98 votes

Kidnapped Marine's Mom blows off MSM for AVTM exclusive

Brandon Raub's mother and family provide an update on the situation:

http://youtu.be/QIlL1pq1Fhc



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't care what anyone says.

This is a mind blower.
These are true patriots. We'll see if he broke any laws since he's in the service. They don't allow leaks or being autonomous as long as you are their employee.

Keepin' it real.

Adam Kokesh

I am very disappointed in Adam Kokesh aka AVTM, he rallied for the Veterans for Ron Paul march on Tampa's convention, but now has backed out. I think that if someone says they are going to do something, rallies everyone around the idea, gets RSVP's from the masses, then quits, is not reliable. He says he is for our movement, so he should follow through with his promises. That is just my opinion.

Golden Boy No More

I agree...I have been a staunch supporter of Adam for years, but feel he made a huge blunder with this decision (and a few other recently this is just the topper). Had he sucked it up, followed thorough on his commitments to others and finished what he started, then afterwards vented about the BS that has been happening to him (and I believe this is true)He probably would have not have lost my (and many others in the Liberty Movement's) respect.

Although, he has done so much for Liberty in the past that I am loath to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But it's gonna take A LOT of atta boys to make up for this, "oh ____ !!"

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Wow. What a remarkable family. Brandon's mom for Ron Paul's

VICE PRESIDENT!

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

Are People Being Thrown In

Are People Being Thrown In Psychiatric Wards For Their Political Views? http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-21/are-people-b...

I support the family

and want her son released.

But for us, RP supporters, mental clarity should not be blurred via mixing rational thinking and feelings. Feelings are not part of rational thinking - they are emotional evaluations sometimes based on experience, sometimes on mental defense mechanism.

Thus, the mother employs reason to defend free speech and constitution, then tells us that son's priorities are 1) Jesus; 2) Country. (But, wait! Her son did not defend our country. Our wars are not about defense or even winning.) Jesus, country, society wont be able to collect sacrifices since they are abstract. In reality, wise central planners and special interest groups will step in to collect instead.

Unless religious people understand their mental irrationality and contradiction, STABLE free society cannot be achieved. MAN should not sacrifice himself to anybody. Others should not expect a man sacrifice himself to others - neither to god, nor society, nor your neighbor.

Uh?

Come again, what "contradiction and irrationality" do "religious" people have to understand about themselves?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Yes.

Please elaborate on these "contradictions."

OK

Both religious right and collectivists have the same MORALITY - sacrificing a man to an abstract entity - god or society.

For example, one can argue that god stands by US and our wars are just (as Muslim religious people justify their wars against infidels). Many Americans join army with a mixed rational - 1) Rational: free education, stable salary, green card, etc.; 2) Irrational: Defending country, society, Jesus when there is no clear enemy to fight. BTW, defending Jesus sounds like a mockery, but some do express that.

Since god and society cannot collect human sacrifices, wise central planners and special interest groups will. Thus, soldiers' lives are lost and taxes extracted to provide gainful employment for military brass, gov clerks, subcontractors, and trade unions at Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The latter simply LOVE it.

Belief (faith) is not part of rational thinking, same as emotions. Things that are not rational (and in many cases are against rational) are called irrational.

This post is remarkably irrational.

You say that faith is not part of rational thinking? You obviously have faith that your post is showing up to everyone else, don't you? Faith is not irrational, it is earned. One does not have faith in something or someone without good reason. You yourself have faith in many, many things that you cannot prove 100%.

Yes, one can argue that God supports our senseless wars. One could also argue that Ron Paul is a Nazi, but then one would just be stupid. It does not matter what one can "argue" about something as to whether it's rational or not.

I see nothing wrong with sacrifice; it is only when it is forced upon us that it is wrong. According to Christianity, God freely gives us the choice not to follow Him, and we face the natural consequences. Do you find it morally wrong for a man to throw himself onto a grenade to save those around him? That is completely "irrational," but few would dispute its inherent righteousness.

I am not in a position or mood

to dispute anything you say. Our thinking do not intersect, no common ground is possible. So I just leave you at that.

The only clarification I have to give to you is about 'sacrifice' that is incorrectly used in common language. If you do something for your own personal interests, it would be rather called rational, selfish, but not a sacrifice. Thus, enduring hardship and depriving oneself from pleasure to benefit the loved ones (wife, children, friends, country) is a self interest. If one does the same without loving the beneficiaries, then it is a sacrifice. When love is spread to all, nothing is left for a particular man.

These people are dangerous and radical...

for simply reading and believeing in our constitution. The fact that the constitution is viewed as a threat by our current government should be a wake up call to everyone.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Good deal but

I gotta say, the lawyers said to keep your pie hole shut and you go on for 7 to 8 minutes on the record.

What didn't you understand about that? Although she and family had all good to say, in these days and times, any part can be dissected and twisted to be used against them.

If your lawyer said don't talk to anyone we will speak to the media, mainstream or not, perhaps you should listen to their advise. Don't jeopardize your sons chances.

