Shove It, Democrats: Americans Aren't For All This Political Correctness Garbage

Townhall

 

Matt Vespa

Posted: Dec 19, 2018 4:25 PM

Political correctness is the latest attempt by liberals to curb speech they don’t like—and we all know there’s a long list of things they find…problematic. You’re not alone if you think this trend is straight trash. A majority of Americans are against it too. Yes, there are political and geographic divides—and I bet you can guess where the people who think we should follow this authoritarian ethos reside. Oh, and if Democrats think that their crusade to crush those who they feelaren’t sensitive enough, it’s not going to yield political dividends; it could drive Independents away (via NPR):

Fifty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of independents, said they are against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore. About a third said they are in favor of the country becoming more politically correct and like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others.
That's a big warning sign for Democrats heading into the 2020 primaries when cultural sensitivity has become such a defining issue with the progressive base.
"If the Democratic Party moves in a direction that is more to its base on this issue, it suggests independents are going to be tested to stay with the Democrats electorally," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll.
[…]
The only groups in which majorities said they were in favor of people being more sensitive were Democrats, adults under 30, African-Americans and small city/suburban women.
Majorities of whites, Latinos, Americans over 30 and small city/suburban men, though, said the opposite. Just 1 in 7 Republicans and a third of independents said they like the country becoming more politically correct and people being sensitive in their comments.
There's also a big gender divide by place and education. Women who live in small cities or the suburbs say people need to be more sensitive, 52 percent vs. 37 percent. But just a quarter of men who live in the same place say so (27 to 57 percent), making for what have to be some very divided dinner tables.

So, keep America great! Do your part and trigger a liberal. 



Fifty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of independents, said they are against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore.

Only 52%? Only 52%?

Read the LAW. Read the 1st Amendment.




Every Square Inch of this Country is already, by LAW, a "Free Speech Zone."

What the hell IS a Psychiatric Diagnosis to begin with but an Impossible Violation of the Right of Free Speech? 

 
Thank You Mr. Vespa and TownHall.

75% Of Med Students Are On Antidepressants or Stimulants (Or Both)

It's going, going, . . . . It's Over the Back Wall and It's OUTTA Here.

Any pretense of legality Psychiatric/Psychologically imposed disability ever pretended to just got nuked, along with every protection our legal system extended to the disablers themselves and everyone harboring/assisting them.


See our intro to the following post if you need clarity.

State Medical Board Has A Simple Solution To Help Amid Physician Mental Health Crisis

Then read Title 18 Sec 241 & 242 of the Federal Criminal Code regarding Civil Rights

 

75% of med students are on antidepressants or stimulants (or both)
Pamela Wible MD

Posted on September 4, 2017 by Pamela Wible MD

“Have you ever been depressed as a physician?” I asked 220 doctors. Ninety percent stated yes. Yet few seek professional help. Here’s what depressed doctors do (when nobody’s looking). Some drink alcohol, exercise obsessively, even steal psychiatric meds. Still more shocking—I discovered that 75% of med students (and new doctors) are now on psychiatric medications.

“I was told by the psychologist at my med school’s campus assistance program, that 75% of the class of 175 people were on antidepressants,” shares psychiatrist Dr. Jaya V. Nair. “He wasn’t joking. How broken is the system, that doctors have to be pushed into illness in order to be trained to do their job?”

“During my internship, I found out that at least 75% of my fellow residents were on SSRIs or other antidepressants, just ‘to get through it’ because it was so horrible.” states Dr. Joel Cooper, “Depression, or a constantly depressed state, is more or less the norm in medical school and throughout one’s residency.”

“When I left my residency, I was alarmed to find out that about 75% of my fellow residents had started antidepressants since their intern year,” says Dr. Jill Fadal.

Seems the epidemic of depressed doctors begins in medical school. I wondered how best to verify this oft-repeated 75% statistic. Just then a student called to tell me what her professor said during orientation: “Look around the room. By the end of your first year, two-thirds of your class will be on antidepressants.”

I’m appalled. Yet she’s grateful. Why? Her school is so progressive. They normalize the need for antidepressants.

I must be out of touch. Do most med students require psych drugs for day-to-day survival? I turned my question over to Facebook: “75% of med students and residents are taking either stimulants or antidepressants or both. True or false?”

“It’s absolutely, horrifyingly, true. It is a symptom of a great sickness in MedEd.”

“Sadly I am guessing true as I prescribed some for my residents every year that I worked in a residency.”

“True, but I’m sure a lot is unprescribed.”

“I would assume definitely true, Ritalin, Adderall, energy drinks, ephedrine. Yep.”

“While working as a nurse at a major Army hospital, I was astounded by the number of medical students on Adderall or Ritalin.”

I’ve been on an antidepressant since being premed—18 years now. Little did I know it would be impossible to wean myself off and that my entire class was using Adderall.”

“True but most take them in secret as there are negative consequences and stigma that come with getting your mental health addressed.”

“Very true. From my practical point of view, I’d put medical students & residents at 100%.”

“I take both Zoloft and Adderall daily.”

“Very much so true—the percentages may actually be higher. I see it in my classes and I’m only a premed student.”

“If coffee counts as a stimulant it’s definitely 100%.”

“The only way I’d say false is to say it’s higher. I’d say a quarter of my class had to take a leave for a mental health break.”

Having received Facebook confirmation that most med students are on psych drugs, I then queried 1800 medical students via email with the same question and encouraged respondents to share personal experiences. To prevent professional retaliation, all quotes are published anonymously (with permission).

