Supreme Court Decision: 2nd perspective

The following is placed here in response to a reply to my posts by Mr. "Reason for Life."

Regarding the reference to Jefferson having to end the Sedition Act: It was passed during Adam's administration, but not promoted or advanced by him, in fact because and while Jefferson surreptitiously as vice president was paying writers and publishers to defame the President with constant and voluminous false information. Jefferson, at the time the Vice President being a competitive office to the Presidency – the VP was elected directly, not chosen as a running mate by the President – paid to have Adam's libeled, defamed publically. Again in fact, the first case brought under the sedition law was against the referenced publisher who during the trial outed Jefferson as his co-conspirator and financier. The rift between Adams and Jefferson was so great, that long time close friend and confident Abigail Adams, the sitting president's wife, wrote to Jefferson and terminated her long and historic relationship with the characterless politician. Furthermore, as Adam's vice president, Jefferson provided confidential information to the French Ambassador regarding strategic American interests, giving undermining advice as to how to delay or otherwise avoid meeting with the peace delegation sent by the American government and which Jefferson had opposed. Jefferson was pro the French components that were instituting the "Reign of Terror" and Adams was not. For your perusal, that information is documented not just fully in (Pulitzer Prize winning author) McCullough's book on Adams, but is available throughout the historic literature. It's no wonder the lofty Jefferson was so on the spot to save America from those mean old sedition laws, which by the way only required the information published be the truth. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, full disclosure of KGB documentations occurring during the Cold War showed that Ted Kennedy did the same thing with the Soviets in 1983, but from the position of Senator of course rather than being part of the Executive as was Jefferson, by sending his correspondences about how to circumvent American foreign policy directly to Andropov. This is in reference to the issue that you, Mr. Reason for Life, raised regarding "Our President Thomas Jefferson" saving us all from government encroachment into 1^st Amendment protections.

Regardless of your theory about Marine immunity to human or emotional processing, that constituency is still dramatically affected by traumatic events, referring to combat deaths of team members or injury, as are all other persons, albeit well trained service personnel use different defenses against the process while in theater. To suppose that they are immune to those processes because of their training, and the Esprit d Corps of their honorable institution would be bad judgment and, again, indicative of poor research. And, for your additional information, combat trauma and victimization are not the same things. Nor does the reference to trauma or its organizational management required in today's armed forces mean the promotion of misguided uses of victimization. In particular, European and Canadian law that prevents saying nasty things that hurt people's feelings, like Islamists' in the case of the Netherlands vs. Geert Wilders, one of my heroes – the only male on that continent with both an independent functioning American styled brain plus great backbone – does not correlate to a contract with a country that guarantees the honorable burial of its armed services personnel killed in action. As a citizen of the United States, no matter if you are a peon or one sitting as a member of the Supreme Court, that contract is to you. Allowing protestors to interfere with the mourning and grieving processes of that dead service person's family during that ceremony for burial abrogates that contract. When I signed up in May 1964, the Marine Corps said son "We'll only guarantee you one thing. That's an honorable military burial." That's been the Marine's motto and promise forever. What happened in Kansas is and was not an honorable military burial. And the Marine's motto now is worthless because all of you flakes in this society who can't keep your promise because of your fears, your cowardice, your terror of confronting a protestor who on the day of our funeral would defame our honor and harm our families. You have to hide from those facts, weaknesses in character and darkly humiliating aspects of and about yourselves by chanting irrelevant and hysterical abstractions.

Irrelevant? "Hurt feelings" because somebody has spoken the truth about Mu or Mohammad, whichever spelling you want to use, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Thomas Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan or any other prize person, deity or idea, or notion like Allah or God, DO NOT correlate, nor are they equivalent to the emotionally incapacitating state attending the mourning process of a funeral where a true and real loved one is being buried, said goodbye to until the end of time. They are not just different, but profoundly so emotional processes. And the latter has been honored by fighters since the Peloponnesian Wars. Following battle, let the other side pickup and bury their dead. It's fundamental to the ontology of the human consciousness. It is based on the interplay of the phylogenetic integrative aspects of the brain. And, mourning and grief are attended during the funeral experience by extraordinary vulnerability that goes to the core of the human being's existence. It's been honored forever, until this piddling group of thinkers sundered it in this disaster. You have said that its ok to dishonor that process because of your frivolous idea that if you insist upon maintaining the honor through the simplicity of funerals and their need for quietude and solace and love, then Americans will all of a sudden not be able to speak freely anymore, and we deep thinkers might get culturally gobbled up by Islamists.

