How about a new routine for Jeff Foxworthy: “If you own a gun, you might be mentally ill”

Imagine that 1 in 17 of us are mentally incompetent or ill, and, as such, are ineligible to own a firearm.

You: “Oh, but there aren’t that many mentally ill among us!”

Me: Umm, not according to Senator Maria Cantwell, who recently wrote and I do quote “According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately one in 17 Americans suffers from a seriously debilitating mental illness. I care deeply about mental health care and understand the important role behavioral health services play in the lives of both those who suffer from mental illness and their family and loved ones.”

I’ll bet the good Senator does care deeply, enough so that she, along with other deeply caring individuals in Congress, seek to implement new standards designed to seek out the more than 5% of Americans whose bread ain’t quite done. But to what end? I get the “care deeply about mental health care” part, but question where the “understand the important role behavioral health services play in the lives” part seeks to take the American people. Additionally, one has to wonder by what standard are we Americans being evaluated?

When was I evaluated that they might have an accurate number to go by? When wast thou last evaluated thus?

I believe the primary focus of the most recent Obama Executive Orders is to have Americans psychologically evaluated and rated. You know, kind of like the IQ testing conducted yearly on we younglings whilst in our formative school years. That brain-fry day when we had to put our thinking caps on and fill in the dots on page after page after page of stuff we’d better know. In like manner, Americans (read that especially gun owners) will be subjected to mandatory pysch evals and, not surprisingly, will be found mentally ill or incompetent, and lose their rights due to such illness. Such is the insidious nature of the new Executive Orders.

As always, President Obama intends to appoint non-elected “Professionals” to do the evaluating, and, indeed, has already done so at our VA facilities. President F.D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court with Justices put there to do his bidding, and now President Obama intends to put in place Mental Health Professionals designed to do the same for him. For example, ever notice how when you go to the VA these days, a series of questions is asked about your mental frame of mind? “Are you depressed?”, “Do you feel like hurting yourself or others?” (Innocent enough. Yes?), followed by “Do you have a firearm (gun) in the home?” The smart ones are saying “There’s your mental health question for you.” The stupid ones are asking “What’s the big deal??”

Diane Feinstein’s Firearms Bill doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing in the House, and could face a tough fight in the Senate, but that’s what Obama wants the focus on right now. He wants people to ignore the mental health Executive Orders, which, on the surface, seem innocuous enough, but which also need the same amount of focus as the Feinstein Bill. I won’t say “don’t write Congress about the Feinstein Bill” because it is important that we do so, but I do also say we write Congress to also protest the blatantly ad hoc nature of psychological evaluations and background checks. It’s all too easy to create ‘mental illness’ where there is none, based upon a set of arbitrary standards established by an entity with a particular agenda.

Imagine a ‘new clinical study’ coming out with a set of “If you {fill in the blank}, you might be a Redneck.” guidelines:

  • If you take medication for depression, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you take medication for ADD/ADHD, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you take medication for high blood pressure, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you take pain medication to cope with long term pain, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you have a stressful job and can’t pay all the bills, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you’re out of work, or only have a part time job, you might be mentally ill.
  • If you have a gun in the home, you might be mentally ill; remember the VA hospital question above? Thought I’d forgotten that, didn’t you?
  • If you own a gun and/or support the Second Amendment, you must hate the government and might be mentally ill.

Look at Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s remarks in the last week about the ‘demons’ that are the GOP because they support the 2nd Amendment. Add that to the list above: If you’re a member of the GOP, you might be mentally ill. The mental health directives just issued through Executive Orders are simply another move towards a modern day witch hunt designed to categorize/marginalize Americans and strip them/us! of our rights.

Finally, with regard to the Executive Orders, Obama has performed another end around on the Constitution by requiring Federal background checks, when the Supreme Court has pretty much given regulation and background checks into the hands of the States. Remember the 10th Amendment here, that whatsoever is given to the States belongs to the States. Side note: background checks, already being the purview of State and local authorities, are already being conducted and regularly reported to the NICS database.

So, there’s your chew bone for the morning. Have at it…

Best,

Mongo

UPDATE:

The Feinstein Bill, while important, is something of a red herring by comparison to the mental health care issue. If a government can classify a segment of its people, then they have you under their control. Remember the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible? Apply that thought to what’s coming with psychological evaluations, the reporting of those evaluations to federal agencies, and how the results of those evaluations will apply to every aspect of our lives.

