Category Archives: Gun Control

Kathleen Marquardt: RED FLAG LAWS – DOUBLE SPEAK FOR GUN CONFISCATION

by Kathleen Marquardt

When I went to pick up my concealed carry permit at the Sheriff’s office in Montana, I was asked if I would wait a few minutes because the sheriff wanted to talk to me. I wondered if he was going to impress on me the importance of being careful, that a handgun was a dangerous weapon, or something to that effect. He came out of his office and thanked me for getting my permit, stating that I was the only one who could save my life. He added that the police are not responsible for protecting us, they only respond after we call, and that is often too late.

So we need to realize that we are our own protectors. With that in mind, I posit that the Second Amendment is needed now more than it has been in a long time. All these actions attempting to take away our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property, are very dangerous in today’s world.

Do you scoff? Am I being paranoid? Let me give you an example on which I rest my case. This is from JUSTIA’s Warren v. District of Columbia (see footnote 1):

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2” assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble” it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse[1]

Appellants’ claims of negligence included: the dispatcher’s failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; *3 the responding officers’ failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher’s failure to dispatch the 6:42 a.m. call.[2]

Now tell me that we don’t need guns, that the police will be there to save the day. They may save the day, but they very well might not save us or our loved ones.

On top of that, they aren’t even held accountable when they ignore calls for help; they behave as they did in the above case. The attorney for the women cited the Civil Rights Act of 1981, Section 1983, as follows:

42 U.S. Code § 1983.Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309 (c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

If you read the Code, you might believe that anyone acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, who causes someone to be deprived of any right

shall be held liable. Wow! Sounds great. But . . .. The big BUT. No, the Code doesn’t have a but, but a but is perceived to be in the Code by our courts today.

 Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro, (and Wilfred Nichol in another case) sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individuals who were suing the police department, and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A panel decided that Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings, while unanimously concluding that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of her complaint. The full court, on petitions for rehearing, canceled the panel’s decision, stating, “After re-arguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for complainants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal”.

In other words, the police do not have to protect us, and even after some Keystone Kops behavior are not responsible for any harm done by their negligence.

So what does this have to do with Red Flag laws? Everything!

Yes, this happened in the District of Columbia, but that isn’t the only jurisdiction that has courts coming down with the same decision. What does that tell you?

It tells me that I want to be armed. And wish I had an AR-15. Pepper spray would have been as good as a squirt gun for those women. But what does this have to do with red flag laws?

John R. Lott Jr, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on gun rights, writing in the Washington Times on the Red Flag gun laws states, “. . . the laws are more complicated than usually discussed in the press. Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, ex, house or apartment mates, or police can file a complaint. Under Colorado’s proposed law, anyone can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before them is the statement of concern.” He also pointed out, “It has always been possible to take away someone’s guns, but all 50 states have required testimony by a mental health expert before a judge. Hearings could be conducted very quickly in urgent cases, But gun control advocates argue that it’s important to not even alert the person that his guns may be taken away. Hence, the 5 a.m. police raids.

“When people really pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the right to legally buy a gun isn’t a serious remedy. If you think that you are any more likely to stop criminals from getting guns than illegal drugs, good luck. The same drug dealers sell both and are a major source of guns. And there are other weapons such as cars.

Despite the sacrifices, the evidence shows no benefits from these laws. Looking at data from 1970 through 2017, Red Flag laws appear to have had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.”

Lott mentioned that, “Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, ex, house or apartment mates, or police can file a complaint.” That is scary enough; if an ex or even an angry or jealous family member wanted to, they could file a complaint. But we now live in very fluid times. Sue, a friend called me last week and related what had happened to her. Her daughter, Kerry, left a frantic text message that she needed her to come right away. Sue called Kerry to find out what was happening. Kerry was at a minor-league baseball game, enjoying herself and had no emergency. Sue called the police who told her that there is an app you can get that lets you use other people’s phone numbers. It happens that Kerry has a bit of a stalker situation at her work and she suspects that he is the one that made the call. But as the police told them, there is no way to trace who made the call.

I can easily imagine someone like that Red Flagging her. Or, there is another scenario I can imagine happening (and I don’t have much of an imagination or I’d be writing fiction and selling lots of books). That is someone(s) wanting to break into your house to rob you or worse, do to you what those men did to Carolyn Warren, above. With such open Red Flag laws, they can disarm you by cop. This isn’t farfetched. The police would take your guns and, by the time you got the situation rectified, you might be dead.

