Occupy Wall Street's Joe the Plumber

The Wall Street protests have had a varying range of media exposure.  After complaints that the coverage was insufficient, which is what nearly every public protest claims, the papers and networks began reporting more.  Unfortunately, with so many opinions in the movement and lacking specific proposals at the outset, the media clung to more tangible stories-- confrontations with police and arrests; as well as, traffic, property, sanitation, and tourism concerns.  

Two weeks after the demonstrations began came the reasons for the protests in the form of the “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City”.  Therein, you’ll basically find a list of gripes that are mainly linked to the notion that our rights include, not only, freedoms like speech, religion, and opportunity but also cover housing, internet access, higher education, and lifetime healthcare insurance.  They’re wise to keep their declaration limited to complaints because the implementation of the proposals implied would mean an enormous amount of new government spending in the midst of record deficits that not even an obscene confiscation of corporate profits would be able to cover.  Inevitably, this would erode any public appeal that the protests now enjoy.  However, a constant attitude throughout the occupy movement seems to be an almost visceral dislike for money itself and one wonders if the justice they seek looks more like the Fight Club finale than expansion of federal entitlement spending.

The contradictions don’t end there.  In the mix you’ve got Obama supporters and Obama opponents--Romney supporters and Romney opponents.  There are those that want to end the Federal Reserve Bank and those that want to end all banks.  Some want to fix corporations while others want to outlaw them all together.  Then you have those that want to get closer to the Constitution and those that want to completely disregard it.  After weeks of videos and articles I find myself increasingly more confused about the purpose of the occupy movement.  Some have even suggested that its lack of clarity is an asset, which is a point I’m still trying to grasp.

And then I had an epiphany of sorts.  What the Wall Street occupiers need is a face, a personality, a singular spokesman that encapsulates their complaints, their style, and their love of vagrancy.  This courageous soul can consolidate their thinking for public consumption and explain to those still in the dark, like myself, what this is all about.  Much like Joe the plumber who came to symbolize the tea party, I have found his alter ego in the occupy movement--Danny Cline the plumbers helper, A.K.A., lotion man.

Many of us first saw Danny in this video where he brings his concerns to light in a fascinating debate with a passerby.

 As you can see, Danny the plumber’s helper explains, as he holds up his pants, why he hates corporations, citing, “they don’t give me money”.  Too bad they won’t give him a belt, either.  Luckily, he has enough of his own finances to purchase ample eye shadow.  The older man with the Yakima then calls Danny a bum, which is rebutted with an anti-Semitic tirade that attacks the man’s height and status as an immigrant.  At the beginning of the clip he refers to Hollister--the clothing company.  I’m not sure if the comment was derogatory or if he was just explaining what he was wearing but remember this for later.  In any case, towards the end of the clip comes my favorite wisdom from the plumber’s helper when he’s asked why he’s protesting.  His response, “to provocateur your mind.”  He also adds, “I got off drugs.  I’m not mentally ill.”  Then it appears he runs off as police sirens can be heard approaching.

If that wasn’t enlightening enough, I then found a second offering from the same guy.  He doesn’t show up till 1:55 in.  If you experience trouble loading from the link go to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50rpJ7EQWuI&feature=player_embedded

            In addition to the normal leftist rhetoric that encourages government take-overs and an end to the monetary system, we find Danny Cline muscling his way into an interview in perfect union fashion.  Arrogantly, he defames the intelligence of the protestor who’s interview he just high jacked.

            Then I found this video, dated just days before the protests began. 

            As you can see, Cline just got out of prison for what seems to be shop lifting--even showing the Hollister underwear he got past the authorities.  He seems to be in some type of brewing confrontation with another vagrant, asking, “Why do bums always want to fight me?”  A question we’ve all asked ourselves from time to time.  Then comes a thought provoking discussion about the definition of the term nigger.  To top it all off we get to see his butt and his overuse of sunscreen--hence the name, lotion man.  And it’s worth mentioning that if this clip doesn’t quell everyone’s fears about Danny Cline’s sobriety then nothing will.  

            So, I think it’s pretty clear that the occupiers have found their ambassador to carry their torch into the mainstream and represent their desperate cause.  His name is Danny the plumber’s helper or as you may know him, lotion man.

