Crazier Than Liberals

Here is an article from Ann Coulter from Townhall.com stating that liberals and gun-rights advocates do not acknowledge the possibility of institutionalizing the mentally ill as being the problem for gun violence:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/09/18/crazier-than-liberals-n1704041

There's been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.
But liberals won't allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals' genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Read More

Keep guns out of dangerous hands

Here is an article by Daniel Webster, professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, from CNN.com that states there should be stricter gun ownership policies in wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting on Monday:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/webster-navy-yard-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

We are still learning key details about Aaron Alexis, the man named as the shooter in this week's horrific mass killing at the Washington Navy Yard.

So far there is a record of at least two prior incidents in which Alexis fired a gun under circumstances that should have brought criminal charges. His time as a Navy reservist was checkered with accounts of insubordination and disorderly conduct. He was reportedly seeking treatment for mental illness (he was hearing voices and having problems sleeping). More importantly from the perspective of risk for violence, a former roommate reported that Alexis was a heavy drinker.

While much of the focus has been on how a person with this background obtained clearance to work at a military facility, a similar question could be asked about how he could legally buy a firearm in Virginia and allegedly obtain a permit to carry loaded firearms in Texas.

The gun lobby and other opponents to stronger gun laws like to talk about the rights of "law-abiding gun owners," but the policies in place in most states allow individuals with backgrounds far worse than that of Alexis to own legally as many firearms as they can afford and carry loaded firearms most anywhere.

To appease the gun lobby, lawmakers have created an environment where individuals with numerous convictions for misdemeanor crimes involving violence, firearm misuse, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, and who have previously been subject to restraining orders for domestic violence, can legally arm themselves to the teeth.

Several states have stricter standards for legal possession of handguns than federal law, and states such as New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts give law enforcement some discretion in determining who should legally be able to buy and carry handguns.

My colleagues and I published a study last year where we found that in states with the weakest standards (similar to federal standards), nearly one-third of state prison inmates incarcerated for crimes committed with guns would have been prohibited from possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had standards for legal gun possession similar to those in place in high-standards states. With reasonable regulations such as background checks for all gun sales and proper regulation of gun dealers, many of these inmates would not have had guns to use in crime.

In order to reduce significantly the gun violence that occurs every day in communities across the United States, we must focus on the issues that matter the most where there is broad consensus. Public opinion surveys show large majorities of gun owners support stronger standards for legal gun ownership and policies designed to keep guns from prohibited persons, including universal background checks and stronger regulation and oversight of gun dealers.

We can't say for sure whether such policies would have prevented the recent mass shootings that have gripped our nation, but they would reduce a significant number of shootings that don't receive national news attention, though they are no less devastating to the individuals, families and communities.

Unfortunately, the gun debate in the United States has been just that -- a debate. Instead of engaging in the all too familiar, polarizing discussions that have characterized gun policy, let's act upon the things we all agree upon -- keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them.

Read More

Fighting marijuana ... or reality?

Here is an article from CNN.com by David Nathan, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, stating that the dangers of marijuana are largely embellished and that marijuana should be legalized:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/opinion/nathan-pot-legalization/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

David Frum's recent op-ed on CNN.com exemplifies why Americans are becoming deaf to the critics of pot legalization. Their hyperbolic claims about the dangers of pot -- along with the realistic ones -- are being dismissed by a justifiably cynical public. Anti-marijuana propaganda isn't stopping the march toward national legalization, but the opposition is losing its voice as it screams about the falling sky.

A majority of Americans favor full legalization, and they understand that recreational cannabis is not now and will never be legal for minors. They know better than to believe Frum's prediction that "half the states may soon allow the sale of marijuana to almost anybody determined to buy it" -- an assertion so broad as to imply that even children would be permitted to buy pot legally. This is simply not so.

Americans are also informed enough to realize that medical marijuana is not a "laughable fiction." This week, I saw a longstanding patient with a rare, ultimately fatal neurological disorder that causes chronic, painful muscle spasms. For years, this patient has smoked marijuana to counteract this terrible symptom, and it works.

With medicinal marijuana now legal in New Jersey, this patient is not convinced that she will be safe from federal prosecution if she goes through the state's one operational dispensary, so she continues to purchase illegal, untaxed and potentially adulterated cannabis. While she is technically a criminal, she is neither laughable nor fictional.

Those opposed to marijuana do raise important concerns that are often neglected in the movement toward legalization.

