Death is an unfortunate fact of life.  The death of children prompts an assortment of responses.  Though most people will condemn the means and express outrage over child deaths, the manner of death is evaluated with different measures. Over 11,500 children die annually in the USA from sources other than illness, diseases, or another medical condition. What causes the child’s death impacts how people view these deaths.   When children die in automobile accidents, the public, “generally speaking”, views those deaths as tragic; but unavoidable. If a means to ameliorate the child’s death is available using enhanced safety equipment, most agree the expense and added effort are worth the trouble and happily comply.   Regardless of what steps are taken to protect children in automobiles, child deaths are anticipated.  Nationwide, every week, 28 children die in automobile accidents.  This totals to 1,456 child deaths every year.  When in use, swimming pools claim the lives of one child each week.  As with automobiles, most people accept pool accidents will happen and no amount of additional care or safety can prevent those deaths.  People instinctually know preventing all untimely deaths is impossible.  Democrats show no reluctance in expanding and creating new laws to protect children from deaths arising from inanimate objects and that require drivers and property owners to absorb compliance costs and restrict their liberties.

The murder of children is an act that generally troubles people most.  Most don’t know five children per day are killed by their parents: by murder or through neglect.  This statistic comes from Health and Human Services, HHS.  Despite parents murdering their children, or abusing their children, Democrats and Leftists Judges are not quick to permanently remove children from the care of their parents – parents known to have mental disorders or habits that lead to neglect and/or the death of their children.  Curiously, most Democrats do not advocate for more, or expanded laws to protect these children from parents with mental or habitual behavioral problems.  Democrats do not promote new laws that require these parents submit to enhanced scrutiny or that infringe upon the liberties of these parents. Why would Democrats not want, or act, to enhanced scrutiny and limit the liberties for these parents?

Democrats perpetually use children as tools to advocate for their cause du jour.  The potential reasons that explain Democrat in-action to prevent the murder children at the hands of their parents, may provide insight into how Democrats and the psychiatric community interact and service one another’s needs.

The psychiatric community makes their incomes – a good deal of money in some instances – providing services to parents with mental troubles; and their children.  There are many government programs to “assist” families with issues that arise from mental disorders and unorthodox habitual behaviors.  Psychiatrist tap the lion’s share of the money allocated to these programs.  An outside observer may conclude these programs and payments therein are the rewards available to psychiatrists for supporting and voting Democrat.  This interaction and the curious outcomes that arise, provides evidence of a very dark and dangerous political allegiance between Democrats and the psychiatric community.

Since Bill Clinton left office, the Democrats have lost many elections by advocating expanding gun laws.  The Assault Weapon ban enacted during Clinton’s term was instrumental.  The Democrat’s anti-gun position became so unpopular Rahm Emanuel told prospective candidates to drop the issue when he headed the Democrat National Commitee; before the 2008 election.  But Democrats NEVER drop an issue – particularly one as important to their objectives as guns.

Guns frighten Democrats for a reason.  Democrats suspect they might be targeted if their thefts of liberty reach critical mass.  Democrats do not want to confront angry (and armed) citizens – so they conduct their thefts of the second amendment liberties one sentence, or clause, at a time – in secret.  Scrutiny is missing in the academic and agency policy arenas.  Democrats rely upon the Media to advance their narrative and to ignore what they do behoind closed doors.

How far will Democrats go to achieve a gun ban?  What risks and costs would they absorb?  Recent evidence suggests they will go a lot further than most voters realize.  In late 2008, the Democrat leadership hit the stump and made several speeches decrying how US guns “Walked” into Mexico.  Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Barak Obama, Charles Schumer, and others made speeches on the topic.  Those speeches were made to draw attention to the movement of guns across the southern border.  Behind the scenes, Democrats were acting to create a self fulfilling prophecy.  Democrats were willing to enact a secret operation, Fast and Furious.  That operation resulted in the death of thousands of Mexican citizens by illegally providing the Mexican drug cartels US firearms.  The Obama administration claims they planned to track the firearms, but none of the weapons was equipped with a tracking device and no alternate tracking system was presented.

US Gun shops along the southern bordered were ordered by government officials within the Obama administration to break laws and sell weapons to straw buyers who delivered the weapons to the drug cartels.  The government employees administering this program lost track of the weapons.  Officer Brian Terry, a US Border Patrol Agent was murdered with one of the guns.  Terry and tens of thousands of Mexican Nationals died in the Mexican drug cartel wars.  The Fast and Furious scandal – that Democrats and Barak Obama devised – directly contributed to those deaths.  The unstated, but objective goal of Fast and Furious was to draw attention to guns “Walking” across the border for criminal use.  Democrats believed this information would anger uncommitted voters  against weak gun laws.  These are voters who do not own guns, nor do they hold a strong opinion on the second amendment.  Making gun walking a persistent news story was supposed to sway opinions against guns.  Democrats wanted the votes of those people. Anti-gun sentiments arising from guns walking a Mexicans dying was to be the motivations.