“I am one of the many who are currently on BOTH antidepressants (2 types) & a stimulant (amphetamine). I lost my very dear friend (also a classmate) to suicide in my third year of med school. I have been on psych treatment since then.”

“Hi Dr. Wible. The number sounds high, but whether it is right or wrong is anybody’s guess. I can tell you about myself and my girlfriend—we both just started our third year at a DO medical school. I use 100 mg Sertraline to treat panic/anxiety attacks that were very bad when we had practical exams. I am also very depressed, but the Sertraline does nothing for this. I was diagnosed with ADD in 2013, right before taking the MCAT. I have been on and off of amphetamines and Concerta since then. Then there’s the alcohol and marijuana for the end of the day when I just get too tired of thinking. I have been offered various benzos by my family doctor to help treat the anxiety attacks. I haven’t filled that prescription, but do use them (from a friend) occasionally to help sleep, escape life etc. This is coming from someone who never touched alcohol or other drugs/mind-altering substances until I was 25-ish right at the time of taking the MCAT. My now significant other also uses Sertraline, Adderall, and Benzos to treat anxiety/panic attacks and ADD. Coincidence? I doubt it. So my sample size is two, but 100% are taking antidepressants and stimulants.”

“True. I’m on them, and every student I know is on them too. I’m on both; never took them before med school. Same with all of my friends. Eek!”

“I do recall around board study season hearing from half of my classmates about sharing Adderall and getting Rx from doctors they knew. I was even offered it, but never tried. However, my coffee intake has definitely gone up since school to the point having trouble controlling my bladder. I also know of about half of my friends taking antidepressants throughout school. So I would guess at least 50-75% of my class took stimulants and/or antidepressants.”



“I tried two types of antidepressants in medical school, lost more than 200 thousand dollars, and almost ended up homeless from medical school. All [my depression and debt] started in medical school. Yet my passion remains.”

“Hi Pamela, I agree! Students are afraid to speak about it and I know some who have even asked friends/family to get meds under their name so it isn’t on their record. I finally started talking about it with my classmates and found that many of my close friends were taking them and we had individually struggled alone not knowing there were others going through the same thing. Also, if everyone’s doing it and it gives you an edge, then everyone else has to do it.”

“Sounds about right. I never needed antidepressants before medical school. And it definitely made me rely on higher doses of methylphenidate than I’ve needed in the past.”

“I never thought I would take study drugs. But I was near the bottom of the class in my exam results, and then found out that several who were best in our year were taking study drugs. I cut my losses and copied them. Low and behold, my results improved drastically. I don’t like it, but for me it is better than falling behind and doing poorly. All my friends at other med schools use Modafinil and Adderall too. They also use recreational drugs like ecstasy, cocaine and acid when they’re partying. Drug use is very common amongst the med students I know.”

“In my med school class, I’ve heard of people on antidepressants, on sleeping pills, using pot to calm down, and then also on some kind of uppers for test days and days after partying which the partying was to de-stress..but I have no idea if it’s 75%…I don’t know enough of my class well enough to have that info, nor do I think anyone does…there are usually cliques of up to 25 people, but for people to say they know for sure details of 75% of their class would be hard for me to believe but maybe…there is a lot of it, I agree with that.”

“True. As a med student I was on antidepressants. No different now I am intern. Having just finished 12 days straight and >120 hrs. I can understand why people are also using stimulants.”

“True. I only have four friends in medical school that I know well enough to know which meds they take. All are on both. I went to the university psychiatrist in my Texas premed program for depression he asked when I felt better I told him when I took my friends stimulants to study, I expected him to give me a verbal wrist slap instead he gave me a script. I was on a steady dose for years but the first year of med school I kept upping the dose to try and keep up, ended up deciding I needed to stop after one episode of not sleeping for four days and having auditory hallucinations. Failed second year when I quit them cold turkey, didn’t feel like I was keeping up without them so switched to Modafinil which is much mellower than amphetamine but definitely not good for me. Everyone started antidepressants in school even folks without a history of depression. Being completely honest 75% seems a bit high, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if it were true, in my n=5 study it’s 100%.”



“True. But that number may be higher or lower depending on the school and year in med school. I was on an antidepressant in the last month of last semester because all my other coping skills weren’t enough. I’m on summer break and I haven’t needed any medications to be functional and happy. My depression was entirely induced by the stress and frustrations encountered during medical school.”

“I was on an inpatient internal medicine rotation working 12-14 hour days 6 days a week (as a 3rd year med student) and would ‘keep it together’ at the hospital and fall apart on the way home, cry and sleep to cope. It was the first time in my life I felt suicidal, no plans—just wanted to fade away. My husband was afraid to leave me alone. I put myself back on the Lexapro, equalized somewhat and kept pushing on. That all happened around Christmas of last year. In June I finally was able to find a psychiatrist. He put me on a trial of Adderall. I was hesitant due to the abuse potential but decided to give it a try. With the two meds I have less anxiety, way better at prioritizing, and my focus is improved. I’m studying for step 2 currently so time will tell.”

“I take Effexor 150mg QD. In addition to 10mg of amphetamine salts TID. I used to drink 2 quad shot white chocolate mochas from Starbucks a day, but with the stimulant I threw myself into SVT too frequently.”

