Remember Harvey?

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvfXvW2wsuQ&feature=player_detailpage]Harvey Trailer - YouTube[/ame]​

Erik Rush’s column jogged my memory. I can still remember the movie theater where I saw Harvey. I was too young to fully understand the premise, but I sensed there was something really troubling in the plot. Interestingly, it was Harvey that made me see a few childhood friends in an unpleasant light because of the comments they made. Many years later I came to understand that psychiatry was the villain —— not Dowd’s illusion.

There is so much in Erik Rush’s column, I’m not going to offer any excerpts. Instead, I’ll supply the link and pray that a few interested individuals will find the time to read it.


Obamacare and the DSM-5: Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid
Erik Rush Friday, February 8, 2013

Obamacare and the DSM-5: Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid

Rush does not touch on one of my long running objection; i.e., psychiatrists deciding the degree of guilt and punishment. Individuals who choose to see a psychiatrist is not the same thing as placing the force of law in the hands of psychiatrists. It is not smart lawyers who save murderers from the death penalty, it is liberals trying to abolish the death penalty who protect “insane” murderers who often go free after a period of confinement.

Psychiatrists who are so inclined use the power the government gave them to protect murderers from the death penalty. Where the hell does that authority originate? and who gave it to them? And where’s the proof that criminals cannot fool a psychiatrist. Bottom line: There is a huge difference between character witnesses and experts. I’m not even sure character witnesses should be allowed in capital cases until witnesses testifying to a defendant’s bad character are heard.

Every mass murderer who doesn’t pull his own plug ends up with an insanity defense. The irony is that psychiatry, an elitist control-tool at best, saves mass murderers from the death penalty. Those are the same people who would abolish the Second Amendment. Think about that for a while.

It is the ideology behind parasite-driven laws that needs to be questioned. The parasite class promotes legislation that provides tax dollar employment wherever possible. Parasites care about one thing only and it ain’t the mentally disturbed as evidenced by the array of drugs forced upon patients in today’s government-funded version of Bedlam monitored by the courts. It is tax dollar incomes buttressed by lifetime tenure at the public trough that draws the meanest of parasites to the mentally ill.

Psychiatric evaluations, psychological counseling, and all the rest of the liberal garbage placed thousands of new parasites into education bureaucracies. Their mandate is to brainwash the non-violent young who show signs of resisting socialism’s doctrine. Result: Personality-engineering has become a mainstay in America’s schools.

Step back a few years

The attacks on homeschooling in Europe have increased dramatically since James Lewis wrote an article on the topic. Read the article from 2007 carefully if you still trust those Democrats who are always wailing about America’s lost respect in the International community. I, for one, do not want the respect of European Socialists. For the umpteenth time: International community is doublespeak for Socialist community.

The Euro-trash who are responsible for committing then-sixteen year old Melissa Busekros to a psychiatric ward are the very people our leading Democrats admire:


Locking up as mentally ill those who refuse to obey a tyrannical state was a favorite tactic of Stalin and his successors. The New Europe is learning to love this reinforcement of government power.

According to Paul Belien, the editor of Brussels Journal, a sixteen-year old girl in Germany has been locked up in a psychiatric ward for "school phobia" --- resisting state schooling after years of being home schooled. Belien quotes the one-paragraph psychiatrist's report on Melissa Busekros. Judging by her photo, she seems about as healthy and normal as teenage girls get. One "DR. Siegfried Schanda" — I'm not kidding, this is not a Franz Kafka or Dickens story --- summarized her psychiatric "disorder" as follows:

"Melissa Busekros was examined by us. She has a childhood emotional disorder, severe school phobia and an oppositional denial-syndrome. Melissa lacks insight into her illness and the need for treatment, and considers herself healthy and her behaviour fully normal. M. needs urgent help in a closed setting if need be, and subsequent special education treatment to ensure schooling."​

March 05, 2007
Locking-up Home Schoolers
By James Lewis

Archived-Articles: Locking-up Home Schoolers

Hell, those krauts would lock me up and throw away the key because I’m a lot “sicker” than Melissa Busekros. I fear schools even though I’m closing in on 80 years old. To be more precise, I fear & hate teachers who destroy generation after generation of children. To me, they behave the same way priests did during the Spanish Inquisition —— only their religion is socialism/communism. American teachers do not use the rack; nevertheless, they practice the same evil art practiced by every totalitarian government there ever was, and they are paid huge sums of money for the wickedness they do.