Downgraded Rhetoric

Since the Standard and Poors downgrade report was released, pundits and politicians on various sides of the political spectrum have been spinning its contents to support their camp or damage another.  One would blame the Tea Party for resisting tax hikes.  A second would blame the President for a lack of leadership, while another would blame the prior administration for spending increases.  Some wanted the Democrat led Senate to take the heat for refusing to touch costly entitlement programs, while others went after the GOP leadership in the house that was stuck between the idealists in their own caucus and a powerful opposing party that controls the upper chamber and the White House.  Wading through the sea of finger pointing to get to the nitty-gritty can almost seem impossible. 

So, I looked at the report, searching for who and what were the culprits that led to this unprecedented black mark on the rating of our government’s credit worthiness.  From the beginning, S&P’s “rationale” focuses on bloated entitlement spending as a key factor, specifically citing Medicare twice.  Later, it refers to “age related spending drivers” which implies Medicare, yet again, along with Social Security.  This would seem to vindicate more conservative voices, especially the tea party faithful, and cast a shadow of doubt on the leftist government program pushers.

Income tax is mentioned twice but only in the area of future projections--never as a basis for the downgrade.  However, insufficient revenue increases are referred to numerous times, twice in the reasoning for the downgrade.  But it is unclear whether this is a reference to income taxes, other forms of taxation, a moratorium on subsidies, an increase in tariffs, or any other avenue that the government could use to take in additional funds.  With this ambiguity, it’s far from conclusive that under-taxation led to the downgrade in the eyes of S&P.

Another contribution to Standard and Poors assessment of the lowering is the uncertainty of the political process.  Difficulties bridging the “differences between political parties” is mentioned as a factor, as is the “brinkmanship” that seemed to define the debt ceiling debate in the final days before it became law.  It’s clear to see that both sides of the isle were complicit, for better or for worse, and the S&P report was right to avoid charging any single caucus.  Of course, I’m sure the rating agency was delighted that they oversaw a scenario that needn’t vilify one side or the other because you never know who the next ruling party will be, nor do you want to damage ties with the current one.  That’s why the report’s readers must endure absurd disclaimers like, “Standard and Poors takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress takes.”  This is their attempt to seem nonpartisan--an intentional lack of critical thinking that produces vacuous statements like “balanced approach.”  Well, I’ve got news for the authors of this report--strangely enough, balancing the US budget is, apparently, considered partisan and, by some, even considered extremist.     Furthermore, their hopes for legislative “efficiency” seem pinned on political consensus in the future, facilitated by single party dominance.  I’m not sure whether I should be fearful, encouraged, or amused by such a prospect.

          That’s my interpretation of Standard and Poors written assessment.  Although, I think some of the points are accurate, there’s a lot they misinterpret and more they avoid altogether.  I don’t know who’s taking the bribes over there but the US Government deserved to be downgraded years ago and it’s incredible that its rating is as high as it is, currently. 

          The report also seems to make a failed attempt at equating spending cuts and increasing revenues.  Many have assumed that revenue is code for income tax increases, which isn’t necessarily true.  But assuming for a moment it is, we can’t simply screw the job makers and expect this to solve the monstrous budget shortfalls.  First, it’s simply not nearly enough money to make up the difference and second, it could very well obliterate economic growth and produce even lower revenues and higher deficits.   As another approach take Coca Cola, an entity that’s actually capable of retaining their AAA rating.  Do they continually write budgets they can’t afford?  Doubtful.  When they’re in the red do they make their products significantly higher for the affluent, which are probably their biggest customers?  Nope.  However, do they cut costs when conditions demand it?  Most certainly.  It appears that it’s never occurred to our leaders in Washington that if they want to be AAA rated then they should mirror the actions of those that are AAA rated!

          Strangely, in every one of the report’s several projections they use a 2.5% growth rate.  Not only does this seem a rather arbitrary number, but it also may even be unrealistic at this point.  Not to mention, that in scenarios that factor increased income taxes it doesn’t adjust the growth rate to show lower productivity and decreased revenues from higher unemployment.  As a matter of fact, it didn’t mention unemployment as a factor at all, which is a huge omission.  

          Also omitted was any mention of the trillions owed in unfunded liabilities, in addition to what’s considered the national debt.  Nor was there any critique, specifically, of how all deficit solutions are unrealistically comprised of decade long deals that could be altered by the next congress in a year or two, making the whole endeavor pointless and uncertain.  I guess this stuff is sold to the public as if it’s akin to a mortgage that you and I might have that gets gradually paid down.  But when have you ever seen a bank let a customer structure the repayment of their own loan?  Never.  It’s because there’s no accountability and it would probably end up leading to disaster.  It’s like the addict that constantly promises to kick the habit next week, but never reaches the point of making the necessary changes when that time arrives--only to make more promises of future reform.  Why can’t congress just budget for the year in front of them and drop this whole charade?  And recently a new downturn was realized when the CBO discovered that they had miscalculated the figures concerning the President’s health care entitlement.  You mean we’re not going to save money like the administration bragged for months?  There’s a shocker!  The only fools that bought that pitch are the same ones that believed Gitmo was going to be closed or that the unemployment rate would never surpass 8%.

          But I digress.  The report does summarize the debt ceiling bill, detailing the amounts to be cut immediately (assuming that includes revenues from loop hole closures) and how Congress plans to cut additional costs down the road.  These figures have been widely reported and touted as progress but I recently saw a comparison made by Dave Ramsey that puts the exorbitant figures in perspective: 

If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they 

spend $75,000 a year, and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing “big” spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year.

          These numbers are proportional to the actual amounts of the debt, deficit, and savings hammered out (and not yet hammered out) by our Government.  Now, you realize how little this debt ceiling debate actually remedied.  The financial illness is lessened to such a small extent that it nearly can’t be felt.  It makes one marvel at the haggling that’s taken place over the last few weeks.  It’s like a team of doctors arguing about a patient’s toe, when the chart shows massive organ failure.  The idea that anyone is calling out another faction as the exclusive cause of the downgrade or taking credit for this pile of near nothingness that’s supposed to pass as worthwhile budget improvements is thoroughly ridiculous.  

          However, I will say this, the President and his minions in the Senate wanted to raise the debt limit with no reforms whatsoever and if it wasn’t for the Tea Party he might have got away with it.  Who could say how low Standard and Poors would have gone under those circumstances.  It appears that this report and this government aren’t being truly serious in the face of, perhaps, the largest threat this country has ever seen.  The only thing being taken seriously in this whole affair is the endless stream of low-grade rhetoric.    

Political Intrigue: The Future

Boehner and company are glowing.  They should be.  Harry Reid and the President gave speeches written by the Republicans last night.  The House Speaker “grabbed ‘em by the nose and kicked ‘em in the ass”, to quote Old Blood and Guts. 

But before any champagne corks are popped remember that the annual deficit was cut by 38.5 Billion which still leaves…(I’m gonna go on a total tangent here:  I just tried to use the calculator on Dashboard to subtract $38.5 Billion from $1.6 Trillion and I ran out of spaces.  And the total government debt has an additional digit, as well.  This is how immense these figures are.)  So, subtracting 38.5 Billion leaves something like $1.5 Trillion.  In other words, to put it optimistically, we cut $0.1 Trillion from an annual deficit of $1.6 Trillion.

Big whoop.  Numbers like that actually make a government shutdown sound good.  That’s why Bachman voted nay.  It, quite frankly, wasn’t enough savings.  Cut 38 Billion another 40 times and you almost get to where we’re supposed to be.  That’s the gravity of the situation.

It looks like Prosser will get re-elected in Wisconsin.  What a strange little footnote, but proof positive of the anti-debt momentum sweeping the country and a possible indication of further successes from a series of GOP governors that are fighting government unions to balance their state budgets.  Christie, Snyder, Kasich, and Walker are winning--at least at the moment.

In the Federal arena, here’s how I think things could pan out:  The new continuing resolution will become law as will the bill that takes the budget through September.  I won’t speculate on how the debt ceiling fight will play out but it may result in deeper cuts and further debt at the same time.  Then the Ryan bill or something close to it will pass the House and linger in the Senate--unresolved.  And I know it’s a sticking point for some, but that’s when Planned Parenthood and NPR lose their federal subsidies.  You see, it’s not about abortion or left leaning news.  It’s simply about public funding.  It’s about cutting spending.  You’ve heard of the Tea Party?  By the way, it doesn’t mean that these two institutions will cease to exist.  It just means that they’ll have to operate off of their private funding which finances the majority of their budgets, as is.  If NPR can’t figure out how to operate with 90% of their budget and Planned Parenthood can’t be resourceful enough to figure out how to function off of 66% of their budget then perhaps they shouldn’t be offering news and opinions or administering medical treatment.