Because we humans need to protect ourselves and we aren’t born with claws, enormous teeth, or venom, we must use tools to protect ourselves. The quintessential tool is a gun. It’s easy to use and carry, and it is effective – both as a weapon and a deterrent. Plus, people have a choice whether they want to have and use guns or not.

And it has been a basic right. But right now, our right to own guns is being eroded faster than California’s bullet train. Not in one fell-swoop, but chipping away, one new law after another so that the powers-that-be will not have to come after our guns because we will have given them up with each new gun-grab.

There are people who are mentally unfit and are dangerous, who shouldn’t be allowed guns, and we need to find ways to protect society from them. But disarming the country is not the answer.

In reality, the Red Flag laws are being driven by emotion, not reason and logic. Gun owners, gun supporters, and freedom lovers need to stand up and bring common sense back to the dialog. This is truly an issue of protecting our lives, our families, and our property. We cannot, we must not, allow unsupported emotions to drive the day.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/05/15/red-flag-laws-double-speak-for-gun-confiscation/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Freedom and Firearms

Freedom and Firearms– “…governing authorities therefore do not have any inherent right in themselves to rule the rest of us.”

by Bill Lockwood

This is about self-government. Do we have an inalienable right before God to determine our own government? To organize our own governing principles by which we live? The foundational platform of our entire system of political rule is the concept that human beings, all persons, have been created in the image of God and due to that inherent individual value in each one of us, we have a right to manage our own political future. From that single point of reference–the very core of our governing values–that we have a right to manage our own affairs– we have delegated to certain representatives which we call government. Government owns no more authority than we have delegated to it.

The opposite side of this coin is that governing authorities therefore do not have any inherent right in themselves to rule the rest of us. Their rule is delegated to them by us and goes so far as we allow. This is why we vote. They must have our approval. If this be not true, then let’s have a king to decide who gets what and who doesn’t. Who lives and who does not.

This also means that legislators, law enforcement, as well as the military have duties and responsibilities that inherently belong to ‘we the people.’ We have simply “delegated” to them the power that they have for protection of an orderly society and to fight enemies, foreign and domestic. We cannot delegate that which we do not have.

What does this mean to firearms? The 2d Amendment was not written in order to “give” us the right to anything. It is a part of self-determination and self-government. We the people composed it to remind governing authorities that they could not touch this sacred right, nor any of the others that are mentioned or not even mentioned (9th and 10th Amendments). These rights are God-bestowed and belong to us by nature.

To suggest therefore, that “we the people” do not have a right to own firearms is to suggest we have no more right to self-government. We no longer have a right to determine our own destiny. Instead, it is to say that we must have managers set over us to determine our course. It is to state that “we the people” have no right to rule ourselves.

John Paul Stevens

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the 2d Amendment. In a column last Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens admonished Americans to “respect” the demonstrations for Gun Control. Added to that he encouraged “the demonstrators” to “demand a repeal of the 2d Amendment.” That amendment, he added, “is a relic of the 18th century.”

Justice Stevens shows exactly what is wrong with America. He does not believe we have an inherent right to govern ourselves. What’s more: this abysmal ignorance of the fundamentals of American governance sat on the Supreme Court and helped decide the course of our nation. Adding to the insulting statements he made in which he basically denied our right to self-government, he indicated that during the years that Warren Burger served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986, no judge, “as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment.” So the Supreme Court itself does not believe “we the people” have an inherent right to self-government.

Shocking, but not so. Exactly what Constitutionalists have been complaining about for decades. We have been crammed into a progressive top-down government-control system unheard of in the halls of freedom. Progressive lies have turned the Constitution on its head and up-ended the very foundation of liberty before God. Socialistic thinking has become the cancer on our society.

Justice Stevens should have been reading the Founding Fathers who crafted the 2d Amendment instead of the liberal law professors who filled him with progressive lies. Every single Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was designed to demonstrate the limited ability of government to manage, not the limited ability of people to enjoy their freedoms. It is a “thou shalt not” touch list. If Stevens does not understand that, he does not understand the building blocks of our system.

Richard Henry Lee of VA stated, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Note that Lee connected firearms to freedom. Power rests with the people; not to elitists who suppose they are above us.