“I cannot talk about anything beyond what I know of my immediate friend circle but I have in mind about 10 examples of people who started NEW prescriptions for 1) Stimulants for studying and staying awake 2) Antidepressants and/or mood stabilizers and one person who was started on 3) Beta blockers for new onset panic. These are people with new diagnoses since starting school. I know a few others who came in on these medications after having hard times as premeds (or earlier, I don’t know) That’s just those who actually got the prescription…. As I’m sure you know there is unfortunately also a great deal of illegal procurement of prescription medications as well as abuse of illegal drugs. An increase in alcohol abuse is also a major concern. People are self-medicating left and right.”

“Oh, I would not be surprised! I know 10 people from 5 different schools and at least 7 are on either.”

“I am lucky to have a great support structure and have coped quite well so far without needing any medication. I am actually diagnosed with ADHD and have a prescription for two medications which I don’t really use. The pressure to use them every day rather than relying on my own hard-won compensatory skills is certainly there. Interestingly, I am not shy about my diagnosis and talk about it openly to destigmatize it but I have actually cut back on that because if I’m not careful I inevitably get a lot of classmates asking if they can have some of my medication. For a future doctor to brazenly ask for illegal sharing of medicine is worrisome to me but again I do understand the pressure (to stay up just one more hour studying) that drives the behavior.”



“Popping prescription bottle caps and chafing of pills while studying in the library is a fixture of how daunting the pressures of medical school really are. Med school libraries are dungeons where souls came to die. You’re surrounded by absolute dread—the look of despair painted across the faces of your fellow classmates who feel at any second their life could be ruined with one failing grade. Most of my friends were on SSRI’s, Benzodiazepines, and various types of stimulants. I once asked a friend if he had anything to help me go to sleep and he recommended Lorazepam, which he gave me. The ‘top student’ in our class was rumored to be a serial user of cocaine. To avoid having a drug test reveal his dirty little secret prior to third year, he took a hiatus by engineering a family emergency to give himself adequate time to pass the contents of amphetamine (he passed). Elicit substances in medical school may seem like taboo to lay persons, however in our eyes, it’s a natural and regular experience. In fact, it is astounding how many medical students (myself included) smoke marijuana in order to experience a night of restful sleep. With each puff, it’s as if I escape a bit from my hectic reality. A reality dominated by judging, vengeful, and heartless administrators/faculty who can care less if we live or die, as long as we perform on USMLE Step 1. Yup, its that bad.”

In 1990, even I was severely depressed as a first-year med student. So my mom (a psychiatrist) mailed me a bottle of Trazodone. I thought I was the only one crying myself to sleep. Turns out occupationally-induced depression is rampant in medical training. Now schools dole out antidepressants like candy. Stimulants are used by med students like steroids in athletes. So where do we go from here? Should “progressive” med schools distribute samples of Zoloft and Adderall during orientation?

Problem is physicians must answer mental health questions (right next to questions on felonies and DUIs) to secure a medical license, hospital privileges, and participate with insurance plans. Check the YES box and be forced to disclose your “confidential” medical history and defend yourself—again and again for your entire career. Treated like a criminal for taking meds to cope with the torment of medical training (and practice).




Maybe that’s why so many future (and current) physicians sneak drugs and go off-the-grid for mental health care.

“I’ve been in practice 20 years and have been on antidepressants and anxiolytics for all of that time,” says Jason. “I drive 300 miles to seek care and always pay in cash. I am forced to lie on my state relicensing every year. There is no way in hell I would ever disclose this to the medical board—they are not our friends.”

What if we stop the mental health witch hunt on our doctors? Why not replace threats and punishment with safe confidential care? What if we address the root of the problem—the great sickness in medical education—rather than shifting blame to 75% of medical students for not having enough serotonin or dopamine or norepinephrine in their brains?

As scientists, we can’t continue to approach medical education reform as a neurotransmitter deficiency in medical students. Can we?

___

Pamela Wible, M.D., is a family physician in Oregon. She is happy in her solo practice and takes no psychiatric medication. Turns out her depression was environmental—entirely related to the culture of medical education. Dr. Wible is author of Physician Suicide Letters—Answered. View her TEDMED talk Why doctors kill themselves.



Thank You Very Much Dr Wible.



HT to MadInAmerica

State Medical Board Has A Simple Solution To Help Amid Physician Mental Health Crisis

No, No way, and No Way in Hell.

Everyone else who gets stuck with Dr. Psychiatrist/Psychologist's life wrecking 'Diagnosis' even if they don't get drugged, are screwed with it for the rest of their ruined life. 

US Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If everyone else has to wear it for life, or a very expensive Court proceeding to get Rid of it, so do the people Selling Mental Health stink.


dailycaller
Evie Fordham | Politics and Health Care ReporterThe physician suicide rate is double that of the general population and even higher than the military veteran suicide rate.
Doctors are afraid to admit mental health problems for fear of losing their licenses.

Washington state’s medical community is changing licensing application questions to combat this.

The Washington State Medical Commission (WMC) is taking a step to combat the high suicide rate among physicians by making physician licensing questions more friendly to doctors who have sought psychiatric help.

Updates to Washington state’s licensure questions will focus on an individual’s current impairment rather than if a doctor has had mental health problems at any point in the past. Many doctors fear their reputations and even licensure are at risk if they seek help from a psychiatrist for feelings of burnout or even suicidal thoughts.

Currently, many doctors are “having to sneak out of town, pay cash and use a fake name” when seeking help from a mental health professional, family physician Pamela Wible told Kaiser Health News. She is a self-proclaimed “voice for ideal medical care” and has gathered more than 1,000 stories of doctor suicides for her website to help people better understand the issue.