Democrats designed a plan to (illegally) place guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  Democrats purposely broke existing firearms laws to accomplish their plans – knowing their actions would result in the murders of Mexican Nationals.  The ATF and FBI were directed to implement Fast and Furious – at least in part.  It is obvious  thousands of Mexican deaths are a price Democrats were willing to pay, so long as Democrats achieved their gun goals.  This much is factual and indisputable.

The Fast and Furious operation would likely still be in place were it not uncovered.  If the US Media had properly reported on Fast and Furious – who assistred in the murders, the law breaking, the illicit behaviors, Hispanic voter would be outraged. Hispanics would know how, and why, Democrats initiated the operation, and the results of those actions that directly impacted Hispanics.  But the Media sat silent, downplayed, ignored, and otherwise diminished the facts surrounding Fast and Furious.    Hispanics were never informed about  indifference/priorities of the Democrat Party – how little Democrats value Hispanic lives.

If Democrats appear willing to risk their reputation with Hispanic voters by abetting thousands of Mexican deaths, what else are they willing to do to obtain the gun laws they desire?  How far would they go?  Are there any limits, costs, or losses that would stop their assault upon gun rights?  Democrats had to at least suspect American deaths could arise.  They pursued Fast and Furious anyway.  How many American deaths are tolerable before Democrats would drop the Fast and Furious operation?  Fast and Furious continued after Agent Terry was murdered.  Only after the Terry death was made public was the operation stopped.  Democrats then began lying about their actions.  It took two years before the Depart of Justice released the records and emails they held.  Only a partial list was delivered.  Ultimately, Obama declared Executive Privilege to prevent scrutiny.  The action of Democrats in this matter is deplorable – and probably criminal.  Democrat actions make the conclusion, at a minimum, law breaking is acceptable – if expanded gun laws are the result.

These actions invalidate the Democrat claim they are the champion of minorities and Hispanics in particular.  In fact, Fast and Furious details reveal Democrats categorically disregarded Mexican/Hispanic lives.  More, Democrats jeopardized the lives of Mexican citizens who must live in a war zone aggravated by Fast and Furious.  Democrats were unconcerned.  They had more important priorities.  These actions can accurately be interpreted as cruel,  indifferent, and Racist – to be kind.  Fast and Furious is exemplary.  It shows the contempt Democrats hold for the law, how they will work to ignore and evade the law; and escape the responsibility attendant their actions.  It also exposes the differential racial scale Democrats apply when evaluating human lives.  Summed, The ENDS justify the MEANS in the Democrat calculus.

The Democrat Party is a confederation of former splinter groups – groups that Democrats have worked tirelessly to redefine as “Main Stream”.  Long term Democrat relationships with groups formerly considered outside the main stream by the majority of Americans, all contain examples of actions where the ends justifying the means were applied to change laws and opinions – to achieve a mainstream status for the splinter group(s).  Maintaining these relationships requires constituent groups adhere to, and augment, the Democrat Party’s messaging and actions.  Democrats, in turn, evaluate, in detail, the impact of their actions upon all their constituents.  Democrat objectives must be monolithic across the party spectrum.  Most long term constituent groups are Democrat stalwarts.  These groups are vociferous in their support of Democrats and Democrat policy making.  Creating Politically Correct standards – offenses and punishments – are one method used to pressure voters  to support certain Democrat policies and defy their religious/moral principles.  Ample historical evidence exists that supports this assertion – evidence like Fast and Furious.

The American Psychological Association, APA, can be counted as a Democrat stalwart.  The APA is an organization run by a majority of Democrats/Leftist Radicals.  The APA’s actions and mission are directed from academe and the DNC.  Democrats helped the APA overturn homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1972.  Democrats helped stack the APA leadership with sympathetic (gay) members to accomplish this goal.  Democrats created PC rules, and later enacted laws, that indemnified Gay behaviors and promoted Gays to a sanctioned and protected class.  This provided Gays the benefits attendant the civil rights laws.  The APA and homosexuals – owe the Democrat Party.  This allegiance (and debt) remains; in addition to sharing many other political goals.

The APA regularly provides Democrat politicians “research material” specifically constructed to support Democrat objectives.
This research material is often junk science that is used for Court or Legislature arguments to justify Democrat objectives and law making.  The relationship between Democrats and the APA is decades old and each provides vital support for the other.  The pair assists one another to advance the ideology and political goals they share.  The stronger and older the relationship between the Democrat and the constituent group; the greater the complicity, the greater the level of trust, and the greater the likelihood an “Ends justify the Means” solution was used( at least once) to advance their mutual interests.