Samuel Adams: “The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Why this? Because daddy government allows people to have firearms? Absolutely not. Because I have a right to determine my own destiny, to protect my freedom and my family—even if by force against an all-powerful out-of-control government. God gave me this right.

Patrick Henry added, “The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.” George Mason, also of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British government of having a plot to “disarm the people.” Why? As Mason stated, that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” This is still true.

Justice Joseph Story served on the Supreme Court from 1811 until 1845. He published his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. In these he considered the right to keep and bear arms as “the palladium of the liberties of the Republic” which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizens of our nation to overthrow dictatorial powers should that ever occur. This is why the Second Amendment reminds us that every law-abiding individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment is a “relic of the 18th century”, as Stevens stated, only if freedom is also such a relic. Apparently, it is with the Supreme Court of his day as well as with many who are pouring into the streets stupidly to protest our right to self-government. The lines are being drawn.

God, Not Gun Control

God, Not Gun Control “Is there no virtue among us?

by Bill Lockwood

The liberal secular world consistently misses the prime causes of our cultural disarray. Once again this lack of understanding is displayed in the aftermath of the Stephen Paddock mass shooting in Las Vegas, NV. Democrat leaders around the country did not let the blood dry from that massacre before they were calling for more fixes from Washington, D.C. They refuse the real issue.

Leading in this willful ignorance is Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “The reason we don’t have gun safety measures in the United States today is because of the [National Rifle Association]. And we will defeat them.” That which blocks Sen. Murphy is not the NRA, but the 2d Amendment of the Constitution itself. Will you defeat it, Sen. Murphy?

Greatly exaggerating his power he continued: “We have it in our power to curb gun violence and save lives. It is that simple. Congress is complicit each day it fails to act.” He added that gun violence is a “uniquely American problem.”

Curtailing citizen gun ownership has always been on the Democrat/Socialist agenda. This is the reason that before investigations are even conducted into motives or causes they fly to assault the 2d Amendment.

Erasing God

To put a more accurate point on the liberal agenda, gun violence is not a uniquely “American” problem, but a uniquely modern American problem. Early America experienced no such acts of horrific senseless violence. Citizens were not mowing each other down in the town squares. Yet, from the 17th century through the colonial period not only did every male member of the community own a firearm, but they were expected to be a part of the regular militia!

Laws in Virginia in 1623 forbade its colonists to travel unless they were armed. In 1631 the same colony required the citizens to engage in target practice on Sunday and “to bring their pieces to church.” Target practice would be after Sunday dinner. In 1673 the laws of Virginia provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government.

In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered not only freemen, but also indentured servants to own firearms and imposed a fine upon those who were not armed. Examples from other colonies could be added (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 696).

What a difference two centuries make! But be careful to note that the difference is not between America and other nations, as Democrats are wanton to do; but between modern America and our historical roots. What exactly has changed?

Our nation has spent the better part of a century eliminating God from the public square, the classroom, and public discourse. Entertainment has virtually mocked and blasphemed God. Families are dysfunctional and the number of fatherless homes has dramatically increased since the 1960’s. Humanistic evolution and its valueless world order has replaced the Bible and we today are eating the fruit of those choices. In the wake of family and societal breakdown an increasing number of sociopaths and psychopaths wander our secular society. A predictable result.

Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Gordon Wood, in The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, stated, “The eighteenth century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government ‘cannot be supported without virtue.’”

James Madison added,

Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [fantasy] idea.

And George Washington, the Father of our Country, warned us,

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Again, in his Farewell Address Washington advised that our freedom depends upon two “indispensable supports”—religion and morality. He, of course, referred to the Christian religion.

Until God is once again acknowledged by our culture-including the public school classroom– no amount of laws, no number of legislative fixes will make a people safe whose manners have become immoral, corrupt and vicious.

Who’s Minding the List?

Who’s Minding the List?

by Bill Lockwood

Last week the Congressional Democrats were in full left-wing 1960’s hippie-socialist mode as they lawlessly staged a sit-down on the floor of Congress. Like the radicals of the old Kent State that they are, only now with suits and skirts, they chanted their pro-communist anti-gun slogans as they waved homemade signs. After Orlando, these radicals think to get their foot in the door on what the left has always been after—Gun Control. Remove the ability of the citizenry to defend itself.