That Lance Corporal's father didn't need you all to defend himself and the rest of his family from intrusion into that vulnerable time. He fought back himself to bury his son with dignity and honor no matter the assault on their selves in the horror story. None of you were running over to Kansas trying to help him by carrying protest placards in front the offending church. None of you were sending money to defray his expenses. None of you were calling your congressman and saying this isn't right that he had to fight that battle by himself. That was America's contract to give his son who died for us an honorable burial. And that's not even enough. You are going to come in now, after he did your job as a caring and obligated American citizen and tell him "No. Not only is your son dead; not only is nobody going to help you; but neither are we going to let defend your family so that they can in peace bury your dead like we get to do, and to include the news and Supreme Court guys, because you are a Marine Corps family. You don't get the same privileges. Why? Because we've a long record of turning human beings into less than that when it fits the delusional abstractions needed to get what we want at any particular deep thinking – heavy duty cerebral moment. You did it to slaves until we had to spend 619,000 dead Americans in the first Civil War here to prove you wrong. Then it took another fifty-five years and a full constitutional Amendment to decide women were human beings also. No more excuses about how Marines are tough and above that emotional or victim stuff. Nobody's talking about victims. We're talking simply about giving a dead human being a funeral in peace, quiet, maybe prayer, and above all things, the goddamn honor he deserves and that we owe him.

Here's some more history and another abstraction for you Y and I deep thinkers. The left, supported by hostile forces - whether socialist, communist or Islamist - routinely plans its guerrilla operations to target their opposition's management structures by exploiting both trauma's individual personal, professional and systemic influences. For those of you who missed it, the Vietnam War was fought by the North based on that strategy; and it was successful. Although the Islamists are not yet smart enough to implement General Giap's approach here, its merger with leftists groups antagonistic to this country's system of governance gives Islamic purists plenty of trauma manipulative capacities. The idea was - under Giap's management- and is today under the Islamic / leftist merger to exploit traditional war trauma experienced in theater by attacking the personages of military personnel at the home front. That is, combat traumatized personnel, no matter their outward appearances to some members of the public, are then made more vulnerable to the attacks received either individually or systemically when returning home. That's what is being applied explicitly in this controversy. The left in America exploited that traditional war trauma by attacking the personages, that is, the motives, morals, values, and beliefs (psychological identity profiles) of American service personnel, demoralizing that army and regardless of the honor codes and toughness of the particular branch of service involved. That same process is initiated in this country today as an attempt to exploit the loss that occurs during this war, although as indicated the strategy has been moderately restrained until now. The reason is not the good will of the radical left, but the fact that they don't have the terror embedded in the hearts and minds of college age school children who may get drafted! There is no danger for that constituency here; so the left doesn't have the great mobs of terrified youth to carry out their directives. They are attack; attack; attack; inner personal ontologies of the American service and combat personnel. The left doesn't just plan, but they orchestrate this activity in conjunction with leaderships of the very forces that our combat personnel have to fight in theater. They suckered our naïve young people, who too were only trying keep themselves alive, by selling them the same cerebral constructs that is sold to those poor protestors of today: "America's a bad place and deserves what it gets, and especially deserves the deaths of those who would defend her." They do all this as matter of application of the trauma exploitation method whether you realize it, accept it, or even consider it, or not. They are going to keep doing this now like 100,000 rockets all fired off and lit up at once because their tactic has backed down the American people, through its Supreme Court and the entire western civilization press, excepting a few remaining free bloggers and websiters, coincidentally like this one: frontpagemagazine.com, which is why I come here from time to time. Only this time, instead of running into the Islamist fighters and a few good men, that is real conservatives who can still think, that I expect to find here, instead I find Vichi America right here at my favorite place to visit. Their trauma exploitation tactic, at least as old as Mohammad, and refined by a few sharpies along the way like Lenin and General Giap, has taken you people to the cleaners. And I don't care how many people today, in this little time warp, are applauding my brothers on airplanes. It's going to be short lived. They'll soon be back to the style that the Americans of 40 years ago embraced where we couldn't WEAR our uniforms on an airplane because of the vituperative attacks of the few million that otherwise intimidated the rest of the common masses into quiet submissive servitude, the earlier makings of today's dhimmitude collective consciousness that now rules Europe, and is coming here with this decision.