Just saying....

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Posted on Twitter

Let's get #FreeBrandonRaub trending on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Twitter page

http://freebrandonraub.com/?page_id=74

Tracks all tweets with #FreeBrandonRaub

An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/

Isn't Raub allegedly being

Isn't Raub allegedly being detained under a Virginian law? Why was the FBI involved in the kidnapping since this abduction was conducted under the ruse of a state law? Since I don't respect the reconstructive amendments that were FORCED onto the republic as a condition for reinstatement of the seceded states, i.e. the 13th or 14th, to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights is solely a restriction on the actions of the FEDERAL government, not the states. The people of Virginia need to overturn this state law at their first opportunity.

So what are you just saying

is that you don't respect 13th and 14th Amendment? Should I understand it that you're for slavery, keeping corrupt officers breaking their oaths in office, that the corrupt States can imprison you without due process and completely deny you any rights? That's what you mean?

Anyvay, the Art. I. sec. 12 of Virginia Constitution now reads:
"That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances."

So clearly any law abridging free speech in Virginia is generally unconstitutional, both on state and federal level even without considering the 14th Amendment sec. 1 to the US Constitution.

It always was due to 9th Amendment (good to note written by the good Virginian James Madison) because the freedom of speech is derived from the unalienable natural law to liberty, recognized by the US Organic law called The Declaration of Independence (written, good to note, by the good Virginian Thomas Jefferson).
The 9th Amendment prohibits construction of enumerated rights for denying or disparaging other rights retained by the people - which exactly is the right to free speech - simply the States don't have the right to to abridge free speech rights regardless they can practically have such power. Example: I can have power to kill you, but it doesn't mean I always have the right to do it.

Moreover the Constitution of Virginia reads:

Section 14. Powers of General Assembly; limitations.

The authority of the General Assembly shall extend to all subjects of legislation not herein forbidden or restricted.

So clearly any "law" abridging free speech in Virginia is not a law at all, because even if there would be such "law" it is clearly not enacted under authority given to the State of Virginia and is therefore null. So no need to repeal such texts, because they're not laws at all.

"Should I understand it that

"Should I understand it that you're for slavery, keeping corrupt officers breaking their oaths in office, that the corrupt States can imprison you without due process and completely deny you any rights? That's what you mean?"

Apparently to you, the abolition of slavery demanded FEDERAL intervention and meddling in the rights of states guaranteed via the 10th amendment. After all, the very REASON for the existence of STATE constitutions is to address the issues of "imprisonment without due process by STATE officials"... LoL ;)

I'll say it again since you obviously missed it the first time:

"Since I don't respect the reconstructive amendments that were FORCED onto the republic as a condition for reinstatement of the seceded states, i.e. the 13th or 14th, to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights is solely a restriction on the actions of the FEDERAL government, not the states."

"So clearly any "law" abridging free speech in Virginia is not a law at all, because even if there would be such "law" it is clearly not enacted under authority given to the State of Virginia and is therefore null. So no need to repeal such texts, because they're not laws at all."

So clearly, you might try explaining your objections to the police who arrested, err, detained Raub without due process for 30 days under this state law. ;)

I'm for natural rights of people

The rights of the States are all granted and limited because it is people who constitute them and surely there's no right of States to abridge right to free speech, especially not in Virginia - as I thoroughly demonstrated directly in the Constitution of Virginia.

Although you maybe will not like it I surely recognize the right of feds to intervene for the purpose of abolishing slavery and I don't recognize any right of States to keep it - there clearly was no such right and because southern States didn't comply with the rightful demand to abolish the slavery they were rightfully and successfully enforced to do so by force.

The right to keep the slaves the States ultimately waived at the latest already on December 15 1791 when ratifying the 4th (generally interdicting unreasonable seizures, especially of any person without probable cause) 5th (generaly interdicting deprivation of liberty of any person without due process of law) and 9th Amendment (generally interdicting construction of enumerated rights to deny and disparage peoples rights - both the natural and legal ones) and the 13 States waived it already on July 4 1776 when ratifying the cornerstone of the US Organic Law - the Declaration of Independence, because it clearly recognizes the unalienable right to liberty -which in purely legal sense means such a right is unabridgeable by a law in general (and the fact there are the derived statutes as the 1st Amendment is only an application of the general legal rule). And due to Art VI second clause of the US Constitution such a "law" is in any case superseded by the US Constitution and is therefore null both at the state and federal level and inaplicable in any court. This is in effect already since June 21 1788 and was ratified by all the States acceding USA thereafter.

Some of you in USA apparently have still a long way ahead to understand what your constitution in broadest sense of that word means and especially what it means in the legal sense. Generally one can say you have the tendency to not recognize valid laws even if they are the supreme law of the land, while at the same time you have the tendency to recognize the "laws" which aren't laws at all. This tendency to injustice - to recognize laws only when it is favourable to you and your attitudes clearly looks endemic in USA.