The WMC expects to update the questions in December after the changes were voted on in June, WMC Executive Director Micah Matthews told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email.

“Historically, medical license applications asked if the applicant has ever had any medical conditions or substance abuse that may impair their practice,” Matthews told TheDCNF. “The updates alter those questions to if they have current conditions or substance abuse issues.”

Many medical organizations are rethinking the policies they have in place because the physician suicide rate is double that of the general population and even higher than the military veteran suicide rate. The physician suicide rate is 28 to 40 per 100,000 individuals per year compared to approximately 12 per 100,000 individuals per year in the general population, according to data presented at the American Psychiatric Association’s 2018 annual meeting.

Licensing question changes like the ones that WMC is making are in line with 2018 wellness and burnout recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, spokesman Joe Knickrehm told TheDCNF via email.

“The FSMB has heard encouraging news from a number of state boards that they are in the process of actively reviewing their licensing application questions,” Knickrehm told TheDCNF. “It is too early to tell how many boards have changed their questions, but we have heard from at least a dozen boards that are discussing it. It’s also important to note that not all boards do ask about an applicant’s mental health.”

The WMC’s updates also includes a safe harbor provision that operates in tandem with the Washington Physicians Health Program (WPHP). (RELATED: Why Is The Physician Suicide Rate So High, And What’s The Medical Community Doing To Change It?)

“WPHP participants can answer ‘no’ to questions about impairing illness if they are ‘known to WPHP,’ which means that they have informed WPHP of their behavior or condition and they are complying with WPHP’s requirements for evaluation, treatment, and monitoring,” Matthews told TheDCNF.

“[This] creates an added layer of confidentiality [and] provides prospective license applicants with a powerful incentive to proactively seek assistance if needed,” he continued. “These changes are intended to reduce the fear of professional sanction and public disclosure of health information that are barriers to help-seeking among physicians.”

The WMC and WPHP hope the changes will encourage doctors to confront any mental health problems head-on. More than half of physicians have symptoms of burnout, which “manifests as emotional exhaustion, loss of meaning in work, and feelings of ineffectiveness,” according to a 2014 Mayo Clinic survey. Burnout can harm physicians’ mental health and even make them feel like taking their own lives is the answer.

Factors such as increased pressure on physicians and lack of contact with other physicians is contributing to burnout and other symptoms, Dr. Chris Bundy of WPHP told TheDCNF via telephone. (RELATED: Michigan Republican John James Dings Opponent Debbie Stabenow For Taking Money From Drug Industry She Claims To Fight)

“Health care is a rapidly changing and dynamic environment, and it’s been hard for organizations to keep up,” Bundy told TheDCNF. “A lot of the changes have fallen squarely on the shoulders of physicians on the front lines of patient care, and now we need to redesign those systems.”

Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.

Send tips to evie@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Soviet Style Abuse of Psychiatry Is Now Practiced In The United States

• California Diversion Programs (8)

• 18C13 (1)
• 18C19 (1)
• 18C47 (1)
• 18C63 (3)
• 18C95 (4)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Equates Ending of Slavery To Electing Democrats

Pretty much what you'd expect from a Socialist. Turn the truth inside out and stand it on its head.

dailycaller
scott morefield 7/21/18

Socialist congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemed to compare Democrats winning elections to the abolition of slavery during a Kansas campaign speech Friday.

“I learned that Kansas was founded over the struggle of the conscience of this nation,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Wichita crowd of over 4,000 people, as reported by Breitbart. “It was when we were deciding who we wanted to be as a country. It was when we were deciding who we wanted to be with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The people who were … leading this nation said, ‘You decide’ to the people.”

“‘Are we going to be a slave state or are we going to be a free state?’ And it was in 1861 that the people of Kansas decided that we were going to be a free nation,” she continued. “Back then, the people of Kansas were the tipping point for the future of this nation. Today, they are again.” (RELATED: Socialist Darling Trips Over Herself As She Takes Her First Steps On The Campaign Trail)

Ocasio-Cortez, who has been campaigning with fellow socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders to help elect Democrats in Kansas, made the remarks during a speech on behalf of Democrat James Thompson, who is running against GOP Rep. Ron Estes. Estes defeated Thompson in a 2017 special election.

The New York congressional candidate then went into a laundry list of government giveaways, including “Medicare for all,” free college tuition, and a “living wage,” before finishing with another reference to slavery.

“But what this moment requires of us, just as it was in 1861, what this moment requires of us is for everyday people to do more than they have ever done before to reclaim the soul of this nation,” she said.

Follow Scott on Facebook and Twitter.

Tags : alexandria ocasio cortez democrat party slavery



Thank You Mr Morefield and the DC

Judge Blocks Chicago Suburb Gun Ban Hours Before Going Into Effect

townhall

Matt Vespa

Posted: Jun 12, 2018 7:47 PM

 

Zero hour was approaching for the law-abiding gun owners of Deerfield, Illinois. The village had banned the ownership of so-called assault weapons, which in reality meant AR-15 rifles and any other firearm that carried a detachable magazine capable of holding ten or more rounds. That’s how Deerfield defined a so-called assault weapon.

