In late 2011 Senator Rand Paul introduced Bill H.R. 2769 and related Bill S.1800, co-sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Dan Burton, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling. It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The name of the legislation was disingenuously called The Parental Consent Act – – it pretends to be all about protecting the children and stopping the state from taking away your parental right to raise your child as you see fit, but it’s just as much, more really, about adult issues masquerading as child protection.

The gist of it is that Rand Paul believes mental health is a hoax.

Paul seems to view psychiatrists and the mental health field in the same way he views big, over-reaching government and the power of a threatening government administration – – they’ll take away your freedom and liberty, they’ll try to control you, they must not have any power over you, they can’t be trusted, they’re innately ineffective and dangerous.

He in fact questions the very legitimacy and authority of psychiatrists (“it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder”).

Paul’s legislation, chock full of ellipses between quotes and citations dating from 1998 and 1999 introduces legislation that demands that “No federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening program.”

He goes further: Rand calls into question the actual legitimacy of mental health (“serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness…what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures). He continues, “further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia.”

No such thing as schizophrenia? Not to be too strident but Rand should walk the wards of a psychiatric hospital in Kentucky and tell the parents of the mentally ill that they are in fact clueless and misinformed. He should advocate taking the patients off their medication and move them back home with their families, and he should visit periodically, to witness the suffering, the angst, the anxiety, the emotional violence, the delusions. He won’t of course because he’d rather throw bombs and be right than show concern for his constituents.

Kentucky, this is who you want caring for your people?

Paul goes on to call into question the scientific legitimacy of all psychiatric diagnoses (“subjective”), and considers the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, considered the bible of psychiatric diagnosis) thusly: “DSM criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, and remain subjective.” A 1994 quote again chock full of ellipses.

He continues with his skepticism: “The 1999 (!) Surgeon General’s report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998).’

Suicide screening, is also to Rand’s mind a hoax: He states there is “no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.”

As far as medication he calls into question the legitimacy and effectiveness of anti-depressants (“no more effective than sugar pills” and potentially deadly) and ADHD medication for anyone 18-years-old and under.

As proof of the tyranny in the mental health field Rand offers this dubious example: “Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of Extreme Intolerance to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance (based on race or sexual orientation) are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs.”

I looked into this. What Rand’s talking about is an idea suggested in a 2003 article in a medical journal, written by three PhD’s who teach in the Department of Counseling and Human Services at Johns Hopkins University. Here’s what they said. “Our intention is to explore the possibility of an Intolerant Personality Disorder as a previously unrecognized and unacknowledged type of psychopathology that causes harm to people and has been destructive in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.”

Not, as Rand incorrectly stated is a personality disorder exclusively “based on race or sexual orientation.” And no psychotic drugs are administered.

Is Rand maliciously cherry-picking and dog whistling to his base by only listing gay entitlement hostility, and repeating more false lefty cries of racism, racism, racism (Michelle Malkin always triples it like that; makes the left sound more pathetic and her sound more disgusted).

Why did Paul leave out the fact that this type of pathological personality also includes harmful/violent behavior toward and a hatred of people based on differences of gender, ethnicity, religion, and disability? Because it would politically weaken his argument by including those criteria in his proposed legislation? Perhaps his base perhaps wouldn’t go for a hatred of religion or disability? Or was it just incompetence?

It did take some time and effort on my part to hunt down Vol. 73 of the 2003 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry to get the full text of this article and to read it to have a fair understanding of what the authors were talking about.

But it took only 15 minutes and minimal sleuthing to google the term “Intolerant Personality Disorder” and discovered many cynical criticisms of this anti-gay pathology, including the Heterosexual Awareness Month (HAM, for sort, how cute). HAM correspondents talked on-line about getting their hate speech published in The Blaze and The Daily Calller (no damn atheists there they croon). They also cited the cached page of their website — The tone and rhetoric was standard 9thth grade-ironic/wiseass/jerkish-meets-vain-glorious/victimization-meets-whiny/dirty-fighting, and fake earnest plea of What about our rights/What about your intolerance of our beliefs?

They call each other Hammies, upload photos of themselves wearing Straight Pride t-shirts, mockingly organize an International Day Against Heterophobia event, and bullet-point and capitalize their Awareness Goals (just like a real 501 c would):

1) Give a respected political voice to heterosexuals

2) Protect marriage

3) Stop heterophobic discrimination

Here’s there mission statement; pathetic, falsely brave, full of victim hood, distorted bigotry and playing at sincerity (a cruder man would call them full of shit):

Heterosexual Awareness is about more than just being aware that we are straight. We are one of the only groups who no longer have a respected voice in this modern world.

Speaking up for traditional heterosexual values or lifestyle we have been mocked, ridiculed and called things like bigot…for nothing more than being part of a majority and having an opinion.

You might not have felt this form of discrimination yourself but many, many heterosexuals have and from all walks of life. Everyday we get messages that thank us for having the courage to speak up. You might not have felt this form of discrimination yourself but many, many heterosexuals have and from all walks of life.

###

Here’s what your United States Senator stands for Kentucky. In his bio he calls himself “a warrior against government overreach.” But it’s really anger, cynicism, a twisted hatred of any authority, and hostility bordering on indiscriminate rage.

Consider the decent humanitarian Senator Paul writing on his blog, all faux sunny optimism: “Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has profiled the typical poor household in America. The average poor household has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and an Xbox. Its home is in good repair and bigger than the average (non-poor) European home. They report that in the past year they were not hungry, were able to obtain medical care as necessary, and could afford all essential needs.”

Rand Paul claims to love America; but he seems to hate the people who live in America, and the government as well. Here’s Rand on China — oh, to heck with the re-education camps, censorship, no religious freedom, limited human rights, torture, forced sterilization, political corruption, that massacre in Tiananmen Square. Wonderful China, with no welfare and plenty of money (sacred Constitution be damned; money!! no welfare for the poor!!) that I’m sure Rand imagines his vaunted framers and founders would love, as he does.

”When the U.S. had a much smaller social welfare program,” Rand continued, ” the U.S. savings rate was once as strong as China’s is today. As the social welfare system has been increased, consumption has skyrocketed and savings have plummeted (in fact, it has been in negative territory since 2005). China, with a small welfare system, has a savings rate that has been fueling massive investment, leading to continued growth. On average, 48 percent of China’s GDP is saved or invested versus an average of 12 percent in the United States.”

You imagine you’re a decent man Rand Paul and I’m sure you believe that, utterly and completely, no matter what anyone says. A closed-minded narcissist playing gun toting libertarian rebel in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Impressive, cowboy. Rand Paul, perhaps I ask too much but why not strap on some side-arms, live off the land, and move to the SWAT Valley. No guts Senator? — you’d rather talk rough to Nancy Pelosi and be tough guy chewing your spectacles leaning back in a cushy chair in the America you might despise while castigating Hillary Clinton.

Much respect Senator. You’re a real American. A real damn rebel. When Kentucky has god forbid a disaster, will you show up? How will you show up? You’re a 50-year-old United States Senator, not some high school kid pissing off the teachers you hate, playing James O’Keefe pranks, playing shock jock at subcommittee hearings. Represent America like it should be represented; please.