Charge Parent-Abusers Of Immigrant Children

If our fellow Americans abused children as is, too often the case for those unlawfully coming across our Southern Boarder, they would be charged with their State's equivalent of "Child Neglect" or "Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Child". In most (All?) jurisdictions death or an inflicted serious injury (ie Including sexual assault) in such cases is a felony.

Those unaccompanied immigrant children who are seriously injured before unlawfully entering the USA are the victims of very serious crimes as punishable by civilized nations AND such crimes committed by their parents. 

For each should child, the appropriate Federal agency should gather the following information: A medical report as to the serious injuries; Their statement as to the names and addresses if their parents; And, a DNA sample and resultant data.

That information should be sent to the chief law-enforcement officer of their homeland with a request to: Firmly identify the responsible parents; And, an exact response to the question, "Have you criminally charged those parents with your nation's appropriate (Child neglect) crime(s).?" Those responses, if any, must be made public every thirty days as well as a log of non-responses after 60-days.

OUR CORE "AMERICAN VALUE" IS A COMBINATION OF RESPECT FOR OUR DEMOCRATICALLY-ENACTED LAWS AND "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" (eg For our own and foreign violators of basic, child-protection, laws!)

The Attack On Tucker Carlson's Home

Mr. Tucker Carlson's home was attacked by a mob (Yes, "mob") of AntiFa thugs who even went to a entry-door and beat on it. That attack represents "a clear and present danger of death or great bodily harm" (OR a reasonable fear of such) as allows any American to use any, even deadly, force to resist or stop.

I note that the District Of Columbia police did not arrive quickly enough to arrest those Fascist criminals. 

The bosses of that jurisdiction have made it all-but-impossible for good citizens, as is Mr. Carlson, to buy, keep and bear modern and effective arms (eg Semi-automatic rifles as the civilian model of the AR-15 or concealable pistols) even in their own homes! [Those Democrats appear to be very interested in keeping law-abiding (And presumed legally sane) from destroying members of very dangerous mobs and other violent criminals  I must wonder if they fear such a culling would reduce their Party's power base!] 

Yet, Mr. Carlson (And his family and friends AND all good citizens) should not be angry at those critters!

Why?

Because the emotion of anger interferes with the proper-aiming and accurate-firing of those modern and effective guns---At such criminal-targets.

[We should note that AntiFa does not seem to be active in Wisconsin, Texas and like states which have many, many, thousands of citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons. Those free States do not (Usually) restrict all law-abiding, sane, citizens (Including those from 18 to 21 years-of-age) from buying and keeping rifles and shotguns.]

Today's Sexual "Grooming" Of Children

There have been many reports of "educating" (eg In public libraries, schools) as to the correctness of homosexual (Or hetero-sex) outside of marriage.

This appears to be a form of "grooming" children to make them more accepting of sex with adults
(ie Criminal perverts).

A parallel endeavor is being had by teaching the superiority of Islam----Which allows or encourages full sexual "use" of females as young as nine years-of-age AND allows Muslim males to take and "use" females while waging Jihad which is a perpetual requirement of all Muslim males.

Psychiatrists, Politics & The "Goldwater Rule"

I, VERY MUCH, OPPOSE ANY WEAKENING OF THE "GOLDWATER RULE" AS IT REPRESENTS YET ANOTHER DETERIORATION OF ETHICAL STANDARDS AMONG TOO MANY PHYSICIANS. 
                           /James Pawlak

A PROBLEM WITH THE GOLDWATER RULE IN PSYCHIATRIC ETHICS.

Peter A. Olsson MD

The Goldwater rule is the informal name for a precept of medical ethics promulgated by the American Psychiatric Association. It forbids psychiatrists from commenting on individuals' mental state without examining them personally and being authorized by the person to make such comments.^[1] The rule has no official name; it is simply Section 7.3 of the APA's ethics principles.^[2]

The issue arose in the 1960s when Fact magazine published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater." The magazine polled psychiatrists about American Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.^[3][4]  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

The rule itself reads:

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.^[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

PARADOXICAL INTENTIONS AND HISTORICAL CONUNDRUMS

It is interesting to explore what conservative psychiatrists, (If some could be found?), would have opined about’ Lyndon Johnson’s conscience of a Liberal’ ,  like Barry Goldwater’s  Conscience of a Conservative was analyzed. The majority of psychiatrists in the FACT MAGAZINE article thought Goldwater was dangerous. Johnson who was thought to be safer for America by psychiatrists actually escalated America’s tragic involvement in the Vietnam War. Would Goldwater have been more conservative about escalation in Vietnam? I think so.

