Thursday, August 30, 2018

The Legal and Philosophical Argument for Abolishing Segregated Congregate Care in the United States of America


The Legal and Philosophical Argument for Abolishing Segregated Congregate Care in the United States of America

by Angela Smith, HEAL National Coordinator/Co-Founder

I am a woman of faith.  In regards to philosophy of mind, or what some refer to as mental health and wellness, I prefer Abraham Maslow, an American Psychologist to any who may have been influenced by fascists in Europe before founding RAND Corporation in 1950 at 1776 Main St in Santa Monica, CA.  Since RAND Corporation is the front for the British Empire, the street address alone is a big insult.  But, I digress. 

In regards to religious faith, I consider myself ecumenical and entertain ideas from multiple religions.  However, I live my life to the best of my ability in a manner I feel best exemplifies the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I see Jesus Christ as an activist who fought for the poor and cared about prison reform and prisoner's rights.  He fed the hungry and I hope you get the point on that one.  I live my faith.  I see the bible overall as a choice between war and love.  Genesis has two versions, so does Revelations.  I don't want to digress too much.  But, I could write a book on Genesis and Revelations and my understanding of it if it would be useful to anyone.  I may consider doing so.  I choose the right path offered in the bible, the majority seem to have chosen wrong which is why we're always afraid of "end times".  None of this is on me.  None of it.

Mental Health is a religion and not a science.  Instead of "sins", they punish or convert you and/or your "behavior" (even when it is legal and generally accepted socially).  They do this through a reward and consequence system, sometimes having you punish yourself.  They don't go so far in most cases to suggest actual flogging, but, it is almost identical.  They use "confrontation" and "peer pressure" as a means to convert those not more advanced in "thought reform" (what they call "religious" conversion in the secular community).[1]  And, they make up diagnoses based on who is most likely to dissent or have faith.  Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) is simply a young person who dissents or protests "too much" for the liking of those in authority.  So, now we have two constitutional bases for challenging any involuntary institutionalization on first amendment grounds.

Here is the First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  (You may find this of interest: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-2.pdf)

If you couple the First Amendment with the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment), you understand that just because someone wants to convert you to their way of thinking, doesn't mean they have the right to force you to convert.  (This depends on the court's interpretation of the clause which varies and can fail to provide equal protection because it is read by some courts to mean solely another phrase for "due process" and judicial authority rather than actual rights of citizens to equal protection as is the common understanding.)  We all have the right to our own faith and religion.  You can't use Freedom of Religion as a basis to force others to think like you.  If you do, you have to accept that everyone has the same right and can try to force you to think like them.  This leads to hostility and often civil war.  So, it is likely best if we enforce the rights of all citizens by not allowing one group to label others and then force them to convert to their point of view.  This is certainly true when there has been no due process and the individual poses no imminent threat or danger to themselves or others.  Unless my years in law school were completely wasted, this is correct.  So, I can back up the case against the "mental health industry", no problem.  The actual documentation is all over the HEAL website.  But, you can start with this one: http://www.healreport.tv/1974congressbehaviormod.pdf. 

Freedom of speech includes the right to dissent.[2]  So, when "mental" or "behavioral" "health professionals" tell someone they are not allowed to have their own ideas and opinions and they need to conform (even though they exhibit no behavior that is illegal or criminal, nor criminal idea communicated or shared), they are pushing their beliefs and values on others.  If someone voluntarily subjects themselves to this conversion, that is their legal right to do so.  However, any involuntary placement or requirement, (including that which is a result of duress, undue influence, coercion, or deceptive marketing), is a violation of the equal protection clause and first amendment.  While we may not be able to outlaw any religion, we should be able to protect everyone's rights to choose their own faith, think freely, and speak their mind even when they have a dissenting opinion or point of view.

The mental health industry as it is known today is primarily a 5th column operation organized by RAND Corporation and their British counterparts at Tavistock.[3]  They are literally trying to reclaim the United States while using our military to expand and "reclaim" the British Empire.  They are that stupid, evil, and immature.  I want to rescue Monty Python, Eddie Izzard, and The Rolling Stones at this point.  Others too, but, we're in this together.

President Trump is a hero for getting rid of Jeff Sessions.  Sessions actually got rid of protections for the disabled and greatly reduced the civil rights division of the Department of Justice so enforcement is unlikely under his authority.  That's normally where we'd present this problem to request someone redress our grievances.  But, there are some issues right now.  So, I hope any lawyers reading this can use the constitution as a basis for taking out the entire segregated congregate care industry.  In addition, the government should immediately discontinue all funding of segregated congregate care because it is in direct violation of the 1st, 5th, 14th, and likely other amendments in the constitution.  Otherwise, our taxes are literally paying for our enslavement (conversion to obedient consumerism and settling for less) and we should have another tea party.  Take this as you wish.

Anyone who promotes the view that it is alright to institutionalize and convert another American by force to any point of view is not a true American and is a traitor.  I'm going to act accordingly and hope you do as well.  And, it doesn't matter to me if we are talking secular or faith-based institutions.  I referenced the Muslim Cleric Gulen, a terrorist from Turkey, running "charter schools" who was brought here by the Clintons in previous articles and online posts.  I think it is important that we make sure no one is forced to convert to any point of view that is not their own.  I hope we can all agree on that without having a meltdown over Sharia Law.  Our constitution protects us.  We just have to demand a redress of grievances effectively.  And, I've given you a winning argument and strategy so go for it.


Additional Resources and Evidence:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799243/ (This article is more philosophy than science.  Trust me.)


No comments: