Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Ron Paul Dispatch: Straight talk from a Texan

Straight talk from Ron Paul -- that's all you will get from the man.

Read the following article and then sign the petition at the bottom. Name another candidate who actively fights nonsense such as mandatory mental health screening for children. Go ahead, name one.

Act now. Bush is eager to sign this legislation. -- Jim



Ron Paul's
Texas Straight Talk
A Weekly Column
9/30/2007


Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

The Parental Consent Act of 2007 can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2387_ih.xml


1. Locate your own Congressman here http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and request that they co-sponsor HR 2387, The Parental Consent Act of 2007

2. Sign and forward this petition to everyone you know:
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html



9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, I can list 96 (95 'Pubs and 1 Dem). It was Amendment 3 of the 2005 Appropriations Bill to bar funding for the mandatory screening legislation. Of note is that two of the Ayes came from presidential candidates (Duncan Hunter R-CA and Tom Tancredo R-CO).

Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Camp
Cantor
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Linder
Manzullo
McCotter
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vitter
Whitfield

Anonymous said...

Both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo voted against it in 2005. It was Amendment 3 of the 2005 spending bill. It was killed by the Senate leadership before McCain and Brownback could have voted on it. They most likely would have supported it.

Jim Fedako said...

Anonymous missed the question: Which other candidates actively fight such nonsense. Providing a roll call of names (two of which are candidates) is not a response to the question.

Anonymous said...

Please...let's not move the goal post or introduce qualifiers, shall we?

Other than Paul's rider to the 2005 appropriations bill on this issue, what else has he introduced on it? That's not a challenge, by the way--I'd like to know.

I'd bet that, on a list of 100 issues facing voters this pet, vanity cause of Paul's would rank somewhere between 99 and 100. Tancredo owns one of the pressing issues of today--shutting down the flow of illegals and securing our borders--which consistently ranks in the Top 10 on any issues list. Number One on the list (national security) is an issue that Paul is so at odds with (vast) majority public consensus that he appears loony.

Let's eliminate the FBI and CIA, and the military while we're at it. Hey--maybe if we tickle terrorists and give them lollipops they'll like us!

Jim Fedako said...

Move the goal posts? How about reading the question before answering.

Once more ... and read for comprehension this time ... "Name another candidate who actively fights nonsense such as mandatory mental health screening for children."

If I did not mean the qualifier "actively," then I wouldn't have used it.

Your response is termed the red herring. Never answer the question, just cloud the discussion with nonsense.

Answer the question and do not simply spin it. Unless, of course, comprehension is a challenge for you.

Anonymous said...

I asked you a question--how is Ron Paul "actively" fighting this issue--it was crushed in the House in 2005 (it only received 20% support, which is about 19% more than what he'll get in the Primaries).

What legislation has Ron Paul proposed on this issue, other than a rider to kill its funding in 2005? Who are his current co-sponsors? Where is it on the docket of any of the HHS subcommittees? Is it even being whispered about in the Longworth cafeteria? No. That's right--Ron Paul is not "active" on this issue, and hasn't been since his little rider was crushed like a bug on June 27, 2005. He's not even "actively" opposing the TeenScreen expansion in SCHIP, for God's sake. Oh, but he's written a nice fundraising letter expressing his outrage about it.

It doesn't seem like Ron Paul is "actively" fighting this one now, does it?

What were you saying about "comprehension"?

Fedako...playtime is over and it's getting dark. Come home. It's folks like you who fantasize about a constitutional fidelity that's never existed, who will inadvertently deliver to this nation the most incomprehensible, constitutional infidelity we've ever known by helping to elect HRC. Two Supreme Court justices within the next decade...resurgent unions...radical environmentalism...etc, etc, etc...

I don't like McCain--the guy is an ill-tempered prick, but he's a lot better than the alternative; he's the only 'Pub who can beat her and you'll be sorry for letting the Dems take over--especially with having control of the Congress for at least the next 12 years.

Jim Fedako said...

I guess I'll pull up my jackboots and join the Rudy Brigade.

Constitutional fidelity? Sounds very Clintonesque. I assume that once a little infidelity has been committed, a full-fledged affair is no longer immoral (actually, very Fichtean also ... see below).

So, what are you fighting for? You appear to hold no hope for the future, as it appears that you believe that you can only hope that the inevitable is delayed another four years.

Bush of today is so far to the left of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter that terming him a conservative is a corruption of the word.

