by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) There is a saying throughout the military that goes something like this: “We’re here to defend democracy, not practice it.” It’s sort of a tongue-in-cheek statement about the discipline and chain of command structure associated with military life, but in reality, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution do still apply to soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And that isespecially true once men and women put away their uniforms and return to civilian life.
But that’s not the case for veteran and former Marine Brandon Raub, 26, who has been “arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page,” according to the Rutheford Institute, a non-profit, legal organization that has come to Raub’s defense.
According to the institute, authorities with the Chesterfield County, Va., police nor the FBI have charged Raub with a crime after initially arresting him Aug. 16 and transporting him directly to John Randolph Medical Center, a behavioral health facility located in Hopewell, Va., just south of Richmond. There, the institute says, Raub is being “held against his will” over concerns that his “Facebook posts were controversial and ‘terrorist in nature.’”
In a hearing at the hospital (they couldn’t even transport Raub to a courthouse, apparently), authorities rejected out of hand Raub’s explanations that his posts were merely taken out of context, and sentenced him to 30 more days’ of confinement in a Veterans Administration psychiatric ward. Attorneys from the institute are “challenging Raub’s arrest and forcible detention, as well as the government’s overt Facebook surveillance and violation of Raub’s First Amendment rights,” said a statement. Continue Reading
Red Ice Radio has gathered together some of the most important research and opinions on what might be the motivations, the plans, the symbolism, the purposes, and the potential outcomes of the London 2012 Olympic Games. Hours of interviews and examination have culminated in a body of knowledge that breaks down the mainstream narrative and alerts the public to be aware in 2012.
Will there be death? Mayhem? Terrorist attacks?
Will terrible catastrophes usher in a new era of war and control? A New World Order?
Will the stars align and inaugurate a dynamic of peace and goodwill among humanity? A new paradigm of consciousness?
These possibilities and more have been speculated upon for the years leading up to 2012, and now that time is upon us. The London 2012 Olympics have arrived with much anticipation, but whether one sees this as a glorious time to celebrate the union of athletic champions, or instead a cause for raising alarm, is a matter debated by many.
There are plenty of clues that suggests that the Olympic “celebration” and many of the surrounding events and installations are part of an “occult mega ritual”, and one can’t help to wonder exactly who it is supposed to benefit?
According to the Greek history, the first Olympic games were dedicated to the twelve Olympian gods, and were based on ancient mythology and religion. The tradition and special meaning of the games – the heroic competition and the fantastic effort to combine mind, body, and will in a attuned whole – is what energizes the games to this day.
But what other ’special meanings’ can be found in the modern Olympic games?
May 22, 2012
A brilliant physicist published a revolutionary paper citing 30 other scientific papers that reveal HAARP has incredible powers far beyond what most investigators of the high frequency energy technology suspect. Dr. Fran De Aquino asserts a fully functional HAARP network, activated globally, can not only affect weather and geophysical events, but influence space and gravity…even time itself! Now the network is almost complete with the activation of the newest HAARP facilities at the bottom of the world: the desolate and alien Antarctic. Will the masters of HAARP become the masters of time too?
Physicist: HAARP may create incredible godlike powers
The most dangerous man alive?
Factions of three of the largest governments in the world—the United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the Peoples Republic of China—may be cutting orders to eliminate a man who they see as one of the most dangerous in the world. No, he’s not the world’s most hunted multi-national terrorist, nor even a mad scientist with a new virus that can wipe out humanity.
Dangerous man: Brazilian physicist Dr. Fran De Aquino Continue Reading
Lawyers for three protesters arrested on terrorist-related charges ahead of the Nato summit have accused police of entrapping them and encouraging an alleged bomb-making effort.
The three were arrested on Wednesday night when members of the Chicago police department battered their way into an apartment in the Bridgeport area of the city.
According to court documents released on Saturday, the three men considered targeting Barack Obama’s re-election headquarters and the home of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel.
The Chicago police department said the men, described as self-proclaimed anarchists and members of the “Black Bloc” movement that has disrupted international gatherings in the past, were arrested on Wednesday and charged on Friday with conspiracy to commit terrorism, providing material support for terrorism and possession of an explosive incendiary device.
The three men charged were listed as Brian Church, 22, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jared Chase, 27, of Keene, New Hampshire, and Brent Betterly, 24, from Massachusetts.
The Internet has been literally burning up over the National Defense Authorization Act. Another monstrous bill with language that has produced headlines like: “Obama is going to ship Americans to Gitmo!!!” And, “Americans will be detained indefinitely in secret without due process!!!!” There is this dire prediction:
“The real danger lies in the government’s definition of what a suspected terrorist is.
“According to Sen Rand Paul (R-KY): “We’re talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”
“Paul says this is why he and twelve other senators voted against the bill, because they saw the dangerous implications of this provision which was designed to give the military certain powers during the current conflict with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
Not that the gangster administration under the usurper (Obama/Soetoro/Dunham) wouldn’t like to try something like that, but please remember Obama/Soetoro does not occupy the White House as he was never eligible to run for president; no one had the “right” to vote for him. Anyone charged under any bill he has signed into law has the full right to go after Obama. As a usurper, Barry has never had a shred of authority to sign any legislation into law. Continue Reading
Source: Washington’s Blog
In response to my essay documenting that the indefinite detention bill does apply to American citizens on U.S. soil, a commentator posted:
Can somebody explain to me like I am 5, why [one of the bill's provisions - which discusses U.S. citizens] does not protect citizens?
Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …
The bill says that the military must indefinitely detain anyone SUSPECTED of helping bad guys.
One provision says that the mandatory (“must”) indefinite detention doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens … but the government CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen.
This would destroy our Constitutional rights to trial, to face our accuser and to consult with an attorney.
Indeed, it would destroy rights created in England in 1215.
In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”. Continue Reading
There’s some disturbing rhetoric flying around in the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things contains passages that a) officially codify the already-accepted practice of indefinite detention of “terrorist” suspects, and b) transfer the responsibility for such detentions exclusively to the military.
The fact that there’s been only some muted public uproar about this provision (which, disturbingly enough, is the creature of Wall Street anti-corruption good guy Carl Levin, along with John McCain) is mildly surprising, given what’s been going on with the Occupy movement. Protesters in fact should be keenly interested in the potential applications of this provision, which essentially gives the executive branch unlimited powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial.
The really galling thing is that this act specifically envisions American citizens falling under the authority of the bill. One of its supporters, the dependably-unlikeable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law “basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be jailed without trial, be they “American citizen or not.” New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte reiterated that “America is part of the battlefield.”
Before It’s News
“The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador? Nobody could make that up, right?” Clinton said shortly after U.S. prosecutors accused two suspected Iranian agents of trying to murder Saudi envoy Adel Al-Jubeir.
Since you asked, yes. Someone could make that up, and did.
This is the same reverse psychology your neocon predecessor Rice used, Hillary. “Who could have imagined planes flying into the twin towers or Pentagon?”
Hey, we know who, and you know who. Cut the crap.
Low Budget False Flag
I think this latest phony “plot” is false flag warfare on a budget. Perfectly timed and placed supposed Iranian terrorist patsy looking for a hit man guess where? Right amongst the Mexican drug lords Clinton and Holder are under fire about arming!
Who’d a thunk?
And what do you know . . . not only is this a timely major distraction from some nasty domestic problems, what a nice excuse to crank it up a few notches in their itch to attack Iran! As usual, several birds with one flag. Continue Reading