Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
I've been attempting to follow this story, but every time it's posted on a news site, its gone within hours of being posted.
Hope he gets more support, because otherwise they're going to sweep this under the rug...
Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess he was being watched. He was on a list as connected to people being watched due to two of his websites.
This was posted months before he was arrested.
118. Richmond Liberty Movement Owner: Raub Brandon
137. Southeast Liberty Project Owner: Raub Brandon
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health was established by U.S. President George W. Bush in April 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study of the U.S. mental health service delivery system and make recommendations based on its findings. The commission has been touted as part of his commitment to eliminate inequality for Americans with disabilities.
The President directed the Commission to identify policies that could be implemented by Federal, State and local governments to maximize the utility of existing resources, improve coordination of treatments and services, and promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance.[dead link] The commission, using the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a blueprint, subsequently recommended screening of American adults for possible mental illnesses, and children for emotional disturbances, thereby identifying those with suspected disabilities who could then be provided with support services and state-of-the-art treatment, often in the form of newer psychoactive drugs that entered the market in recent years.
A broad-based coalition of mental health consumers, families, providers, and advocates has supported the Commission process and recommendations, using the Commission's findings as a launching point for recommending widespread reform of the nation's mental health system.
Opponents of the plan have questioned the motives of the commission, largely from a civil liberties perspective, asserting the initiative campaign is little more than a thinly veiled proxy for the pharmaceutical industry, which, in its pursuit of profits, is too eager to foster psychotropic medication interventions. Some opponents contend that its objectives are to foster chemical behavior control of American citizens. However, no commission recommendations specifically call for increased drug use and the commission did call for closer scrutiny of psychiatric drug treatment, months before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started taking these steps in the wake of reports of increased rates of suicide, especially during the first months of drug use.[dead link]
In 2008, Virginia’s General Assembly enacted significant amendments to the Commonwealth’s
civil commitment statute, based on the recommendations of the Commission on Mental Health
Law Reform (the “Commission”). This document is designed to review the statutory language
that modified the civil commitment criteria, provide examples of how the new language in the
statute might be applied, and promote a common understanding of the commitment criteria
across the Commonwealth.
Example: Consider a person with a documented history of paranoid
schizophrenia who voices the belief that her neighbors actually are foreign agents
who are spying on her, has called 911 repeatedly to complain about them, and
now has purchased a hunting knife and a rifle in order to “defend myself against
them if it comes to that.” Is she subject to commitment at the present time?
Our Opinion: Admittedly, this woman has not caused or attempted to harm her
neighbors. However, has she engaged in conduct “threatening harm”? The first point to
be noted is that the revised statute does not require evidence that the individual has made
a specific threat against a particular identifiable individual; a generalized expression of
intention or inclination to cause serious harm to anyone as a result of mental illness
would be sufficient.5 In this case, the woman’s conduct would provide a sufficient
behavioral basis for commitment as long as the totality of the evidence supports the
The woman in the hypothetical case is subject to involuntary commitment if, as a result
of her illness, there is a “substantial likelihood” that, if not treated, she will cause serious
harm to the neighbors or someone else in the near future. Purchasing the weapon and
making these statements under the circumstances would suffice to establish a recent
behavioral basis for the prediction (“recent behavior… threatening harm”) even though
she has not yet caused or attempted harm and has not yet identified a specific victim of an
increasingly likely dangerous act. Whether this woman can be shown, by clear and
convincing evidence, to present a “substantial likelihood” of casing serious harm in the
near future would depend on the full clinical picture, including her history of violence.
The point being made here is that the statements and assembling of weapons would
provide a sufficient behavioral basis for such an otherwise supported clinical judgment.
Originally posted by milkyway12
I don't think he understands that he voluntarily gave up some of his rights when he gave his oath and signed on the dotted line.
The military is not a place for free will and theory, especially for enlisted. The Military is a Machine.
If you don't want to be part of that Machine, then don't sign up.edit on 21-8-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by freakjive
This is one of the lasts posts on his "Official" FB page:
Something to note is that he is also a Ron Paul supporter and listed his work as the Ron Paul Revolution. The above post could be taken many ways by many different people.