In a side projection, Greg Gutfeld will be approached to replace Glenn Beck’s time slot.  He’ll consider it seriously but ultimately refuse.  UPDATE:  Gutfeld, literally, just made that very replacement announcement on Redeye as I typed these words.  He was kidding but still…that’s kinda weird. 

Concerning predictions for Mr. Beck, his future endeavors will make the left beg for his return to a mere single hour in the afternoon.  I realize some won’t get this, but the Glenn Beck Show is, in my opinion, the best commentary television program ever made.  And before you spit vegetarian meat substitute all over your I-pad, please hear me out.  Look… I have few areas of expertise but I was raised in a political family and I grew up watching Crossfire, This Week with David Brinkley, Capital Gang, The Mclauglin Group, and even Firing Line.  Out of all of them, I find that Glenn Beck simply offers more.  He broke ground in his field, successfully defying the taboo that you couldn’t do a 20 minute monolog in cable news; and he offers his demonstrably, prop heavy explanations in a retro, low fi setting that feels like a faster paced version of the old Drudge show back in the 90’s.  There are a lot of pundits I agree with and even more that I don’t agree with, but when it comes to quality showmanship Beck takes the cake.  It provides a dynamic format filled with unique insights rarely found elsewhere and has proven to be a hedge against government mismanagement, garnering actual resignations from the White House.  I don’t buy all the theories and I don’t agree with some of the predictions but I think the tone is more than appropriate.  Things are devolving.  Everybody feels it and we’re even beginning to see it.  So, I don’t think you just wanna laugh at the guy that’s voicing what everyone’s wondering--are things actually going to shit?  Quite frankly, I think he deserves a standing ovation.  And I happen to like the chalkboards and the magnets.  Honestly, I’m very curious to see what he does next.

But I’m chasing rabbits and there is a Federal budget in question here.  Yeah…the Ryan proposal probably won’t pass in 2011.  The difference between now and next year is that in all likelihood the Senate will go Republican, but not of course with the 60 seats needed to control the votes.  So, that may slow down, curtail, or even defeat the Ryan budget.  However, a GOP led Senate would still significantly increase the chances of passage in the upper chamber.

And of course, more than likely it will easily pass the House beforehand.  After the 2012 election I think the GOP may lose some seats but will still retain the gavel. 

So, there’s significant chance, with the proper amount of public support, that this monumental bill will pass both chambers, but there’s still the question of the President’s signature, and that will squarely rest on who wins the election.  An Obama victory would mean a likely veto; but a Gingrich, Trump, Paul, Palin, or Pawlenty win would usher in a new reign of financial sanity in Washington and approve this desperately needed reform as law.

The Demise of the Cupcake

The economic situation in this country is probably much more dangerous than most are willing to admit.  Top predictions for the future include large increases in unemployment, negative economic growth, and exponentially higher costs.  As unseemly as these prospects appear, none hold graver consequences than the near total devaluing of our currency and there are many legitimate arguments that this process has already begun.

            Monetizing the government’s debt, also known as printing money, has seemingly been acceptable because the dollar has traditionally been considered safe, enjoying favorable status as the world’s reserve currency for many decades.  But as our debt spirals out of control due to lower government revenues and, more significantly, because of monstrous older and newer spending programs our insolvency has led many individuals, banks, and governments to begin getting rid of their dollars, opting for more stable investments--just like any trader would discard an underperforming stock.  This sell off is well documented and for more specifics refer to this presentation from Stanberry Research.  In summation, more incredible debt will lead to incredible decreases in the value of our dollar, which will rob us of our ability to buy the things we need to live.  Once that reduction takes hold, costs will skyrocket and things like food and energy will become unaffordable for the overwhelming majority of Americans and anyone else who is relying on the dollar. 

            By the way, Michael Moore and certain labor leaders have been peddling this absurd Doctor Zhivago notion that government debts can be paid through the confiscation of all substantial private money and resources which, even if the authorities imposed such totalitarian rule, would only ensure and hasten an economic collapse.  After all, who can offer anyone a job once the government has assumed all the capital of the private sector and where do you steal the money from once the debts eventually mount a second time?

