RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/marxist_health_officials_want_you_committed.html

One of the more insidious features of Marxism’s manipulation of language is its stigmatization of opposing points of view as some form of mental disorder.  Opposition to “gay marriage” is said to be a “sign” of homophobia.  Distrusting Islamic terrorists who celebrate 9/11 and shout, “Death to America,” is a “symptom” of Islamophobia.  Wanting the federal government to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration law “reveals” underlying xenophobia.  Not wanting biological men to force their way into ladies’ locker-rooms and showers suggests that a person “suffers” from dreaded transphobia.  

Notice that all these purported psychiatric disorders are categorized as “phobias,” or more plainly, as “irrational fears.”  Marxists routinely use loaded medical language not only to demonize or disgrace their foes but also to transform any political disagreement into something that it is not.  Respecting marriage as a millennia-long institution that celebrates the bond between one man and one woman has nothing to do with being afraid of homosexuals.  Being prepared to defend yourself against those who want you dead does not mean your worries are unfounded.  Insisting that foreigners immigrate to the United States lawfully is entirely rational.  Ensuring that your mother, wife, sisters, or daughters are safe from strange (and frequently dangerous) adult men intent on intruding into their private spaces requires selfless courage.  Still, because Marxists depend upon distortions of reality to instigate cultural friction and manipulate the masses, opposition to whatever politically expedient wedge issue is currently being used as a battering ram against society must be diagnosed as a psychological abnormality.  You could say that Marxists are committed to the lie that opposition to Marxism rests on irrational fear.

Sure, communism murdered over a hundred million people in the twentieth century alone, but that’s no reason to fear an ideology that seeks only to empower the “common man.”  Right?  I don’t know whether it reveals more about the persistent malevolence of Marxism’s unashamed supporters or the human race’s inexhaustible supply of gullibility that Marx continues to lure willing disciples to further his vile legacy of mass starvation, torture, and death.  Marxism is the evil clown lurking in the sewer that reappears every generation to feast on tender human flesh, but almost every college campus in America would insist that such a description is hyperbole stemming from irrational fear.  To oppose socialism and communism today because of the murder spree the twin philosophies undertook in the past is Marx-o-phobic and should be treated like any other mental illness.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-v-u-s-supreme-court-jack-smith-michael-dreeben-333fddb2?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Special counsel Jack Smith should have been reading our contributor David Rivkin. If he’d been reading these pages, he might have foreseen Thursday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court before he indicted Donald Trump. Instead, the argument was a legal defeat for him and the Justice Department that could delay his prosecution past the November election.

Michael Dreeben, the Biden counsel, told the Justices that Mr. Trump and any other President deserve no immunity from criminal prosecution. But he ran into a skeptical set of Justices focused not on Mr. Trump’s case, but on the implications of the Dreeben-Smith position for the office of the Presidency.

“I’m not concerned about this case,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.” He added that “we’re writing a rule for the ages.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered a similar concern about the future impact of prosecutions on presidential decision-making on controversial subjects.

Mr. Dreeben’s reply was to suggest that this isn’t a problem because prosecutors don’t bring cases when there isn’t sufficient evidence for a conviction. He also said a President gets good legal advice from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel about what official acts are legal, so no President would commit such a crime.

The Justices made short work of that one, with Justice Samuel Alito reminding Mr. Dreeben that two Attorneys General were convicted of crimes, and how easy it is for a prosecutor to cajole a grand jury to indict someone.