As long as you keep posting

As long as you keep posting your erroneous misinterpretation of the US Constitution and its purpose, I'll keeping repeating my original remarks:

"Since I don't respect the reconstructive amendments that were FORCED onto the republic as a condition for reinstatement of the seceded states, i.e. the 13th or 14th, to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights is solely a restriction on the actions of the FEDERAL government, not the states."

AGAIN, a state's constitution protects a state's people from STATE abuse of power which is precisely its purpose. The 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments to the US Constitution are limitations against FEDERAL abuse of power. In fact, the state constitutions were largely patterned after the federal constitution for a reason. In your twisted misinterpretation of the US Constitution, there would be little need for any state constitution whatsoever since the protections contained therein would be provided by the federal constitution. ;)

Apparently, we OBVIOUSLY need to fight another Civil War to ensure the PROPER understanding of the US Constitution.

Hey boy

You can repeat what you want, it will not make it true. First study the law and then give lessons about it, not vice versa.

The people constitute the States which constitute the federation, not vice versa. - If you pose the typical egg/chicken question, here is absolutely clear what is egg and what is chicken.

Natural right/law ->Organic law constituting the States ("The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" 1776) [->Constitutional Law constituting the States government (State constitutions and their revisions 1776-1974)] -> Organic law constituting the Confederation (Articles of Confederation 1777) -> Organic law constituting the federation and northwest territories (US Constitution, its amendments 1787-1992 and Northwest Ordinance 1787)

-If is something federal it means it is constituted by the people which wish so to be common for all the states. So therefore the US Constitution limits both federal and state officials
(- which must take oath under art. VI third clause of the US Constitution, which must respect the US Constitution supreme jurisdiction under Art. VI second clause, which must not abridge right to vote for not paying taxes under Amendment 24, they must let vote women under Amendment 19, must let vote blacks under Amendment 15, are limited to republican form of government under Art. IV sec. 4, must not infringe on right to keep and bear arms under 2nd Amendment, must provide speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district where the crime happened under 6th Amendment, are interdicted to form a state within a State or merge the states without US Congress approval under Art. IV sec. 3, must render fugitives under Art. IV sec 2 second clause, must entitle all privileges and immunities as in the several States under Art. IV sec. 2 first clause, must respect legal facts found by other State justices under Art. IV sec. 1, must try crimes in the States where they were pepetrated under Art. III sec. 2 last clause or give jurisdiction to the federation, their militia must obey the command of US President... and then there is the whole section 10 in the Art. I with the title: Powers prohibited of States (sic!) and then there is the 10th Amendment (a part of the Bill of Rights) which explicitely talks about powers prohibited to the States - so please don't try to mystify me about the Bill of Rights - which is the integral part of the US Constitution - which apparently limits States on many occasions both in the original text and Amendments - and try to lie to me that it limits only feds and not States -unless you show me an explicite statute in a law - which is a supreme law of land - and which says it...no, I'll not hold my breath..)
- the legal principle of so called construction of constitution (derived from natural rights) - which is the title of 9th Amendment concerning Reserved rights of the States and the people as the US Organic Law definitions recognize.

The war apparently didn't helped you, at least not with proper understanding of your constitution, so why fight it again anyway. -Isn't it better to go and study and find out about what is what in the whole context of your constitution conception? Or it is easier for you to simply not respect the parts you don't like thinking that using repetition they'll somehow cease to exist -and be taken for another silly American whole the world jokes about?

And just to answer your question: The States have power to secede, but they never had any State right to secede for the purpose of further perpetuation of slavery. The power is legally used only when there is a right to use such power and at the same time there is not an unalienable right of the people which it would infringe upon.

Has the "formal statement"

Has the "formal statement" been released?

Something don't smell right

with this whole "story".

I think this guy is on to something.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/instahero-brandon...

UPDATE to the UPDATE of… oh forget it:

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Defiantly a PSY-OP.

Defiantly a PSY-OP.

I just read his facebook

I just read his facebook page. All of the posts seem canned. None of it stands out as odd and it's certainly stuff I see a dozen times a day.

I think Drudge or MSM didn't

I think Drudge or MSM didn't touch this story yet. But about the hero Assange, well...

sharkhearted's picture

Great post!

Bump for Lady Liberty.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

So, this indicates that all

So, this indicates that all those schizophrenic people living on the streets and desperately in need of psychiatric attention only need to go to the library, sign up for a face book account and post some violent song lyrics on a few occasions and they can expect front door delivery to an all expenses paid stay at a a live-in psychiatric facility. The word needs to get out there so that all these desperate people in need can make good use of this new service.

Cyril's picture

Yup. Don't you just love such a

Yup. Don't you just love such a caring welfare Obama Socialist State Republik (OSSR) ?

Damn, we're so lucky to have them around taking care of our mental health, now, as much as of our property... to go to our dear collectivity.

We poor USA Constitution nostalgic fools.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius