Kavanaugh Is Going To Be Attacked Unmercilessly!

Liberal Professor Comes

 Out in Favor of

 Kavanaugh, Left 

Pounces

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / July 10, 2018 / 11 Comments

President Donald Trump announces his nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. (Photo: Alex Edelman/CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom)

Predictably, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick has been met with mostly hysteria on the left.

Even before Trump picked D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, left-wing publications were floating absurd court-packing plans to counter him.

Stacking the Supreme Court with more unelected judges, they argued, was a necessary measure to save “democracy.”

It’s clear that whoever Trump nominated, most of the left would come out and define the pick as a threat to the republic.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

The left-wing Women’s March was in such a rush to denounce the pick that they forgot to fill in the name on their press release claiming the nomination of “XX” is a “death sentence for thousands of women.”

View image on Twitter

Washington Examiner

✔@dcexaminer

When your press release goes out too early: Women’s March denounces 'XX' in statement on Brett Kavanaugh’s (named spelled wrong) Supreme Court nomination. https://washex.am/2KM40UW 

9:50 AM - Jul 10, 2018

• 64
• 51 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Amid all of this hyperbole, there have been at least a few liberal voices arguing in favor of confirming Kavanaugh. The most prominent among them has been Akhil Reed Amar, a distinguished professor at Yale Law School who once taught Kavanaugh.

In an article he wrote for The New York Times, called “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Amar made the argument that it was “Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move.”

Amar wrote that Kavanaugh’s credentials are beyond reproach, and that he has a “deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” He even addressed the most common line of left-wing attack on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, that this seat was “stolen” from President Barack Obama’s choice, Judge Merrick Garland.

“Although Democrats are still fuming about Judge Garland’s failed nomination, the hard truth is that they control neither the presidency nor the Senate; they have limited options,” Amar wrote. “Still, they could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible. … This would be a mistake.”

Ultimately, Amar wrote that if Democrats are serious about opposing the nominee, they should at least offer two better suggestions that would be acceptable to Trump and the Republican majority in exchange for frank answers from Kavanaugh about his views.

Needless to say, progressive activists didn’t take well to Amar’s message.

NYT Opinion

✔@nytopinion

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move https://nyti.ms/2MZWxhU 

9:06 PM - Jul 9, 2018

Opinion | A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh

It is hard to name anyone else with such strong judicial credentials.

nytimes.com

• 1,899
• 4,345 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Paul Blest, writing for the left-wing website, Splinter—the same publication that published a piece calling for mobs to harass conservatives—blasted Amar’s editorial.

“Everything we have and everything we can imagine that is achievable within this crumbling system is at risk,” Blest concluded of the Kavanaugh nomination. “The Democrats are probably going to lose this fight, but anything less than a full-throated attack on Trump’s nomination is tantamount to capitulation on what might very well turn out to be the most consequential decision Trump ever makes.”

While the Splinter article reflects the mood of the progressive base, Amar’s defense of Kavanaugh as a candidate with unquestionable credentials and background means that it will be hard to go after him on anything other than partisan or ideological grounds.

It’s clear that what the left is most afraid of is any justice who will take textual adherence to the Constitution seriously.

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi summed this up perfectly:

Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking. For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool—forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, and so on—that’s a big problem.

In essence, they will oppose—and malign—any justice, no matter their background, gender, or religious beliefs, who will not aid in carrying out a progressive policy agenda.

Time will tell if this strategy of opposition at all costs will fly with the American people.

Abortion Is Killing Pure And Simple. It Is Wrong, Immoral And Will Lead To Killing Of Those Who Do Not Contribute To Society Or Are Not A "Favored" Group

Shapiro At 'National Review': What Happens When Moral Monstrosity Is Socially Approved?

Photo by Albin Lohr-Jones/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

ByBEN SHAPIRO

@benshapiro

March 14, 2018

In 1961, Stanley Milgram of Yale University came up with an idea for an experiment. The purpose: to determine how many law-abiding, civilized people would torture their fellows simply in order to follow basic orders. Here’s how the experiment worked. Milgram chose pairs of participants; one would randomly be chosen to become a “learner,” the other a “teacher.” Milgram set up the “random” drawing so that volunteers always became teachers, and learners were actors working for Milgram. Learners were taken into a room and hooked up to electrodes supposedly buzzing with electricity. Teachers were brought into a room containing a switch that could shift that electric level from 15 volts all the way up to 450 volts. Teachers were then informed by researchers that it was their job to shock learners for making errors in a word game. The researchers would remain in the room and push the teachers to shock the learners, telling them to continue.