Cannabis is indeed associated with low motivation and poor performance in minors. It may have subtle but long-term negative effects on young users and worsen the condition of some individuals vulnerable to psychosis. Smoking marijuana may be harmful to users' lungs, although vaporizers have long been available as a safer alternative.

Cannabis is habit forming in a small percentage of users. Marijuana intoxication impairs driving, though the risk is similar to that of drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, which is well below the federally mandated legal limit of 0.08%.

So why can't the opposition discuss these problems realistically?

It's simple: Because the only rational conclusion is that the dangers of pot are not sufficient to warrant its prohibition. Yet those who have an ideological opposition to legalization appear immune to reason.

Interestingly, Frum is a moderate in the opposition camp, in that he favors reducing the penalties for marijuana use through decriminalization. But by maintaining pot's nominal illegality, decriminalization denies our government the power to regulate and tax cannabis while removing obstacles to its consumption.

Those who would limit the cannabis trade must make a choice between two Americas -- one that crushes the marijuana trade by any means necessary (as nothing less has worked) or one that regulates and taxes a "soft" drug that millions of consenting American adults already consume medicinally as well as recreationally.

Frum warns of the coming of "Big Marijuana," a term he quoted from legalization opponent Kevin Sabet. Frum and Sabet compare this hypothetical Leviathan to the alcohol and tobacco industries, both of which have been accused of marketing to minors and encouraging destructive consumption of their products by adults. I share this concern, which is why several of the 15 steps I proposed for the federal regulation of cannabis are designed to limit the power of the cannabis industry.

Frum predicts that Big Marijuana will target "young people and racial minorities" because "secure and contented people don't tend to be heavy consumers of psychoactive substances." Setting aside the odd assumptions about who are insecure and discontent, minors and minorities could both benefit from legalization.

It is our government, not Big Marijuana, that disproportionately targets racial minorities for prosecution of marijuana crimes, causing much more harm to those communities than cannabis itself ever could. And our prosecution of healthy adults for their relatively benign use of marijuana prevents the justice system from focusing on the diversion of pot to the young people we all want to protect.

But in reality, we already have "Big Marijuana" in the form of violent Mexican drug cartels and an underground economy in the 48 states where pot remains illegal.

We currently live in a nation that does not regulate the ubiquitous, thriving cannabis trade. I want to raise my children in an America that does.

Read More

The Obama Doctrine has officially collapsed -- Putin is now in charge

Here is an article from FoxNews.com by James Jay Carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, saying that Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is dictating the United States military actions in regards to Syria:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/11/obama-doctrine-has-officially-collapsed-putin-is-now-in-charge/?intcmp=HPBucket

There were numerous oddball characters in “M.A.S.H.,” the old TV show about a surgical hospital in the battlefront in Korea. One of them, Major Winchester, considered himself the consummate practitioner. In one episode, he droned continually, "I do one thing. I do it very well...and then I move on."
That fairly describes how President Obama would have described his approach to foreign policy before Tuesday night’s speech.
He personally handled every serious issue.
He decided on his time table.
He delivered a prepared address explaining how he had solved each conundrum. And then he moved on.
That was the gist of his address this May at the National Defense University, where he confidently explained how his policies had left Al Qaeda all but eradicated. He made similar speeches on Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya.
That was not the Barack Obama America saw Tuesday night. This was a foreign policy speech unlike any other from the president.
In the “M.A.S.H.” episode mentioned above, the surgery is suddenly flooded with casualties. Major Winchester is completely overwhelmed.  A fellow surgeon leans over and says, “Just deal with it.  It’s all meatball surgery.”
For the first time in his presidency, Obama finds himself practicing meatball foreign policy—reacting to events, forced to address issues on a timetable set by others, and made to take steps before he has time to think them through methodically.
Mr. Obama never planned to get dragged into the Syrian civil war. He uttered his "red line" declaration only because it sounded strong and had been advised that, in all likelihood, he would never have to enforce it. But when the line was publicly crossed, suddenly, the White House felt unavoidable pressure to act.
It opted for Libya-lite—an all-air-based assault, without the regime change. The president would strike while Congress was out of town, and then explain his actions to the American people. But Britain bailed, and that plan went south.
Rather than “go it alone,” the president switched to a new plan: try to get a balky Congress to green-light use of force—even though he (rightly) insisted he didn’t need their approval. Tonight’s speech was slated with the intent of winning over Congress and the American public to his intervention plan.
But before that speech could be delivered, Russia unexpectedly stepped in and offered a "diplomatic" solution that made a unilateral strike—no matter how down-sized from the Libyan adventure—appear untenable.
And so Obama found himself making a very different televised address—one that pretty much admitted that he had no choice but to follow Russia's lead.
The 16-minute speech failed on every level. Mr. Obama didn't explain why he is now endorsing a “solution” that actually makes Syrian strongman Bashar Assad even stronger.  What keeps Assad in power is not his chemical weapons but the support he gets from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.  And Russia’s diplomatic ploy strengthens Moscow's ability to support the regime.
In addition, it gives Damascus completely unearned respectability. Assad can claim he is cooperating with the international community. In many ways, this may be a worse outcome than a meaningless military strike. An approach that strengthens Assad may lengthen the bloody civil war that has already claimed 100,000 lives and created 2 million refugees.
The speech also failed to give Congress any reason to endorse an attack if diplomacy fails. The president asked Congress to postpone the vote because he doesn't have the votes. If the Syrian situation deteriorates further, Congress will be even less likely to give the President a formal authorization to use military force.
The speech was, however, historically significant, as it marked the collapse of the Obama Doctrine.  As a candidate and as a president, Barack Obama approached foreign relations with one key belief:  If he made nice with the world, the world would make nice with him.
That naïve view has now been trampled by harsh reality. America's enemies have found they can play our president.  Moscow may be the first capital to recognize that Mr. Obama is off his game, but it will not be the last.
And so, like Major Winchester, Mr. Obama now finds himself doing what he wanted least to do: meatball surgery. In the case of Syria policy, put a fork in the meatball. Its done.

