Category: Lester Jackson

Voting for Republican Liars: Not Futile!


Democrat vs. Republican Pretense

Three days before betraying his base, President Trump claimed: “Pelosi’s party in Congress is full of people who tell their voters one thing during the election and then go to Washington and vote” the opposite.  That also applies to Republicans.  But unlike Republicans, Democrats are not only corrupt liars, but also dangerous.

Ten Democrat senators face difficult 2018 re-election contests: Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Kaine, Manchin, McCaskill, Nelson, Tester.  However much these senators try to trick voters into believing they are not wolves in sheep’s clothing, last year, only three voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch.  The Gorsuch yeas surely resulted from fear of fast approaching re-election challenges.  The seven leftist nays were Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Kaine, McCaskill, Nelson, and Tester.

Political Dynamite

The votes against Gorsuch signified what today’s leftist Democratic Party seeks: dictatorial judicial imposition of unpopular and unwanted policies upon unwilling majorities.  Justice Scalia often said: “If you want a policy not mandated by the Constitution, persuade your fellow citizens.”  This was his response to leftists unable to convince fellow citizens of their nostrums’ merits but who, instead, run to liberal activist justices to lawlessly ram these nostrums down the throats of the unpersuaded.  The leftist playbook counsels intimidation and dictatorship, not honest, reasoned persuasion.

Few conservatives realize that the Supreme Court is now only one vote short of a majority eager to ratify legislative denial of their freedom of speech.  Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out the obvious: “[p]olitical speech is the primary object of First Amendment protection.”  He felt the need to state the obvious when fellow justices, “rather than going out of [their] way to protect political speech, [went out of their] way to avoid protecting it” (Thomas’s emphasis).  The greatest significance of the Gorsuch confirmation is that he will likely protect the heart of free democratic elections that Make America Great.

In 2014, the ten named Democrat senators did not face imminent election challenges.  All ten voted to abolish First Amendment protection for conservatives.  See the official roll call vote  and official Democrat amendment to mutilate the First Amendment.  Fifty-four U.S. senators – all Democrats – supported government regulation of speech critical of the government, or, as they put it, the power to “reasonably limit” money spent to “influence elections.”  Tellingly, these anti-democratic Democrats voted to specially protect the press, an arm of their party.

The Democrat Amendment seems merely to limit money.  However, money is central to free speech because nowadays, television ads are required to reach voters.  If such ads were not persuasive, Justice Scalia pointed out, “sophisticated politicians of all parties” would not use them.  Television consumed $2.8 billion in the previous midterm election.  

From time immemorial, suppression of criticism has been essential to tyranny.  What today’s Democrats seek, destruction of self-government’s core freedom, is as old as book-burning.  Yet, eleven days before Trump shocked his base, Montana Democrat Senator Jon Tester, pursuing re-election, released an ad claiming he’s a Trump ally.  But, as noted, Tester opposed Justice Gorsuch and the freedom of speech that makes our country free and great.  This is political dynamite that can explode Tester’s campaign – if used!

Extreme leftists are, in Justice Douglas’s words, “miserable merchants of unwanted ideas”; unable to withstand scrutiny, leftists abhor free speech.  The left tries to bully its critics into silence, even seeking to eviscerate the Constitution’s most sacred words.  Despite leftist claims, there is little evidence of the right (especially officeholders) trying to silence the left.  The left has a monopoly on calling their opponents fascist, while most on the right recoil from exposing the truth that the fascism charge applies to the left rather than the right.  A conspicuous exception is David Horowitz, whose reward is to need strong security protection to speak in public.

Dennis Prager contends that “the left-right battle [is] an existential battle for preserving our nation.”  Nothing could better destroy our nation than ceding power to the Deep State to determine the “reasonableness” of messages intended to persuade voters.  Well financed anti-freedom hypocrites allege that something is wrong with spending money to influence elections.  What do they think is the purpose of political campaigns?  Campaigns to influence election outcomes are at the core of democratic representative self-government.  The Democratic Party is a threat to the very heart of representative democracy.  If this is not publicized soon, America will cease to be free.  

Republicans cannot rely on conservative media, which (a) largely preach to the choir and (b) have ignored or forgotten that in 2014, all Democrat senators went on record as opposed to free speech for conservatives.  To win, Republican candidates in contested elections should run political ads informing undecided voters of this explosive fact.