Breaking: Circuit Court Judge Blocks Deerfield, Illinois "Assault Weapons" Ban Ordinance pic.twitter.com/8VJOr7y1xj

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 12, 2018

On June 13, the anti-gun ordinance passed by the Chicago suburb would have gone into effect. It was essentially a gun ban, and there were no exceptions. It’s either you turn them over, move, or risk facing a $250-$1,000/ day noncompliance fee. Yeah, the AR-15 and other rifles the anti-gun Left finds scary were banned, but it also included scores of handguns. Magazines holding 15 rounds are not uncommon. Luckily, a circuit court judge blocked this law 24 hours from going into effect. And yes, legal challenges were filed against this grossly unconstitutional law (via Vice News):

BREAKING: #NRA VICTORY! Lake County circuit court judge has issued a temporary restraining order BLOCKING enforcement of the Deerfield, IL, ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. For more information, visit https://t.co/K2SS6KLV7P #2A #DefendtheSecond pic.twitter.com/pBIDq8wals

— NRA (@NRA) June 13, 2018

 A judge blocked a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in the small town of Deerfield, Illinois, less than 24 hours before it was meant to go into effect.
The decision, handed down Tuesday evening in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Lake County, Illinois, is a small victory for gun rights groups, who sued the Chicago suburb in April after it became the first municipality to ban assault weapons following the Parkland high school shooting. The Deerfield ordinance was passed unanimously by all six board members on April 2.

Gun groups, including the National Rifle Association of Illinois, requested a temporary restraining order against the ban while the lawsuit proceeded.

It’s not over. A proposed ballot initiative in Oregon would force AR-15 owners to register their rifles with the state, destroy them, or surrender them to the authorities. They would also have the option to transfer them out of the state.  Boulder, Colorado also passed a law banning high capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons within the city limits. The anti-gun Left is waging a war against the Second Amendment and the Constitution. It will be greatly expanded if Democrats win the 2018 midterms, so don’t forget to vote.    


Thank You Mr Vespa and Townhall.

Dangerous Times For The Constitution and Freedom

frontpagemag
Bruce Thornton May 23 2018


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

While We the People distract ourselves with porn stars and royal weddings, the cracks in our Constitutional order continue to multiply and widen.

Evidence continues to mount that a sitting president, Barack Obama, colluded in using the nation’s security and surveillance apparatus to subvert the campaign and then presidency of a legitimately elected candidate and president. This effort consisted of numerous illegalities: a mole planted in Donald Trump’s campaign; a FISA warrant granted on the basis of false opposition research paid for by his rival; the outgoing president’s expansion of the number of people allowed to unmask the identity of Americans mentioned in passing during surveillance; a rogue FBI director, James Comey, who illegally usurped prosecutorial powers to exonerate a felonious Hillary Clinton; and other FBI agents colluding in the plot to damage Trump. And don’t forget a Deputy Attorney General appointing the close friend of the fired and disgraced Comey as a special counsel to investigate the non-crime of “collusion,” an investigation that has gone on for a year with nothing to show but a handful of indictments resulting from dubious perjury traps.

To quote Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage” at these attacks on the Constitution?

Outrage is surely warranted. These assaults on the rule of law and accountability to the people are akin to the catalogue of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” published in the Declaration of Independence. Yet our “watch-dog” media in the main have become the publicists for this attack on the foundations of our freedom, as they flack for the political party that long has resented the limitation of power enshrined in the Constitution. Only a few Cassandras, notably FOX News’ Sean Hannity, are trying to alert the citizenry to the coming conflagration that if unchecked could leave the architecture of our freedom in smoking ruins.

In fact, what we are witnessing in the deep-state Democrats’ undermining of divided government, check and balances, and government accountability, is the culmination of a process begun over a century ago. Addled by the false knowledge of scientism and secularism in the 19th century, the progressives took aim at what they scorned as the archaic political structures based on the permanence of a flawed human nature’s susceptibility to corruption by power. Divided and balanced power, the progressives argued, is inefficient and incapable of solving the new conditions and problems created by industrialization and modern technology.

Instead, power must be concentrated, centralized, and expanded. The deliberations and votes of citizens in their towns, counties, and states must give way to the technocrats housed in bureaus and agencies, and trained in the latest discoveries and techniques of the “human sciences.” In 1925, Progressive publicist Herbert Croly expressed this hubristic and question-begging optimism for a “better future” that “would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.” All they needed was the power and authority to create and apply the mechanisms of this new knowledge.

First, though, the Constitution’s antique structures must be altered. This “increased amount of centralized actions and responsibility” required, as progressive historian Charles Beard wrote in 1913, the discarding of the “strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink with horror from modifying it even in the smallest detail.” And it required discarding as well the notion of “inalienable” rights that precede government and lie beyond its power, a belief that Beard called “obsolete and indefensible.” Rights can be created by government in order to suit its own ideological and political aims, as FDR promised in his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” which expanded rights to include health care, recreation, and a good job, to name just a few of the gifts government would bestow on the people.

So given this long history, why are we surprised that today many of us believe we have a right not to have our feelings hurt, our opinions contradicted, or our sensibilities wounded even by statements of fact? Or that calls for weakening the Bill of Rights, particularly the First and Second Amendments, are made openly and taken seriously by substantial numbers of people? Or that agents of the government armed with all its coercive powers can violate our privacy and command our participation in politicized “investigations” that ruin our reputation and drive us to bankruptcy? Or that petty clerks across the land can force their way into our homes, businesses, schools, and churches in order to impose their visions of “social justice”?

