I am routinely thanked by members of both political parties for my military service.
In almost the same breath, however, political and media Progressives would not hesitate to label me an extremist for having a steadfast belief in the Constitution.
If you are a logical thinker, you see the obvious inconsistency: how can Progressives both applaud military service, which is really an oath to defend the Constitution (every person in the military raises their hand and takes this oath), while simultaneously assailing Constitutionalists as 'extremists' for simply believing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
The answer in Sesame Street terms is that one of those things is not like the other.
Here is the enigma: Progressives wish to bring about a situation where oaths are no longer subject to the Constitution. They want the Constitution to be a living document that can be remolded in shape more near to their hearts desire. They want to create public sentiment that wishes for the Constitution to be transformed into a charter for positive liberty, by getting regular folks to believe that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberty, and therefore must be fixed.
Some historical background to the Constitution in the Progressive era:
The intent of the Constitution was to be a document that fully protected the rights of citizens in a simple and predictable way, leaving little wiggle room for the government to do as it pleased. I argue that Progressives, in stark contrast, wish to bring about a situation where allegiance is given to men, instead of being fixed in support of limited and well-defined law.
So they like the idea of service, but what is being served is what matters to them. Or, more accurately, whom is being served is what matters most to Progressives.
How does the Constitution (1789) get painted as a document of extremism but not the Bill of Rights (1791)? The two are literally and legally inseparable. The Bill of Rights contains all the amendments to the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a pretty damned good thing, right? The Founding Fathers thought so too, that's why they put it as the First Amendment.
Now, if I told progressives that I support the Bill of Rights, I'm sure that I would get no objections (at least publicly). But for some reason they don't like the restraints of the Constitution. That's because the Constitution emphasizes the point that the government has negative liberty in affecting the lives of the American People.
So how can Progressive mock those who adamantly defend the Constitution, but fail to reject the Bill of Rights, considering the fact that the Bill of Rights is merely an extension of the Constitution?
The answer has to do with the Progressive obsession with controlling the use of language.
It is why Nidal Malik Hassan's killing of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood was labeled a 'workplace violence' incident. The politically-correct final investigating summary report never even used the word Islam, even though Hassan refers to himself as a 'soldier of Islam' and shouted Allah-u-Akbar!' while killing American Servicemen?
In contrast, before the sun set on the day of Wade Page's rampage at a Wisconsin Sikh temple, the incident was called 'domestic terrorism' and it was reported that he was a veteran of the U.S. Army having been discharged in 1998. That is a lot of detail reported in a short amount of time.
The point is how we portray veteran-committed crimes depends on the ethnicity or religion of both the perpetrator and victim. Violations of the law are not characterized in an objective way. That is the goal of Progressives. It is how they great divide among the populace, and subsequently, the pillar of their platform to attract emotional votes to their cause.
Early in the morning on August 16, 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub awoke to a squad-sized element of FBI and Secret Service agents on his doorstep. They were backed by local police. Raub is a combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
They asked if he would voluntarily go with them; he said he would not. They asked him if they could search his home; he said they could not. He challenged them for a warrant. They didn't have one.
Undeterred, they proceeded to forcibly arrest him, subsequently forcing him to the ground during his transit to the squad car. Watch some footage of the incident unfold here:
:
In almost the same breath, however, political and media Progressives would not hesitate to label me an extremist for having a steadfast belief in the Constitution.
If you are a logical thinker, you see the obvious inconsistency: how can Progressives both applaud military service, which is really an oath to defend the Constitution (every person in the military raises their hand and takes this oath), while simultaneously assailing Constitutionalists as 'extremists' for simply believing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
The answer in Sesame Street terms is that one of those things is not like the other.
Here is the enigma: Progressives wish to bring about a situation where oaths are no longer subject to the Constitution. They want the Constitution to be a living document that can be remolded in shape more near to their hearts desire. They want to create public sentiment that wishes for the Constitution to be transformed into a charter for positive liberty, by getting regular folks to believe that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberty, and therefore must be fixed.
Some historical background to the Constitution in the Progressive era:
The intent of the Constitution was to be a document that fully protected the rights of citizens in a simple and predictable way, leaving little wiggle room for the government to do as it pleased. I argue that Progressives, in stark contrast, wish to bring about a situation where allegiance is given to men, instead of being fixed in support of limited and well-defined law.