Other Political Dynamite

There are two reasons to focus on Democrat enmity toward free speech.  First, it is the heart of every political issue.  Citizens cannot seek policy change without a chance to explain or hear why.  Second, it is disturbing and shocking that Republicans have done absolutely nothing to publicize the forgotten and ignored unanimous 2014 vote of all Senate Democrats to limit debate on an amendment to limit debate on all political issues.  In a recent political speech, President Trump discussed every Democrat sin, except hatred of free speech.

Democrats must be exposed as enemies of the fundamental freedom essential to democracy.  This should be sufficient to avoid Democrat congressional control.  But there is other political dynamite.

It is a hallmark of leftist Democrat hypocrites to smear the right as guilty of everything of which the left is guilty: racism, sexism, hate, Russian collusion, corruption, lawlessness, etc.  Space limits preclude extensive detail.  But one item should be emphasized again and again in 2018 Senate campaigns.

Racism.  Not long after trotting out a favorite Democrat smear, calling President Trump a “racist,” would-be Senate majority leader Charles Schumer openly declared his vote against a judicial nominee because the latter is a white male.  Anyone familiar with judicial nominations knows that opposition or support is based on likely nominee rulings rather than ethnicity or sex.  Who can forget the vicious Democrat slander of Clarence Thomas, despite his race?  Less well known is that extreme ACLU leftist Democrat Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced no Democrat opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that she did not employ a single black out of 57 people she hired in 13 years as a federal appellate judge.

Republicans who want to win should stress Democrat racism.  Dinesh D’Souza has described past and present Democrat racism.  Justice Thomas has noted the racist origins of the Democrat obsession with suppression of free speech.  After the Civil War, because blacks then supported Republicans, rabid segregationist Democrat Senator Pitchfork Ben Tillman initiated restrictions on corporate contributions to the Republican Party.  Finally, combining racism and sexism, the most recent Democrat presidential candidate openly expressed disdain for white women and the white males in their lives.

Conclusion

I have made no secret of my revulsion for faithless elected Republican senators and representatives, who repeatedly lied to gain control of Congress.  Now Democrats will to lie to regain control.

Five weeks before he died, Justice Scalia quoted Charles de Gaulle: “God takes care of little children, drunkards, and the United States of America.”  So it is no surprise that the American political system rarely provides a choice of the greater good; the choice is nearly always who is the lesser evil?  Those dissatisfied with “lesser evil” Republicans should defeat them in primaries.  They should not substitute a vastly greater evil for a lesser evil in order to punish the lesser.  The consequences will be irreversible.

Although, on March 23, the president forced many of his supporters to conclude that the Democrats already control Congress, actual leftist Democrat control of even one house of Congress can result in true Bernie Sanders socialism, greater protection for law-breaking and violence against the defenseless, increased racism and sexism, and fascism.

As faithless as Republicans are, they should stress – and easily document – what today’s Democrats represent:  An End to America.  If Republican candidates fail to do so, they will deserve exactly what happens to them.

Tragically, freedom-loving, law-abiding Americans, under relentless Deep State attack, will not deserve it!

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital punishment, the Supreme Court, and American politics.  His recent book is Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment.

While the political correctness assault on free speech, especially by the media and on college campuses, has received widespread attention, the Democratic Party objective to obliterate First Amendment protections, from assault by the full power of the Deep State, is largely unknown.

College campus anti-speech thuggery and media bias are bad enough.  But these are private acts that can be countered by courageous private individuals.  However, the war against free speech rises to a new level when the full power of government is deployed against freedom.  Private leftists do not possess government’s distinguishing feature: power – to destroy financially, to imprison, and to kill.

Democrat vs. Republican Pretense

Three days before betraying his base, President Trump claimed: “Pelosi’s party in Congress is full of people who tell their voters one thing during the election and then go to Washington and vote” the opposite.  That also applies to Republicans.  But unlike Republicans, Democrats are not only corrupt liars, but also dangerous.

Ten Democrat senators face difficult 2018 re-election contests: Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Kaine, Manchin, McCaskill, Nelson, Tester.  However much these senators try to trick voters into believing they are not wolves in sheep’s clothing, last year, only three voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch.  The Gorsuch yeas surely resulted from fear of fast approaching re-election challenges.  The seven leftist nays were Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Kaine, McCaskill, Nelson, and Tester.