Read More

Obama's speech a model of persuasion

Here's an article from CNN.com by David Kusnet, President Clinton's speechwriter from 1992 to 1994 and senior writer and principal at the Podesta Group, saying that President Obama's speech on a potential military strike was convincing and changed the minds of many Americans:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/opinion/kusnet-syria-obama-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled, who watched President Obama's prime-time speech, told CNN that they support his policy towards Syria.

Since some surveys showed as much as two-thirds opposition to military action against Syria in the days before the speech, the poll suggests that he did what presidents rarely do: change people's minds, if only temporarily.

How did he do it? In only 15 minutes, President Obama made his points, simply and straightforwardly. Anyone arguing a controversial case in the court of public opinion can learn from what he said and how he said it:

Identifying with the audience. Addressing a war-weary public, President Obama began by saying that he had "resisted calls for military action" in Syria before "Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people." The message: The terrible event that changed my mind should change yours, too.

Telling a story. President Obama told how the world community declared chemical weapons "off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war." His story began with the deadly use of gas in the trenches in World War I and continued with the Nazi use of poison gas in the Holocaust.

Bringing it home. Having made the human rights case, President Obama explained why chemical weapons threaten Americans. If Assad isn't punished, "our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield." Terrorists could get these weapons and use them against civilians. Iran could be emboldened to build nuclear weapons.

Invoking the American system. Some opponents warn he's willfully starting a new war. Others call him indecisive because he delayed military action. President Obama said he's taking the debate to Congress, even though he maintains he doesn't have to, because "our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress."

Answering questions. Like the FAQs on a website, much of the speech answered questions that President Obama said members of Congress and private citizens have asked him, such as "Won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war?" President Reagan also made a point of answering questions that people had asked in their letters to him. In his address to a Joint Session of Congress after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush answered questions, as did Winston Churchill in his radio talks during World War II.

Offering hopeful news. Towards the end of a speech that could have been completed several days earlier, President Obama discussed the latest developments surrounding the Russian proposal that Syria turn over its weapons to international authorities. Yes, the transition sounded choppy, but listeners care more about encouraging news than elegant rhetoric.

Appealing to American patriotism. President Obama said America is "different" because we right wrongs when we can. Answering the common criticism that he doesn't believe in "American Exceptionalism," he concluded, "That's what makes America exceptional... Let us never lose sight of that essential truth."

With down-to-earth arguments and a lofty conclusion, last night's speech was a model of how to turn an audience around, point by point.

Read More

Congress, support Obama on Syria

Here is an article from CNN.com by Anne-Marie Slaughter, president and CEO of the New America Foundation and director of policy planning in the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2011, stating that Obama made the right decision to let Congress decide whether or not to strike Syria for their use of chemical weapons on their own people:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/opinion/slaughter-syria-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

President Barack Obama has done the right thing by asking Congress to authorize the use of force against Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.