Today we live in the world the progressives created, and that too many so-called conservatives have endorsed and enabled. The deep-state technocratic apparatus has encroached ever more deeply into citizen autonomy and freedom. Its millions of faceless, nameless functionaries are insulated from accountability to the citizens. Even when their politicized debasement of their responsibilities become known, they escape accountability and punishment, as have the IRS’s Lois Lerner and her enabling boss John Koskinen, disgraced FBI director James Comey, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, and of course most egregiously, quondam Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who endangered classified materials on her rogue server, and turned the State Department into the bait for attracting donations to her private foundation.

The result has been a serious erosion of the bedrock principles of equality under the law, and accountability to the sovereign people––violations whose scope and gravity have become more obvious and numerous.

But we shouldn’t be surprised. Over the decades the preconditions of today’s excesses have multiplied and become more accepted. Few of us question any longer the deep state of unelected bureaucrats, a surveillance regime empowered to run wild through our private lives, the unholy alliance between big government and big business, and government agencies usurping the power to direct and manage our lives and our opinions. We now take for granted that government should expropriate wealth and redistribute it to political favorites, the very activity that political philosophers from Athens to our own Constitutional Convention warned is the modus operandi of the tyrant. We shrug off the abuses of power that currently are manifest in the machinations of the previous administration to empower its chosen successor, and the skullduggery of its minions still infesting agencies like the DOJ and the FBI.

In short, we have accepted the progressive “fundamental transformation” of the government’s role from protecting our freedom to “solving problems” that, with few exceptions like war, a free people are supposed to solve themselves through families, civil society, and city and state governments. We have been seduced by the promise of freedom without that responsibility and the accountability that make our choices potentially tragic. And now we see the federal leviathan rampaging in our most powerful agencies, and we are surprised? As the Founders were wont to say, “power is of an encroaching nature.” No human being or human institution is immune from the temptations of power, or satisfied with whatever power has been obtained. We are witnessing the truth of this wisdom right now, as criminals run free, the innocent are hounded, federal agencies are emboldened to defy the representatives of the sovereign people, and a special counsel is unrestrained by any limits on the scope of his power, even as those like Representative Devin Nunes––who is fighting against this cardinal sin of allowing or even enabling power to burst through its Constitutional restraints––are slandered and demonized.

For a century, progressives have been undermining the Constitution as they seek to expand and concentrate government power at the cost of freedom. Their rage at Donald Trump in part reflects their disappointment at seeing the success of Obama in accelerating their achievement of their goal thwarted by a blunt-talking indecorous outsider. Now they have called on all their deep-state powers to destroy the usurper who has snatched from them the victory Hillary Clinton promised to consummate.

This continuing scandal of government agencies corrupting their Constitutionally delegated powers is one of the most important threats to ordered liberty at least since World War II, one far more dangerous than the farcical cover-up of a two-bit robbery that was the Watergate scandal. If we allow those guilty of abusing the power of the state for partisan gain to get away with it, we will embolden even more enemies of freedom to do the same as soon as they get the opportunity. It is up to we the people to demand that Mueller’s inquisition come to an end, and that the true miscreants who have abused their power be investigated, indicted, tried, and punished. Only then will the fabric of the Constitution begin to be restored, and our freedom rearmored.


Thank You Mr Thornton and FPM.

Autistic Student In Texas School Arrested For Playing With 'Imaginary Rifle'

weaselzippers
Dapandico, May 11, 2018


The thought police aren’t far behind.

Via KRIV:


Handcuffed and hauled away. It happened Monday to a 5th grade autistic student at Conroe Independent School District’s Bozman Intermediate school.

The offense alleged against 12-year-old David Sims is brandishing an “imaginary” rifle at his art teacher, an educator who apparently felt threatened.

“She (CISD Police Officer) just put handcuffs on me and told me I need to go with her,” said David Sims.

“They just said, ‘We don’t tolerate that. We take it as a threat.’ A threat? He didn’t threaten anyone. He didn’t do anything but play,” said Amy Sims, David’s mother.

Amy Sims says she wasn’t notified of the classroom incident until after her son was in custody. Like many students challenged with autism, Amy says her son simply didn’t understand “make believe” gunplay on campus has become inappropriate behavior.

“Being put in handcuffs, not knowing what he did wrong, I could have had a talk with him and told him look, I know you like to play guns, but you can’t do it in school,” said Amy Sims.

David spent two hours and eleven minutes at the Juvenile Detention Center. Montgomery County Attorney J.D. Lambright says given his age and disability it’s likely criminal charges can be avoided.

“We want to get them turned around and on the right path,”(???) said Lambright.

Keep reading…


So what's this 'Right Path'? 

Poisoning young Mr. Sims with Risperdal when he gets 'Irritable' over this? 


And of course we have 'Behaviorism' and Behaviorists to thank for Mr Sims being labeled as Autistic to begin with.

via Scientific American 

The Real Reason Autism Rates Are Up In America

just a few points from the article

 How do clinicians diagnose autism?
There is no blood test, brain scan or any other objective test that can diagnose autism—although researchers are actively trying to develop such tests. Clinicians rely on observations of a person’s behavior to diagnose the condition.

What is the prevalence of autism in the U.S.?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1 in 68 children in the U.S. have autism. The prevalence is 1 in 42 for boys and 1 in 189 for girls. These rates yield a gender ratio of about five boys for every girl.