Amoral, illicit and unethical behaviors, to advance their shared agenda, are found in the APA / Democrat relationship.  What limits exist?  Would Democrats suggest / encourage psychiatrists not warn their peers or the public about the danger the psychiatrist’s patients pose?  These are mentally ill people who fit the profile of recent crimes where guns were used to commit mass murder.  Would, psychiatrists “enable” their patients to commit mass murder with guns?  What would it take?  Not much is required when a person is not in command of their faculties.  That’s a potentially deadly scenario that requires little to ignite – on the part of the psychiatrist.  Would psychiatrists obliquely, and indirectly, discuss with the patient how others used guns to remedy their personal problems?

If Democrats are empowered and willing to break the law, differentially value the worth of race and/or intellectual abilities, and are prepared to watch thousands die to accomplish their goals – as they did with Fast and Furious, accusing Democrats and APA psychiatrists of conspiring to use a mentally impaired person to commit gun violence is a valid opinion.  Based exclusively upon the available evidence, behaviors, and past actions – suggesting Democrats and their political allies would break laws, endanger lives, and sacrifice human capital to achieve their shared goals, is possible… probable.

Every organization has radical members.  The APA is not immune.  Psychiatrists are in a position to recount acts of gun violence and detail how others used guns as a solution to their troubles.  The psychiatrist may verbalize “on the record” they do not support gun violence and speak against it.  They may even record the conversations.  But the gun violence option is placed in a disturbed mind; nonetheless.  Psychiatrists may inform the mentally disturbed person how mass murderers get the most attention – indirectly providing motivation.  Psychiatrists may recall sensational gun crimes as historical evidence the mass murderer got his attention – another oblique inspiration.  Psychiatrists also provide psychotropic drugs to their patients.  The exact influence these drugs have upon an individual varies and may insulate the patient from emotions that otherwise restrains unorthodox behaviors.  There are many viable strategies to direct the actions of a mentally disturbed person to commit murder using guns – and all of them are cloaked under the guise of providing professional help.  These conversations are protected – privileged and no rational psychiatrist would implicate themselves in the gun violence.  Even the Affordable Care Act has provisions that further protect this privileged relationship from investigation.  Helping the mentally disturbed person navigate a path to exorcise their troubles using gun violence, while simultaneously decrying gun violence, leads to the Democrat’s desired outcome – a crisis where guns were misused.  Only when, where, and with whom, are unknown.  If the psychiatrist works to develop a positive relationship with the disturbed person – he is safe – and performed a duty to advance a cause shared with Democrats.  Ostensibly, what happens outside his office, the psychiatrist cannot control.   That is the alibi.  If the mentally disturbed person acts to resolve their problems using guns… Democrats declare it a CRISIS – then use the crisis to highlight the need, and to advance, their anti-gun agenda.  All of these designs and conversations are inferred and never addressed, or mentioned, specifically; directly.

Perhaps Democrats and the APA did not anticipate the shooting of children.  Then again – they could have anticipated it.  Surely they knew the potential was there.  Perhaps, the death of children was precisely what they desired – knowing the public outcry would be the loudest if children were the victims.  Children died in Mexico.  That did not Fast and Furious.

Democrats also view their political objectives as noble and necessary.  Democrats know the radical political objectives they seek will not come easily.  The voters object to these goals and Democrats know they cannot reveal their actual plans.  They suspect the public cannot properly appreciate their goals.  Ergo, more “aggressive” actions are required to actualize those goals.  Democrats have a history of using aggressive, unorthodox, the “ends justify the means”… solutions.  Fast and Furious revealed Democrats are not opposed to law breaking and murders to achieve their goals.

Democrats have relied upon an ignorant citizenry to escape complicity in the recent gun crimes.  Democrats considered the risk of discovery as minimal.  The American people would NEVER suspect Democrats of conspiring to murder children – that was once too outrageous to consider – No More!  That Democrats would design, then work to realize a self fulfilling prophecy, that required they risk their political reputations and potentially criminal prosecution, were the most important revelations exposed in the Fast and Furious operation.

Fast and Furious ostensibly hid Democrat complicity.  That plan failed.  Fast and Furious revealed the depth of illegal and illicit behaviors Democrats were prepared to risk.

Keeping known mentally ill people out of institutions enables psychiatrists to bolster their incomes and their ability to direct the actions of those patients.  Fewer mass gun murders occur if mentally disturbed people are removed from society – something Democrats will not support.  The Affordable Care Act specifically directs mental health professionals to keep their work with the mentally ill privileged.  WHY?

If the bounds of reason are expanded, and viewed within a framework the evidence contained within Fast and Furious provides, the lengths to which Democrats will go to expand gun laws, or the remaining laws they desire, appears limitless.  I suspect the Connecticut shootings were a direct, or indirect, consequence of a depth of duplicity – no longer unfathomable.  We must consider… What other CRISIS were purposely concocted by Democrats to achieve a policy outcome?  If the murder of human beings is a tolerable cost, the depth of Democrat actions knows no bounds.