So they like the idea of service, but what is being served is what matters to them. Or, more accurately, whom is being served is what matters most to Progressives.
How does the Constitution (1789) get painted as a document of extremism but not the Bill of Rights (1791)? The two are literally and legally inseparable. The Bill of Rights contains all the amendments to the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a pretty damned good thing, right? The Founding Fathers thought so too, that's why they put it as the First Amendment.
Now, if I told progressives that I support the Bill of Rights, I'm sure that I would get no objections (at least publicly). But for some reason they don't like the restraints of the Constitution. That's because the Constitution emphasizes the point that the government has negative liberty in affecting the lives of the American People.
So how can Progressive mock those who adamantly defend the Constitution, but fail to reject the Bill of Rights, considering the fact that the Bill of Rights is merely an extension of the Constitution?
The answer has to do with the Progressive obsession with controlling the use of language.
It is why Nidal Malik Hassan's killing of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood was labeled a 'workplace violence' incident. The politically-correct final investigating summary report never even used the word Islam, even though Hassan refers to himself as a 'soldier of Islam' and shouted Allah-u-Akbar!' while killing American Servicemen?
In contrast, before the sun set on the day of Wade Page's rampage at a Wisconsin Sikh temple, the incident was called 'domestic terrorism' and it was reported that he was a veteran of the U.S. Army having been discharged in 1998. That is a lot of detail reported in a short amount of time.
The point is how we portray veteran-committed crimes depends on the ethnicity or religion of both the perpetrator and victim. Violations of the law are not characterized in an objective way. That is the goal of Progressives. It is how they great divide among the populace, and subsequently, the pillar of their platform to attract emotional votes to their cause.
Early in the morning on August 16, 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub awoke to a squad-sized element of FBI and Secret Service agents on his doorstep. They were backed by local police. Raub is a combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
They asked if he would voluntarily go with them; he said he would not. They asked him if they could search his home; he said they could not. He challenged them for a warrant. They didn't have one.
Undeterred, they proceeded to forcibly arrest him, subsequently forcing him to the ground during his transit to the squad car. Watch some footage of the incident unfold here:
:
Police at the scene admitted to Raub and his friends that he wasn't going to be charged with anything. Ponder that for a second.
Being charged with something means that one’s detainment must be justified under current law; it is actually a protection to you under the Fourth Amendment (forbids warrant-less search, seizure, and detainment) and Sixth Amendment (forbids failing to inform accused of the nature and cause of the accusation). That is why what happened to Raub is incredibly troubling, that is, if you believe the government is bound by fixed law.
These times in which we're living are not normal. FBI agents said Raub was detained because of his facebook posts under Virginia's "civil commitment laws” where a psychologist must justify detainment because a person poses an imminent threat to society.
So here’s how it goes: the FBI monitors Raub’s posts, decides against approaching a judge to get a warrant for his arrest. Instead, the FBI contacts their social worker of choice, and this is enough to grant the FBI authority for Raub's initial involuntary detainment. Then, the FBI gets a ‘magistrate’ to authorize his movement to a mental hospital, where a psychologist evaluates him and decides to involuntarily detain him for 30 days.
What were his posts? You can find them here.
John Whitehead is Raub’s lead attorney and is president of the Rutherford Institute. Commenting on Raub's case, he said, “Before the police arrive and put their hands on you, they are supposed to have, under the Fourth Amendment, credible evidence that you are doing something illegal. In the Brandon Raub situation, they told him he had committed no crime, they’re not charging him with any crime. In fact, the day they took him in they said ‘well, we’re not charging this guy with any crime, it’s just his Facebook Posts."
So the FBI is concerned about revolution-oriented sensational comments. Maybe some of Raub's posts did warrant a degree of attention. That is a matter of opinion. But all revolutionaries are not apparently equal in the eyes of the U.S. government.
The New Black Panther Party has very recently and publicly called for people to kill babies, women, and “crackers” by the hundreds. Yet they go unprosecuted.