            That brings us to the present and all of the battles that are being waged in the name of rights and protecting the people, but what’s being missed is that if these and other budget items aren’t drastically cut now, the Left will have no choice but to accept nothing later--as will all Americans. 

For instance, the teacher's unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere are viscously fighting for unsustainable pensions that will lead to increased debt and a devalued currency, but how will this benefit any public worker when the dollars in their retirement checks only have the buying power of a few pennies?  Will that keep food on the table or pay their heating bills? 

The Left is also advocating the continued funding of NPR and PBS--both media sources that I enjoy occasionally.  But if the funding going to these programs is nearly worthless due to a debt inspired crash of the dollar how does it pay for radio stations and programming?  How does a TV station survive without substantial revenue?  Are you starting to get the picture?

Public funding of Planned Parenthood has also been targeted for cuts.  The outcry has been comprised of the same sloganeering that’s been offered for decades--the government somehow owes the citizenry free abortions.  So, what happens when the dollar is on par with the peso and government dependent clinics shut down?  Privately funded clinics will find the same fate if they’re using the nearly useless currency, as well.  Doesn’t that sound like circumstances ripe for back alley abortions?  One wonders if coat hangers will even be affordable. 

My point is that the Left, by ignoring the debt they’re proposing and the inevitable shrinking of the dollar, will defeat the very initiatives they claim to cherish.  If the dollar tanks then commodity prices will sore--especially food and energy, which we’re already starting to see.  If shortages from lack of affordability do happen it won’t be the rural, red stater that feels the sharpest pinch.  He’ll have his hunting grounds and agricultural skills to feed his family.  He’ll just throw another log in the wood stove and protect his resources with his firearms.  No, it’ll be the urban Leftists that will have the most to lose--eclectic super markets and plentiful energy options will cease to exist.  No more leisurely looks through the Sunday paper’s travel section.  No more power for the myriad of gadgets that guide the urban dweller’s life.  No more gourmet cupcakes.  No more exotic coffee.  No more of just about everything.

Please don’t misunderstand; I like many of these things.  I just want to preserve the choice to keep these things around.  When Congressman Ryan unveils his budget proposals in the coming weeks try to seriously consider the importance of protecting the dollar by eliminating our governments’ debts…and please, please…remember the cupcakes.

  

  

          

The Mid East, the Far East, the West Coast, and the End of it All

I try to resist offering the typical commentary.  I don’t wish to go on and on about U.S. policy in the Middle East and how it should support the dictators that support us and back the revolutionaries that back us.  That’s fairly obvious.  I don’t wish to bore you with the details of how we should help our very good friend, Japan, during her time of dire need.  That’s quite obvious, too.  Instead, I want to explore something else--the Oscars as it relates to the Apocalypse.

It sticks in my craw that The King’s Speech won best picture over the masterpiece, Inception.  Quite frankly, it disgusts me a little, which is strange since I’ve never put much weight on the Academy Awards.  I admit, Colin Firth was beyond great and deserved to be honored.  Helena Bonham Carter seems more beautiful and accomplished than ever, and, as a huge Churchill fan, I think that role was done brilliantly.  But, alas, there’s no award for best Churchill. 

            No, as much as I liked these characters, they don’t compare to the dynamic storyline of Inception.  To intervene in another’s subconscious and invade different levels, dreaming within a dream within a dream, is an incredible concept that was magically executed.  This film has the cerebral benefits of its predecessors Memento, The Matrix, Donnie Darko, and the low budget, time traveling mind bender, Primer.  It asks you to doubt yourself and your perceptions. It asks you to doubt your own advice.  It challenges you to figure and refigure what’s happening long after the projector’s been turned off. And that’s the beauty of it…it’s nearly endless.  So, after seeing this odyssey am I really supposed to feel good about motion picture’s highest prize going to a movie about a stuttering monarch?  It’s a fun, clever work, but it’s no Inception.   

            Maybe, it’s because the academy prefers to indulge in the lighthearted, as opposed to the graver aspects of our existence.  The higher, mortal truth that they’re, in effect, ignoring is posed repeatedly in Inception:

 

  You’re waiting for a train--a train that will take you far away.  You

  know where you hope this train will take you, but you don’t know

  for sure.