God, Guns, and Chick-Fil-A

God, Guns, and Chick-Fil-A is in the news lately

Over at DATech guy’s blog, a matter of do we trust or not? Guns and Chick-Fil-A being given much voice in the public domain of late, one has to wonder in whom we trust these days?

I have heard a lot of people on the left self righteously complain that conservatives are unwilling to agree to “common sense gun control” that we are unreasonable fanatics who would oppose restrictions on the ownership of Sherman Tanks.

Most of all; we are totally wrong to believe that the left is after our guns just because of the proposed assault weapon ban.

Why would we have such a belief, how can the folks on the right even think we on the left are after their guns, all their guns?

The answer: Chick-Fil-A

Twenty years ago there was nobody NOBODY nationally who was pushing the idea of gay marriage. If Bill Clinton had come out for Gay Marriage in 1992 he would have lost 49 states.

Then came the VT Supreme Court ruling requiring civil partnerships.

First off, “common sense gun control”?

Really, Chucky Schumer? As I recall from Grade school, the Second Amendment was about common sense and gun control being a given trait of the people, not something exercised on their behalf by a tyrannical benevolent government. You really think this an appropriate place and time to surreptitiously insert an amendment about gun control into legislation. Looking to sneak it in behind America’s back, so to speak? Sorry, bucko, but some of us did notice.

What an apropos comparison between the Left’s America’s Socialists attempts over the years to subvert American policy from DOMA to “Gay is the norm”. Someone asked me on Facebook the other day if’n I had something against Gays? Me? Nope. Got lots of Gay friends, and I support their right to live as they please. What I do not support is their right to subvert our way of life to their whims and fancies. Case in point? Try California’s two attempts to legislate into law marriage as being between a man and a woman. Overwhelmingly passed on both occasions and signed into law, the Gay crowd decided that wasn’t okay with them and enlisted a Gay Judge to overturn the law as being unconstitutional. We see it now, again rather, with Chick-Fil-A. A privately owned corporation takes a stand, somebody doesn’t like it, and now the Courts are supposed to decide whether private citizens and their corporations are free to say and do as they please? Wow…sounds more Marxist than Constitutionalist, if you ask me.

Look. Living a Gay lifestyle is a freedom most straight folks aren’t of a mind to abrogate, but, conversely, the same cannot be said about the Gay community. They DEMAND, they don’t ask for or vote into law as a majority, the right to get married. Hmm. Then explain for me, please, what happened to that whole plural marriage thing? Remember the Mormons? What about their rights? What about religious freedom? Ask the Mormons what they did after plural marriage was prohibited by law. Answer: they abolished the practice and excommunicated those who refused to abide by the law. They taught their members to honor and obey the law. Strange notion, innit?

When were Gays ever threatened with disenfranchisement, or did they have the United States Army sent after them? How come the Federal law prohibiting plural marriage has not been overturned? Geez, you want to be all about fairness and equality. Yes? Then go to Arizona and Utah, and engage in conversation those who have to live in hiding because of their belief in plural marriage. Ask about the Mormons who fled to Mexico because the separation of church and state was suspended just this one time. Ask them what it’s like to be denied familial benefits and recognition under the law.

Then, ask them what they think about Gay marriage. That last one might not go over well, because how they answer will probably be more of a Chick-Fil-A kind of answer.

All this, and more, in a year of Presidential election and really sucky economy…quickly becoming second fiddle to important matters like Chick-Fil-A. Or not. Go read the Guns and Chick-Fil-A post, and let it kick around your brain cells.
Update: I knew there was another company facing a similar battle, only this time it is the Federal government

On the matter of which side of the fence do you choose to stand

So much of what takes place in America’s conversation today is our political alignment. Historically, we have been a two party nation, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. More recently we have seen Libertarians and the Tea Party enter the scene, but, for the most part, we are still a two party nation. If one is running for elected office, it behooves them to belong to one or the other of the two parties.

