, they want to build out their edifice to the maximum extent possible.  All departments want the shiniest toys, the largest number of employees and the minimum amount of accountability they can achieve.  It is inherent in human nature.

It is up to our elected officials to step in and stop this from happening, and they have done a poor job in this respect.

Like with gun control, I might support the surveillance state if it actually worked.  But we know it doesn't.  While the whiz kids play with computers, the enemy builds bombs with pressure-cookers.   Just as with gun control, when the inevitable massacre happens, no one will be held accountable for the failure to connect the dots and the citizenry will be blamed for not giving up even more of their liberties.

If there is once trend in American intelligence capabilities it is to consistently misread the intentions of our enemies.  Blinded by our own prejudices, complacent in our superior technology, we assume that the adversary will do what we want - playing into our own limited defenses rather than bypassing them.

Pearl Harbor is said to loom large in the American psyche, but the lesson there is not danger of the sneak attack but our own ineptitude in detecting them.  Failing to note the signs of an attack was not unique to that instance.  We also failed to detect the German buildup at Kasserine Pass, failed to detect their buildup at the Bulge, missed the obvious signs of impending Chinese intervention in Korea - in fact one could write a book on all the Cold War stuff our best and brightest got wrong, up to and including the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The point is that admitting one's own weakness is the first step in fixing it.  We still keep pretending that it is all a matter of finding a "smoking gun" when we have countless examples of them being offered up to us only to ignore them in favor a theory we like better.

So we monitor email, web pages and Skype with great dilligence and hassle crippled grandmothers at airports while waving through military-age men fresh from summer training camp in Dagestan.  Oh, don't get me wrong, I think that if we tried to use racial profiling we'd screw that one up, too.  It is a mentality and the hardest thing to fix is stupid.

More than 200 years ago some stuffy white  guys without any internet or iPads figured out that giving up liberty won't buy any more security - it just makes you a servant to the state.  It says something about our pathetic educational system that people are today acting like this is a new discovery.

Enough.  Tear the thing down.

Keeping the stories straight

Had Mitt Romney run a commercial last fall declaring that Barack Obama was an empty suit utterly preoccupied with playing golf and basketball who had no idea what his government was doing, the outrage would have been deafening. 

Yet that is now what his own spokeman expects us to believe.  He had no actual awareness of events in Benghazi or the talking points created in response to the terrible events there; when the IRS admits wrongdoing and apologizes, he's not really up to speed on it; a wide-ranging probe of Associated Press reporters eludes his attention and he'll have to read up on it.

Even his condemnations are weak - if events which have already been proven to have happened have in fact happened, he will condemn them.  Of course.

While the press may be suddenly interested (no doubt because many fear that they, too, maybe under secret investigation), close observers find nothing new in these developments.

As far back as 2010, the president admitted he had no idea what was going on with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and had to find out who was responsible so he could kick their ass.

Fast and Furious also evaded his awareness - those guns apparently sold themselves to Mexican drug lords.  Things happen.  Mistakes were made.  And Eric Holder remained his attorney general.

To the casual observer, this response makes no sense - it is well past its expiration date.  An actual leader does not tolerate misbehavior on the part of his subordinates. 

In a normal administration, the IRS administrator and AG would already have resigned in disgrace.  The Secretary of State would have left under a cloud well before the inauguration.

But this is not a normal administration.  It truly believes the rules don't apply.  This is less a function of ambition or a hunger for power than a psychological viewpoint stemming from their social class.

Among the liberal gentry their is a belief that they are Good People and while Good People may make mistakes, it would be wrong to punish them for good faith efforts.

This is the exact opposite of Gen. Curtis Lemay's famous dictum that "I have neither the time nor the inclination to separate the incompetent from the merely unfortunate."  Lemay - clearly the product of another, more serious, time - was interested in results, not intentions.

But in this jaded age, intentions are all that matter.  This is why abortionists that kill live infants and their mothers cannot be given too much scrutiny.  The result - dead children and harmed women - is less important than the intention - protecting abortion.