How has autism prevalence changed over time?
The latest estimate of autism prevalence—1 in 68—is up 30 percent from the 1 in 88 rate reported in 2008, and more than double the 1 in 150 rate in 2000. In fact, the trend has been steeply upward since the early 1990s, not only in the U.S. but globally, says Maureen Durkin, who heads the network site in Wisconsin.

What’s more, a diagnosis of autism gives children greater access to specialized services and special education than do diagnoses of other conditions. This benefit makes clinicians more likely to diagnose a child with autism, even those who are on the borderline of the clinical criteria.


No Lab Tests. Diagnoses/Disability have skyrocketed in 2 decades.

Do Nothing, Feel Good, Govt handouts of other people's money, . . . . to arrest Mr Sims for playing with an 'Imaginary Rifle'.



'Mr Sims, you have committed a thought crime. We're taking you into custody, . . . . for your own good, and the Greater Good.'


Will America ever wake up and repudiate collectivism?

Oliver North To Become Next President of NRA

Democrat and Media heads exploding in 3, . . 2, . . 1, . .

freebeacon
Paul Crookston
May 7, 2018 3:30 pm


The National Rifle Association announced Monday retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North will be its next president, succeeding Pete Brownell.

The NRA’s board of directors said it is starting the process to formally instate North, a former Ronald Reagan administration official, in the coming weeks.

"I am honored to have been selected by the NRA Board to soon serve as this great organization’s President," North said. "I appreciate the board initiating a process that affords me a few weeks to set my affairs in order, and I am eager to hit the ground running as the new NRA President."

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre compared North to past president Charlton Heston, the Hollywood star who led the organization from 1998 to 2003 and also had a friendship with President Reagan.

"This is the most exciting news for our members since Charlton Heston became President of our Association," LaPierre said. "Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and skilled leader. In these times, I can think of no one better suited to serve as our President."

North was convicted on charges related to the Iran-contra affair during the Reagan administration, but the ruling was reversed in 1991. He has been a commentator on Fox News, and Monday he announced he was retiring from that position immediately.

Brownell has stepped down from the office to focus on his family business, firearm and accessory retailer Brownells, and he said LaPierre and he had discussed North as his successor.

"Discussing this with Wayne LaPierre, he suggested we reach out to a warrior amongst our board members, Lt. Colonel Oliver North, to succeed me," Brownell wrote. "Wayne and I feel that in these extraordinary times, a leader with his history as a communicator and resolute defender of the Second Amendment is precisely what the NRA needs."

LaPierre thanked Brownell, who became president in 2017, for his service to the organization.

"Pete has served the NRA with great courage and distinction," LaPierre said. "I am grateful that he joined me in enthusiastically recommending Oliver North to the Board of Directors."

"The board acted quickly and with great vision," LaPierre also said. "Oliver North is, hands down, the absolute best choice to lead our NRA Board, to fully engage with our members, and to unflinchingly stand and fight for the great freedoms he has defended his entire life."


Thank You Col North, Mr Crookston and Free Beacon. 

Congress To Challenge Gun Ban For Some Mentally Impaired

 As expected, the Brady Campaign has its specious, inflated figures injected into this article. 

Anecdotes, no matter how many people recycle them how many times, are not data.

USA Today
Nicole Gaudiano , USA TODAY Published 10:44 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2017 | Updated 22 hours ago


WASHINGTON — As part of an effort to roll back Obama-era regulations, Congress is expected to take up legislation as early as next week that would prevent the government from declaring some Social Security recipients unfit to own guns after they’ve been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.

At the urging of the National Rifle Association, a rule requiring the Social Security Administration to send records of such individuals to the federal background check system for firearms is among a host of regulations the group says is being targeted by the Republican Congress for repeal under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to dismiss actions an outgoing administration initiated in the last six months.

The rule, issued in December in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, applies to recipients of disability insurance and supplemental security income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. The Obama administration estimated in January 2016 that about 75,000 people would have their records submitted for background checks each year under the rule, which applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age.

The rule was hard fought by gun-rights advocates who feared it would impinge on Second Amendment rights. The NRA lobbied for its reversal, arguing it stripped the right to keep and bear arms without due process from “some of the most vulnerable Americans.” They say it is the result of a political agenda, and it would keep those in distress from seeking mental health assistance for fear of losing their rights.

“Congress' decision to review the Obama administration's back-door gun grab is a significant step forward in restoring the fundamental constitutional rights of many law-abiding gun owners,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. "The NRA has been fighting this unconstitutional government overreach since it was first discussed and we look forward to swift congressional action to overturn it."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, however, applauded efforts to submit information about "dangerously mentally ill individuals" for firearms background checks in a July comment on the rule, and encouraged the Social Security Administration to expand the rule to include beneficiaries who are dangerous, regardless of whether their payments are made to a third-party representative. The campaign said Wednesday it opposes Congressional action to repeal the rule.

"Ninety-three percent of Americans support Brady background checks that keep guns out of the dangerous hands," said Kris Brown, the campaign's policy director, in a Wednesday statement. "Repealing this rule undermines that consensus and undermines laws already on the books."

The Department of Veterans Affairs already reports the names of “incompetent beneficiaries” to the FBI, which then adds the names to the federal background check system. The Obama administration sought to boost reporting to the background check system after Congress declined to take action on gun control legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shootings.