According to Milgram’s experiment, two in three teachers shocked the learners all the way up to 450 volts, even as the actors begged for mercy; all of the teachers shocked the learners up to 300 volts. Milgram concluded, “Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”

How much farther would the teachers have gone if they’d had a personal investment in pulling the switch?

Such questions come to mind after reading Ruth Marcus’s astonishing piece defending the abortion of babies with Down syndrome in the pages of the Washington Post. Marcus champions her own moral autonomy as a would-be agent of death: “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.”

This is a confusing statement. First off, if Marcus believes, as abortion advocates do, that fetal life isn’t human life, where exactly is the tragedy? Why the grief? Nobody mourns the removal of a polyp or an ovarian cyst. Why, then, should Marcus consider the killing of the unborn painful, except that she realizes deep down that she is ending a human life?

And the truth is that Marcus does realize that. She’s just willing to end that life because she doesn’t believe such lives should exist. She rails against the government’s “compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised.” In these words, one can hear the regretful tut-tutting of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell (1927), the Supreme Court case approving state laws forcing sterilization on the “unfit”: “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Read the rest here.

READ MORE: ABORTION

Doc Who Diagnosed Trump As Mentally Ill Has Major Legal/Ethical Problem!

Psych Professor Says Trump is Mentally Ill, Then Her Records Surface

BY CILLIAN ZEAL 
JANUARY 12, 2018 AT 6:59AM

 Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

Diagnosing patients from afar is a pretty tricky business, and one ought to be awfully sure before offering a diagnosis to anyone — especially if the patient is the president, the disease is mental illness, and you’re offering the diagnosis to the general public.

That didn’t stop Bandy Lee, a Yale University psychology professor, from being one of the loudest voices insisting that the president was some sort of narcissistic sociopath with a “mental impairment” who represents a danger to himself and America at large.

Lee is best known as one of 25 mental health professionals who contributed to a book titled — with no small degree of ominousness — “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

The American Psychiatric Association called the work “tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry” and accused the authors of shirking the Goldwater Rule — a 1973 APA dictum which prohibits mental health professionals from publicly diagnosing individuals they haven’t personally examined. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rule was named after another GOP presidential candidate who many psychiatrists publicly declared was unfit to hold office.)

Lee continued to defend the book, co-authoring a Politico piece in which it was stated that “(w)ithout diagnosing Trump in a specific way, as the Goldwater rule prohibits, it is not only acceptable but vitally necessary to have a public conversation about mental state of our nation’s leader.”

TRENDING: Dog Gets Stuck in a Tree, 20 Years Later They Make a Discovery When It’s Cut Down

However, it turns out her analysis and/or diagnosis of Trump was missing something: namely, the professional qualifications to actually do so.

According to a piece published earlier this week by Campus Reform, records show that Lee’s physician/surgeon license — necessary to practice psychiatry — lapsed in Connecticut in 2015. Meanwhile, her “controlled substance registration for practitioner” license lapsed in February 2017.

A renewal on both have been pending since then.

When asked about the discrepancy, Lee told Campus Reform that “I need only one license,” although she didn’t specify which license that was or whether she currently had it.

Do you think psychiatrists should face consequences for violating the Goldwater Rule?

 

Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Lee has also deleted her Twitter account, clearly a sign absolutely nothing is up and everything is kosher with her license after all.

Meanwhile, while not mentioning Lee and her cohort by name, the APA seemed to have them in mind in a recent statement they issued regarding the Goldwater Rule.

“We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media,” the statement read, according to the Washington Examiner.

“Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”

RELATED: Libs Meltdown Over Trump “S**thole” Comment, Forget What Kennedy Said 53 Yrs Ago

Well, at least Ms. Lee doesn’t have to worry about that. After all, if the records of the state of Connecticut are any indication, she’s not even a psychiatrist at the moment.

H/T BizPac Review

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on this “psychiatrist’s” diagnosis.

What are your thoughts on what this professor had to say?

Should Brandy X,. Lee Lose Her License To Practice?

Plan released to have Trump declared mentally unfit, removed from office

January 7, 2018

Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.com

It seems the Democrats and their hand-picked minions will never stop working to remove President Donald Trump from office by any means necessary. Now, what they’re trying to produce seems nothing short of a coup d’état.

To that end, Democrat members of Congress called on Yale University psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee to “diagnose” the president’s mental health with the help of members of Congress on Capitol Hill. This is undoubtedly part of a long-running scheme to have President Trump forcefully removed from office.

There is just one issue: Dr. Lee has never met the president, let alone examined him. Nevertheless, she told members of Congress that they have to act to remove him from office — now.