Political Dynamite

The votes against Gorsuch signified what today’s leftist Democratic Party seeks: dictatorial judicial imposition of unpopular and unwanted policies upon unwilling majorities.  Justice Scalia often said: “If you want a policy not mandated by the Constitution, persuade your fellow citizens.”  This was his response to leftists unable to convince fellow citizens of their nostrums’ merits but who, instead, run to liberal activist justices to lawlessly ram these nostrums down the throats of the unpersuaded.  The leftist playbook counsels intimidation and dictatorship, not honest, reasoned persuasion.

Few conservatives realize that the Supreme Court is now only one vote short of a majority eager to ratify legislative denial of their freedom of speech.  Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out the obvious: “[p]olitical speech is the primary object of First Amendment protection.”  He felt the need to state the obvious when fellow justices, “rather than going out of [their] way to protect political speech, [went out of their] way to avoid protecting it” (Thomas’s emphasis).  The greatest significance of the Gorsuch confirmation is that he will likely protect the heart of free democratic elections that Make America Great.

In 2014, the ten named Democrat senators did not face imminent election challenges.  All ten voted to abolish First Amendment protection for conservatives.  See the official roll call vote  and official Democrat amendment to mutilate the First Amendment.  Fifty-four U.S. senators – all Democrats – supported government regulation of speech critical of the government, or, as they put it, the power to “reasonably limit” money spent to “influence elections.”  Tellingly, these anti-democratic Democrats voted to specially protect the press, an arm of their party.

The Democrat Amendment seems merely to limit money.  However, money is central to free speech because nowadays, television ads are required to reach voters.  If such ads were not persuasive, Justice Scalia pointed out, “sophisticated politicians of all parties” would not use them.  Television consumed $2.8 billion in the previous midterm election.  

From time immemorial, suppression of criticism has been essential to tyranny.  What today’s Democrats seek, destruction of self-government’s core freedom, is as old as book-burning.  Yet, eleven days before Trump shocked his base, Montana Democrat Senator Jon Tester, pursuing re-election, released an ad claiming he’s a Trump ally.  But, as noted, Tester opposed Justice Gorsuch and the freedom of speech that makes our country free and great.  This is political dynamite that can explode Tester’s campaign – if used!

Extreme leftists are, in Justice Douglas’s words, “miserable merchants of unwanted ideas”; unable to withstand scrutiny, leftists abhor free speech.  The left tries to bully its critics into silence, even seeking to eviscerate the Constitution’s most sacred words.  Despite leftist claims, there is little evidence of the right (especially officeholders) trying to silence the left.  The left has a monopoly on calling their opponents fascist, while most on the right recoil from exposing the truth that the fascism charge applies to the left rather than the right.  A conspicuous exception is David Horowitz, whose reward is to need strong security protection to speak in public.

Dennis Prager contends that “the left-right battle [is] an existential battle for preserving our nation.”  Nothing could better destroy our nation than ceding power to the Deep State to determine the “reasonableness” of messages intended to persuade voters.  Well financed anti-freedom hypocrites allege that something is wrong with spending money to influence elections.  What do they think is the purpose of political campaigns?  Campaigns to influence election outcomes are at the core of democratic representative self-government.  The Democratic Party is a threat to the very heart of representative democracy.  If this is not publicized soon, America will cease to be free.  

Republicans cannot rely on conservative media, which (a) largely preach to the choir and (b) have ignored or forgotten that in 2014, all Democrat senators went on record as opposed to free speech for conservatives.  To win, Republican candidates in contested elections should run political ads informing undecided voters of this explosive fact.

Other Political Dynamite

There are two reasons to focus on Democrat enmity toward free speech.  First, it is the heart of every political issue.  Citizens cannot seek policy change without a chance to explain or hear why.  Second, it is disturbing and shocking that Republicans have done absolutely nothing to publicize the forgotten and ignored unanimous 2014 vote of all Senate Democrats to limit debate on an amendment to limit debate on all political issues.  In a recent political speech, President Trump discussed every Democrat sin, except hatred of free speech.

Democrats must be exposed as enemies of the fundamental freedom essential to democracy.  This should be sufficient to avoid Democrat congressional control.  But there is other political dynamite.

It is a hallmark of leftist Democrat hypocrites to smear the right as guilty of everything of which the left is guilty: racism, sexism, hate, Russian collusion, corruption, lawlessness, etc.  Space limits preclude extensive detail.  But one item should be emphasized again and again in 2018 Senate campaigns.

