Court rebukes Obama for recess appointments

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that President Obama unconstitutionally exceeded his executive authority when he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last January. As Examiner reported at the time, the president made the recess appointments in spite of the fact that the senate, which confirms presidential appointments, was still conducting pro forma sessions and was not in recess.

According to Article II section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution, the president has the power to fill vacancies that occur while the Senate is in recess. These recess appointments escape the immediate need to be confirmed by the Senate, but expire at the end of the next session of Congress. However, Article I section 5 clause 4 states that neither house of Congress can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. This is done by passing a resolution in both the House and the Senate. In the case of Obama’s appointments, there is no disagreement that Congress was not formally recessed since neither the House nor the Senate had passed a resolution to end the session.

The case was prompted by a lawsuit by Noel Canning, a Pepsi Cola bottling company, according to National Public Radio. The NLRB with its new Obama appointees ruled against the company in a union dispute. The company then sued on the grounds that the Obama appointees were illegal and that without them the NLRB lacked a quorum and could not legally decide the case.

The court ruled on two points. On the first, the Washington Post describes that the three judge panel unanimously decided that a recess under the Constitution means that the Senate must be between sessions and not simply on a break. The court noted that the senate, not the president, decides when it is in recess. The court also ruled on what type of vacancies could be filled by recess appointments. In a stunning limitation of presidential power, two judges held that recess appointments were limited to vacancies that arise during a recess. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

For now, the ruling applies only to the Noel Canning case, but there were many other rulings issued by the NLRB that included Obama’s appointments. These cases could be opened to legal challenges as well under the new precedent. Currently the precedent applies only to the D.C. court of appeals.

The ruling was condemned by the White House and the NLRB. “The decision is novel and unprecedented, and it contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday in the Washington Post. “We respectfully but strongly disagree with the ruling.” Carney did not say whether the president would appeal the decision.

In a statement on the NLRB website, the board’s chairman, Mark Pearce, said, “The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.” The board apparently intends to continue business as usual even though any decisions made are likely to be challenged by the loser.

The decision also calls into question the appointment of Richard Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray was installed via a recess appointment at the same time as the three members of the NLRB.

During his first term, President Obama lost a series of legal challenges to his unilateral executive actions. Although his administration triumphed when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate, Obama lost many other lower profile cases. The Supreme Court upheld most of Arizona’s immigration law in spite of a Justice Department lawsuit. The Obama Administration was held in contempt for its ban on deep water oil drilling and for failing to issue permits to oil companies according to Examiner. The Environmental Protection Agency also suffered a number of legal defeats under Obama for exceeding its authority to regulate carbon and cross-state air pollution under the Clean Air Act. As previously covered by Examiner, several courts have also ruled that Obamacare’s abortion and contraception mandates are unconstitutional burdens on religious freedom. Obama’s unilateral decision to halt deportation of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. as children may also have unconstitutionally bypassed Congress.

Nevertheless, it seems that Obama’s strategy of using executive action when he cannot get Congress to act will continue into his second term. Earlier this month he signed 23 Executive Orders dealing with gun control. According to the Wall St. Journal, the president may also be considering more executive action on environmental issues as well. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) recently told supporters, “There doesn't have to be a bill. I'm telling you right now, EPA has the authority in the transportation sector, the electricity sector, and the industrial sector under the Clean Air Act” to enact anti-carbon regulations without congressional approval.”

President Obama’s strategy represents a test for the American system of separation of powers. While executive action might move the president’s agenda forward in the short term, as this week’s ruling shows the courts might eventually dismantle much of his legacy because it was enacted via illegal shortcuts.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-rebukes-obama-for-unconstitutional-recess-appointments?cid=db_articles

Protect our rights for our children

Interview with Harbinger author, Jonathan Cahn

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, the best-selling author of “the Harbinger: the Ancient Mystery that Holds the Secret of America’s Future,” recently took time from his busy schedule to answer a series of questions from Examiner.com. Rabbi Cahn, who will be the keynote speaker at today’s Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.

“The Harbinger” is a work of fiction, but Cahn uses the fictional story of a writer’s meetings with a mysterious prophet to tell the real story of nine harbingers that preceded the destruction of ancient Israel. Cahn believes that the same harbingers are warning modern America of God’s impending judgment. “The Harbinger” has recently passed a major publishing milestone with a 1 million copies sold.

David W. Thornton: How was The Harbinger prophecy revealed to you?  Was it similar to the fictional account in the novel or was it purely through prayer and study?

Jonathan Cahn: After 9/11, I was praying and was led to a particular section of Scripture in Isaiah concerning the first warning of judgment given to Israel.  I found out later that David Wilkerson in Time Square Church told his congregation that the Lord was giving a word to America and it was the same section of Scripture. In fact, he even spoke the specific “decoder” verse of “The Harbinger” [Isaiah 9:10].  And he did say it because he saw the harbingers manifest.  Most would only come later.  But it was simply from the Lord.

Later I was standing at the corner of Ground Zero and my attention was drawn to an object.  Something said “seek it out.”  I began searching the Scriptures and the mystery began to unfold.  It was the first puzzle piece of the ancient mystery which kept getting bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper until I was completely blown away.  It was an ancient mystery that lay behind everything from 9/11 to everything that happened after.  It was [so] specific that it even foretold the precise actions and words of American leaders.  It was mind boggling.

When I shared it at my congregation, the Jerusalem Center/Beth Israel, the people were likewise blown away.  Everyone felt it was a word from the Lord that had to go forth to the nation.  As I began to write the book, an entire second stream of mysteries began to unfold, ancient mysteries which lay behind the collapse of the American [nation], mysteries so specific that they pinpointed events down to the days and hours.

When I began to write the book in the form in which it now exists, of a prophet revealing the mystery through a series of seals, the words just flowed out as it the book were already written before I wrote it.

DWT: Since major cataclysmic events occurred in the financial world on Elul 29 in the last two Shimitah years, do you believe that some act of judgment will occur on the next Shimitah Elul 29 which is September 13, 2015?  If so, do you have any idea what? 

JC: The next Shimitah will take place from September 2014 to September 2015, culminating on the 29^th day of Elul, September 13, 2015, that’s correct.  I haven’t been led to be dogmatic concerning what may or may not happen, but I think it’s wise to keep our eyes open.

DWT: Much has been written about the reinstatement of Israel as a prophetic super sign.  Is there a relationship between modern-day Israel and American judgment that leads to Biblical end-time events such as the War of Magog and the tribulation of the Revelation?

JC: There is a connection between the macro pictures of end-time prophecy and the specificity of The Harbinger.  We know that there is no clear reference to America in end-time prophecy and yet America is now still the head of nations.  Thus, to go from where we are now to the scenario of end-time prophecy, somehow America must fall as the world’s leading superpower; it must lose its crown as head of nations.  “The Harbinger” fills in the gap with specific detail as to how it would proceed to that end.

DWT: Do you believe that recent cataclysmic events such as Hurricane Sandy and the Newton massacre are related to the removal of God’s protective hedge?

JC: We must be careful in our discerning what every calamity means.  “The Harbinger” rests on a precise, unique, eerie, and exact outworking of an ancient template of judgment in all its specificity and detail.  Thus there is a clear Biblical frame of reference.  With most other calamities, this is not the case.  Nevertheless there are general principles of Scripture concerning national judgment.

In the case of Hurricane Sandy, it was striking for such a storm to develop when and where it did – and then to specifically strike New York City.  It was also of note that the storm struck Ground Zero, flooding it over.  The governor of New York then went down to Ground Zero and from there made declarations that the city would rebuild and come back better than ever. Anyone who read “The Harbinger” would know the significance of such words.

DWT: Have you had any other revelations since writing the book?

JC: Yes. The mystery of “The Harbinger” has not stopped.  It’s continuing.  Since the book was released, the harbingers are continuing to manifest.  And what was foreshadowed in the book is coming true.  Some of it has been so amazing that it has left those who read the book literally gasping.  When my wife informed me of one of them I didn’t even believe her.  It was too far out (and I wrote the book)!  It involved the president of the United States and a[n] ancient Hebrew mystery.

DWT: Do you have any idea how much time is left for America to repent or what the result of the final judgment will be?

JC: We all live in the face of judgment.  And the time to repent, to be saved, and to get right with God . . . is now.

For more information on “The Harbinger” and to receive a CD and other gifts from Rabbi Cahn, visit Jonathan Cahn’s website: http://www.theharbinger-jonathancahn.com/

This interview was conducted via email. Rabbi Cahn’s responses are presented in their entirety except for minor editing.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-jonathan-cahn-author-of-the-harbinger?cid=db_articles

Farewell to the Talkmaster

Today was the farewell show for one ofAtlanta’s national celebrities. WSB talk showNeal Boortz bade farewell to his fans in the last regular edition of his morning radio show.

