When Will the GOP Pursue Policies Americans Care About?

Republicans don’t control the U.S. Senate and they don’t have the presidency. Instead of wasting time and energy in doomed efforts to defeat President Obama’s Cabinet nominees or sucking up to illegal aliens, why not focus on issues where Republicans can be off-the-charts popular while forcing Democrats into taking stupid positions?

After the slaughters at Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz., and Newtown, Conn., every sentient person knows we need to do something about institutionalizing the mentally ill and — at the very least — keeping guns out of their hands.

That happens to be impossible right now. Involuntary commitments even for the severely psychotic went the way of vagrancy laws. Although federal law technically requires background checks to include records of mental illness, the states and mental health industry refuse to provide that information.

Of course, the vast majority of mentally disturbed individuals are not dangerous. But looking at it from the other end, more than half of all mass murder is committed by the mentally ill. Gun ownership doesn’t lead to random murder rampages; mental illness does.

And the good news for Republicans is: Democrats will only pretend to support keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous psychotics, while working frantically to gut and undermine such measures. Liberals fear “stigmatizing” the mentally ill more than they fear another mass murder.

Instead of proposing serious reforms, the Democrats play politics by demonizing responsible gun owners and the Republicans who defend them.

The Democrats’ gun proposals are like the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamplight:

“Is that where you dropped them?”

“No, but the light’s better here.”

Preventing crazy people from buying guns is hard. The ACLU will sue and we’ll be tied up in lawsuits for a decade, at which point a Democrat-appointed judge will rule that including records of paranoid delusions in FBI background checks is unconstitutional.

As former federal judge H. Lee Sarokin (a Clinton appointee) might say, “We should revoke their condition, not their gun permits.”

The light’s better over by the sane, responsible gun owners, who wouldn’t hurt a fly — unless it’s a schizophrenic shooting up a shopping mall.

Since the deinstitutionalization movement got under way in the 1970s, the mentally ill remain mentally ill, but now instead of living in warm, safe institutions, they live out on the streets, in homeless shelters and in soup kitchens, or drift back to their helpless families, occasionally showing up in “gun-free zones” to commit mass murder.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, an ABC poll showed that while Americans remained dubious about the effect of more gun control laws, 83 percent supported requiring states to provide information on the mentally ill for gun background checks.

Since then, the mentally deranged have continued committing mass shootings. There is still no way to prevent them from buying guns.

At the risk of joining the Republicans’ circular firing squad when we ought to be fighting Democrats, here’s how I think Republicans should be looking at things:

– Pushing amnesty for illegal aliens: 80 percent of Americans ferociously oppose you.

– Pointlessly opposing Obama’s Cabinet nominees: 99 percent of Americans need a constant supply of NoDoz just to listen.

– Staking out an Amnesty International position on a president’s hypothetical ability to use a drone against an “American citizen” (named Anwar al-Awlaki) about to launch a devastating terrorist attack on U.S. soil: 70 percent of Americans are against you.

– Opposing the Democrats’ idiotic proposals on gun control: 60-70 percent of Americans support you, but the other 30 to 40 percent will hate you because they want to “Do Something.”

– Proposing the involuntary commitment of dangerous psychotics and implementing measures to prevent them from obtaining guns: 83 percent of Americans support you and will be furious at Democrats for trying to undercut such laws.

Liberals can’t help themselves — they’re like Dr. Strangelove with the Nazi salute. The Democratic base will wail, “Who’s to say who is crazy? Maybe we’re the crazy ones!” and bleat about stigmatizing the mentally ill. Or, to quote Judge Sarokin, again: “[O]ne person’s hay fever is another person’s ambrosia.”

Your choice, Republicans: Take positions that will make you extremely popular, reduce mass murder in America and simultaneously reveal the insanity of the Democratic Party, or keep prattling about topics of interest to no one. Take all the time you need. 2014 is a whole year away.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Do pigs fly? Are Americans really supposed to rely on the RINO leadership?
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/13/is-the-republ
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/25/congress-give

    The above moire than attests to their ineptitude and lack of Conservative backbone. A complete overhaul is more than efficacious.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Asher

      A nation that rejects God is in serious trouble. psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and the nations that forgot God." A godless society has no conscience or remorse for its crimes against humanity, most politicians are only concerned with Self

    • Mike

      I guess Coulter would've advised Lincoln to drop his plans to fight the South, right. Scale back on the issue of slavery, right? Pretty damned unpopular at the time.

