A New Definition Of Insanity- to Believe In God.

American Psychological Association To Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness

"American Psychological Association To Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness"

 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) once defined homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today pajamas boys are trying to rewrite the DSM to define insanity as a belief in God.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active homosexual community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified. Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.
The controversial ruling comes after a 5-year study by the APA showed devoutly religious people often suffered from anxiety, emotional distress, hallucinations, and paranoia. The study stated that those who perceived God as punitive was directly related to their poorer health, while those who viewed God as benevolent did not suffer as many mental problems. The religious views of both groups often resulted in them being disconnected from reality.
Dr. Lillian Andrews, professor of psychology, stated, “Every year thousands of people die after refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds. Even when being told ‘you will die without this treatment’ patients reject the idea and believe that their God will still save them. Those lives could be saved simply by classifying those people as mentally unfit for decision making.”
“Jehovah Witnesses for instance,” Dr. Andrews continued, “will not accept blood under any circumstance. They would rather die than to receive life-saving donor blood. Many religious people believe they have “healing power” in their hands. Many believe they can communicate with God using a personal language, which is unknown to anyone but the communicator and God (known as speaking in tongues). Many often tell of seeing spirits. All of these are signs of a mental break and a loss of touch with reality. Religious belief and the angry God phenomenon has caused chaos, destruction, death, and wars for centuries. The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue. This is the first of many steps to a positive direction.”
With the new classification, the APA will lobby to introduce legislation which would allow doctors the right to force life-saving treatment on those who refuse it for spiritual reasons on the grounds that they are mentally incapable of making decisions about their health.
The American Psychological Association says more information about the study and the new classification will be made available to the public in their upcoming journal (which is expected to be release in early August).

THIS IS NOT TRUE, TODAY; BUT IT MIGHT BE TOMORROW.

"American Psychological Association To Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness"

(by The News Nerd Staff on July 15, 2015@TheNewsNerd)

 In today's crazy world, this is not totally inconceivable. We are living in perilous times.
Many of our news magazines carry stories of immorality. Theologians and pastors are quoted as condoning sexual immorality under certain circumstances. The Bible says through Isaiah the prophet: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).
Humanity has always been dexterous at confusing evil with good. That is our problem today. If evil were not made to appear good, there would be no such thing as temptation. It is in their close similarity that the danger lies.
Modern social righteousness often differs from the righteousness of the Bible. Someone has said: “A wrong deed is right if the majority of people declare it not to be wrong.” By this principle we can see our standards shifting from year to year according to the popular vote!
Divorce was once frowned upon by society, and laws against fornication and adultery were strictly enforced. But now divorce is accepted by society, and fornication is glorified in our literature and films.
The Bible says: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” God has not changed. His standards have not been lowered. God still calls immorality a sin, and the Bible says God is going to judge it.
Honesty was once the hallmark of character. But it has been set aside with an “It’s all right if you don’t get caught” philosophy. Only when we are in court are we required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 How do we get our values so mixed up? How do we fall into this trap of Satan? For one thing, we’re shortsighted. We look for shortcuts to happiness. Our lust for immediate pleasure prompts us to think of evil as good.
One way to call evil good is to say that morals are relative. Someone has said: “As the occasion, so the behavior.” We have changed our moral code to fit our behavior instead of changing our behavior to harmonize with our moral code. Nothing is firm today. We are not on solid ground. Young people are shifting from one side to the other. Morally, they are drifting aimlessly without compass or guide.
Still another way that evil is called good is for the conscience to be perverted, and certainly our consciences today are perverted. But right is right even if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. God does not change the moral law to suit our behavior.

Hazen G. Werner, who served as a United Methodist bishop in Ohio, Hong Kong and Taiwan, once said: “There is no more startling phenomenon in our day than the respectabilization of evil.” We accept in stride the false promises of politicians, the misrepresentations in advertising, the everyday dishonesties of Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, the cheating on exams, the usual exaggerations in conversation and the common immoralities of our times. We no longer blush, and we’re no longer shocked by the immorality that’s going on around about us. “Woe to those who call evil good!”
The modern conscience has been twisted and distorted so badly that it is difficult to tell what is genuine and what is false.
Self-centeredness is another reason we are so inclined to call evil good. When something brings profit or pleasure to us we are inclined to call evil good, even though we know it is dead wrong. “But it’s what I’ve always wanted,” or, “It’s good for me, although I know it’s wrong” are the alibis we have manufactured to justify evil and call it good.
 Man without God is a contradiction, a paradox, a monstrosity. He sees evil as good and good as evil. That is why some people love evil and hate that which is good. For them, life’s values are confused.
 Our trouble is that we say about God and Christianity what we say about everything else: “What’s in it for me?” In our selfishness, we think of God as we think of everyone else—in terms of what He can contribute to us personally. In other words, we want God to be our servant. “Woe to those who call evil good!” (Confusing Evil For Good, Graham, Billy, June 6, 2012)