Racism.  Not long after trotting out a favorite Democrat smear, calling President Trump a “racist,” would-be Senate majority leader Charles Schumer openly declared his vote against a judicial nominee because the latter is a white male.  Anyone familiar with judicial nominations knows that opposition or support is based on likely nominee rulings rather than ethnicity or sex.  Who can forget the vicious Democrat slander of Clarence Thomas, despite his race?  Less well known is that extreme ACLU leftist Democrat Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced no Democrat opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that she did not employ a single black out of 57 people she hired in 13 years as a federal appellate judge.

Republicans who want to win should stress Democrat racism.  Dinesh D’Souza has described past and present Democrat racism.  Justice Thomas has noted the racist origins of the Democrat obsession with suppression of free speech.  After the Civil War, because blacks then supported Republicans, rabid segregationist Democrat Senator Pitchfork Ben Tillman initiated restrictions on corporate contributions to the Republican Party.  Finally, combining racism and sexism, the most recent Democrat presidential candidate openly expressed disdain for white women and the white males in their lives.

Conclusion

I have made no secret of my revulsion for faithless elected Republican senators and representatives, who repeatedly lied to gain control of Congress.  Now Democrats will to lie to regain control.

Five weeks before he died, Justice Scalia quoted Charles de Gaulle: “God takes care of little children, drunkards, and the United States of America.”  So it is no surprise that the American political system rarely provides a choice of the greater good; the choice is nearly always who is the lesser evil?  Those dissatisfied with “lesser evil” Republicans should defeat them in primaries.  They should not substitute a vastly greater evil for a lesser evil in order to punish the lesser.  The consequences will be irreversible.

Although, on March 23, the president forced many of his supporters to conclude that the Democrats already control Congress, actual leftist Democrat control of even one house of Congress can result in true Bernie Sanders socialism, greater protection for law-breaking and violence against the defenseless, increased racism and sexism, and fascism.

As faithless as Republicans are, they should stress – and easily document – what today’s Democrats represent:  An End to America.  If Republican candidates fail to do so, they will deserve exactly what happens to them.

Tragically, freedom-loving, law-abiding Americans, under relentless Deep State attack, will not deserve it!

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital punishment, the Supreme Court, and American politics.  His recent book is Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment.



Source link

Mr. President: Please Be Careful What You Wish For


In the wake of the 100% preventable Valentine’s Day maniac murders of 17 children, calls for mental health assessments have become popular.  President Trump tweeted a ringing endorsement of mental health checks: the murderer “was a sick person – very sick – and we had a lot of warning about him being sick.  This wasn’t a surprise.”  The president repeated the mental health mantra the next day at CPAC.

This enthusiasm for mental health should be viewed with extreme caution.  It is a classic example of the old adage “be careful what you wish for.”  No one ought to realize this better than President Trump himself.  After all, his own mental health has been questioned repeatedly.  “James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University,” who boasted of having worked with “the most dangerous people,” including murderers and rapists, arrogantly claimed to “know how dangerous this man is.”  By March 13, 2018, 70,182 self-styled “mental health professionals” had declared the president seriously “mentally ill,” despite never having met or evaluated him personally.

Psychiatrists have demonstrated arrogance, error, and dishonesty for decades.  In 1964, long before anyone had ever heard of Donald J. Trump, Barry Goldwater was pronounced mentally unfit by 1,189 psychiatrists who never had met the candidate but whose views were sought as members of the American Psychiatric Association.  According to an honest psychiatrist, Cornell Professor Richard A. Friedman: 

The psychiatrists’ assessment was brutal[.] … They used terms like megalomaniac,” “paranoid” and “grossly psychotic,” and some even offered specific diagnoses, including schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.

These “professional” pronouncements revealed far more about the mental health profession than about either Goldwater or Trump.  It is hard to imagine any behavior more unprofessional than an ideologue using professional credentials to smear someone solely on the basis of personal dislike or political disagreement.

Those who disagree with the self-styled “professionals” can be forgiven for concluding that it is the latter who call their own mental health into question.  Violating their own professional standards based solely on rabid political disagreement, they are so “intellectually disabled” by ideology that they sell out their ethics, their morals, and any pretense of being truly professional and rational.

Dr. Friedman, who “cringed” at the foregoing “findings,” warned against “the misuse of medical authority as a political weapon to denigrate an opponent.”  Is it impossible to disagree with someone without calling him stupid or crazy?  Lord Acton pointed out: “There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men.  Imagine a congress of eminent celebrities[.] … The result would be an Encyclopedia of Error.”  “Professional” ideologues seem unable to grasp the distinction between error, even stupidity, and mental sickness.

