I was watching Greta van Sustren tonight, July 15, 2013. A lawyer for the Trayvon Martin family, Jasmine Rand, was being interviewed. In this interview, at or around 9:18-9:19 PM CST, Ms. Rand said she had a greater duty to “social engineering” than to the law!
Friends, if you follow my posts on the RNL, you have probably read my assertions that, if you listen long enough, the Left will tell you who they are and what they actually want to do. That is what this “lawyer” did tonight: she told you she believes her job as an officer of the court has a greater duty to “social engineering” than to upholding the law. For those who may not be familiar with the term:
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science
Do you understand what “the management of human beings according to their place and function in society” actually means? That is the total planned state where you have no real choice in your life, no rights, no liberty: you are merely a pawn to be manipulated and disposed of according to the will of the self-appointed ruling elite. This is Communist Russia, China and North Korea. In other words, these people believe they have a greater duty to manipulate our social institutions to create the world of their dreams than to uphold the rule of law.
If you have ever doubted those on the Right when they have tried to warn you that the Left is tyrannical, then Ms. Rand’s assertion on public TV should remove that doubt. She just told the world that, as an officer of the court, she has a greater duty to the manipulation of society in accordance with our place and function in society than she does to preserving and upholding the rule of law.
BTW: “social engineering” is a sibling of eugenics – and both are American inventions connected to the Progressive movement, which in turn is the child of the Fabian Socialist movement.
After Greta’s show, I watched O’Reilly’s replay from today in which another Martin Family attorney said the verdict in this case was not “socially logical.” Folks, that can only mean this “attorney” wanted Zimmerman convicted no matter what the evidence said. For this “attorney,” this case was about meeting racial demands regardless of the law or Zimmerman’s right to self-defense.
This is in perfect accord with Ms. Rand’s assertion and it reveals a racial agenda that is totally divorced from the rule of law and evidence in this case.