“Moderate” (read “weak”) Republicans such as John Cornyn (R-TX) tried to mollify the Democratic rascals by proposing that mandatory three-day investigations be conducted by the Federal Government when someone on the “terror watch list” tries to buy a gun. His proposal would have allowed the Attorney General to block purchase of firearms while investigations were conducted. His proposal failed.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) went further. Her proposal would authorize the Attorney General to block any person from purchasing a firearm if there was a reasonable belief that the weapon might be used in terroristic attacks. Apparently, Loretta Lynch’s speech about winning over terrorists with “love” did not stick with Feinstein.

Fortunately, these measures failed to move forward. The Second Amendment is a PROHIBITION against the Federal Government from entering into this territory. The right of “the people” shall not be infringed to “keep and bear arms” is a codified right precisely to defend ourselves from an over-reaching government. Usurpation and intervention by the federal government were the two most prominent dangers to the drafters of the Second Amendment. This is why the “Bill of Rights” opens with the law, “Congress shall make NO LAW…”

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist #84 that since our government is only a “limited government” with only a few specified powers it would have absolutely NO authority to regulate a citizen’s freedom of speech, religion, etc. Neither is there any federal authority to register or confiscate firearms or to block sales to those whom it considers possible “terrorists.”

Now enters the “Terror Watch List.” As baffling as it is, it seems the Republican Senators and Congressmen who are intent on mollifying the thuggery of the Democrats have forgotten who writes this list! When Obama became president and Janet Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security, those who were singled out for government “monitoring” were: returning “military veterans” who were “facing significant challenges” as they sought to “reintegrate” into society. This situation, per Napolitano and Obama, “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Obama’s “Terror Watch List” also included “right-wing extremists.” In Obama’s Lexicon that includes those who study the Constitution or who are Tea-Partiers, or members of such organizations as the John Birch Society. Never mind that there are currently Islamic Jihadi Terroristic Training Camps in America—for these we must spread the banquet table. But we must watch those Constitutionalists!

I will put these proposals by Cornyn and Feinstein in simple syllogistic form.
•    The the Federal Government disallows those on the terror watch list access to firearms.
•    Those on terror watch list (per DHS) include “right-wing extremists” and “returning veterans.”
•    Thus, the Federal Government disallows returning vets and right-wingers guns.

For an encapsulated view of those bold hypocrites who are minding the Terror Watch List, consider also the recent interview that leftist Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) granted to a reporter on Gun Control.

The Reporter asks Charlie: “Why should, say, the uber-wealthy have that protection [ability to carry firearms] but individuals who are law-abiding citizens in your district should not?”

Charlie: “Well, law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”

Reporter: “But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol.”

Charlie: (Laughing) “Well, that’s a little different. I think we deserve—I think we need to be protected down here.”

That attitude speaks for itself. Yes, it does make a difference who is minding the “Terror Watch List.”

Back to Homepage

 

Liberal-uenza, Firearms & Mental Health

Liberal-uenza, Firearms & Mental Health

by Bill Lockwood

In the wake of recent mass gun violence in America President Obama predictably pushes for more unconstitutional federal involvement with citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. Of particular concern is his drive for mental health screening, proposing a $500 million investment to that end. With the federal money, of course, comes federal mandates. But the clear testimony of history linking big government to mental health should frighten any freedom-loving American.

Allowing an already out-of-control totalitarian-leaning federal government headed by a graduate in Alinskyite deceptive methodologies (read, pathological liar–“If you like your doctor..”, “it was all due to a video,” etc.) to screen citizens to determine their “mental capability” of owning a firearm is not only a recipe for dictatorship, but an open invitation to it.

First, governments have uniformly used Mental Health as means of control. It seems superfluous to quote any sources for this obvious truth, but Robert van Voren’s online essay “Political Abuse of Psychiatry—An Historical Overview” is clear enough. The use of psychiatry for political purposes has been a major subject of debate within the world psychiatric community during the second half of the 20th century.