  • 11bravo

    It is hard to argue with logic.

    Although republicans, conservatives, and libertarians have the moral and ideological high ground when it comes to the visions put forth for our country….They sure are politically stupid!!

    It drives me NUTS!!!

    • Mike

      I agree, at least in part. On most major issues dividing the nation, the Pubs have the high ground, but they argue their positions badly.

      But it would be stupid to say — based on this — that the Pubs should choose to side with the more popular opinions. They will sometimes have to argue for an unpopular issue — just as Reagan did. That's what we elect them to do. They simply must express themselves in ways that a dumbed-down electorate can understand and support.

      If you were to look back at the writings of our founding fathers, at the time they were trying to "sell" the concept of a new national government, supported by a new national constitution, there were MANY who were against the new federal government.

      And if you were to look back to the late 1930's, at the debate in England over how to react to Hitler, you'd see a man — Churchill — who was at first very unpopular, because WAR was unpopular. But Churchill found a way to rally his nation, by explaining the situation in terms they could understand. Roosevelt went through several tough years also, attempting to steer a nation of isolationists to an understanding that they could not afford to ignore Hitler.

  • 11bravo

    Has anyone pointed out to Rand the killing of american citizens during the civil war, Ted Cruz better get off that train too, it is a waste of time and comes off as kooky.

    That is why a Paul will NEVER be president.

    • RJR

      OMIGOSH, let's see, you have to go all the way back to the CIVIL WAR to refute Rand???? Are you crazy QQ Rand Paul is the greatest American that has ever come along in decades. He is fighting for EVERYONE'S right's as Americans, he did not do the filibuster as a partisan, but as the greatest American politician in our lifetime….Paul/Cruz in 2016!!

      • Rifleman

        He didn't have to, Rand's 'logic' refutes itself. But, for obvious historic examples, he could have gone back to WW2.

        "Rand Paul is the greatest American that has ever come along in decades…the greatest American politician in our lifetime…" – Lol, born in the 90s, were you?

    • atthebeach

      Ahh, yes; The Civil War. . 'war' being operative here. That is not what Obama and his pal 'Holder' are talking about. . .are reluctant to be specific about; or 'articulate'/specify; in proper 'legalese' that passes Constitutional muster.
      (War moves the debate; altogether per enemy combatants.)

  • RJR

    As a conservative American, I CARE about a President who is ok with killing AMerican citizens without due process!!!! I care about a President who just released illegal aliens from prison and now has hired them to be TSA/DHS agents!!!!! I care about an admin that has given complete control of our National Parks to the UN! I care about an admin that has Russian soldiers transporting tanks from KY to TN. THANK GOD the TN State Militia stopped them at the border and refused their admittance.

    • Rifleman

      Anwar al-awlaki openly joined an enemy waging war on us, he got due process.

      If the US military captured him or accepted his surrender he still isn't entitled to a civilian court. He rightly falls under military law.

    • atthebeach

      People seem to forget that Homeland Security considers people they deem offfensive; or a hindrance to the Leftist Cause and Obama, Inc. – as enemies of state/terrorists etc. (Whereas; al Qaeda are framed as 'Freedom Fighters' and other non-noxious terms. Ever notice how easily; readily; Obama demonizes American citizenry; and how reluctant he is to do same for the Islamic enemy who has declared war on America; Israel and the West en toto?)

      So it is reasonable and wise to be concerned about Obama's drone MO; and concerned too; about just 'who' he considers to be enemies of State; or in Obama's narcissistic case and political MO; enemies of Obama.

      Obama did take the traditional oath to protect this Country and it's citizens. The Constitution requires it as well; and of course. A Constitution; we can duly note; that has; at this moment; four years of Obama's shoes making a 'shred' of it. Could one not imagine; that a match could be next?

      Rand Paul has taken a stand for our Constitution – and one desperately needed. Can only say; as we all should here – like him or not; Thank You; Rand Paul.

      (We desperately need 'push back'. . .do hope this is the beginning of just that.)

  • davarino

    I am sorry, but I do not believe the repubs are this stupid. Either the leadership has been compromised (ie. using dirt on them to blackmail), or they are letting this administration really screw things up so they can win big in 2014 and 2016. Maybe their strategy is the latter, but I wont vote for repub candidates if I am not sure they have changed their ways and actually become conservative/constitutionalist, save a few, like Rand Paul, maybe Rubio (he's being "groomed" by the RNC, which concerns me)…..