I say that even as someone who has been a sharp critic of the administration's Syria policy and an outspoken advocate of intervening in various ways to try to protect the millions of innocent Syrians whose lives are at risk, prevent the conflict from destabilizing the region and support members of the Syrian opposition who share our values.

The president, as he announced in May, is trying to steer this nation back to a world in which we are not permanently at war and we do not turn to our military as the weapon of first resort in any international crisis.

The Framers of our Constitution wanted to ensure that the decision to send our young men and women into battle could not be taken lightly. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have steadily chafed at those restraints over the course of the decades since World War II as traditional wars and formal declarations of war have faded away. George W. Bush's proclamation of a "war on terror," authorized by Congress, put this nation in a state of permanent emergency in which the commander in chief has had extraordinary powers.

That is unhealthy and dangerous for a democracy. A former constitutional law professor, Obama understands that although he has a limited reserve of power that could allow him to act alone, his power will be far greater with Congress. The constitutional framework is designed be a check in the best sense -- to require our leaders to make their case to the American people, to act on the basis of reasoned arguments about the nature of American interests that will stand up far beyond the White House Situation Room.

And the American people should back him on this decision, for three reasons.

First, we are protecting ourselves and our allies. We cannot afford to live in a world in which nations can use chemical weapons with impunity. The taboo against chemical weapons is particularly strong, for good reason. Dying by the breath we need to live holds a particular terror. The parents of the children whose shrouds we see could not protect them even with their own bodies, like human shields from a bullet or a bomb.

The United States stood by when Iraq used chemical weapons first against Iran and later against its own people, to our shame. But we must not make that mistake again. Chemical weapons are the weapons of the weak against the strong, which is why al-Assad, has been driven to use them repeatedly, according to U.S. intelligence, when his back is against the wall, as it is now in Damascus. Should chemical weapons proliferate, they will be the weapons of choice for terrorists.

Second, striking Syria now will be a strike to protect the Syrian people, even if partial and belated. It will not end the massacres carried out with conventional weapons. But weapons of mass destruction are just that: weapons of mass destruction. A chemical attack that kills 1,000 today can kill 10,000 tomorrow and 100,000 the day after that.

Third, the president is asking us to do, as a nation, what a leader has to do. In his 2008 inaugural address, Obama called for a new era of responsibility in this country, "a recognition ... that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." We have those duties not because the United States has some unique role or mission in the world, but because we are the world's most powerful nation. Other nations take their cues from our action or inaction, whether we want them to or not.

If we do not act, we are signaling that the world has suddenly become a far more permissive and dangerous place, that taboos can be broken, and that despite the pious words of the international community, leaders can do whatever they like within their own borders.

If we lead, other nations that take their responsibilities seriously as great powers will join us. A Russian veto may prevent the U.N. Security Council from authorizing our action in advance, but a majority of the members of the council will not vote to condemn the strikes after the fact.

It is now time for Congress to step up to its responsibility. The bargaining has already begun. But the use of force after the use of chemical weapons, with the world watching, is no place for partisan politics as usual.

Unless a clear majority of Congress opposes any action, it is incumbent on all those members who favor some use of force to craft a compromise that gives Obama the power to use both force and diplomacy as president and commander in chief to restore the chemical taboo and do whatever he can to reach a political settlement in Syria.

Read More

Mr. Obama, you've already lost the Syrian War -- here's how to win the big one

Here is an article from K.T. McFarland of FoxNews.com stating that President Obama is wrong to allow Congress to make the decision on whether to use force against Syria to punish Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people and that Obama has "lost the Syrian war:"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/05/mr-obama-youve-already-lost-syrian-war-here-how-to-win-big-one/?intcmp=HPBucket

President Obama – face it, you’ve already lost the Syrian war. You probably lost it a year ago when you laid down that "red line" threat without any idea how you respond if Assad called your bluff.
As any parent knows, if you make a threat, you better be ready to carry it out. If you tell your teenager, “Be home before dark or I’ll ground you,” and then if he isn’t and you don’t, you can bet he will stay out ‘til midnight next time, and before long he’ll be sneaking out in the middle of the night.
No matter how  you try to wiggle out of it, you're the one who set the "red line" -- not the world, not Congress, not the American people.