This also explains why the same administration that purposely sold guns to criminals can work itself into a frenzy in support of legislation that it admits will not stop violent crime.  The intentions are pure, which is what counts.

As an added bonus, their enemies suffer.  This 'punitive liberalism' defines policy victories not in terms of helping society but in crushing the opposition, and it is a key part of the administration's strategy.

It clearly influenced the IRS, which wasn't really interested about money in politics or the integrity of the law but what instead interested in punishing the right people.  Former Obama staffer David Plouffe offered a revealing defense of this scandal by noting that all the abuse didn't really hurt anyone, so no big deal.  I highly doubt if it could be proved that the abuse was effective and tipped the election that Plouffe would be more apologetic.

In the meantime, the administration is reduced to lamenting the fate of it's second term agenda - because apparently transforming the government is more important than running it.  As I've noted before, conservatives are always looking for a tipping point where the media turns on a Democrat administration, and it never actually happens.

Still, I must admit that the combination of using the IRS as a political weapon and snooping secretly on reporters are two things that might actually move the needle.  Most liberal reporters justify their devotion to the Democrats by arguing that as bad as things are, Republicans would be even worse, so better to take what they have.

At this point, only the most partisan can maintain that fiction.  The press is now like an oft-abused spouse who has finally found out that the sweet nothings whispered after each beating really were lies.  He really doesn't need them or really care about them.  No one likes being used.  We'll see how that plays out.

 

Time to change the channel

What an education Obama's supporters have had in the last two months.

A man who once seemed to stand as a colossus on the American political scene is now consumed with scandal and doubt.

His signature issue - gun control - collapsed due to an intraparty rebellion.  The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Lightbringer allowed a Republican arch-Libertarian to outflank him on civil rights and the morality of drone strikes.

And now we learn that the Internal Revenue Service was playing Nixonian games with tax exemptions, using its investigative power to target the president's political opposition.  It's enough to shake one's faith in the Party.

One of the evergreen questions posed by conservatives is when liberals and their media allies will have "enough"  and turn on their leader.  Each time a scandal emerges, someone can be counted on to say "This is when they turn, this is when they remember their principles."

Except they never do.

Partisan politics are best understood as a tribal exercise.  The actual political positions - gun control, abortion, scope of government - are best understood as identifiers rather than actual beliefs.

This is how an anti-war movement can support a man who has ramped up combat operations in Afghanistan and how Constitutional scholars who called the Iraq campaign illegal can rally behind the Libyan adventure.

It's a tribal thing.

But even tribal loyalty has its limits.  There comes a point when self-respect demands some sort of reaction.  One can only eat so  much excrement before questioning the Party line that it tastes delicious.

For the anti-war street theater people, the point has been reached.  They are stirring from their long hibernation and demanding action.

Not from the president of course.  No, they are taking their show to National Guard bases to protest the use of drones.  The fact that the National Guard does not set the policy regarding them is irrelevant.  The fact that they should be lying down in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue rather than the front gate at Syracuse is lost on them.  They may reach that point, but not just yet.

For now they know only that something is wrong and something must be done.  For now, they remain loyal.

The Benghazi affair has also strained that loyalty and the IRS revelations will add further burdens.

I do not believe the tribe will turn on him - the Great Defection that some conservatives hope for will certainly not come.  But what will happen is that the tame media will lose interest.  Just as the anti-war movement has turned to protesting obscure bases, the media guardians will look elsewhere.   It's always easier to change the subject than face unpleasant facts.

The end result will not be wall-to-wall scandal coverage, but rather a cessation of presidential coverage altogether.  Washington will recede into the distance.  The fawning profiles, the magazine features, the tongue-bath interviews - all of this will cease.  The fawning adulation will be replaced with embarrassed silence.

And maybe it's better that way.  The President-as-celebrity has not worked out well.  We could use a break. 

Whodunit in Boston

Perhaps the most disturbing development in the Boston Marathon bombing is that it was anonymous.  No one has taken credit for it.

This is highly unusual, and the resulting information vacuum is being filled with every kind of speculation.

My esteemed co-blogger is correct in that radical Islam has had very bloody hands for the past 20 years.  Before that it was usually Marxists and their affiliates who cornered the market on bombings.

The problem is that we still have no idea why this happened.  What we do know is that whoever turns out to be responsible will be quickly forced into the left-right bipolar struggle for dominance.

While I think he went too far, T-Mo is right to note that for all the left's fevered dreams and speculation, most bombers tend to share their core beliefs. 

I also disagree with his take on the president's reaction.  I think the president should have said nothing - certainly his lengthy remarks added no new information and served no other purpose than to remind us that he cares - as if that needed to be pointed out.  It was filler, and I for one am amused at how this modern urge to get the president's views on everything from individual murders to basketball games comes back to bite the White House when  they are asked to comment on something they'd rather not discuss.

Given that Robert Redford has now produced a movie about "retired" Weather Underground-type terrorists, I'd love it if a reporter will ask him if he'd be willing to finance a similar rehabilation effort 20-30 years down the road for whoever killed and maimed the innocent people in Boston.  I know, Redford is old - maybe he can put the money into escrow.

As much as commenter Childe Roland may resent it, the fact of the matter is that in this time and place, all crime is a political issue.

I'd much prefer a focus on helping victims and noting that the price of a free society is that a tiny minority people will abuse that freedom.  Yet the solution cannot be to eliminate freedom.

The revelation that one (at least) of the bombs was built from a pressure cooker should give us all pause.  Even if guns vanished tomorrow, those bent on harm would still have the means to do great harm.

The lesson is that banning this or that item will not make us safer.  The weapon here was a cook pot and some loose metal.

No, the key takeaway is to look after one another as individuals.  If the flawed human condition is the source of our suffering, it is also the greatest hope for our succour.

A great evil visited Boston, but a great kindness came in its aftermath.  Ultimately there is no solution for the problem of man's inhumanity to man, but the best we can do is reach out to one another as individuals.

I am sure that the coming days will see much political sport, and proposals to prevent this will cover the ideological spectrum.  Based on precedent, I can fearlessly predict that the government will request more power, more money, and a greater ability than ever before to watch what everyone is doing.  It will also want to limit our access to things that might do harm.

But creating a federal Department of Never Letting Bad Things Happen will fail, as such efforts always do.  Bad things will happen, and all we can do is offer prayers and help to turn an act of evil into an occasion of kindness.

 

Why the bullet bubble won't burst

Rising ammunition prices have been a frequent topic here at the Posse.  Our last observation on its future proved about as accurate as our presidential election prediciton, so today I'll take another whack at the issue.

The first thing to remember about bubbles is that they are created in response to an abnormal market structure.  In a functioning market, rises in demand will be met with both increases in price and the quantity supplied - particularly in a commodity like ammunition where it is relatively easy to meet surging demand with stepped up production (this is not the case of course with oil or other rare substances).

Given that ammunition production has been running at full tilt for years, how is it possible that store shelves are still empty and prices are rising once more?  Surely by now market equilibrium would have been reached. 

The answer to this riddle is actually quite simple:  It's the government's fault.

Since his reelection, President Obama has dropped the pretence that he respects gun rights.  Believing himself finally free of electoral constraints, he is now able to speak his mind and call for what he has long desired - severe restrictions on firearms.

Economics teaches us that prices for goods rise for many reasons and one of them is an expected reduction in the future supply.

We see this in other commodities all the time: a bad wheat crop in a major producer sends prices soaring in expectation of a future shortage.  Similarly, bumper crops at harvest time will drive prices lower in expectation of a future glut.

In the case of ammunition, the expectation is that various state and local governments along with the federal government will throw obstacles in every aspect of firearms ownership.  In addition to weapons bans, the unhinged proponents of this policy are now attempting to require hefty liability insurance for gun owners and - of particularly interest in our case - crushing taxes on the purchase of ammunition.

After 1994 and particularly 2000, Democrat politicians seemed to understand that gun control was a big loser for them.  Since Democrats are willing to betray just about any principle (except abortion) to get elected, they dropped the issue like a hot rock. 

But their leadership remains devoted to it.  In safe districts across the country - where electoral defeat is effectively impossible - they are free to embrace their inner prohibitionist.  With his own reelection out of the way, Obama is equally free to join them.

Gun owners in turn are stocking up on ammunition while they can.  This is entirely sensible.  Consider:  If the State of Michigan passed a law taxing all soft drinks at 200 percent and banning certain ones based their caffeine content, one would expect that store shelves would be stripped bare within hours.  (One would also expect a black market to emerge, but that's another issue.)

The same dynamic is at work with ammunition.

Just as the federal government's misguided policies created a bubble in real estate and is now supporting one in higher education, so it's actions are building one in ammunition.  Realistically, I cannot see this bubble bursting until the threat of government action is removed - either by a GOP sweep of the Senate in 2014 (which is now more likely) or Obama leaving office and being replaced by someone who wishes to leave the issue alone.  The third option - a judicial rebuke - will have only limited impact since Obama has fully embraced using his executive authority to get what he cannot legislatively (to the alarm of his enemies and allies alike).

I will add this final thought:  While I use the term bubble, ammunition is not really like stocks, real estate or a vanity college degree - it has value on its own, without  requiring someone else's interaction.

Just like toilet paper, ammunition is one of those things that you can always use and (as long as you can store it properly) you're better off having too much than too little.

The worst case scenario is that once the market settles you don't need to buy any for a while.  A good problem to have, if you ask me.

 

After the end

Looking at our unsustainable spending, massive debt burdens and the inability of the political class to even acknowledge the problem, it is easy to predict impending doom.

It is also boringly repetitive.  Whether one ones to get the daily dose of pessimism from Mark Steyn, Richard Fernandez, Victor Davis Hanson or Zero Hedge, the theme is numbingly familiar:

We are doomed.

I’ve written in that vein myself, but that was back when it was fun and edgy.  Now it’s being overdone.  We owe it to our readers to provide original content, not just recycled hackery (though to be fair, hackery does pay more if you can get a job with the major networks).

Today I’d like to discuss what happens after the end – because there is always an “aftermath.”

If one considers the epochal events in history – from the fall of Rome to the Civil War to the World Wars, the end of one era also ushers in the beginning of the next.  Let us contemplate what that means.

Consider the possibility of currency collapse.  This is something Zero Hedge brings up on a regular basis, and while it is cause for concern, it will not necessarily bring the equivalent of zombie hordes or extinguish the sun.  Some things will change, and then life will go on.

While the elites in Washington focus on winning the next news cycle, the underlying fiscal situation is grave.  The federal government is spending well beyond its means and it is funding these deficits in large part by borrowing from the Federal Reserve – itself.  The Fed then counts these bonds as assets which it can use as collateral to borrow more.

It is a fiscal perpetual motion machine and sooner or later it will come crashing down.  Given the amount of debt we have accumulated, there are only two realistic options:  Default or inflation.

Default is the cleaner of the two, but also one that would require more political will.  An easier option (and therefore more likely) would be to inflate our way out of the mess.  This has the virtue of not requiring any over political action by an elected official – it would be all in the hands on the Fed, and politicians could blame them (as they did during the 70s).

As anyone who studies world events knows, hyperinflation is quite survivable.  It is not the end of the world, merely the end of your savings.  Debtors do quite well – and America has a lot of debtors.

The inevitable result is a “reset” of the currency – either by issuing new denominations or somehow stabilizing the existing money supply.

The trick is knowing what to do while all this is going on.  While inflation starts to climb, the government will take all manner of actions – as we are seeing in Argentina.  Price controls will invariably lead to shortages and the financial markets will be in chaos.

In Weimar Germany, the situation got so bad that people had to carry currency in bags and wagons to buy even simple commodities.  There is the famous story of the Hausfrau who set her basket of Reichsmarks on the sill of an open window and then turned away for a moment and found the basket stolen, but the Reichmarks left behind.