    • Rifleman

      I keep thinking of the clinton FBI file scandal, it would explain a lot.

    • Maxie

      Maybe not stupid but definitely inept. The GOP is a divided entity and consequently politically impotent against a highly focused, Agenda-driven MarxOcrat party committed to installing an authoritarian socia!i$t regime derivitive of 'Marks' (the real name gets any post auto-deleted). Except for Reagan the GOP has been a punching bag for the Left since WWII when the FDR Adm. was infiltrated by Soviet agents (Hi$$ et al) http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/gop_what_g

  • Joel Poynter

    Ann, if this is the best advice to Republicans that you can come up with, GO HOME!

    • Rifleman

      She probably posts her articles from home. Nobody forced you to read it, and you didn't refute it.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Is our government of Democrats and Republicans really them and us or is it that they
    take turns in the limelight while deflecting the attention of voters as to what depredations
    to the taxpayer they are up to. One coin, two bad sides, the American people until they
    get rid of both parties and elect citizens to serve and not rule are going down the scam game
    to financial ruin. We all have a lot to lose, Bill Gates surely more than I but why aren't
    the filthy rich having a cow over the destruction of the middle class, maybe they know
    something we do not, they know they are not in with the herd cattle to be shorn and culled.
    William

  • Jake Tobias

    Unless I'm missing something, Ann Coulter's column has yet to be posted at Human Events. At her site, yes. At this site, yes. At Right Wing News, yes. What gives?

    The column itself is okay. Last weeks was better. I like the comment that suggests, the Republicans are doing nothing to make the Democrats look bad. Though that could be called desperation. The comment, and the strategy. Let's say it's correct, I have wonder if there will be enough of an America left to recover.

  • lambsev77

    We have become so earthly minded we are no heavenly good. Politics is about personal preferences. Life is about God in the Messiah. R U red E 2 C Jesus?

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    Coulter is correct to focus on mental health and mass shootings. I write about that issue all the time and here is an index to my blogs on the subject: http://clarespark.com/2012/12/18/blogs-on-mental-….

    • EarlyBird

      To focus on and demand greater federal implementation of mental health and criminal background checks, Republicans will be fighting with the radicals in their own constituency, not Democrats. To too many Republicans ANY assertion of federal control over gun ownership (i.e., background checks) is seen as a "slippery slope!" that will end with jack-booted thugs taking away all guns forever.

      This is a perfect microcosm for what's happening within movement conservatism right now. The fight is internal, not external. The forces are in conflict are serious, common sense conservatives vs. unserious, reactionary, radical ideologues.

      When the Establishment gets tired of getting its head handed to them on every big election and issue, they'll finally confront the nut jobs who've been pushing them to the unserious side. We're already seeing this start.

  • Winston

    The only way the Republican Party will survice is if the left-of-center neo-cons will exit the leadership and let the true and sincere Constitutional loving conservatives run up the flag of leadership.

    • Maxie

      Are you serious? With Lobbiest $$$ pouring into Congress like Niagra Falls? There's a book titled "Throw Them All Out" . It's short. Read it.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

    I'm becoming convinced that much of the GOP establishment would support an authoritarian statist big-govt. Democrat administration if they could get assurances that they'd get a good working piece of the power structure.

    • Maxie

      That's already the staus quo. It's called selling legislative favors to cash-loaded Lobbiests and passing, without bothering to read, the Bills that the Lobbiests themselves wrote. Goes on every day and both Parties do it.

  • SFLBIB

    "… forcing Democrats into taking stupid positions"

    You don't have to force them to do that. Just leave them alone, and they'll do it by themselves.

  • EarlyBird

    Coulter is 100% correct. Not only would it be good policy, it would be good politics for the GOP to focus its efforts on instituting and fixing the background checks system for gun buyers. Ordinary crime kills a lot more than the high profile massacres, but it's these massacres that always end up with calls to ban guns.

    The GOP has a golden opportunity to lead. They need to press for this broken system to be repaired, in order to save the 2nd Amendment rights of the sane and decent citizen. But here's what it means. The question to me is do they have the guts and common sense to do this?

    Fighting with the NRA and being willing to get a less than "A" rating from the NRA for the next election cycle will require guts. Being willing to argue for more federal oversight and expenditure to administer ths program will require common sense, and guts.