This is one reason why I stand with Chuck Norris, who said: There’s no need to be quiet any longer. “In God We Trust” is more than just our national motto – it’s our country’s foundation and part of our identity as Americans. Since the U.S. Congress passed Resolution 13* with an overwhelming 396/9 vote in November, 2011, reaffirming our national motto and encouraging its public display, elected leaders and citizens have taken action to display “In God We Trust” in government buildings, courtrooms, schools and businesses.

NOAA and The Public Good

Can NOAA pay industry to fill its weather data gap?

Money makes the world go round ( A dollar, a yen, a buck, or a pound) while weather forecasts help keep the world safe.

So should weather data be the property of those who collect it, thereby incentivizing industry to collect more and better data in innovative ways? Or is it a public good, collected and distributed freely by governments?

          (Manson Brown, Vice Admiral, USCG (Ret.), Deputy Administrator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA))

At a July 14 hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Environment Subcommittee, Manson Brown, Deputy Administrator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), discussed the promise of private-sector involvement and the treaty obligations that hold weather data to be a public good, distributed free of charge.

NOAA is far from self-sufficient when it comes to the data streams that make weather forecasts possible. The agency could face a gap in satellite data coverage from October 2016 through September 2017 -- a gap that Congress hopes the private sector can help fill.

Standards coming

Brown said NOAA plans to issue a commercial satellite data policy and standards later this year, though he could not specify when.

"I am driving toward this year, very aggressively," Brown said of the forthcoming policy, which "will really signal to the industry [NOAA's] interest" in harnessing private-sector satellite capabilities for data collection.

He also promised that the "living" policy would be amended based on industry feedback.

Brown pointed to the 2015 NOAA Satellite Conference, at which hundreds of private-sector leaders engaged with NOAA on data standards, as hard evidence of the agency's interest in commercial data. He also embraced the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015, which passed the House in May and would require NOAA to implement a data collection pilot program with a private-sector partner by October 2016.

But he did not have a firm answer on the profitability of such a venture.

Who gets paid what?

Brown used the phrase "learn forward" several times to describe the process of working out public/private weather data-collection partnerships.

"Let's see if we can get the technology and the feeds and the architecture right" first, he said, adding that the business arrangements would be a separate discussion.

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) lamented the fragile state of America's satellite infrastructure and touted the benefits of private-sector involvement. "This data policy is critically important for creating the markets that actually drive innovation," he said.

He made the comparison to his late-night cravings for cheeseburgers, which the private sector satisfies.

"If food was to be declared a global, public good and therefore necessary to be given away for free, that cheeseburger would not have been available to me," Bridenstine said. "That cheeseburger was available because…the shareholders of [McDonald's] were interested in making a profit."

The analogy addressed the central question in Brown's testimony: "What is environmental data? Is it intellectual property, or is it a public good?"

"We think it's a public good," Brown said, though he added that there could be a hybrid model in which data is treated as a public good while companies preserve some property rights.

Could NOAA buy private-sector data and then distribute it freely?

"The problem with that, as I understand on the industry side, [is] there's no business model that supports that," Brown said. "That's sort of where we get stuck."

Worldwide sharing benefits NOAA

NOAA does not share its weather data with other nations solely for altruistic reasons. "For every byte we put in, we get three bytes back," Brown said.

Under the World Meteorological Organization's Resolution 40, the U.S is obligated to freely share "essential" weather data with the rest of the organization. The other 184 WMO countries also share their data, netting the U.S. that three-to-one return.

"We share United States data freely and openly so that we can receive data freely and openly from our international partners," Brown said, noting that NOAA provides only three of the eight primary global forecasting satellites.

Such unrestricted data access is "the foundation of the current billion-dollar weather industry," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.). "The current government-owned, commercially operated structure has served us well."

And yet NOAA still spends some $20 million annually to buy weather data that falls outside WMO's "essential" classification, Brown said.

Lightning data, which helps scientists learn more about severe weather events, and ocean color data, which helps with the tracking of algal blooms, are two types of valuable but arguably non-essential data that NOAA buys, and it does so on a proprietary basis, Brown said.

NOAA can dodge WMO sharing requirements because the data informs local and regional, not global, forecasting, he added.