The Social Security Administration says its rule was adopted to implement a 2007 law requiring federal agencies to provide records for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prevents gun sales to convicted criminals, fugitives, people adjudicated with mental health disorders and others prohibited from owning a gun. The rule, which took effect Jan. 18 and sets a December compliance date, requires the agency to notify individuals of their possible prohibition from possessing or receiving firearms and their rights to appeal.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the sale of firearms to those “adjudicated as a mental defective.” Federal regulations say that bans people who a court, board, commission or other lawful authority determines are dangerous or can’t manage their own affairs because of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.”

The NRA argues that the Social Security Administration’s process for determining disability payments is a bureaucratic process and not an adjudication that should end in someone losing the right to bear arms. Restoration of those rights requires a person to affirmatively prove that they’re not a danger to public safety, they say.

“From a due process standpoint, the government never established those facts in the first place” said Jennifer Baker, spokesperson for NRA. “You can’t take away a constitutional right without providing due process.”

The National Council on Disability also opposed the rule in a Jan. 24 letter to Republican leaders, calling for its repeal under the Congressional Review Act. They say restrictions on gun ownership based on psychiatric or intellectual disability must be based on a verifiable concern as to whether the individual is dangerous.

“It is critically important that any restriction on gun possession or ownership on this basis is imposed only after the individual has been afforded due process and given an opportunity to respond to allegations that they are not able to safely possess or own a firearm due to his or her disability,” Clyde E. Terry, the council’s chair, wrote.

Follow @ngaudiano on Twitter.


Thank You Ms Gaudiano and USA Today. 

Howard Stern Backs Trump Proposal To Interstate Reciprocity Right To Carry

weaselzippers



Do it!

Via Bearing Arms:

Radio talk show host and entertainment icon Howard Stern used the considerable reach of his SiriusXM platform on Tuesday to voice his support for a national interstate concealed carry reciprocity law.

This law has been NRA’s number one legislative agenda item for several years. And with the election of Donald Trump as president, as well as pro-gun majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress, the prospects for such a law have never looked better.

Trump has formally endorsed the concept of interstate reciprocity in a position paper published on his campaign website and in a number of other public statements. According to his position paper:

The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

Keep reading…


Thank You Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Zip, and Bearing Arms

Obama Shifting Terror Prevention To Teachers and Mental Health Swindlers

redstate

October 19, 2016 by Jim Jamitis

Here we go again with the collectivist bought and paid for Liar in Chief announcing yet another K-Mart Blue Light Special on the American Citizen.

If you don't know where you've already been, . . .

• Gun Runners (11)
• Violence (19)
• 10th Amendment(3)
• 12 Step Programs(2)
• 13th Amendment(1)
• 14th Amendment(21)
• 18C13 (2)
• 18C19 (1)
• 18C47 (1)
• 18C63 (1)
• 18C95 (4)
• 1st Amendment(50)
• 1st Amendment Academic Cesspools (1)
• 1st Amendment Senator Chris Murphy (1)
• 22% (3)
• 2nd Amendment(94)
• 2nd Amendment California (1)
• 2nd Amendment Sen Chris Murphy(2)
• 4th Amendment(13)
• 5th Amendment (9)
• 6th Amendment (2)
• 83% (4)
• 8th Amendment (4)

Doesn't even, scratch, the surface.

Mr Jamitis/Redstate article below.

As part of a new strategy for combating radical Islam "violent extremism" President Obama is launching a new strategy: "community based prevention of violent ideologies."

The 18-page plan, to be announced on Wednesday, marks the first time in five years that the Obama administration has updated its policy for preventing the spread of violent groups. Authorities blamed radical and violent ideologies as the motives for attacks in the last year in Charleston, South Carolina; San Bernardino, California; Orlando, Florida; New York and New Jersey.

A self-styled white supremacist is accused of shooting dead nine black people inside a historic African-American church in Charleston and the other shootings and bombs were inspired by Islamist militants.

That's some high-quality H2O-carrying by Reuters.

NINE DEAD BLACK PEOPLE KILLED BY A WHITE SUPREMACIST and some "other" shootings and bombings committed by radical Islamists that may have killed some people, but we're not really sure how many or what they looked like. The details are still unclear.

The White House appears to be catering to the concerns of terrorism linked groups like CAIR.

Civil liberties groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have criticized the current model as one that sows distrust in Muslim communities in the United States. Federal prosecutors, who are charged with conducting terrorism investigations, also lead prevention efforts.

You know what really sows distrust? Terrorism. Just saying.

Prosecutors would still have a role in prevention efforts under the new policy, including arranging after-school programs, but they would not be allowed to use those settings for intelligence gathering.

Nothing prevents terrorist attacks quite like placing arbitrary limitations on intelligence gathering.

Under the new guidelines, "local intervention teams" made up of mental health professionals, faith-based groups, educators and community leaders will assess the needs of individuals who may be showing signs of converting to a violent ideology.

It will be like an Afterschool Special where that one cool teacher keeps it real, "You're looking a little extremist lately, champ. What's up with all the suicide vests? Let's play some catch in the park and talk about it."

Local law enforcement officers may also be part of the team, but not federal prosecutors.

"We determined that efforts to build intervention teams are less likely to succeed if they are driven by the federal government," said Brette Steele, acting deputy director of the U.S. government's Countering Violent Extremism Task Force, suggesting that the teams should instead be community-led.

While the federal government under Obama's leadership is quick to demonize and micromanage local law enforcement in order to appease one constituency, they're pulling back to appease another. In both cases they don't seem to be taking the ultimate goal seriously. Why do you suppose they never worry about sowing distrust with law abiding Americans?

Thank You Redstate and Mr. Jamitis.