This article is not a defense of President Trump – not by any means.  In fact, a careful reader will note that, right here, I am clearly criticizing him.  (Actually, this is my second recent critique of Trump.)  But not having thought through the implications of a policy proposal or speech does not make a person mentally unbalanced.

It always has been a convenient way to dispose of political opponents to label them “crazy” or, in less politically incorrect language “mentally unstable” or “mentally unfit.”  Why bother with refuting rational criticisms and policies of political opponents when emphatically unprofessional – and dishonest – psychiatrists and psychologists can be rounded up to declare them “nuts”?  The late Thomas Szasz was a leading, if not the leading, exponent of this view.  Although often rightly criticized as unreliable, Wikipedia contains this well sourced article: “Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.”  The article argues that psychiatry has an “inherent capacity for abuse.”  In my recent book, Equal Justice for Victims, at p. 296, I refer to “high class political prostitutes with licenses to practice psychiatry.”  (On March 5, Fake News called for more such people to be inflicted on the country to cure a “major shortage.”  All I can say is heaven forbid.)

Nikolas Cruz, the child-murderer, manifested clear signs of mental sickness.  Personally, I believe that Dr. Szasz went too far in declaring mental illness a myth.  There surely are violently sick people among us.  The problem presented by the mental-health-check solution is that it is difficult to separate diagnoses of real mental illness from attacks on highly rational political opponents with whom dishonest politician-psychiatrists disagree.  

The left bears a heavy responsibility for “deinstitutionalization” and unwarranted parole, with terrifying results, often fatal to law-abiding members of society.  No one should think the left, which, even now, works relentlessly to inflict the brutal upon the tame, will meekly accept mental health checks.  As pointed out in The New York Times days after the Parkland murders, “laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will.”  (One clearly mentally ill, but remorseful, killer has bitterly complained that he should never have been released to murder a young woman.)  I do not, because I cannot, argue that the likes of Cruz should be ignored.  But I do contend that we must be careful about ceding our fate to psychiatrists, let alone funding more of them.

Five members of the United States Supreme Court have made clear why there can be little justified public confidence in psychiatrists to protect society from the violently mentally ill.  In 2014, they ceded authority to determine death sentences to murderer advocates posing as neutral psychiatrists, and a year ago, the same five turned over to these “professionals” without legal training the authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution.  What this means, in practice, is that people who carefully plan and carry out premeditated murders cannot be executed because they are deemed by psychiatrists “intellectually disabled.”  In such cases, one can only wonder exactly who is “intellectually disabled”: the murderers or their judicial and psychiatric saviors.

Leftist opposition to “institutionalization” is minor compared to the principal problem for advocates of mental health checks: exactly upon whom are we going to rely to determine the mental health of potential murderers?  I do not claim to have an answer.  But I do have questions: would President Trump be confident in any of the more than 70,000 “mental health professionals” who have proven their own unfitness by signing a document declaring him mentally ill?  Would he have confidence in an experienced psychiatrist who compares him to dangerous murderers and rapists?

Until the so-called mental health professions clean up their act, I am afraid that there will be no way to confidently certify people capable of distinguishing the demented from the different, genuine mental illness from political disagreement.

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital punishment, the Supreme Court, and American politics.  His recent book is Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment.

Image by Pixabay.

In the wake of the 100% preventable Valentine’s Day maniac murders of 17 children, calls for mental health assessments have become popular.  President Trump tweeted a ringing endorsement of mental health checks: the murderer “was a sick person – very sick – and we had a lot of warning about him being sick.  This wasn’t a surprise.”  The president repeated the mental health mantra the next day at CPAC.

This enthusiasm for mental health should be viewed with extreme caution.  It is a classic example of the old adage “be careful what you wish for.”  No one ought to realize this better than President Trump himself.  After all, his own mental health has been questioned repeatedly.  “James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University,” who boasted of having worked with “the most dangerous people,” including murderers and rapists, arrogantly claimed to “know how dangerous this man is.”  By March 13, 2018, 70,182 self-styled “mental health professionals” had declared the president seriously “mentally ill,” despite never having met or evaluated him personally.

Psychiatrists have demonstrated arrogance, error, and dishonesty for decades.  In 1964, long before anyone had ever heard of Donald J. Trump, Barry Goldwater was pronounced mentally unfit by 1,189 psychiatrists who never had met the candidate but whose views were sought as members of the American Psychiatric Association.  According to an honest psychiatrist, Cornell Professor Richard A. Friedman: 

The psychiatrists’ assessment was brutal[.] … They used terms like megalomaniac,” “paranoid” and “grossly psychotic,” and some even offered specific diagnoses, including schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.