NOTE: In the recent battles to rein in teachers’ unions nobody ever objected to teachers brainwashing and indoctrinating children into the Socialist religion?

Finally, Socialists see homeschooling as their primary target. The education industry’s spot at the public trough is secure. Absolute control of America’s children is set in cement:


December 2005
Three-judge panel says parental rights end at schoolhouse door
By Lori Arnold

Three-judge panel says parental rights end at schoolhouse door

(The ruling in Fields v. Palm Dale School District was upheld.)

The only thing left is to call upon psychiatry to force every home schooled child into the government’s indoctrination mills à la Melissa Busekros. The scary part is that Socialist scum in Congress and the courts already own your body parts:

Do you remember Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar who became famous for saying that the government “owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission,” and, bow, wow, that dogs are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court? He has recently emerged to publish an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal enthusiastically supporting Obama’s global regulatory harmonization.

Obama Lunges Toward Global Government
by Phyllis Schlafly
June 6, 2012

Obama Lunges Toward Global Government

European Socialists always believed the government owned everyone’s mind; so it’s only logical that American Socialists go down that same path. After all, what the hell good is government control if it is not absolute?
 
Last edited:
Looks like you would give the death penalty to a medically and legally insane person who killed another becuase he was convinced the ohter person was an extraterrestrial alien who was sent from another planet to destroy earth - that about it?
 
Last edited:
Looks like you would give the death penalty to a medically and legally insane person who killed another becuase he was convinced the ohter person was an extraterrestrial alien who was sent from another planet to destroy earth - that about it?

What rational reason would preclude that? Is their victim any less dead?

Find a Republican, and ask them. (So you can get a rational perspective!)
 
Looks like you would give the death penalty to a medically and legally insane person who killed another becuase he was convinced the ohter person was an extraterrestrial alien who was sent from another planet to destroy earth - that about it?

What rational reason would preclude that? Is their victim any less dead?

Find a Republican, and ask them. (So you can get a rational perspective!)

The rational reason that would preclude the death penalty in a case of this nature is this: legally insane people are unable to determine right from wrong. It is wrong to kill another person. It is not wrong to kill an extraterrestrial alien who is bent on destroying earth. If the defendant cannot tell the difference, he is legally insane, is not responsible for his actions and should not be executed (or criminally punished in any way) for his actions.

It's all based on the premise that it is somehow unfair to execute a person for something they do when they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. Surely you don't have a problem with such a concept? I'm sure not, because only a total asshole would.
 
Looks like you would give the death penalty to a medically and legally insane person who killed another becuase he was convinced the ohter person was an extraterrestrial alien who was sent from another planet to destroy earth - that about it?

What rational reason would preclude that? Is their victim any less dead?

Find a Republican, and ask them. (So you can get a rational perspective!)

The rational reason that would preclude the death penalty in a case of this nature is this: legally insane people are unable to determine right from wrong. It is wrong to kill another person. It is not wrong to kill an extraterrestrial alien who is bent on destroying earth. If the defendant cannot tell the difference, he is legally insane, is not responsible for his actions and should not be executed (or criminally punished in any way) for his actions.

It's all based on the premise that it is somehow unfair to execute a person for something they do when they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. Surely you don't have a problem with such a concept? I'm sure not, because only a total jerk would.
 
The rational reason that would preclude the death penalty in a case of this nature is this: legally insane people are unable to determine right from wrong.

There is nothing even approaching rational is such a position.

There are three possible reasons for a death sentence.

  1. To remove a threat from society
  2. To exact compensation, a life for a life
  3. As warning to others the consequence of murder

The killer being a sociopath fails to mitigate any of these reasons.