Bridenstine voiced concerns about the first Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R-Series, which might be delayed from its planned March 2016 launch date. In addition, the Joint Polar Satellite System-1 is slated for a March 2017 launch but has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

Decrying the unprecedented weather data gap those delays could produce, Bridenstine once again championed the role of industry.

"NOAA does in fact already purchase weather data from commercial entities. Why not space-based weather data as well?" he asked, adding that "a competitive, commercial market for weather data could drive innovation, reduce costs and increase the quantity and quality of data."

About the Author

Zach Noble is a staff writer covering cloud, big data and workforce issues. Connect with him on Twitter: @thezachnoble.

The Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland, UCGC Vol. 01, Nr 01.

General David Petraeus, a 4-star general with over 37 years in the military, was the most senior officer to be prosecuted during the politically correct era. He was just one of many distinguished senior officers to be purged from all branches of the military services during that period. Commander Benjamin Strickland, U S Coast Guard was caught in this web of insanity.  This is a purge.

Consider the Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland.
To this day the list continues to grow.The Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles (UCGC) are a series of bio epics of interesting and sometimes strange events in the lives of Coast Guard personnel. This is the Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland.
 https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006WQKFJM
This is a must read for all right thinking Americans, and people of goodwill everywhere.
 Sales of NEW BOOK began July 7, 2015. Send check or money order for $27.00, includes shipping and handling to: Steverson Books, Box 606, Haymarket, VA. 20168. 
Get the full story. The Case of Commander Benjamin Strickland, 114 pages. All pictures are full color. Many distinguished senior officers are being purged from all branches of the military services. To this day the list continues to grow.

On June 26, 2015 Commander Benjamin F. Strickland retired from the U. S. Coast Guard. This Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicle (Volume 01, Number 01) was designed to coincide with that date. 

He will not be forgotten. His name will live on in the Chronicles of Coast Guard History. His story will forever be told around the Forecastle, at the camp fires, and in the restaurants and bars where retired service members gather to reminisce about life in the Nation’s oldest continuous seagoing armed force, the U. S. Coast Guard. 

His brilliant and distinguished career was brought to an abrupt halt for no explicable or rational reason, except that he did his job as he was required to do it. In doing so he became a victim.

No good deed goes unpunished. This means that life is unfair and people can do or try to do good things and still end up in a lot of trouble. Bad things happen to good people.  

Terrible and unexpected things happened to CDR Strickland.

. Power was misused; discretion was abused; authority was exceeded; rights were trampled; resources were mismanaged; and, our posterity has been neglected. 

We are at the mercy of the powers that be, and they appear to be devoid of all mercy. Heaven help us; and, God Bless America.

I'm Mad As Hell!! And, I'm not going to take it any longer. This is BIG! This is historical. This is a Case of First Impression. Maybe this is not the first time something like this has happened in the Coast Guard; but, this is the first time it has been thoroughly documented. This Case and this Book are the result of hundreds of man-hours of research, eye witness interviews, and analysis. The actual players in this tragedy were painstakingly interviewed and interviewed again. The facts were checked and re-checked. The facts are absolutely accurate and indisputable. The Time Line is accurate right down to the day, the minute and hour.
Two people can understand and analyze the same facts and come to different conclusions. We are all different in some ways. We are what we were then and when and where our characters and personalities were shaped; BUT, we cannot dispute the FACTS.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The Facts are absolute. They are black or white; they cannot be a dirty shade of grey. Not one shade , nor fifty shades of grey.
This is a piece of living history. What price can you put on History? We are living in History, at a pivotal moment in history. Owning this book, is like taking a "selfie" in the Flow Of Living History. Imagine being able to capture yourself at The March on Washington, The Collapse of the Berlin Wall, at The WTC on 9/11, or some other historic event that took on epic proportions as time went by.
How would you be able to describe it to your children and get the facts right? How else would you be able to set the stage and get the passions and the emotions just right to explain and to understand what was happening in the country and the world at this crucial time in our history?
This Book captures it. It hits the nail right on the head. It nails it dead center. There has never been a Ben Strickland in the Coast Guard Officer Corps, and there will never be again. What happened here will probably never again be repeated, partially because it was recorded and exposed. Just like the first time a Coast Guard Academy cadet was court-martialed (Cadet Webster Smith). It too will never happen again. The book about that case exposed the fallacy, and the stupidity, and the utter futility of it.
The Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland will go down in history as being one of a kind, unique. The story will be told again and again. Rumors will abound. People will embellish. But, if you have the book, you have the facts, the Truth, the piece of living History. It is eternal. It will live in infamy. How can you put a price on that?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-CDR-Benjamin-St…/…/1514682737