It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rachel Maddow trashes Obama for shredding Constitution! Must watch!

page: 3
59
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Sigh, this woman is a menace to the world of media. She is rude, condescending, pretentious and fake. And she is in need of developing some comprehension skills too. I feel I have wasted a part of my life by watching this video. I wish this was Minority Report because I would imprison her for the future murder of independent journalism.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]




posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sigh, this woman is a menace to the world of media. She is rude, condescending, pretentious and fake. And she is in need of developing some comprehension skills too. I feel I have wasted a part of my life by watching this video. I wish this was Minority Report because I would imprison her for the future murder of independent journalism.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]


How you can say something like this in the face of a president basically trying to railroad in legislation for the creation of concentration camps to put innocent people into is beyond any sense of reason. Talk about the wrong focus...



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The corporate-government-main-stream-media and in particular “TV” which is fueled by blood-money and directed by a fraternity of incompetent self-serving lords, needs to be decommissioned, mothballed, and unceremoniously scrapped. The vast majority of media personalities just like their political counterparts are nothing more than corroding tools, being used to maintain an obsolete machine that automates a corrupted system.

Listening to Barry O or Rachel Maddow is simply a waste of valuable time. These two are nothing more than over paid tools of deception, whose job it is to feed us stale crumbs of sugar-coated junk truth. What the people need now more than ever, is a consistent diet of fresh homegrown organic truth, made available through a vast selection of wholesome Internet channels.

The people may want to experiment with trashing their television sets, and begin devising creative ways to boycott the corporate-government-main-stream-media. Peaceful anarchy and the ways of non-violent resistance provide us with an EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE means to deal with corrupted systems.

"The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Peace on Earth!



[edit on 23-5-2009 by seasoul]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Hey David9176, big star...great job bringing this Rachel rant to our attention. I agree, she has become a refreshing voice at times in MSM. Boy, did she ever hit this obvious contradiction on the head! She asks how Obama can make this contradiction in the same speach. My belief is he can because no one is paying attention much to what he is saying because they are "caught up" in the giddyness of having a president who can speak above the elementary grade level.

If you believe, as I do, that the president is only a figurehead mouthing the goals of the elite of the NWO, style is all that is left. His style is better, but the message remains the same as Dubya's. That message is attack, attack, attack the constitutional rights of the citizens. Justify this attack as a big-gov commitment to safety of those citizens from "terrorists" at all costs.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
No one has said anything relevant to the situation Obama was addressing... the people taken prisoner on a battlefield in a foreign country, belonging to no state army and not wearing uniforms.

Points of law...
1) The US Armed Forces do not operate, when in a foreign war, under the Constitution. They are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The US courts, the Constitution, have no effect. They do apply to the president, and if ordered by the courts, the pres can order the troops

2) When in a foreign war, the Geneva Accords rule the treatment of prisoners taken. In an effort to keep from slaughtering enemy soldiers, everyone fighting must be in uniform, or have a patch, or ???
If there are fighters not in uniform, and they are captured, there is a clause in the Accords saying they do not have protection from the accords. That is there to try and keep gangs and terrorists from joining in a war. These non-recognized enemy fighters can be executed on the spot and don't have to be taken prisoner. We, though, don't do that. We are Americans.

3) Guanatanamo bay is not under the jurisdiction of the US courts.
The US tribunals were set up exactly like the Nuremberg trials. These detainees had no right to a trial, under the Accords, the UCMJ, or the Constitution. Instead, we were going to try the ones we had evidence on, and keep the others detained until the Iraq war was over. That is what everyone did in WWII, except Japan. Even Nazi Germany obeyed the Accords.

4) Obama was talking about the detainees in Gitmo, no one else. He told the world during his campaign, he would, End the war in Iraq, Close Gitmo, End the Patriot Act, (which has NOTHING to do with the Gitmo prisoners) and a bunch of other things. He has decided he needs the Patriot Act, he needs Gitmo, and we can't leave Iraq until it is stable.

