Have a comment?

I tend to think a lot of the psychs interested in sex crimes and issues are interested in it because they have some "issues" themselves in that department, but be that as it may. See article in the Sun Sentinel, Sex predators unleashed: Florida sets rapists and child molesters free to strike again.

An eight-month investigation by the Sun Sentinel found that "At least 594 offenders reviewed under the law and let go have been convicted of a new sex offense in Florida. Nearly one quarter of them attacked again within six months of being released." This is directly contrary to psychs' claims of low recidivism rates. And every single one released was recommended released by one or more psychs.

"And these numbers do not paint a complete picture. They do not include men convicted in other states or federal court, those who committed non-sexual violent crimes such as murder or home invasion, and those arrested but still awaiting trial for new sex crimes."

Stop with the pretense of "treatment" already. Stop with the psychs. There is no "treatment" (let alone sex pervert treatment by sexually confused psychs). There is no evaluation or prediction. There is no crystal ball. Put these assholes in jail. To punish them. And to keep them away from the rest of us for as long as possible. (Yes, okay, look carefully at the statutory rape laws and similar, so we don't have to hear about very young men and their slightly younger girlfriends suffering travesties, and other psych-lobby horror stories.) But then lock up the creeps and perverts, and monitor them for life. And tell the sex positivist psychs to go rehabilitate themselves -- into a more productive field.

The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama.

From the article in the Daily Caller:

Daily Caller: How are those who disagree with you on the strategy distorting your views on this?

Cruz: Aside from the defeatist view that this can't be won, addressed above, there are three significant misunderstandings:

A) Some, even among our allies, describe our proposal as "shutting down the government to defund Obamacare." Such framing clearly tilts towards the Democrats. Our perspective is, we would pass a bill to fund the entire government except Obamacare; it is the President and his allies who have threatened to shut down the government to force Obamacare onto working families, even though its problems are manifest.

B) Another recurring line is that a recent Congressional Research Service report confirmed that a government shutdown would not, in itself, fully defund Obamacare. Of course not; no one has ever suggested it would. The point is, passing a CR that defunds Obamacare -- that explicitly prohibits discretionary and mandatory spending -- defunds Obamacare. That's what this fight is all about.

C) Some have suggested this initiative would only defund Obamacare's discretionary spending, while leaving in place the far larger mandatory spending. This is incorrect, as we can absolutely include language in the CR to defund Obamacare's mandatory spending as well.

Dan Bongino (we so need him in Congress) wrote an excellent article today in the Washington Times. Excerpt:

Ten months after the horrific tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, when terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate and killed four Americans...

The Obama administration still has not explained why the Foreign Emergency Support Team was not activated. The State Department's own website describes the team as "the U.S. government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide." Therein lies the rub: the mention of terrorism. The Foreign Emergency Support Team was available and chartered to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attack, but was never deployed.

...Perhaps the reason the administration did not activate the Foreign Emergency Support Team was because it immediately would have put to rest any question about the cause of the attack and set off a cascade of events that did not fit the administration's desired political narrative.

...the Obama administration has adroitly managed to avoid any substantial political ramifications from ...the failure to adequately protect the military and security personnel who swore on their honor to protect you.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

See attorney and self-defense expert Andrew Branca -- a must read: "New" Self-defense Doctine That's 136 Years Young. Self-defense justifiable homicides are a good thing, not a bad thing. As Andrew notes,

What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?

And think about this:

"One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn't know that. His reaction: "Thank God".

"Thank God." How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it's on tape react that way?"

And about the ridiculous (and dangerous) anti-"Stand Your Ground" crap, read THIS.

See Robert Stacey McCain: How a Miami School Crime Cover-up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin's Death. Or perhaps instead of blaming the school, his parents ought to be charged with child neglect.

(Breitbart has a good analysis of the media circus, stoking a hoped-for unrest and racial theme.) Now let's see some bar complaints and a civil lawsuit for abuse of process and the post-verdict defamation. Meanwhile, an interesting analysis from last year of the race baiters:

Notwithstanding the worst economy since the Great Depression (and not getting better), Obama parties and vacations like no president has done before.

NYTimes OpEd combines biting truths with obfuscating suck-up ("heroes"?) about psychology and psychiatry:

"...If the authors of the psychiatry manual want to invent a new disease, they should put Physics Envy in their handbook. The desire to be more like the hard sciences has distorted economics, education, political science, psychiatry and other behavioral fields. It's led practitioners to claim more knowledge than they can possibly have. It's devalued a certain sort of hybrid mentality that is better suited to these realms, the mentality that has one foot in the world of science and one in the liberal arts, that involves bringing multiple vantage points to human behavior..." PDF