The Case of Brandon Raub: Speaking Out Against Government is a Mental Disorder

By Susanne Posel
August 24, 2012

Yesterday, Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett, dismissed the unlawful detainment and FBI case against US veteran Brandon Raub.
The FBI petitioned the court to have Raub involuntarily detained and forced to have psychiatric evaluations after a previous hearing wherein the Special Justice Walter Douglas Stokes granted the governmental request citing entries on Raub’s private Facebook page was “terrorist in nature”.
Stokes originally sentenced Raub to 30 days commitment to a psychiatric ward at the Veterans Hospital in Salem, North Carolina.
Sharrett dismissed Stokes’ ruling citing that the original petition was “devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.”
John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said:
“This is a great victory for the First Amendment and the rule of law. Brandon Raub was arrested with no warning, targeted for doing nothing more than speaking out against the government, detained against his will, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys. These are the kinds of things that take place in totalitarian societies. Today, at least, Judge Allan Sharrett proved that justice can still prevail in America.”
On August 16th, Raub was removed from his Virginia home by the FBI and Secret Service without having been read his rights or presented with an arrest warrant.



Facebook comments were recently cited as evidence in a court case concerning cyber bullying where comments on a personal page were ruled by a US Federal court as information that can be lawfully obtained by the police to be used against a defendant.
William Pauley, US District Court Judge, stated that because the defendant made violent threats in his posts which are deemed public information that they are allowable as evidence against him by prosecutors.
Government officials scan Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and YouTube for evidence of criminal activities, activists and possible suspects who may have not committed a crime just yet.
According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as “Mentality III”.
This mental disorder is defined as: “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”
Symptoms of ODD include:

• negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness
• resistance to directions
• unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers
• defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds
• hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)

This classification of support for our nation’s return to a Constitutional Republic has now been labeled as a mental disorder with serious repercussions.
Recently David C. Gorczynski was charged with attempted bank robbery and making terroristic threats – and to add insult to injury, one misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.
Gorczynski is only guilty of protesting outside a Wells Fargo Bank while holding one sign that read “You’re Being Robbed” and another that stated “Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob a country.”
Carl Scalo, Easton police chief said that “We can’t allow the perceived idea of protesting to be a defense to criminality. People have to understand if they want to protest, there’s a line.”
In January, globalist George Soros made the “prediction” that civil unrest based on the financial collapse of the US dollar was on the horizon.
Soros said : “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”
The vision is rioting in the streets that “will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
Having deemed protest of our government a mental disorder, it appears that Soros idea of our immediate future may play out as predicted. Of course, being a member of the global Elite, he should know.

Unserious People (video)

Morsi’s Tactical Retreat

By Robert Spencer
December 10, 2012



All the pundits whose credibility was on the line for their uncritical hailing of the “Arab Spring” uprisings can breathe a sigh of relief: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi has, according to Fox News, “agreed to rescind the near-absolute power he had granted himself.” Well, that’s a relief! Democracy in Egypt is saved! The “Arab Spring” really was about democracy and pluralism after all, and this proves it! All is well! Isn’t it?
Actually, no. As everyone knows except Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James “Clueless” Clapper, The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to imposing the rule of Islamic law in Egypt and around the world. And as is evidenced by the fact that the two foremost Sharia states in the world today, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are both authoritarian regimes with dismal human rights records, Sharia is much more compatible with dictatorship than it is with republican, representative government.
That makes it likely that while Morsi has had to retreat for the moment, he has not given up his goal or changed his overall objective: to turn Egypt into a Sharia state in which one is not free to do anything but serve Allah.
The Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, however, the former face of the notorious (and failed) Ground Zero Mosque project, begs to differ. He wrote recently in The Daily Beast: “Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi rode to power at the head of the Muslim Brotherhood with the promise that he would create a government based on Sharia, the Islamic law. So it is ironic that by granting himself sweeping powers, including immunity for his decisions against judiciary appeal, he has violated one of the central principles of Sharia: no one is above the law.”
Rauf said that “for the past six years, I have been working with some of the leading Muslim scholars to create a Sharia Index to determine what an authentic, tradition-based Islamic state ought to look like.” The conclusion? “The majority of our scholars concluded that a representative democracy, which can determine the collective will of the people, is the best contemporary method of determining God’s will.”
In this, however, as so often in his case, Rauf was being less than honest. The primary evidence for this is historical: Rauf’s scholars supposedly concluded that “a representative democracy, which can determine the collective will of the people” was the best expression of Sharia government, and yet never in the history of Islam from its beginnings to the present day was a Sharia state ever a representative democracy. Turkey has since the end of World War I been the closest thing to a representative democracy that Muslim countries have, but it only became one when, under the rule of Kemal Ataturk, it decisively and explicitly rejected Sharia for a Western model of governance.
Has it just been bad luck, or some kind of coincidence, or some combination of malignant forces (Zionists!) that has prevented Muslim states from forming representative democracies? Or have they failed to do so because Sharia itself tends toward authoritarianism? Certainly Muhammad is said to have counseled what appears to be unconditional obedience to rulers: “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin” (Bukhari 9.89.256). Nor is he recorded as having set up any kind of voting system or representational government for the nascent Muslim community – and as he is the supreme model for emulation for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), that is a decisive point.
Rauf likewise doesn’t give any hint of the fact that Sharia, in a systematic and thoroughgoing manner, denies equality of rights to women and non-Muslims. Anything close to “representative democracy” that adhered to the classic tenets of Sharia would limit the voice of both groups in the government, and thereby undercut its claim to be a representative democracy in the first place. Muslim men may be accorded some consultative or even supervisory role in ensuring the ruler’s adherence to Sharia, but that in itself does not a representative democracy make.
Of course, the Imam Rauf has made a career out of deceiving audiences in the U.S. and Europe into thinking that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with Western principles of human rights and freedom. The tens of thousands who have been protesting against Morsi’s power grab in Egypt know better; they know that his attempt to destroy the last vestiges of representative government in Egypt went hand-in-hand with his adherence to Sharia, or, as the Muslim Brotherhood credo puts it, to Allah as his objective; the Qur’an as his law, the Prophet as his leader; Jihad as his way; and death for the sake of Allah as the highest of his aspirations.
And they also must know, even as Morsi and the Brotherhood attempt to cool things off in Egypt now, that he has not put away his authoritarian aspirations for good, and will claim dictatorial powers again at a time when he thinks he can get away with it. For him to do anything else would be to abandon his goal of imposing Islamic law over Egypt; and that is one thing that his opponents can be certain he is not going to do, even as he bows to current realities and tacitly acknowledges that it might take a bit longer to get there than originally planned.

But the Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for this moment since 1928. They know how to be patient.