Again, although the first amendment is exploited by offensive trauma managers in this country, freedom of speech is not the primary issue in this event. It is national security as manifested by contrivance by the minority to undermine the capacity of the majority to achieve its goals. It uses and exploits individual personal and professional and systemic - to include management structures and the manipulation of the public - aspects of psychological trauma from war to do that. Ignoring that offensive war tactic /methodology supports it implementation by our adversaries. And I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, by the way.

Without intending to hurt your feelings through ridicule of your position, I believe that your reference to the Marine Corps, victims or the process of victimization connote superficial understandings of these issues which all are of strategic importance and upon which you have opined. American either military or public morale and the will to fight are the targets of offensive trauma managers. In this case, this once used-to-be small contingent of church goers from Kansas have and or now going to grow from their fame. They've proved their model's worthiness to the leftists power brokers by taking on and beating the Supreme Court and sanctioning their majority-undermining tactics as the new Law of the Land! That's something that the no doubt now envious Jane Fonda, Noam Chomsky and John Kerry were never able to do.

Trauma when unaddressed depreciates over the long term for significant number of fighters, not all, but eventually the preponderance, the will to fight. It is also called morale. Declaratives as cloaks around deep denial of what is occurring do not will these issues away. instead they leave the country vulnerable to the very forces and processes which allowed the military's goals in the Vietnam War to be subverted. We kicked every Vietcong's butt south of the DMZ until none of them were left. And then the greatest of all Vichi news guys, Walter Cronkite, surrendered for us because it was all just too stress producing watching the carnage on TV. In fact, that is the very purpose of terrorism when used as an adjunct to guerrilla warfare: to use repeated terror induced traumatic events to undermine the management, that is, decision making, processes of the targeted opposition, to include service personnel, executive management, the public and the media. Playing like that is not happening by those of you today fighting this continuing trauma management war modality is the most readily assurable means of supporting that same adversarial method during your lifetime, enhancing its likelihood of success.

The controversy here is about the rollover during war to meet the need for and hear legitimate protests in this society and keep ourselves alive by stopping cold purposeful intent to give aid and comfort to the country's enemies. When a protestor's placard calls for the death of American military personnel, the line between legitimate protest or just hurtful speech and treason has been crossed. But more important than that, having an open mind as the old trope goes does not mean that one's brain has to fall out. Nor during times of war do we have to commit suicide as a society in order to maintain free speech. In this case, interfering with the plaintiff's rights to advance a tort as a remedy for a legitimate grievance is unnecessarily suicidal from a national security perspective; the issue wasn't even entertained in that legal debate. And you can bet the press was not going to bring it up. Linking the hurtful speech analogy as so invaluable to the address of Islamism is nothing more than a defense based on both hysterical and wishful thinking. Reiterating that funeral mourning and grief are different emotional processes than those experienced in the twilight zone of run of the mill hurtful feelings occurring during individual and systemic interpersonal transactions. And, Islam has a few more jihad irons in the fire than that.

By the way, "leaving no men behind" is not a Marine thing. Mostly it belongs to and is hyped by Hollywood and is for people who observe armed forces operations from the fantasy world of the sidelines. And I would like to think that you were not intending to insult me with your comments regarding despicability just because I know a great deal more about the real United States Marine Corps and the related subjects of combat trauma and their manipulations by our adversaries than do you. And no matter your aspersions, I have shown you courtesy in this instance by not employing real Marine Talk; I don't play cards at all when discussing dead Marines. I've carried more of them to graves registration than live ones that you'll ever meet or even see on airplanes or in the movies. Don't make the mistake again.

Semper fi,

Jesse W. Collins II

 

Gentlemen, Ladies:

This is not about a particular preacher, or any personality that is protesting anything. And it is also not just about the cowardly media. It's worse than that. This is about a group of people who are targeting members of the armed forces with the intent to destroy their abilities to function in their jobs. When they contrive to bring psychological pain to the combatants' families for the purpose of demoralizing combatants by attacking their families under the guise of protest, they are committing treason.

We took the abuse of attacks perpetrated on our personal identities during the Vietnam War. And we bore that burden for the rest of our lives while the rest of you were wondering what was wrong with Vietnam Veterans. "Why are they different." But these attacks are more sophisticated. Through repetitive implementation of the abuse of our service men and women's families during moments of grief, the message to the combatants is "While you are doing battle, we are going to take down your families, not just you." Where personal attacks on the combatant makes doing one's job difficult, that kind of pain is at least endurable; the combatant can function in his or her proscribed capacity. But when the attack is on the combatant's family back here in the supposed to be safe or secure zone, that kind of pain is NOT endurable. It is impossible to do one's job in battle because you are doing that fighting for your family first, your neighbors second, and your country third.