I’m of the belief that, as a nation, we are approaching a paradigm shift from Republican/Democrat to Constitutionalist/Communist alignments. Here’s why:

Which side of the fence are you on?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, they’ll forward it so their friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Interesting read. Yes? Interesting to me because had this been written even 20 years ago, it very likely would have made reference to Constitutionalists and Communists rather than Republicans and Democrats. Sadly, in my opinion, the transposition of Constitutionalist or Communist over Republican or Democrat is becoming a better fit all the time. While neither party is truly aligned any longer with the Constitution as the bedrock of our governing process, yet our Democrats are the ones who have truly gone off the rails.

I could leave it there and wander off to the rest of my day, but that would be like leaving behind a half completed statement. Many Democrats today, chiefly he who pretends to be President, believe in government controlled services or in government fixing America’s problems. Republicans believe in Americans fixing America’s problems. Take Healthcare, for instance. Republicans have fought long and hard to establish provide affordable healthcare options, with the choices being left Americans as to who or how much. Democrats? Not even close. Hence, the Healthcare Bill that, please God, is not standing up under Constitutional scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court. Does that bother them? Only to the extent that the Bill might be struck down.

Then there’s the automotive industry, where 2 out of 3 major manufacturers were going belly up. Never mind that Unions were choking the life out of the business models, and never mind that retirement benefits were designed to provide for beneficiaries in an altogether unrealistic fashion. You: “Unrealistic? Really?” Me: “Well, ummm, yeah. Even Unions representing U.S. air carriers had to negotiate down the benefit plans, or risk losing the whole game to bankruptcy.”

Even so, those carriers that went through bankruptcy, did so without the benefit of government bailouts. Imagine that! United Air Lines knocked hell out of the Union benefits, but…wait for it…they’re still around! No federal gooberment to jump in with tax dollars, just sound fiscal rearranging of the business model. Other air carriers merged, some went away, but, through all of it, no tax dollars to stave off failure of the business.

I guess where I’m going with all this is, private business ownership ALWAYS goes where it should. Not all parties involved get a gold star. Not everybody wins. Only the strong survive. Quite the novel notion, isn’t it? Imagine both teams winning the World Series, or both teams winning the Super Bowl? You: “Why, that’s absurd! Both teams can’t possibly win!” Me: “Exactly my point.”

What I find most disturbing about government is propagation of the falsehood that all parties or businesses involved MUST WIN! What a load of crap! How many times did Thomas Edison win? Remember the statement about the 999 ways not to make a light bulb? Yep. That was him. Edison didn’t win every time, but he learned most when he did not win. Implied in the government notion that we all have to win all of the time is “Don’t worry about loss and its associate pain, because we’ll take care of that for you. We’ll take care of you!” Uh huh. Hence our increasing debt, arriving nearly to the breaking point where our GDP will be overcome by our debt service requirements.

So, where’s this going? Back to the beginning of the post. Read through it again and ask yourself on which side of the fence you stand. Constitutionalist, where the people empowered to choose and do for themselves, or Communist, where government chooses and does for you? Empowered or impotent?

Tell me about how Communism has worked out in Cuba, or Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, or in the former Soviet Union. Which do you choose? Ask any Russian which one they choose. I choose ‘Empowered’.

It’s time to wise up, America. Sadly, the words of the song hold true:
“You won’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone. They took paradise, and built up a parking lot.”

To your living empowered…

A strange dichotomy this is…

…that for the last several nights I have watched the last three “Harry Potter” films, along with, on two occasions, the movie “Act of Valor”. Movies of conflict and war, one presented as fiction and the other based on real events. Terrifyingly real events.

I’m a die hard fan of Harry and his friends, having now seen all the movies and read all but the last book. Jo Rowling did herself proud in my opinion, as did the crews and actors who participated in the movie productions. There is no small embodiment of dreams and hope in Ms. Rowling’s work, and I’m grateful she held true to her convictions throughout. Some had hoped for a more fanciful ending, where good triumphed over evil somewhat bloodlessly, but such was not the case. People died, some  with nary a struggle. Dobby the Elf died. That sucked and I about lost it. We see it all the time in real life, and for Jo Rowling it could be no different as both the book and movie series went on.

“Act of Valor” Wow. Back in the day, I saw “First Blood” with Sly Stallone a dozen times in its first week in theater. That’s how much I enjoyed it, and how deeply the plight of Vietnam Veterans sank in. Some saw “First Blood” as self-aggrandizing, self-serving bullsh!t. You know something? Let them. For what it’s worth, the movie is a fitting tribute, of sorts, to those who served bravely and came home afterward largely disowned by their country. A shame we may never live down.