In any societal breakdown, the old mores tend to weaken, and Weimar Germany was notorious in this respect.  It is worth noting, however, that Imperial Germany was far more socially restrictive than we are, thus I do not expect a wave of loose morals because are morals are about as loose as they can get.

The exact nature of the economic disruptions is impossible to predict, but there are a few things that sensible people should keep in mind.

The first is that a breakdown in law and order is not necessarily foreordained.  As we have seen with recent hurricanes and other disasters, affected communities will react in ways appropriate to their organization.

Indeed, the “collapse” may be surprisingly orderly. People expecting riots and gunplay may be in for a great disappointment.

Secondly, food supplies and sanitation will remain paramount needs. Nothing concentrates the mind like the immediate need to survive. Right now we squander enormous amounts of wealth in failed jurisdictions simply because we can afford it. Once that cushion is gone, the tolerance for such practices will be much less.

To put it another way, when food is short – really short, there current indulgent attitude towards waste will disappear.

In the preface to his memoirs, Churchill discussed the remorseless change that transformed the world during his lifetime:

 When I survey this work as a whole I find I have drawn a picture of a vanished age. The character of society, the foundations of politics, the methods of war, the outlook of youth, the scale of values, all are changed, and changed to an extent I should not have believed possible in so short a space without any violent domestic revolution. I cannot pretend to feel that they are in all respects changed for the better.

 Indeed. And yet the change came all the same and those who failed to adapt suffered the greatest loss.

 

It is a curious fact that the movement that calls itself “Progressive” is actually committed to stasis – that far from “progressing,” it wishes to go back in time. Its leaders wish to restore the social spending of the 1960s, the cultural conformity of the 1950s, labor environment of the 1940s, the railroad dominance of the 1900s, and the industrial policy of the Luddites. They even view nature as something that should be frozen in time – every year should feature average temperatures and average storms and any variation is proof that the delicate mechanism is out of balance.

 

The change could be wrenching and violent, or it could come incrementally, bit by bit and in such a way that people will look back and marvel at the difference in their lives.

Why AR-15 are so popular

One of the most popular posts on this site remains my 2004 review of the Bushmaster AR-15.  Looking back on it, there are a few things I would add in the current debate.

The first is that ARs are now far more modular than they were.  With the expiration of the badly named "Assault Weapons Ban", manufacturers were free to introduce whatever cosmetic changes they wished.  The result was an proliferation of features to improve the ergonomics of the devices.

For example, a telescoping stock allows users to achieve the optimum fit, enhancing accuracy.  It also makes it possible for shooters of widely differing stature to use the same rifle without any awkwardness.

The alternative is to have multiple versions of the same long weapon with different-sized stocks.

People with no knowledge of shooting - this by definition includes gun control supporters - don't understand this.  But anyone who has ever picked up a rifle or shotgun knows that the shape and length of the stock is very important to achieving a comfortable position.  Adjustable stocks are therefore a great way to for multiple people of different sizes to use the same rifle with ease and comfort.

Similarly, pistol foregrips increase the user's control and enhance accuracy.

Add in the modular nature of the AR platform, which can be converted to a different caliber in a minute, and you have one of the most flexible and ergonomic firearms ever devised.

Now gun control supporters look at comfort and ease of use as a bad thing.  These paragons of virtue would prefer that firearms remain as they were 70 years ago - heavy, massive implements of wood and steel firing massive cartriges with punishing recoil.

What this would do is effectively reduce the shooting sports to an almost entirely male-dominated activity - no women need apply.

This is of course deeply ironic considering how many self-identified feminists support gun control.  Because firearms are the great equalizers, women derive a far greater benefit from their use than men.

Women would effectively be forced to rely on men for self-defense - a situation that should be intolerable to any self-respecting proponent of sexual equality.  Then again, we by now know that gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

The surge in AR-15 sales is therefore very understandable and was underway long before the current Presidential saber-rattling over gun control.  Indeed, if it were not for the blatantly obvious ignorance of the gun control lobby regarding every aspect of firearms, one could argue that the attempt to outlaw these ergonomic features was a last-ditch attempt to stop women from becoming irrevocably attracted to the shooting sports.