These kinds of actions are not expressions that are intended to call public attention to a policy or war that these people don't like. Rather they are intended to render military personnel psychologically incapable of performing their duties, which is an attack on the armed forces of this country. And that will bring the country down. That is the intent of these activities.

Addressing this particular kind of attack is not the duty of the combatant or his or her family. It is the duty of the management of this society. Those managers, in this instance the federal judiciary, have in their ignorance of what it is like to sit in a fighting hole at night or go on patrol that requires sidestepping landmines, abdicated their responsibilities to do their duty and apply the rules pertaining to treason, which is what this activity is. Nobody in federal management wants to face this issue squarely, just as they didn't want to address Jane Fonda sitting on an NVA anti-aircraft gun turret, because they were afraid they'd have to arrest a few million protestors along with the person committing the treason. So government played and still does play like its not happening, and lays the difficulty for carrying the war off onto the individual combatants: Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen. All the military wants is that the managers back here do their jobs and in the minimum protect their families.

But these people in suits can't even do that this time. The SC (Supreme Court) has now made it the law of the land that it is open season on the families of newly dying military combatants, which is the vulnerable underbelly of otherwise tough combatants that the traitors couldn't get to before this happened. This ruling is not just cowardice on the part of this management, but it's gross dereliction of duty, misfeasance, and capitulation to the enemy.

All these morons had to do is say to those church people "You don't have any business attacking our armed forces by assaulting their families. We are not going to let you target our combatants. It's against the law! It's called treason! It's not about free speech or the first amendment. And this court is in the business of enforcing that law." Then they could have gotten out of the way and let that poor Marine's father set the traitors who would use this attack modality back on their cowardly jackal butts, while they tried to figure out where to come up with five million bucks.

That precedent would have affirmed the tendency to return to normalcy by the population that before had condoned attacks on veterans during the Vietnam War. Some of the protestors have concluded that attacking the persons of the military would backfire, causing their movement harm. So in the main they've held off from that approach with this generation. Then if the minority wants to object, they would have to find another set of targets to manipulate, something or somebody other than those people who fight and die for us. Their personal beings, particularly that which engages the love of their families and desire to protect them must be shown by the majority's government to be off limits to the attack dogs representing the minority. In this case, the opposite has happened and those dogs are now unleashed with no constraints. They can just sit out there an pick off families of KIA American service men while the press and government play like it's not happening, because after all, they are the ones who caused this horror in the first place. The erosion of will to defend the United States of America will be swift and deadly.

The Supreme Court has just surrendered this country to the next revolution of crazies. It needs to say "Whups. We made a mistake." Otherwise, once this cowardice act of dereliction is figured out by our men and women who defend us, they are just going to say "No thanks. If you don't promise to take care of our loved ones when we are dead, we're not going to take care of you and your loved ones while we are alive." Our once dedicated and completely courageous service men and women will come on home and take care of their own families. The court can then divide itself into two 4 man fire teams with one alternate; and send one down to the Rio Grande River and the other up to the Canadian border in Idaho and dig in; and while they are at it try to think up a new name for this strategy that they've created from the bench. They could call it Isolationism, maybe. Or everybody-take-care-of-themselvesism; or something like that.

Nobody is stupid enough to work for a bunch of sissies who say "Gee, we can't do anything about the abuse caused to your families after you are dead. They'll just have to suffer a hundred fold what they otherwise would have after you are no longer with them, because you were dumb enough to give up your life for something like the country." You can't field an army if you don't have anybody back here at home with either a brain or spine trying to manage the small things, like protecting families from abuse by 5th column, in this instance, retards. You don't have to have both a spine and a brain; either one would do. The American service man and woman can and will take care of the rest.

Summarizing for clarification, you can sell service men the notion that it's ok to be personally abused because after all, "that's what you are fighting for: the minority's right to cause you harm." But the next step down is not such an easy sell - sure thing. "It's ok for your family to be abused after you are dead and gone because that's what you are fighting for: the right of the minority's crazies to beat up on your family which mental destruction will last for the rest of their lives when you are no longer here to protect them. And we are not going to help out because again after all, we are lawyers-judges. We are objective and thus don't get involved at the emotional level. Maybe you could just get counseling. That should work. Now get out there and do your job of defending us, or we'll put you and whole United States Marine Corps in jail."

Jesse W. Collins II