Boortz, who styled himself as the “Talkmaster” and the “High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth,” took calls from fans for much today’s show. Recurring guests such as former Republican presidential candidateHerman Cain and Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree also made appearances. Callers and guests were forbidden to mention the name of “the Destroyer,” a reference to Barack Obama, during the final show.

A lawyer originally, Boortz has hosted a radio show on WSB since 1993. The show has been nationally syndicated since 1999. He has also written several books, including “the Fair Tax Book,” which he coauthored with Rep. John Linder.

Boortz is different from most political talk show hosts in that he is a libertarian, not a conservative. He regular criticized Republicans as well as Democrats in the rants on his show. Boortz often said things on his show that no one else dared to say with politically incorrect jabs at many groups. Muslims, Christians, public schools, smokers, fat people, and social conservatives were frequent targets in addition to liberals.

Boortz said that he plans to tour the country in a recreational vehicle during his retirement. He also plans to return to radio as an occasional guest host and to spend more time promoting the Fair Tax, a national consumption tax that would replace all other federal taxes. Fans will be able to follow Boortz in his retirement via his “@talkmaster” account on Twitter.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-talkmaster-retires

Marco Rubio proposes new GOP immigration policy

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is proposing an immigration reform package reports this week’s Weekend Interview in the Wall St. Journal. Rubio, whose name was floated as a potential vice presidential nominee for Mitt Romney, wants to take the immigration issue away from the Democrats. According to Examiner’s analysis of exit polls of the 2012 presidential election, immigration was one of the most damaging issues for the Republicans.
The first prong of Rubio’s plan is to modernize America’s immigration system. He would issue more immigration visas to immigrants with technical skills needed by U.S. companies. Rubio notes that only 6.5 percent of immigrants come to the U.S. based on their labor and skills, but that American colleges don’t produce enough science, technology, engineering and math graduates to fill open positions. In fact, many foreign students who come to the U.S. to study cannot get visas to stay in the country and work.

Rubio believes that it is necessary to secure the border, but also supports workplace enforcement initiatives such as requiring employers to check the immigration status of workers. Rubio believes that these initiatives will remove the incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally.

There is a real need for immigrant labor. In spite of high unemployment rates, Georgia is among the states where strict immigration laws have resulted in large crop losses for farmers. After Georgia’s immigration law took effect in 2011, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that the Georgia Agribusiness Council estimated that the state’s farmers would lose as much as $1 billion because there were not enough workers to harvest their crops before they spoiled.

Rubio would solve this problem by increasing the number of permanent and seasonal work visas for farm workers. Farmers need immigrant labor to harvest their crops and immigrants need jobs to support their families. Issuing work visas would be beneficial to both groups in addition to bringing immigrants into the legal workforce to prevent them from being exploited. An added benefit would be the tax revenue that from the salaries of these legal migrant workers.

The problem of illegal aliens would be solved by bringing them into the open. Rubio proposes that they come forward to undergo background and fingerprint checks. If they had committed a serious crime, they would be deported. Those who had been in the U.S. for an extended period and who had lived within the law otherwise would be subjected to a fine, be required to pay back taxes, and possibly do community service. After they had paid their debt to society, they would be given legal status and could apply for permanent resident status. After a waiting period of several years, they might be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Sen. Rubio’s plan, which he would pass in several smaller bills as opposed to one omnibus bill, fills a void within the Republican platform as a way to appeal to minorities who now make up 28 percent of the electorate according to exit polls and vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Rubio doesn’t believe it should be this way. He says that immigration is a “gateway” issue for Hispanics. Republican outreach on this issue might well help Hispanics realize that they have much in common with Republicans on other issues.

The proposal will likely face opposition from members of Rubio’s own party who oppose any path to legality for illegal aliens.  Because of the rising share of minority voters and the ease with which Democrats demonize hard-line positions on immigration, the future of the Republican Party may hinge on the success of Rubio and his allies.

Nevertheless, Rubio believes that the issue is ripe for Republicans because President Obama and the Democrats have "not done a thing" for immigration according to the Journal article. It is likely that the Democrats will fight Republican efforts at reform in order to keep Hispanics in the Democratic fold for future elections.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/marco-rubio-proposes-immigration-reform-plan?cid=db_articles


CORRECTION:  An earlier version of this article stated that Sen. Rubio's position was did not include securing the border as a precursor to immigration reform.  Sen. Rubio's press secretary has informed the author that this is not the case.  Sen. Rubio does believe that border security is necessary before any reform package can move forward.