Once guns become widely used by husbands and wives, sons and daughters, the constituency for banning them shrinks even more.  Can't have that.

(Isn't it interesting that the President never let his daughters participate in his alleged skeet shooting.  Why?  Was it not lady-like enough?  Are guns a "boy" thing?  How sexist.  Someone should ask him when they are going to get their shooting lessons.)

Of course gun control supporters aren't that clever.  Their policies are the result of emotion, not reason.  Engage any of them in serious debate, particularly the downstream consquences of their policies and they quickly fall back on "you want children shot dead!" style arguments.

That is how they are able to ignore the fact that the practical effect of their  policy is always greater violence against the weak.  This does not bother them since they have body guards and/or live in affluent low-crime areas.

The AR-15 is a threat to their vision of a weakened, helpless world because it is so useful.  One rifle can serve the shooting needs of the whole family.  It can be fully tricked-out to fire pistol rounds, heavier rifle rounds, adjust the stock and optics and will, and even switch the foregrips for differing degrees of control.

Even the bayonet mount - villified for its evil intent, is highly useful.  Instead of a knife, one can mount a flashlight - very useful for home defense when someone breaks in at night.   Thus even here we see something that is supposed to be sinister is actually extremely useful for law-abiding citizens.

 

Kerry is the perfect Secretary of State

While there is the usual grumbling about John Kerry being made Secretary of State, I think it is a splendid position for him.  Who better to stand cooling his heels in the anterooms of defiant tin-pot despots?  Who better to feel first-hand the immediate effects of waning American influence?

By now it should be very clear that this administration views foreign policy as a distraction from their business of reshaping the republic.  It is simply not a priority.

That is why Hillary! was chosen to lead the State Department - it placated her base and kept her out of the way.  In this respect the Obama administration is similar to the "spendid isolationism" of Great Britain when the Foreign Office was more of an exile than a prestigious appointment.

Kerry will reliably follow Obama and his nomination will sail through the Senate.  Partisan Republicans like getting him out of the upper chamber and are relishing the thought of an open seat they can pick up via a Scott Brown comeback.

None of this has anything to do with Kerry's actual qualifications, but like Hillary!s, these are irrelevant.  Otto von Bismarck would be unable to salvage the US strategic position under this White House.  What is coming will come.

The White House knows the press will do its part to cover things up.  Any bad news abroad can be buried on page A24 or given a 30-second cursory tidbit on the nightly news - assuming it gets mentioned at all.

As we saw in the 1990s, bombing barracks, embassies and warships are insufficient to generate much public interest if the press covers them up.

At the risk of sounding like a Leninist, the storm is coming, and Kerry is the perfect person to be associated with it.

When precedent fails

There are periods in history when the old order had reached the point of no return but the actors of the period are unaware of it.  I believe we are at such a time.

Looking back over the years, it seems clear that the old conventions no longer apply.  The rules of society I grew up with are simply inoperable.

I'm not the first one to notice this of course, but today's screaming Drudge Report headline about the president imposing some sort of gun control by executive order got me thinking.

My first thought was:  "Ah, so they forgot to give the veep his meds again."  After all, Biden is the source and if there was ever someone who could be counted on to create a crisis simply by shooting his mouth off, the veep is our guy.

But upon reflect, I wondered:  why not?

The goal of this administration was to somehow gain the second term.  They promised everything and anything to get there, and now the goal is achieved.  What's the point in hiding any more?

Even with media support, gun control is a losing political issue.  One would think that the authors of Fast and Furious would be particularly reluctant to get into federal laws when so many have already been violated - but as I said, the old rules don't apply any more.

I don't believe that a Constitutional crisis is imminent or that our liberties are about to be abolished or severely curtailed.  I am an optimist in that respect.