Countless radical Islamic groups call for Islamic unification under a new caliphate. They don't hesitate to threaten death upon public figures who criticize or mock Islam.
Standards for detaining individuals in our society for questionable behavior must apply to all equally. Clearly that is not the case.
Getting back to Brandon Raub's case, an official report by the State of Virginia cites that 20,000 people were detained there under civil commitment law in 2011. Go to page 36, paragraph 1.
Being charged with something means that one’s detainment must be justified under current law; it is actually a protection to you under the Fourth Amendment (forbids warrant-less search, seizure, and detainment) and Sixth Amendment (forbids failing to inform accused of the nature and cause of the accusation). That is why what happened to Raub is incredibly troubling, that is, if you believe the government is bound by fixed law.
These times in which we're living are not normal. FBI agents said Raub was detained because of his facebook posts under Virginia's "civil commitment laws” where a psychologist must justify detainment because a person poses an imminent threat to society.
So here’s how it goes: the FBI monitors Raub’s posts, decides against approaching a judge to get a warrant for his arrest. Instead, the FBI contacts their social worker of choice, and this is enough to grant the FBI authority for Raub's initial involuntary detainment. Then, the FBI gets a ‘magistrate’ to authorize his movement to a mental hospital, where a psychologist evaluates him and decides to involuntarily detain him for 30 days.
What were his posts? You can find them here.
John Whitehead is Raub’s lead attorney and is president of the Rutherford Institute. Commenting on Raub's case, he said, “Before the police arrive and put their hands on you, they are supposed to have, under the Fourth Amendment, credible evidence that you are doing something illegal. In the Brandon Raub situation, they told him he had committed no crime, they’re not charging him with any crime. In fact, the day they took him in they said ‘well, we’re not charging this guy with any crime, it’s just his Facebook Posts."
So the FBI is concerned about revolution-oriented sensational comments. Maybe some of Raub's posts did warrant a degree of attention. That is a matter of opinion. But all revolutionaries are not apparently equal in the eyes of the U.S. government.
The New Black Panther Party has very recently and publicly called for people to kill babies, women, and “crackers” by the hundreds. Yet they go unprosecuted.
Countless radical Islamic groups call for Islamic unification under a new caliphate. They don't hesitate to threaten death upon public figures who criticize or mock Islam.
Standards for detaining individuals in our society for questionable behavior must apply to all equally. Clearly that is not the case.
Getting back to Brandon Raub's case, an official report by the State of Virginia cites that 20,000 people were detained there under civil commitment law in 2011. Go to page 36, paragraph 1.
"I knew there were civil commitments but I thought they were rare," said Whitehead. "There has to be something more here than meets the eye. It doesn’t make any sense. I doubt that most of these people are dangerous. Because if there are 20,000 plus crazy people that need to be taken away by police in Virginia each year, then we are facing a national epidemic that should be on the front page of every newspaper and it isn’t. No one even knows about it, that’s the point."
Whitehead also commented on a phone call he received from Raub while in custody. Raub told him that "a psychiatrist came in and closed the door, pulled a chair up in front of him and said, ‘OK buddy, I’m going to brainwash you… You listen to me and you do what I ask or I’m going to brainwash you or force medication on you.’"
For the time being, the Virginia civil commitment laws seem to be limited to a period of 30 days of confinement, but what if that increases? Or what if they just ignore the maximum the same way they ignore the fourth amendment?
To be certain, nothing is certain. They appear to be using the power of the psychological and sociological professions to justify their actions. Since that is that case, consider the following: USA Communist Party stated goals – read aloud during an open session of the U.S. Congress in 1963. Be sure to focus in on number 38 and 39.
If you’re curious to know what the department of Homeland Security thinks of people, particularly veterans, who question big government, you can find their report here. The report equates the act of questioning big government to white supremacy. There is another commissioned DHS report here.
For now, Brandon Raub has been released due to Judge W. Allan Sharret ruling his confinement as being unconstitutional. I believe Brandon will remain free due to the high degree of attention his case has received. But what does the future hold for other political dissidents that ‘fit the targeted profile?”
Time will tell, but the situation for him and others doesn’t look good if things continue along the current trajectory.
In any event, I issue a challenge: C
No comments:
Post a Comment