Obama gun control would not prevent shooting sprees

Yesterday President Obama began the largest push for gun control in decades with a list of proposals for congressional action and series of Executive Orders that the president signed unilaterally. A comprehensive list of the president’s proposals in the New York Times reveals that the president’s proposals would not have prevented most of the recent mass murders.

While the president’s wish list is long, it conspicuously excludes the one thing that could have prevented several of the recent shootings. President Obama and Vice President Biden did not ask congress to expand instant background checks to include mental health information. As a recent Examiner article discussed, most mass killers have a history or can be reasonably suspected of having mental illness.

While the president’s plan does call for increased spending on mental health programs for young people and the opening of national dialogue on mental health, it does not tie mental health to gun purchases. Instead the president concentrated on tried and failed ideas such as an “assault weapons ban” and limit on the capacity of magazines. These ideas failed to reduce crime when they were enacted in the 1990s. When they expired, the crime rate did not increase as many liberals had predicted.

One of the president’s Executive Orders also attempts to clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prevent doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes. In reality, an amendment to the ACA’s section 2716 specifically states that health or wellness programs under the law “may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to… lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition….” The law also prohibits data collection on the possession and use of lawful firearms and ammunition. The president is essentially attempting to use an Executive Order to amend a law enacted by congress.

The big question is whether the president’s proposals would have prevented recent mass shootings like the one in Newtown. The answer seems to be no, especially in light of the fact that existing assault weapons would remain in the hands of their owners.

Adam Lanza did not purchase the guns that he used to murder 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14, 2012. According to the Daily Mail, Lanza stole his guns from his mother, Nancy. Adam shot Nancy in the face with one of her legally purchased weapons. He then stole her car and drove to Sandy Hook Elementary. According to the New York Times, the school was locked, but Lanza shot his way through the door.

A few days earlier on Dec. 11, Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people in the Clackamas Mall in Portland, Ore. The rifle used by Roberts was stolen from one of his friends according to the Associated Press. According to Portland’s News Channel 8, Roberts killed himself after being interrupted by a man with a legally concealed handgun, who may well have kept the death toll from being much higher.

In a third December shooting, William Spengler killed two firefighters who were responding to a fire he had set in Rochester, N.Y. Spengler, a convicted felon, could not legally purchase or own a gun. NBC News reported that Spengler’s suicide note revealed that a straw purchaser, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, bought the guns for him. Nguyen is facing federal and state charges for making false statements in the purchase of the guns.

According to CBS News, James Holmes, the “Dark Knight” killer from Colorado, purchased his guns legally from three different stores over a period of several months. The guns were purchased well in advance of the Aurora, Co. mass murder. The stores performed the required background checks, but Holmes had a clean record at the time.

ABC News reports that a University of Colorado psychiatrist who had counseled Holmes warned the Aurora Police Department about Holmes several weeks before the murders. The information was not placed into the instant background check system and may have come too late to stop the purchases in any event. The psychiatrist allegedly rejected an offer by the police to put Holmes on a 72 hour psychiatric hold according to Yahoo News.

In the wake of the Aurora murders, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, led an effort to reform state mental health laws. The Wall St. Journal reports that the reform modernized Colorado’s commitment laws and provides that commitment records be crosschecked for gun purchases. The Journal notes that the reforms also protect the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens.

Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson killer who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, purchased his gun from a sporting goods store after passing a federally required instant background check. The Christian Science Monitor notes that Loughner’s background check was clear because he had never been declared mentally unfit by a court. Blogger Rob Doar also points out that Loughner lied on his instant background check application, a felony.

The Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, purchased his guns legally in spite of the fact that a judge had deemed him an “imminent danger to himself” in December 2005 according to CNN. Because the judge ordered outpatient treatment instead of committing Cho to a hospital, his mental health history did not show up on his background check. Cho bought his guns in separate purchases more than a month before his killing spree.

The Columbine killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, obtained their guns illegally. The Violence Policy Center says that several guns were bought for the teens by a straw purchaser. One gun was sold to the pair by a private seller who knew that they were under the legal age to buy a pistol. The straw purchaser, Klebold’s girlfriend Robyn Anderson, was never prosecuted, but the individual seller, Mark Manes, served 19 months in prison according to Yahoo. There is speculation that Anderson was not prosecuted in exchange for her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Since most of the killers obtained their guns illegally, either through theft, straw purchases or fraud, it is unlikely that President Obama’s new laws would have prevented any of the mass killings. However, Colorado-style mental health reforms that would tie mental health records to the National Instant Check System and make it easier to mandate treatment for the mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves and others might well prevent some killers from obtaining a weapon. Stiff penalties for straw purchasers and enforcement of existing laws against fraud are also needed.