These “professional” pronouncements revealed far more about the mental health profession than about either Goldwater or Trump.  It is hard to imagine any behavior more unprofessional than an ideologue using professional credentials to smear someone solely on the basis of personal dislike or political disagreement.

Those who disagree with the self-styled “professionals” can be forgiven for concluding that it is the latter who call their own mental health into question.  Violating their own professional standards based solely on rabid political disagreement, they are so “intellectually disabled” by ideology that they sell out their ethics, their morals, and any pretense of being truly professional and rational.

Dr. Friedman, who “cringed” at the foregoing “findings,” warned against “the misuse of medical authority as a political weapon to denigrate an opponent.”  Is it impossible to disagree with someone without calling him stupid or crazy?  Lord Acton pointed out: “There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men.  Imagine a congress of eminent celebrities[.] … The result would be an Encyclopedia of Error.”  “Professional” ideologues seem unable to grasp the distinction between error, even stupidity, and mental sickness.

This article is not a defense of President Trump – not by any means.  In fact, a careful reader will note that, right here, I am clearly criticizing him.  (Actually, this is my second recent critique of Trump.)  But not having thought through the implications of a policy proposal or speech does not make a person mentally unbalanced.

It always has been a convenient way to dispose of political opponents to label them “crazy” or, in less politically incorrect language “mentally unstable” or “mentally unfit.”  Why bother with refuting rational criticisms and policies of political opponents when emphatically unprofessional – and dishonest – psychiatrists and psychologists can be rounded up to declare them “nuts”?  The late Thomas Szasz was a leading, if not the leading, exponent of this view.  Although often rightly criticized as unreliable, Wikipedia contains this well sourced article: “Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.”  The article argues that psychiatry has an “inherent capacity for abuse.”  In my recent book, Equal Justice for Victims, at p. 296, I refer to “high class political prostitutes with licenses to practice psychiatry.”  (On March 5, Fake News called for more such people to be inflicted on the country to cure a “major shortage.”  All I can say is heaven forbid.)

Nikolas Cruz, the child-murderer, manifested clear signs of mental sickness.  Personally, I believe that Dr. Szasz went too far in declaring mental illness a myth.  There surely are violently sick people among us.  The problem presented by the mental-health-check solution is that it is difficult to separate diagnoses of real mental illness from attacks on highly rational political opponents with whom dishonest politician-psychiatrists disagree.  

The left bears a heavy responsibility for “deinstitutionalization” and unwarranted parole, with terrifying results, often fatal to law-abiding members of society.  No one should think the left, which, even now, works relentlessly to inflict the brutal upon the tame, will meekly accept mental health checks.  As pointed out in The New York Times days after the Parkland murders, “laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will.”  (One clearly mentally ill, but remorseful, killer has bitterly complained that he should never have been released to murder a young woman.)  I do not, because I cannot, argue that the likes of Cruz should be ignored.  But I do contend that we must be careful about ceding our fate to psychiatrists, let alone funding more of them.

Five members of the United States Supreme Court have made clear why there can be little justified public confidence in psychiatrists to protect society from the violently mentally ill.  In 2014, they ceded authority to determine death sentences to murderer advocates posing as neutral psychiatrists, and a year ago, the same five turned over to these “professionals” without legal training the authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution.  What this means, in practice, is that people who carefully plan and carry out premeditated murders cannot be executed because they are deemed by psychiatrists “intellectually disabled.”  In such cases, one can only wonder exactly who is “intellectually disabled”: the murderers or their judicial and psychiatric saviors.

Leftist opposition to “institutionalization” is minor compared to the principal problem for advocates of mental health checks: exactly upon whom are we going to rely to determine the mental health of potential murderers?  I do not claim to have an answer.  But I do have questions: would President Trump be confident in any of the more than 70,000 “mental health professionals” who have proven their own unfitness by signing a document declaring him mentally ill?  Would he have confidence in an experienced psychiatrist who compares him to dangerous murderers and rapists?

Until the so-called mental health professions clean up their act, I am afraid that there will be no way to confidently certify people capable of distinguishing the demented from the different, genuine mental illness from political disagreement.

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital punishment, the Supreme Court, and American politics.  His recent book is Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment.

Image by Pixabay.



Source link