Should no psychiatric perspective or opinion be available about prospective candidates for president of the United States?  The liberal and conservative presses appropriately and sometimes inappropriately , investigate details about a presidential candidates family background, education or lack of it, and the writings offered by candidates for president. Many candidates write books about themselves and their prospective policies, etc. If journalists can speculate as amateur “Shrinks”, why can’t psychiatrists offer their spectrum of opinions?

If a psychiatrist has seen a candidate professionally, he or she must of course adhere to the ethic of confidentiality.  But, it seems unfortunate for the electorate to be devoid of perspectives from psychiatry about the candidates. Mature psychiatric observations about candidates for president would be of great value especially in light of the gray-hair- promoting- stresses the presidency brings and the importance the position holds for America.

How could opinions about the candidates by psychiatrists be accomplished?  One domain of difficulty is that in general, psychiatrists tend to be liberal Democrats or liberal Republicans. In fact, it seems at times that some psychiatrists automatically assume that it is inherently “therapeutic” to be liberal politically. Conservatives are subtly or not- so- subtly,  assumed  to be cold, unempathic  and therefore, “anti-therapeutic”.

One approach to this dilemma would be to have a psychiatric journal or magazine survey a sample of psychiatrists who would agree to disclose whether they were liberal, independent, or conservative. They could offer their observations and opinions about the candidates’ strengths, possible blind spots, and vulnerabilities. An equal number of conservative, independent,  and liberal opinion holders could be published.

The American Psychiatric Association should reframe the Goldwater Rule so psychiatrists can offer informed opinion about presidential candidates.

SUGGESTED ADDITION TO THE GOLDWATER RULE (Section 7.3 of the APA  Ethics Principals.)

The process of electing an American president is so important that voters would benefit from having mature observations, opinions and perspectives by psychiatrists.  Such discussion must be clearly labeled as OPINION in the media. Of course, if a presidential candidate has been seen professionally by a psychiatrist in private consultation this situation would be covered as usual by section 7.3,  as would be the case with all other public figures.

Why Indian Winners Of 2019 Spelling Bee?

wbSeven of the eight co-winners of this year's national "Spelling Bee" were of Indian (South Asian) ancestry. They appear to have "dark" complexions.

Why?

Because they subscribe to that same and superior culture as has been the general guide or standard for those of Chinese ancestry.

The core of that superior model includes:  Dedication to deferring rewards (Avoiding the crippling, criminal/infant-like, demand for instant gratification) by hard physical and academic work ; Cleaving to the support and other advantages of two-parent (One of each gender) families; Honoring scholars over criminals; And, Disproportionally avoiding violations of law.

Mark Zuckerberg & Mussolini

Mark Zuckerberg is as much a Fascist tyrant as was Benito Mussolini. He might reflect on Mussolini's fate and the style of his liquidation.

The same applies to his clones who also attack Bill Of Rights by ignoring that "hate speech" is also protected by our Constitution and laws.

THE Socialist On An Armed Citizenry

George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) may be termed as "THE Classic Socialist". He (By his authorship of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four) provided us with such neologisms (And concepts!) as: "Thought Police"; "Hate Week"; "Newspeak"; And, "Thoughtcrime".

At least one of his statements was in support of the People's right to keep, if not bear, arms. “That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”  George Orwell

Today's "Socialists" (eg The Labour Party in the UK; The "Democratic-Socialist Party in the USA) are very, very, much opposed to that concept and right. As that opposition is closer to that inflicted and maintained by such "Socialists" as Hitler (And Stalin), I suggest that they add or substitute the term "Fascist" to/in their parties' names.