But I am convinced that we are at a point where the people who are in charge are out of their depth in predicting the results of their actions. 

The classic cause of conflict is a miscalculation in the face of crisis and I see plenty of opportunity for that happening.  Heated rhetoric is nothing new, but we are reaching the end of the financial tether.  One need not be a doom-sayer to wonder why, after years of pumping new money into the economy, nothing is happening. 

Right now much of our debt is being financed by a perpetual motion machine:  The Treasury sells bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank, which in turn counts them as collateral against money it then lends out.

Most people don't know this, but I find it deeply disturbing.  We are effectively debasing the currency and that never ends well - from the Crisis of the Third Century in ancient Rome to the revolutions of more modern times.

In all cases, the elites figured things were going just fine - until they weren't.

To be clear:  I don't think the president or his advisors are purposely destroying the economy.  All of them are very wealthy (don't let the rhetoric fool you) - and they all very much value the money they have earned.

They are certainly not going through the trouble of piling up all cash they have accumulated simply to watch it become worthless.

That's part of the problem: they really have no idea what they are doing.  By now the economy should have recovered.  By all precedent we should be in the third year of solid growth.  And none of our leaders know why that hasn't happened.  So they demogogue and have the Fed print more money.

And I think that is what frightens me the most - the awareness that the ship of state is totally out of control.

To put it another way:  No one wanted the disaster in Benghazi to happen and no one could stop it once it started.  Rather than address it, they are trying to hide it because they have no idea what to do if it should happen again.

I've remarked on the Abyss before and my fear that we may enter it.

What if we're already there and just don't know it yet?

President Fast 'n' Furious pushes gun control

I think the biggest thing that has me upset about this new push for gun control is that it is being done by the same administration responsible for Operation Fast and Furious.

Questions for the president:  Did the shooter in Connecticut use a weapon like the 2,000 your Justice Dept. sold to Mexican drug gangs? 

If "assault weapons" are too dangerous for the American public, why did your administration give them to the narco-terrorists?

Did they sell-high-capacity magazines as well?

How did that make us safer?

If one of those guns is used in a massacre, who is criminally liable?

Two years have passed since this scandal came to light and the same people hyping gun control over the death of two dozen people in Connecticut seems utterly uninterested about the U.S. government's complicity in the death of hundreds of innocent Mexican men, women and children.

One of the old arguments against gun control is that the government is no longer interested in enforcing the laws we have, so why add more?  That argument just got a lot stronger.

How can he stand up there at the podium, how can his spokespeople stand up and say with a straight face that we need to look at gun laws when not one person has even been prosecuted for such a large-scale, blatant violation of the law?

Hell, we don't even know who authorized the program!  It just sort of happened!  Ask the Justice Dept. and they will tell you they are looking into it.

So why would anyone believe that if they were given more authority they would not abuse it?  If I were paranoid, I might suggest that they would take a ban on high-capacity magazines and use it to selectively target some people for prosecution while leaving others alone - but they already beat me to the punch.  It already happened.

It's all well and good to wish we could wave a magic wand and make evil go away.  I for one would love to buy the world a Coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony, but it isn't going to happen.

Good intentions are not enough to make a policy succeed and based on their actions, there is no reason to trust Eric Holder's Justice Dept.

SNYDER FOLDS:  Well, that was not much a surprise.  Gov. Rick Snyder's veto of updates to Michigan's still-inadequate concealed carry law will spare him some additional grief, but as a policy matter, it was a mistake. 

We need to examine what works.  Declaring certain areas "gun-free" without armed check points only invites mayhem.  All the public attention to the matter coupled with the press once again turning a killer into a posthumus celebrity virtually guarantees another atrocity - regardless of what gun laws we pass.

THE REAL ISSUE:  The problem is MENTAL HEALTH.  These people are not sane and need treatment.  Trying to take away guns will not work - they can get them on the street or they will use gasoline to burn the building down.  These unfortunate people are the true lethal weapons and unless we do something about it, we will find them using new and inventive ways to express their psychological problems.