He put on Bush's clothes and went on fighting. He lies about everything, all in the same speach. America, You got exactly what you voted for. And you ain't gonna' like the next three years.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by seasoul
 


Sorry, "Peacefull anarchy" sounds like another word for trashing the constitution in a different way. Lets not advocate anything but restitution of our rights under law.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by glnflwrs
 



You keep refering to "foreign war" in your points. Point is, there is no foreign war. War can ONLY be declared by act of congress. What we have here is Dubya's war with Dubya's illegal rules being embraced by Obama.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sigh, this woman is a menace to the world of media. She is rude, condescending, pretentious and fake. And she is in need of developing some comprehension skills too. I feel I have wasted a part of my life by watching this video. I wish this was Minority Report because I would imprison her for the future murder of independent journalism.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]


How you can say something like this in the face of a president basically trying to railroad in legislation for the creation of concentration camps to put innocent people into is beyond any sense of reason. Talk about the wrong focus...


In this case I am attacking the messenger and not the message. Do you honestly find this woman to be sincere and truly concerned about justice? Or is she perhaps trying to inflate her ego?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
And the doped up millions will simper, "Oh, geez. I hope someone will do something," and then change the channel to watch whatever their favorite flavor of pablum might be.

Yes, it's worrisome that the MSM is talking about it - but maybe they are reaching the end of their willingness to kowtow to the PTB...? One may hope.

But yes. Another false flag is on its way. No other reason for this unless the MSM is gaining a conscience.

If this does not rile us up (as it has me), we will be led to the slaughter with ease.


as with every democratic president, the MSM is quick to analyze and critisize. maybe if they had this same type of intensity before iraq, the war could have been avoided. but the republicans always get the benefit of the doubt. why else would some MSM company pay a 30 million dollar contract to a high school educated, 3-time married and divorced, drug-addicted and obese radio talk show host, to enlighten the public with his political knowledge.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sigh, this woman is a menace to the world of media. She is rude, condescending, pretentious and fake. And she is in need of developing some comprehension skills too. I feel I have wasted a part of my life by watching this video. I wish this was Minority Report because I would imprison her for the future murder of independent journalism.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]



I agree with you here, but actually i watched it several times to get the point of preventive detetion and the link with minority report.I could not find it...The only conclusion i got is that this woman brings a highly suggestive, pretentious and sensational topic.The issue at stake has nothing to do with preemptively imprisoning regular people with a clean sheet and puting them in FEMA camps[what people suggest here]..
Obama told about terrorists who commited crimes but were evidence was tainted, detaining them for preventing them for committing crimes again..


Within the rule of law there's a rule its called planning [to devise] an attack, you can get imprisoned for that, its a common thing in the western world..


I dont't like this woman, she has a negative appearance, i dont trust her...



[edit on 23-5-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   


I agree with you here, but actually i watched it several times to get the point of preventive detetion and the link with minority report.I could not find it...The only conclusion i got is that this woman brings a highly suggestive, pretentious and sensational topic.The issue at stake has nothing to do with preemptively imprisoning regular people with a clean sheet and puting them in FEMA camps[what people suggest here]..
Obama told about terrorists who commited crimes but were evidence was tainted, detaining them for preventing them for committing crimes again..


Within the rule of law there's a rule its called planning [to devise] an attack, you can get imprisoned for that, its a common thing in the western world..


I dont't like this woman, she has a negative appearance, i dont trust her...


[edit on 23-5-2009 by Foppezao]


This was one of the points I was trying to illustrate. While the message she is "trying" to deliver might be well-intentioned, she is actually not making a logical link between what she describes in the movie and what the president is suggesting. A lot of people see that she is attacking the president and "want" to believe what she is saying is authentic. Well, I say especially in this case, use YOUR critical thinking skills and determine what exactly it is she is trying to achieve.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Thank you for the constructive criticism, romanmel.