No movie since “First Blood” has had the same effect on me. Until now. “Act of Valor” rekindles that which was ignited so many years ago, thoughtful and grateful consideration toward those who sign blank checks for the value of their service. Pretty good action, laced with an underlying theme of Jihadi’s seeking to spread their hatred throughout the world. More importantly there is the message in “Act of Valor” that good men stand prepared to go in harm’s way to fend off such hatred. Men who sometimes die, men who are utterly committed to giving their all. We find such beings in all walks of life, whether they be Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ronald Weasley, LT Engel, LT Murphy, Petty Officer Michael Mansoor, Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry, or some bloke who simply gets up and goes to work each day. The question was once asked “Where do we get such men?” Answer? Here at home in America. Men and women born here, coming from every corner of the nation. The priceless jewels in our crown.

I thought the “something wicked this way comes” theme of the movie a relevant one, most especially because I currently find myself in the highly traveled southern Arizona drug and human trafficking zone. Lots of unknowns make their way through this area, most of them unchallenged. The idea scares me at times, as much because the majority have become so comfortable with the traffic as because we do not know who or what this way comes. “If it doesn’t touch me, it’s not mine to worry about.” {sigh} Not true, but who am I to intrude?

I thought I might be going somewhere with this post earlier, but now find myself wanting to simply publish it. That I continue is born of the angst coming out of knowledge that we find ourselves in perilous times.

Having awakened early, I found myself reading a post regarding a pending Small Arms Treaty to be signed at the United Nations in July.

By our President.

Without Congressional approval.

Without the occasion being made general public knowledge.

We the People are not invited to this party.

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment guarantee that the right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed. Not rescinded, mind you. Infringed.

First reference came from an article written by Reuters in October of 2009, and I thought “dated and probably meaningless now”. That is until further poking around on ye olde inter-webs produced this: UNODA – United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. I read through the points, and I was not pleased by what I saw. While there is a valid concern about arms and munitions being illegally transported and sold to a number of global cesspools, with considerable international effort going into necessary restrictions against such activity, yet there is a larger scope of constraint and restriction being planned. Historically, any nation or governing body seeking to “make it safer for all” through arms control, has invariably resorted to rescission of private ownership and confiscation of small arms.

Required markings (redundant in the case of most manufacturers worldwide) and tracking (which implies exactly what?). Tracking implying one is being tracked…the eyes of the {fill in the blank} are upon us. Yes? Color me paranoid, if you like, but doesn’t such a practice fall into the category of ‘unwarranted search’? Search then leading to seizure? Probable cause becomes nothing more than suspicion given voice? Perhaps the Bill of Rights was transformed into the Bill of Privileges, and some of us missed that newsworthy event. I don’t know. Throw me a bone here. Someone. Anyone.

President George W. Bush had it right when he declared that such power and authority remain the purview of national government, not that of a global body operating under consensus. Thomas Jefferson, as some will recall, warned against governance by consensus (we call it democracy), declaring it dangerous because of the fickle nature of the people involved (the voting public, who are all too often driven by emotion over reason). Hence, we are a Republic. We are to be governed by elected officials who shall not be fickle. Yes, I know, we’re not a perfect implementation. Nevertheless, our government stands on the basis of governance through reason.

Perhaps any nation may become a signatory to the Small Arms Treaty as they choose, with the exception that ours may not. We may not, we shall not, surrender either power or authority authorized our government to any foreign body or potentate. Yes, dear reader, that includes the United Nations. We shall remain sovereign. Them’s the roolz of the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

This post could go on and become a volume’s worth of conjecture on my part,  but I think you get (I hope you do) that events are transpiring/conspiring to quit us of one of our most basic Constitutional freedoms. We have a national election coming up, so there is a lot of focus and mud slinging in that arena. We have the House of Representatives pursuing Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious. We are buried up to our noses in economic woes, with the sum of the legislative body flailing about. Yet, we hear nothing from the government about an international treaty that will have a tremendous effect on the Second Amendment. Zip. Zero. Crickets. An event as important as this, and President Obama has nothing to say. The Senate has nothing to say. The House has, say it with me, nothing…to…say.

I’ll be damned if I don’t find that odd. Don’t you?

Again, the angst of these perilous times. Something wicked, indeed, this way comes .