 

            I believe we’re all waiting for a train, as is our world.  Perhaps, its arrival is being foretold right now--dead fish, dead birds, widespread military conflict, earthquakes, tsunamis, global debt, loss of identity, loss of purpose…and the list goes on and on.  We’re getting “kicked up”, but it seems the world, at large, doesn’t feel that kick.  Instead, we plug our ears with our fingers, hoping that the cheers for the frivolous will drown out the train whistle in the distance.

Crosshairs on the First Amendment

           The Left’s narrative on the Arizona shooting goes something like this:  A conservative shoots a leftist representative and it’s because of the hostile political rhetoric that solely comes from conservative voices like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck.  Therefore, these voices should be censored--even by official means. 

Here are the problems with this assessment.  First of all, the shooter wasn’t a conservative.  It appears that the last time he showed political support for a candidate was in ’04 for John Kerry.  He even wore an “Out in Four” button.  So, should we blame Kerry?  As recently as ’07 those that knew the shooter considered him “left-wing” and described him as a “liberal.”  However, his current list of favorite ideas include reinstatement of the gold standard, mind control, and the 2012 apocalypse, which don’t resemble any mainstream political school of thought--much less, conservatism.

Then there’s Rep. Gifford.  She’s certainly no darling of the Left.  Don’t let the D next to her name fool you.  She supported gun-rights, opposed illegal immigration, and failed to back Rep. Pelosi for minority leader in the House. These aren’t the trademarks of someone on the far left.  You could almost make the argument, with more certainly, that a leftist shot a conservative on Saturday.

The prime example of hostile right-wing speech that the left cites is a political graphic from the Palin camp that shows several elected representatives behind crosshairs--urging their electoral defeats. Never mind the fact that left-wing incitement and left-wing violence is more prevalent and even more accepted.  There are images of those on the right with guns to their heads, being decapitated, and even being defecated on.  Furthermore, there are actual beatings and riots and general bullying of ideological opponents that are fueled by left-wing angst.  Malkin has documented this well.  So, the next time a public figure gets shot and someone wants to connect it to aggressive political speech, look left--there’s no shortage there.

The left has labored over recent days to convince the public that Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck are responsible for the shooting.  This is kind of like blaming Walter Cronkite for the Weather Underground.  Besides, it’s now been reported that the shooter spoke ill of Rep. Gifford back in ’07--before Palin hit the national scene, before Beck transferred to Fox, and before the rise of the Tea Party.  If anything his animosity towards Rep. Gifford began fomenting when he was considered left-wing.

Apparently, one of the shooter’s beliefs was that the government was using mind control through manipulation of our grammar.  Strangely enough, the left has been engaging in grammar policing with their multicultural newspeak for years.  If it’s okay to ask if the right incited the shooter is it also fair to ask if the left provoked the shooter?  The left leaning FCC is intervening in the internet more and more and this latest tragedy has renewed leftist calls for controlling media through the fairness doctrine and passing legislation that would prohibit threatening a federal official.  I suppose that last action might have merit but I wonder if there’s a law that prohibits a federal official from threatening you and me?

With the Fairness Doctrine the left would limit speech that they deem too politically aggressive--which is to say conservative speech.  There’s only one problem--the 1^st Amendment, which “prohibit(s)…abridging the freedom of speech (Palin), or of the press (Beck, Limbaugh), or the right of the people to peaceably assemble (Tea Parties), and to petition the government for the redress of grievances (what the left call’s anti-government, hate- speech).”

Some of you might be thinking that the First Amendment would stop the Fairness Doctrine from taking hold but the truth is that the First Amendment would be the main target of the Fairness Doctrine.  They want to censer speech and justify it as a remedy to violence like the kind in Arizona.  In the American sense, this is as fundamental as fundamentally transformed becomes.

So, the real narrative goes something like this:  Some nut shot a moderately, liberal congresswoman. 

It’s tragic but blame it on the guy that pulled the trigger--not individuals who are peacefully exercising their freedom of political expression.  Using this incident as a means to limit the First Amendment is shameful.  Not only because it’s insensitive to those involved in the shooting but also because it attempts to devalue the American experience and eliminate one of it’s most cherished virtues from it’s conception.  I’d expect to find this fight in China, Iran, and maybe even Venezuela…but not here.