“Urgent Steps”

“We write as mental health professionals who have been deeply concerned about Donald Trump’s psychological aberrations,” Lee said in a statement issued on Wednesday and co-authored by two other mental health professionals.

She continued:

We believe that he is now further unraveling in ways that contribute to his belligerent nuclear threats. We urge that those around him, and our elected representatives in general, take urgent steps to restrain his behavior and head off the potential nuclear catastrophe that endangers not only Korea and the United States but all of humankind.

The statement was signed by more than 100 other mental health professionals calling themselves the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts.

The Goldwater Rule

Not only are these mental health professionals violating basic ethics by publicly discussing an analysis they made about a man they never met — they are violating an old, established rule.

The Goldwater Rule, according to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), “prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated.”

The APA continued:

The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election.

During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

Despite denouncement of the practice of violating this rule from the APA and numerous books on the subject, however, Lee and her colleagues maintain that Trump is unfit for office.

“From a medical perspective, when we see someone unraveling like this, it’s an emergency,” Lee said. “We’ve never come so close in my career to this level of catastrophic violence that could be the end of humankind.”

“Malicious Gossip Queen”

Pundits and psychiatrists alike see Lee and her colleagues as doing a disservice to many in her profession by failing to adhere to the so-called Goldwater Rule.

Washington Examiner, Becket Adams, explained:

[The Goldwater Rule] is a good rule. First, it is impossible to measure a person’s mental wellbeing accurately from news clippings and soundbites alone. You can speculate and wonder, sure. But standing atop one’s medical credentials, and dispensing rulings when one hasn’t even spoken with the subject, is dangerous and sloppy. One must at least meet with the subject to get an unfiltered look at the state of their thinking. A first-hand assessment versus a conclusion derived from secondhand information is the difference between a trained mental health professional and a malicious gossip queen.

Second, armchair analyses are dangerous because they further stigmatize mental health issues. It is difficult enough for those who struggle to seek help. They don’t need self-declared professions marching on to television to declare someone who talks funny and behaves peculiarly a nut job. That sort of untrained, gut “analysis” will only drive the afflicted further underground.

Adams concludes, “Lee doesn’t seem to care about the damage her ‘analysis’ does to the years others have spent de-stigmatizing the issue. She believes Trump is an exception to the Goldwater Rule.”

Additionally, Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, former APA president, castigated the letter and its signatories. The Los Angeles Times reports:

In a letter to the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, Lieberman says he believes Lee, Pouncey and the rest are “acting in good faith and are convinced they are fulfilling a moral obligation.” But the history of psychiatry is littered with examples of mental health professionals being “exploited” for political purposes, he wrote, citing doctors who gave cover to Nazi eugenics policies and those who helped confine dissidents to mental hospitals in the People’s Republic of China.

“Although moral and civic imperatives justify citizens’ speaking out against injustices of government and its leaders, that does not mean that psychiatrists can use their medical credentials to brand elected officials with neuropsychiatric diagnoses without sufficient evidence and appropriate circumstances,” Lieberman wrote. “To do so undermines the profession’s integrity and credibility.”

t

“Huge Ethical Lapse”

It isn’t just conservatives who suffer from this psychiatric malpractice, however. A 2016 Media Matters article argued that medical professionals attempting to diagnose Hillary Clinton were essentially committing malpractice:

Medical experts, some who represent hundreds of medical professionals, are warning that trying to diagnose Clinton without having examined her or researched her entire medical history is simply wrong.

“Diagnosing a person who is not your patient without ever examining that person or reviewing his or her entire medical record signifies a huge ethical lapse on the part of a physician,” Len Bruzzese, executive director of the Associate of Health Care Journalists, told Media Matters at the 

Lee and her colleagues should take this advice to heart.

Judging a high-profile individual based on little evidence and no first-hand knowledge can only cause problems for everyone involved.

Want To Know What The "Very Bright" Are Thinking? Take A Peek At This Video.

MUST SEE VIDEO: Students at this
TOP School Reject the First
Amendment

• Dec 17, 2015 
• Source: AAN 
• by: AAN Staff

 51

 23

 158

Satirist Ami Horowitz visited Yale University
 with a mission: to find students willing to
 sign a petition to repeal the Fiirst Amendment.

I won't spoil the video for you, but if this is the
 way America's best and brightest react to
such a ludicrous petition, we're all in a lot
of trouble.  Source: AAN

- See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/must-see-video-students-at-this-top-school-reject-the-first-amendment#sthash.KwhiUqih.dpuf