GOVERNMENT ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR ANTI-OBAMA FACEBOOK POSTS

• GOVERNMENT ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR ANTI-OBAMA FACEBOOK POSTS This article will make you angry. The US Government is actively seeking those who criticize government, specifically Barack Obama, and arresting them without charging them. They are remanded to mental health institutions where they are given "training" on how to view the world. Remind you of a little book that George Orwell wrote? It gets worse. Most of the victims of the government's kidnapping scheme are veterans.OBAMA IS TRYING HIS BEST TO DESTROY AMERICA. FIND OUT JUST HOW FAR HE'S GOTTEN BY CLICKING HERE. From The Rutherford Institute: In the four years since the start of Operation Vigilant Eagle, the government has steadily ramped up its campaign to “silence” dissidents, especially those with military backgrounds. Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics have boded ill for anyone seen as opposing the government. One particularly troubling mental health label being applied to veterans and others who challenge the status quo is “oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD). As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis “denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.” The case of 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—is a prime example of the government’s war on veterans. Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state. Here is a news story by RT (Russian Times) about Brandon Raub. Apparently the corporate media in the United States won't tell his story: To underscore how big this story truly is, John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute is the lead attorney defending the innocent victims targeted by the Obama Thought Police. Whitehead is quite famous for his defense of the Bill of Rights for the past several decades.This is big. Obama wants everybody to think like a brain-dead zombie while he transforms America into Orwell's 1984.Wake up.TIRED OF OBAMA'S LIES? CLICK HERE FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY HELP. POLITICALEARS.COM · 75,163 SHARES Share J. Randy Forbes - The Controversial Cross at Ground Zero It stood for weeks, a symbol to many of the loss and pain a city had endured, and of hope that would carry them through. The Ground Zero cross is now a part of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which officially opened to the public on May 21, but its inclusion in the museum as a historical artifact that had great significance for the first responders, rescue workers, and volunteers from that great tragedy has not gone unchallenged. #ad#The Ground Zero cross was moved from the rubble and displayed near Ground Zero until July 23, 2011, when it was transferred to the September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York City. A group swiftly filed a lawsuit, arguing that the cross does not belong in a public museum and demanding that it be removed. A federal district court dismissed the case, stating that “no reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity.” The case was appealed and heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2014, and a final decision is pending. The Ground Zero cross is just one example of the many legal challenges that have threatened memorials around the country. Another memorial — the Mount Soledad Cross in California — has been the center of a legal battle for more than 20 years. The cross was dedicated in 1953 to honor those who gave their lives in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. Many, including members of Congress, have risen to defend the cross, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the cross was unconstitutional. The fate of the cross has been appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the most recent challenges has arisen in Maryland, where a roadside cross known as the Memorial Peace Cross, built in 1925, honors the men from Prince George’s County who gave their lives to defend freedom in World War I. The plaintiffs who are challenging the cross state in their complaint that the cross upsets them and that they do not wish to see it in the future. What is it that makes memorial crosses — erected to honor the memories of soldiers, victims, and many others — so controversial? They are controversial because they offend a few, despite the fact that they have great meaning to many who know they are built to give our thanks to all who served. Though many of these memorials have stood for decades, only recently have they become the subject of constitutional controversy. In upholding the constitutionality of one such memorial in 2010, in Salazar v. Buono, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Supreme Court, noted: [A] Latin cross . . . is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten. As the Supreme Court affirmed this May, the Establishment Clause protects Americans from government-coerced religion. The Constitution has never promised the right not to be offended by another — such a ridiculous standard would turn the protections of the First Amendment on their head. If offense is truly our litmus test, then we must not only forgo the freedom of religious expression but also supporting our favorite sports teams, robustly debating public policy, and discussing various theories of the origin of the universe. We live in a pluralistic society that encompasses a great diversity of beliefs. The protection of that diversity depends on our ability to maintain a cultural and legal structure that protects and encourages the expression of many different beliefs. These memorial crosses honor the fallen — not a few or most, but all — and they must be protected. — J. Randy Forbes represents Virginia’s fourth congressional district in the House of Representatives. NATIONAL REVIEW · 242 SHARES Share 4th Amendment Decimation: Federal Court Rules Police Can Search You For Innocent Acts - Truth And Action The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the police can stop, search and arrest you for innocent behavior like: driving with your hands on the steering wheel at the 10/2 position, taking a scenic route and having acne. The court stated, "Although the factors, in isolation, may be consistent with innocent travel ... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion." In other words, the police can stop you for no reason whatsoever. All they need to do is add a little 'suspicious context' to your behavior or appearance and off you go to jail. The court decided this through case USA v. Cindy Lee Westhoven, No. 13-2065, in which Ms. Westhoven battled border patrol. Incredibly, the court sided with this type of 'suspicious behavior": The officer stated the reasons for her detainment were: - "Her arms were 'straight and locked out' at a 'ten-and-two position on the steering wheel,' as everyone is taught in driver's ed in high school. - The road was used primarily by locals in New Mexico, and Westhoven had Arizona plates. - She had acne scarring, "indicating to him she might be a methamphetamine user." - He also thought the shopping was better in Tucson than Douglas, so this was also "suspicious." We have no Constitutional rights at the border as these types of illegal searches are now commonplace. Under the guise of 'protecting us' against illegal aliens, we are being acclimated to illegal searches for 'our protection'. But it's very obvious that the government just doesn't want to close the borders and intends to grant residency to the millions of illegals already here. When you step back and take a look at the general effect, one can see that this only serves to destroy our 4th amendment rights.