It is wrong to kill another person.

Unless it's abortion, in which case killing is regarded as the most noble and sacred act possible, by the left.

It is not wrong to kill an extraterrestrial alien who is bent on destroying earth. If the defendant cannot tell the difference, he is legally insane, is not responsible for his actions and should not be executed (or criminally punished in any way) for his actions.

If there were in fact extraterrestrial aliens, then killing them in an extrajudicial manner would be illegal, unless one is Obama or his goons.

It's all based on the premise that it is somehow unfair to execute a person for something they do when they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. Surely you don't have a problem with such a concept? I'm sure not, because only a total asshole would.

Your position being irrational does not make me an asshole.
 
The old insanity defense doesn't quite work. Schizophrenics are cognizant of their crimes. In fact some schizophrenics plan out their crimes with skill. Should we release them into society because they can't control the voices in their heads. John Hinckley was as sane as you and me when he tried to assassinate President Reagan but a team of possibly schizophrenic lawyers got him off. The problem is when rational people see the results of heinous acts they assume that the perpetrator must be insane and that's the secret that lawyers use to mount an insanity defense. The sad thing is that most forensic psychiatrists for hire will testify that the client is insane if the money is right.
 
The old insanity defense doesn't quite work. Schizophrenics are cognizant of their crimes. In fact some schizophrenics plan out their crimes with skill. Should we release them into society because they can't control the voices in their heads. John Hinckley was as sane as you and me when he tried to assassinate President Reagan but a team of possibly schizophrenic lawyers got him off. The problem is when rational people see the results of heinous acts they assume that the perpetrator must be insane and that's the secret that lawyers use to mount an insanity defense. The sad thing is that most forensic psychiatrists for hire will testify that the client is insane if the money is right.

Insanity defense do not result in people "getting off." What do you think happens to a person who is found not guilty be reason of insanity?

BTW - being legally insane means inability to know right from wrong. Schizophrenics are usually crazy, but not legally insane. It's the delusional defendants who truly do not know the difference between right and wrong, who get the NGI verdicts.
 
The rational reason that would preclude the death penalty in a case of this nature is this: legally insane people are unable to determine right from wrong.

There is nothing even approaching rational is such a position.

There are three possible reasons for a death sentence.

  1. To remove a threat from society
  2. To exact compensation, a life for a life
  3. As warning to others the consequence of murder

The killer being a sociopath fails to mitigate any of these reasons.

It is wrong to kill another person.

Unless it's abortion, in which case killing is regarded as the most noble and sacred act possible, by the left.

It is not wrong to kill an extraterrestrial alien who is bent on destroying earth. If the defendant cannot tell the difference, he is legally insane, is not responsible for his actions and should not be executed (or criminally punished in any way) for his actions.

If there were in fact extraterrestrial aliens, then killing them in an extrajudicial manner would be illegal, unless one is Obama or his goons.

It's all based on the premise that it is somehow unfair to execute a person for something they do when they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. Surely you don't have a problem with such a concept? I'm sure not, because only a total asshole would.

Your position being irrational does not make me an asshole.

Thank you for all of these truly insightful comments.
 
Quote OP
Do you remember Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar who became famous for saying that the government “owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission,” and, bow, wow, that dogs are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court? He has recently emerged to publish an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal enthusiastically supporting Obama’s global regulatory harmonization.

Obama Lunges Toward Global Government
by Phyllis Schlafly
June 6, 2012

Obama Lunges Toward Global Government

Israel is not winning any friends in Hussein’s administration with this:

Despite pressure from authorities in Israel and China to ignore the issue, Israeli lawmakers from various political parties held an official conference at the Knesset to expose the Communist Chinese regime’s practice of harvesting body organs from dissidents.

Israel confronts Chinese organ harvesting
'What happened under the communist regime is horrible'
Published: 10 hours ago
By Alex Newman

Israel confronts Chinese organ harvesting

I like to hear just one journalist ask Hussein what he thinks about INVOLUNTARY organ harvesting?
 

Forum List

Back
Top