  • Ben Cohen

    I'm going to finish reading this latter….But I will comment anyway. Ann Coulter is not being smart on this issue, we don't change policies based on unusual, and exceptional events. If you want to assess deinstitutionalization you need to look at all the effects, not speculate on whether it might effect mass shootings as Ms. Coulter does.

    Most shooters are mentally ill, but very few would ever be institutionalized. What Ann calls for is permanently incarcerating millions, perhaps tens of millions of people, because .0000001% might commit a crime. That's just dumb.

    • EarlyBird

      She's talking about "dangerously psychotic" individuals, not just nuts. There is Auntie Louise is a bit touched in the head nuts, and there is dress up as Batman and kill a few dozen people nuts. It's the latter she's speaking about.

      We used to be able to put whack jobs in institutions whether they wanted to or not. It was the radical cultural revolution of the '70s, coupled with the Reagan small government revolution of the '80s, which killed all that.

  • Ben Cohen

    Finished reading it. Still mostly crap. The standard of "violent psychotic" that Ann Coulter uses is the standard. It happens to be a very high standard to meet, which explains why so few people are committed.

  • atthebeach

    Not 'just the mentally ill' per this problem; but the psychotropic drugs so delivered to these people. Many; we could argue; unnecessarily; and prescribed to those as young as; and for how long? The other; is simply demanding that criminals pay the price, legally mandated for the crimes they commit. And they not be, overlooked'/forgiven. . .ignored; or released early; if prosecuted at all; per all too common MO.

    One more thing; if one is inclined to poke around the 'clandestine'; it is at least interesting to note the commonalities – beyond the psychotropic drugs; psychiatrists/psychologist histories – and that is the connection of James Holmes as well as his Father; by way of education and career interests; to a number Gov Agencies; notably DARPA – and by association of MO's; MKultra. Nancy Lanza too; as CIA employee; was connected to DARPA. Other commonalites; some verified; some rumored; but taken together; point to 'other issues' in our Government; that we should be paying attention to.

    All to say; a Gov that finds 'reason' in sending killer drones to take out citizens that they take issue with; is a Government, that has long, been doing equally nefarious endeavors, so as to serve itself; at the expense of it's citizens. A Government-in-action; that we should be aware of; particularly; when the dominating ideology; demands 'control' of that citizen; and all else, in his life; as well. We are called to be 'on guard' and more; when we have a Government that refuses to abide by moral restraints as proscribed by our Constitution.

    We do know; that for many in power; the Utilitarian 'rules'; justifies; exonerates. . .And we know from histories of 'evil power' at work; just what that can bode; if ignored/allowed.

  • Toni_Pereira

    Let us hope that the Gop don't follow the travesti ways of the british tories under David Cameron…

  • Aloysiusmiller

    The three big issues are free speech, right to own and bear arms and the right of due process. How many guns do you have to take away to make us safer? How many people do you have to preemptively lock up before we'll be safer? How many people do you have to shut up before we're safer?

    How much freedom do we have to sacrifice for safety?

  • guest

    Yes, by all means, let's focus on the "mentally ill' under a Marxist regime.

    Let's give Obama and his communist thugs more reason to target innocent Americans by calling anyone who disagrees with them "mentally ill.'

    How about this: My mother and father lived in the hills of West Virginia while he was getting his engineering degree. Snakes would get in the hosue and my mother used to say once they got in it was darn near impossible to get them out. But no one felt safe until she was able to find it and get it out of the house. So until this madman criminal along with hsi criminal wife and his criminal slumlord senior adviser are out of our house in DC any of these suggestions by clueless, out-of-touch with real Americans and self-serving writers like Coulter are stupid.

  • EarlyBird

    "So until this madman criminal along with hsi criminal wife and his criminal slumlord senior adviser are out of our house in DC any of these suggestions by clueless, out-of-touch with real Americans and self-serving writers like Coulter are stupid."

    Yes, speaking of "mentally ill."

  • Maxie

    ". . . we need to do something about institutionalizing the mentally ill and — at the very least — keeping guns out of their hands."

    Forget guns. We need to keep the mentally ill from holding high political office.

  • http://Www.budowa-nieruch.pl/ http://Www.budowa-nieruch.pl

    Any low energy levels consumption appliance will be able to
    be powered but now solar panel system. Really should
    always consider several things when it will come to installing
    them.

  • EarlyBird

    Lady, go spam another site.