It will never be possible to completely end killing sprees. As Examiner previously reported, countries with much stricter gun control that the U.S. have had even worse shooting sprees. Even an outright ban of guns would leave many other weapons available. The worst school killing in U.S. history was committed with bombs, not guns. On the same day that Adam Lanza attacked Sandy Hook Elementary, a man in China injured 22 children in their school with a knife according to CBC News. This was the latest in a series of knife attacks against Chinese children. Even the presence of armed guards, an idea endorsed by the National Rifle Association, cannot guarantee that a determined murderer would be unsuccessful.

Perhaps the best advice on preventing school violence came from Paul Regnier, a spokesman for the Fairfax, Va. school system after the Virginia Tech murders. Speaking to the Roanoke Times, Regnier said, "A principal once told me, 'we don't need metal detectors at the schools; we need mental detectors.’”

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-gun-proposals-would-not-have-prevented-recent-shooting-sprees?cid=db_articles

New gun laws should focus on mentally ill

When President Obama announced his new gun control initiative today, he recycled a traditional liberal wish list of band-aid solutions to the problem of gun violence. Most of the proposals, such as a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines,” have been tried and have failed to curb violence in numerous locations.
Solutions are made more difficult by the fact that the killers in many of the rampages are killed either by their own hand or by police making it difficult to ascribe motives, but in many cases common elements can be determined. In most of the shootings, the killer had been diagnosed with some form of mental illness or can plausibly be considered to have an undiagnosed mental illness. Other factors, such as video games, movies, or broken families are also common.

In the case of the Sandy Hook school shootings at Newtown, Ct., the Hartford Courant and NBC’s WPTV reported that Adam Lanza was a frequent player of violent first-person shooter video games. Police report that Lanza destroyed his computer before his rampage, so the exact extent of his video gaming may never be known. Lanza was known to have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism and had not seen his father since 2010.

Peter Bell, executive vice president of programs and services at Autism Speaks told PBS that some Asperger’s patients do have trouble controlling aggressive thoughts and behavior, but that there is no evidence linking the condition to violence. Nevertheless, Randi Rentz, a teacher specializing in Asperger’s, notes that some of her students exhibit hostility. There is also the possibility that other undiagnosed forms of mental illness were present along with the Asperger’s.

A few days before the Newtown shooting, Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people and wounded a third at the Clackamas Mall in Portland, Ore. before being interrupted by a man with a legally owned gun and concealed carry permit. Roberts’ mother died at childbirth and he had never met his father. According to CNN, he lived with an aunt up to age fourteen when he moved out to live on his own. According to CBS, Roberts was also a video gamer.

Although Roberts had not been diagnosed with mental illness, his Facebook page contained the slogan “follow your dreams” stamped with “canceled” according to CNN. He also joked that he was an alcoholic. An ex-girlfriend told ABC News that Roberts had planned to move to Hawaii just prior to the shooting, but got drunk and missed the flight. It is possible that Roberts suffered from undiagnosed depression and alcoholism.

James Holmes, who went on a rampage in a movie theater showing “the Dark Knight” in Colorado in July 2012, apparently came from an intact family, but had seen three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado according to CBS News. Any diagnosis is unknown due to a gag order imposed by the judge in the case, but Holmes reportedly mailed a package to one of the school’s psychiatrists. Because of the gag order, not much information is available about Holmes’ mental state, but Fox News has reported that he was a frequent player of video games including “World of Warcraft,” a role-playing game. One friend told the Telegraph that Holmes preferred “Guitar Hero” to shooter games.

The Week reported that a local gun range owner flagged Holmes after he attempted to join the range. The man called Holmes’ answering machine “bizarre or freakish” and told employees to refer Holmes to him before letting him do anything there. In the months before the killing spree, Holmes’ grades had fallen and he had dropped out of graduate school. Apparently, one of the psychiatrists at the college had become concerned that Holmes might be a potential threat, but he dropped out before her concerns could be addressed according to a report from the local ABC affiliate.

Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others in Tucson in January 2011, was both mentally ill and a video gamer. Several sources, including the Wall St. Journal, report Loughner’s obsession with games. Loughner had a long history of mental illness according to Time. He had made threatening and nonsensical comments to fellow students and teachers at his college. His tests and writings included bizarre and sometimes violent phrases. At times he seemed paranoid and unable to function socially. He was also a frequent user of marijuana which may have made his condition worse. He apparently was rejected for military service due to a failed drug test. He also had stalked several women and, at one point, was involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

A Wall St. Journal investigation of Loughner’s posts in online video game forums showed a number of disturbing posts. He pondered whether one should “hit a Handy Cap Child/Adult” [sic] and theorized that women enjoyed being raped. He also lamented his inability to find a job. According to the report, Loughner played role-playing video games such as “Starcraft,” “Diablo,” and “Earth: 2025.”

Cho Seung-Hui, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been diagnosed with mental health problems at an early age according to a well documented report on the massacre by the State of Virginia. In elementary school, he was diagnosed with emotional issues that led to communication problems. In middle school, he was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder, lack of verbal skills and immaturity. In 1999, after the Columbine murders, Cho wrote a paper for his English class that indicated that he wanted to carry out a mass murder as well. He was diagnosed with selective mutism in social situations and depression. At this point, he was given a prescription for antidepressants, after which his condition improved.

Cho had an above average IQ and, with special accommodations in high school, his grades were high enough that he was accepted at Virginia Tech. In eleventh grade, he had improved enough that he was able to stop the counseling sessions and never resumed them after he graduated and began attending college.

As a college sophomore, Cho’s grades began to drop. He changed his major to English, a subject that he struggled with. He became disruptive in class and his creative writing assignments reflected dark and violent themes. He was accused of stalking a female student and had stabbed the carpet with a knife at a party. A friend reported that Cho had threatened to kill himself and Cho admitted to having depression and anxiety, although he denied having suicidal thoughts according to ABC News. Cho talked to three counselors, but failed to come to counseling appointments and pursue treatment. Throughout his school career, Cho was known for not speaking or speaking in barely audible tones.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine killers, reportedly had different motives and illnesses. According to an assessment published in Slate, Klebold may have suffered from depression while Harris was likely a psychopath. Based on his journal, a panel of psychologists, psychiatrists, and FBI agents point to Harris’ contempt for others and his total lack of empathy and conscience as evidence of his psychopathic tendencies. Dr. Peter Langman, formerly a clinical director at Kids Peace Hospital and author of “Why Kids Kill,” agrees. His analysis of the writings of Klebold and Harris agrees that Harris was a psychopath while Klebold apparently suffered from a variety of psychoses including depression, paranoia, delusions and disorganized thinking. The two teens famously enjoyed violent video games as well.

There seems to be broad support for a system of screening students for mental illness. Dr. Harold Koplewicz wrote in the Huffington Post that 75 percent of psychiatric disorders appear by age 24 and that early intervention greatly improves the prognosis. Dr. Bill Knaus of the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy network points out that many mentally ill people are not aware of their illness and therefore will not voluntarily seek help. A particularly dangerous time seems to be when people stop taking their medication, especially if they do so abruptly and without supervision.

A sensible solution to the problem of then mentally ill committing massacres would seem to be reforming laws to allow state and local governments more flexibility in involuntarily committing people who might be a danger to themselves and others. This should include follow up visits to confirm that they remain on their medication and that their condition remains stable. This may also require that privacy laws be amended so that information can be shared between agencies. Such an approach has been used in Colorado where Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, reformed the state’s involuntary treatment laws in the wake of James Holmes’ killing spree.

If he were serious about reducing violence, President Obama could also pressure his supporters in Hollywood to reduce the glorification of violence in movies and video games. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman describes on killology.com, violent images and games can condition children to kill in much the same manner that armies condition soldiers to be able to pull the trigger. Although popular culture does not turn all children into remorseless killers, the combination of cultural cues and mental illness may combine to push some people over the edge.

Likewise, President Obama could use his bully pulpit to seek reform of federal entitlement programs and tax law to strengthen families. Children from single parent families and broken homes are far more likely to turn to crime and violence than children who come from stable families. Single parent families are also far more likely to live in poverty and require government assistance as well.
There is a legitimate role for the government to play in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, a role that is more appropriate for state and local authorities than the federal government. Unfortunately, President Obama seems more intent on taking Rahm Emanuel’s crisis management advice to seize the moment to push for more of the same old liberal agenda.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-gun-laws-should-focus-on-mental-illness?cid=db_articles