Or, as has been proposed and observed; a conservative is simply a liberals delayed by five years. Or, and probably closer to the truth, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two.

What more could the Dems have done? Our own Republican statehouse is ready to state-alize the energy sector. And, they are tripping over Strickland to hand out as much of my income as possible. Talk about fidelity to a belief system.

Paul is not actively opposing a component (TeenScreen) though he is attacking the larger issue (SCHIP). And for that you claim hypocrisy.

You know, Marx took more than a little from Hegel, who took more than a little from Fichte, and hence, dialectics enters our vocabulary.

The Fichtean Dialectic -- usually termed Hegelian -- talks about the march of history. There is thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis.

Individuals hold a certain set of beliefs, ideals, what have you. When presented with an opposing view -- antithesis, individuals try to make sense of the conflict, finally arriving at synthesis. Synthesis then becomes the individuals new belief systems, their past beliefs are forgotten, and history marches on.

Application: As you give into the penumbra (the gray area between light and dark) with regard to your beliefs, you simply reset your standards at a new level. Sure, you never accept the evil side, but your views march along with it.

It might be true that McCain could beat Hillary, but once you accept McCain as synthesis, Hillary won't look so bad anymore. Very Fichtean.

A better example. Your son asks you for $250 for new sports shoes. Wow, you go ballistic. "What in the world do you need that for?" After you cool off a bit, your son approaches once again, this time for $150 for sports shoes. That now sounds reasonable, though prior to all this you would never considered shoes at more than $75 a pair. Fichtean.

I will try to keep my beliefs intact, stay with the $75 pair of shoes, and pray for a change to occur. However, without change, I will still have my beliefs.

One final point: Gramsci, the Italian socialist, believed that communist revolution was not possible in the West. He believed that the only way to socialize the West was through a long period of subversion, where the institutions of family, church, etc, were slowly undermined. He was right. At each step toward the full-blown socialism, the masses readjust their standards and forget their beliefs of old. By taking small steps, with no one challenging the advance, slow revolution occurs.

Stick to your guns my friend. If you worship Reagan, accept nothing less. If you allow Bush to be your new standard, you really are just an election or two from trumpeting Hillary's message of today. Sure, she will have gone further, but you won't be able to recognize yourself anymore.

Anonymous said...

Ha. Nice. Talk about sophistry. Yes--the synthesis of the penumbra of the mumbo jumbo in Fichtean Dialect means...nothing in the real world. It means nothing or holds no sway in the lives of 99.999% of people on this planet.

The nation has evolved in the last 200 years, and, sadly, a great many people now view our government as a service provider. Not any amount of Gramscian (or Paulian) gobbly-gook is going to reverse that.

No amount of sophisticated verbiage is going to devolve an elephant back into a mastedon, just as no amount of complex theory is going to turn back our politico-evolutionary clock 200 years. The nation, like the elephant, has evolved. Your windy proclamations, however, are as irrelevant as the mastedon.

I already see this coming: Bill Clinton begins talking up a Third Party candidate. Mass media outlets take his cue and begin to shower attention on spoiler Ron Paul, inflating his sense of influence. The Paulian fools take note their candidates sudden popularity in the press and this inflates their own sense of influence, so they continue to support him and he gains further support. Ron Paul, predictably, registers in low single digits in the primaries but actually begins to believe that he can win as a Third Party candidate. He then declares himself as one and succeeds to siphon off 3% of the (real) Republican (vs. phony Republican liberarians) vote and that puts HRC over the top.

Then for the next eight years Fedako is quoting every philosopher known to man--and some not known to man--to make sense of the quantum shift this country takes toward a true Marxist state.

Jim Fedako said...

Friend, It means that you have no beliefs that you feel are worthy of anything. You simply move with the masses, with the trends.

Funny, on one hand you worship Roosevelt as god, while on the other hand you lament that the general population is moving away from constitutional fidelity.

My friend, you are gladly doing the same.

Take a stand for once! Things only get worse when we accept what appears to be continental shifts.

You confound pragmatism with acquiescence.

Note: I cannot imagine that my views would have differed undr a Kerry White House. Some specifics would have changed, but the general tone -- and guiding philosophies -- would have been the same. I bet you were one of those who worshipped Bush in the early years while those of us saw through the fascade. The same will happen for Newt, you's love him mainly because the Democrats hate him. But, his policies will be very similar. A fact you will not notice until its too late.