The issue became prominent in the 1970s and 1980s due to the systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, where approximately one-third of the political prisoners were locked up in psychiatric hospitals. Showing that this is a continuing trend, not only in the former Soviet Union, but everywhere, he remarks that, Time and again, human rights and mental health organizations receive reports on cases of abuse of psychiatry for political purposes. The fact that these reports come from a wide range of countries shows that there is an ongoing tension between politics and psychiatry and that the opportunity to use psychiatry as a means to stifle opponents or solve conflicts is an appealing one, not only to dictatorial regimes but also to well-established democratic societies. (emp. added).

Placing our “full-steam-ahead-to-Dictatorship” government in the driver’s seat for making determinations regarding mental health is naively complicit. Recent socialist/Marxist history is littered with illustrations of this sort. Perhaps a populace which allows this deserves to be enslaved.

Second, the liberal Mental Health profession itself tends to label conservatives “mentally ill.” Since Mental Health is dominated by irreligious (read, “anti-Christian”) practitioners it is not surprising that it has been common to find many among them making a causal link between Christianity and mental illness. Dr. Simon Dein, in Psychiatric Times (January, 2010) points out that in 1980 Albert Ellis, the founder of emotive therapy, insisted that “there was an irrefutable causal relationship between religion and emotional and mental illness.” According to Canadian psychiatrist Wendall Watters, writes Dein, “Christian doctrine and liturgy have been shown to discourage the development of adult coping behaviors and the human to human relationship skills that enable people to cope in an adaptive way with the anxiety caused by stress.” In some psychiatric corners all religious experience has been labeled a psychosis.

To suppose that Obama proposes a New World Order Brain Trust of this ilk which will have the ability to influence recommendations regarding firearm ownership should send chills up the spines of law-abiding Americans. At least, of those who wish to be free. It is madness (pun intended) to think that federal dollars from an anti-Christian socialistic government might be funneled into a profession that is already operating with tainted bias against conservatives. Obama apparently thinks we have lost our minds.

To be clear, not “all religion” which will be labeled as “psychotic.” Last week a Muslim man tried to murder a police officer in Philadelphia in the name of “Allah” and declared that the teachings of Islam inspired him. But the mayor of the city Jim Kenney was unashamed to prostitute his own common sense on television and say that “Islam had nothing to do with” the attempted murder. A perfect example of government politicians who will oversee “mental health” screening. We know which religion the government loves to hate. Christianity.

Added to these problems is the fact that professionals in the mental health industry freely confess—as they ought—that their diagnoses are largely subjective. For a perfect illustration of how government leaning on the Mental Health profession will cause it to re-write its DSM recall how the Homosexual Lobby in the early 1970’s politically ramrodded the American Psychiatric Association into removing homosexuality from its mental illness page. No science. No medical diagnosis. No study. Simply hardball politics. Street Organizing, placard carrying and yelling down the opposition. Period. And we have been living with the consequences of that ever since. Given another year or so, “Affluenza” will be added to the DSM.

Third, President Obama has shown he is not serious about protecting American citizens. If he is, then why insist on emptying Guantanamo Bay prison of Islamic prisoners who have already been deemed high risk? A third of those released thus far have already returned to the battlefield to kill Americans! Yet, with that FACT before Obama, he continues his release program. And, why ignore the obvious? Islamic teaching itself (Koran, Sunna, Hadith) instils violence and deception in its followers. Therefore, why not just subject a person’s personal religious belief system to screening? After all, Maj. Hassan apparently passed all mental health screening, but failed the personal belief system test. But our political correct lying political establishment (“Islam is a Religion of Peace”) enabled him to commit murder. Obama knows this. He is not naïve.  

And what about our southern border? Crime committed by illegals in the southwestern states has been skyrocketing for a decade. But our president insists on keeping the border wide open. Any leader serious about protecting the citizenship from violence would close the border just as conservatives have been begging for decades. But all of that begging to no avail. Now we have between 12-20 million illegals in our country and inner cities are becoming war zones ruled by Mexican gangs while the American Taxpayer foots the bill for the millions of satanic tattoos that are decorating their bodies. I suppose this is an “act of love” to allow this to continue.

And has not government greenies coopting “science” on Climate Change in order to foist upon us draconian laws taught us nothing? Government involvement in mental health screening is only hardball politics. No real deliberation. No lawful Constitutional consideration. Perhaps we should have a mental screening test to weed out those with “liberal-uenza” from taking reins of leadership. One question ought to do it: “Do citizens receive their rights from God or Government?” Obama’s sickness runs deep.

Back to Homepage