By tossing the Syrian decision to Congress, you guaranteed that you’ve lost the Syrian war. The American people are overwhelming against another Middle East war, and the more your administration tries to sell it, the more public support falls off.


Secretaries Kerry and Hagel team did lay out why it’s important to attack Syria -- because Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians, women and children.
They also laid out what you want to accomplish by attacking Syria – punishing Assad, deterring his further use of chemical weapons and reinforcing American’s credibility.
But what Kerry & Co. failed to explain is how a limited attack against Syria will accomplish those goals.  And they certainly failed to say what funds are available to pay for it in light of your reduced defense budgets.

By taking the fight to Congress instead of to Syria, you’ve left legislators to fight amongst themselves over the details of an American response. Even if they reach agreement and vote in favor of an attack, it’s likely to be too little and too late to make a difference.
Assad will have had plenty of time to move mobile military assets to hospital parking lots and school playgrounds, so the only choice you’ll have is between lobbing a few missiles into the Syrian desert, or killing innocent civilians in population centers.
If Assad calls your bluff and launches another chemical attack in response or widens the war, you’ll be faced with either backing off or escalating the Syrian war, just like LBJ did with Vietnam.
If you do escalate, and topple Assad, you’ll pave the way for Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels to take his place. If Congress does not approve your attack plan, you will look even more ineffective.
Either way, those chemical weapons will remain -- for Assad or the Al Qaeda rebels to use --- since no one thinks they can be sabotaged, destroyed, or captured without boots on the ground. And no one is voting for boots on the ground.

Face it, President Obama. You’ve been outmaneuvered on Syria, and have no good options left. As bad as it would be to do nothing, doing something that fails would be even worse.
Better to focus on winning the bigger war. Stop thinking tactically, and start thinking strategically.
Syria may loom large today, just like Iraq, Libya and Egypt have before. But the Middle East wars will not stop with Syria, they are likely to spread throughout the region as oil-fueled Sunnis battle oil-fueled Shiites in country after country for years to come.

The single best thing you could do to improve America’s position in the Middle East is what President Kennedy did when the Russians shocked the world by being the first country to send a man into space.  In response, Kennedy pledged to land a man on the moon within a decade.
You should pledge America to becoming energy independent by the end of your presidency, and a major oil and natural gas exporter by the end of the decade.

Approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Unshackle American energy companies and allow them to develop U.S. resources. American energy independence would mean we no longer need to curry favor with one side or another in the perennial Middle East conflicts.
Becoming the Arab oil countries’ biggest competitor means they will be forced to worry about how they are going to meet their own domestic payrolls. They will have neither time nor money left over to pay for terrorists or proxy wars.
One of the Middle East’s savviest investors, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, warned his Saudi brethren their revenues will plummet if the U.S. develops shale oil and gas.
Iran’s oil revenues have fallen significantly and their financial support for terrorist Hamas has dwindled as a result.  Let that be the new normal in the Middle East.

That’s how, Mr. President, you can win the war. Develop America’s energy resources. It will send shivers up the spines of the Arab oil states who are paying for both sides of the Syrian war, and bankrolling Hezbollah and Al Qaeda and other like-minded groups.
And while you're in Russia for the G20 meeting, have a little heart-to-heart with President Putin. Explain to him that the Russian economy may be riding high now, but it will collapse in a few short years without foreign investment and American technology to develop new oil and natural gas fields and infrastructure projects.  
Give Putin the choice -- the US and Russia can either bury the hatchet and work together to solve Iran, Syria, Islamic jihad, and the other international issues on which we disagree, or we can continue to spar over those issues.
If Russia wants to work with us, we'll work with them on energy projects.  If not, they might continue to humiliate us, but we'll help bankrupt them.
Then remind Putin that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed and Reagan won the Cold War was because he maneuvered events so the price of oil fell  from $40 to $18 dollars a barrel in nine months, thus causing Russian economy to collapse.
We are happy to do it again.
Despite Putin's efforts in recent years to diversify their economy, the world still doesn't want Russian cars or computers.  Russia remains a petro-state: one third of the country's GNP and half their budget comes from energy exports.
If you do this, President Obama, you will send a clear message to President Putin: Stop trying to wrestle bears and ride shirtless in the Siberian wilderness, and start worrying about how you are going to pay Russia’s bills when your oil and gas reserves run out in a few years time.
And then invite him to get in touch -- sooner rather than later.

Read More