Remote wrote:
70scarrestoguy wrote:
For months I lied to myself that it wasn't so but the writing is on the wall.
The State of Florida firmly believes that the welfare of the masses far exceeds the rights of the individual & that the U.S. Constitution is merely a piece of paper.
Succinct, excellent statement describing the bottom line of this case.

I wrote this at the CTH, but I think it goes well, with your statement. If anyone wants more information, just Google For the Public Good, there are a bunch of articles written recently, from Robert Reich, Universities and various Progressive think tanks, and what is their interpretation of the concept. It is very eye-opening.When we look at this case, and wonder how could it have come so far, what about GZ, constitutional rights? Why is the State doing this?
We know it is political, but even that does not go far enough to explain all the Judges rulings, how this case is forced to end in a phony, show trial.
To answer that, I think we must look at how progressives, who are in power define the phrase “For the Public Good.” The progressives view this as a “Carte Blanche” that allows them to do anything as long as it is justified as “For The Public Good.”
Meaning they can suspend constitutional rights, ignore laws (immigration laws come to mind), fail to enforce other laws, as long as it is all “For The Public Good.”
How does GZ fit in this category, this case had invoke a powerful reaction, from people around the country. The threat of nationwide rioting was very real, that could have resulted in lives lost, property destroyed, and general panic.
With that as a background, the CRS, which charter grants very broad powers, as we have discussed here earlier, is tasked to prevent that from happening. If the cost of this was for the rape of the Justice System, and the persecution of GZ… Someone made the decision that this, is better that the alternative, “For The Public Good.”
To me this explains why any inquiry that might implicate anyone, outside the particulars, will not be allowed. It is not just about saving a few political careers, as that alone does not explain all that has occurred.
If, I am right, that this is the application of the “For The Public Good.” concept, violating the rights of the people, to safeguard the majority, it will set a dangerous precedent of untold damage potential. The same concept could be applied to confiscate people’s guns, for instance. Abolishing general elections, could be something else done “For The Public Good.”
Our form of government was design with checks and balances, so that no single entity could override the order, forcing them to work together, but if all it takes is the invoking of “For The Public Good.” to overlooked an individuals constitutional rights, our 237 year old experiment in government is over.
This is a Test, it is only a Test.