Allow me to revise that statement with, Upholding the United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights, peaceful anarchy, and the ways of non-violent resistance provide us with an EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE means to deal with corrupted systems.



[edit on 23-5-2009 by seasoul]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Well, in that case we can find some common ground, as you wont find me weeping over the lost honour of MSM, they are shameless hypocrites for the most part and I recently cancelled my cable television subscription.

However, the focus here should be on Obama's speech, not the integrity of the whistleblower, as we can focus on the facts and not the source, which is rare in news these days.

He wants to lock people up with improbable cause, it's full blown fascism, tyranny. If we let him get away with it, it will be the end of any sort of democracy in the USA, and possibly the start of another era of global conflict, as the psychopathic genocidal world economic elite gain full control of the US military, which is a degree up from the influence they have on it now. Full control means they can go on full blown wars of agression and they can use martial law on US soil to keep the recruitment rates high.

This is the early phase of a nightmare. Who the hell cares about Rachel Maddow's ego?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Problem here...terrorism is a test bed for the greater population.

Consider homeland security...first it was simply to defend the US from any attacks abroad by terrorist activity.

then when the scared masses said sure...within what...2 years, homeland security classified a whole bunch of normal regular crimes as part of their forte, from net underage porn, meth labs, etc...and keeps expanding

What you see the government doing is simply a way to introduce new concepts to America on how to lose more rights, freedoms, and libertys in the name of false security.

This I know to be true, and I am *not* a believer in the NWO or any of that...but this is simple and clear...be very careful when they demonise anyone...fear is the greatest commodity, be it fear of you being blown up, your kids being abducted, your kids being hooked on crack, etc...the more ignorant you are, the greater you fear, and the more you will give up.

oh, and finally, I am actually a Obama supporter (initially)...but like Maddow, I also take big issue with this..Maddow is a liberal and will defend liberalism...Obama posed as a liberal and if he steps out of line, of course she and Keith will smack him. Along with that, so will Stewart, albeit with toungue in cheek on that one. Wolves in sheeps clothing are still not sheep.

4 da ppl



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Good find and well done Rachel for telling it how it is.

I was shouting at the screen and I am horrified, he's just another puppet protecting the NWO.

You know what's gonna happen next don't you. The administration (and I often wonder what it is they are administering? BS for the most part) are going to use the newly established laws not to protect America from outside threats, instead they will use those new powers to prevent a public up-rising from within, and basically incarcerate anyone (without trial) who threatens to lead a coup against TPTB. The term 'terrorist' will be expanded to include anyone who threatens the establshment.

So if a group of Americans decide to blow up the federal reserve in the interest of American citizens (a very solid defense imo) and Lynch the directors for having enslaved America, pillaging other countrie's resources plunging them into further debt and causing mass poverty, said assailants will be labeled terrorists! Sure that's extreme for some of you but where will the line be drawn? Will there be a clear line? No. The fact is anyone, I repeat anyone who organises and proposes that mass action (and that's what it's gonna take to fix things) be taken is going to be deemed a terrorist. How many of you agree with me on this one?

America you need to act soon and arrest and detain your president (as Naomi Wolf is proclaiming as a necessity) before further damage is done to the constitution . The only change Obama stands for is a change of faces his face for Bush's. Same play, same draconian plans just a slightly different form of deception. Remember crimes againt humanity are happening NOW, we all know who's doing it, lock them up and throw away the key. Those in the shadows will soon be found, whistle blowers galore will sing, sing sing!



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Well, in that case we can find some common ground, as you wont find me weeping over the lost honour of MSM, they are shameless hypocrites for the most part and I recently cancelled my cable television subscription.

However, the focus here should be on Obama's speech, not the integrity of the whistleblower, as we can focus on the facts and not the source, which is rare in news these days.

He wants to lock people up with improbable cause, it's full blown fascism, tyranny. If we let him get away with it, it will be the end of any sort of democracy in the USA, and possibly the start of another era of global conflict, as the psychopathic genocidal world economic elite gain full control of the US military, which is a degree up from the influence they have on it now. Full control means they can go on full blown wars of agression and they can use martial law on US soil to keep the recruitment rates high.

This is the early phase of a nightmare. Who the hell cares about Rachel Maddow's ego?


Upon reflection, I think you are actually right. It just pisses me off when I see people fake political interest when they are doing so to merely gain from it somehow. In hindsight the message is far more important so people should be focussing on that. Just don't use her as a source when you are in conversation trying to "wake" someone up.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Those of you too young to know who Edward R. Murrow annd Joseph McArthy are should take the time to read up on it. We need a modern-day Murrow now. As you listen to this broadcast take the word "communist" and replace it with "terrorist". What we are going through now we have gone through before.

www.youtube.com... a%3DN%26tab%3Dwv%26um%3D1&feature=player_embedded

[edit on 23-5-2009 by baboo]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I love a good session of what Obama promised and what Obama is doing. However, on this point I would like to direct you to William Rehnquist's book "All the Laws but One", it is a book about civil liberties during wartime, which, imo, we are now always in a state of war, whether it be actual war as in Iraq or Afghanistan or a blanket definition as in the war on drugs or the war on terror where the enemy is not specifically a country but a concept where any type of person can fall into it. The book specifically addresses the writ of habeas corpus and how during times of war that right has historical been taken away, as in our conflicts (although current issues are not addressed as the book was published in 1998). We have suspended this right during the civil war when Licoln would hold southerns (and sympathizers) for any length of time without trial or replace the trial with a military tribunal for "civilians", same during WWII and and the Japanese internment camps. He also briefly touches on how freedom of speech and freedom of the press have also been limited. It is a dry read, but pretty imformative. Obama is not the first, and I sincerely doubt he will be the last president to challange the Constitution, but it is always us that lose.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Now just imagine for a moment that you were wrongly accused of being a terrorist and were detained by a government agency under the PATRIOT ACT.

Well now you can be held indefinitely WITHOUT TRIAL.


Wait a minute, THAT concept isn't new.
I read about such things happening during the last half of the Bush Administrations second term.

They held people indefinitely and without trial, but most were foreigners from various parts of the world. I think what is different in this case is that Obama is proposing that they can now be held based on suspicion alone, but the idea of prolonged detention was being tested long before he came into office. Obama is now fulfilling the plan first conceived by the previous administration. He is another pawn in helping to lay down the framework of the new world on the horizon.

His proposed concept of indefinite detention is FAR from new.


Don't you guys see the implications of this?


Sure, just ask U.S. citizen Jose Padilla.
Did you forget about him?


Bush Administration Wins Appeal in Jose Padilla Case

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen it determines to be an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously ruled against Jose Padilla, the only U.S. citizen now held as an enemy combatant. Padilla, jailed for three years without a trial, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks inside the U.S., the administration says. Today's decision reverses a federal judge's ruling that he can't be held without trial.

``We conclude that the president does possess such authority,'' which was granted by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the court said. Bloomberg.com


*My bolds.


U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005; Page A01

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

...

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to detain Padilla but also that such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes. In its ruling yesterday, the three-judge panel overturned a lower court.
The Washington Post



Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

The court effectively ruled that President Bush has the same right to indefinitely detain a civilian on American soil as he does an enemy soldier on a battlefield.

The Raw Story


See what happened there?

The Padilla case was the test and the majority of American citizens failed miserably.

Since the average Americans alarm bells weren't ringing when we heard about this travesty of justice, we now move into phase two.

They wanted to see if they could get away with using the same abusive method of detention on Americans as they had with foreign citizens.

Here is the thing folks...particularly those in shock right now…when you read about this happening to Australians, Brits, Canadians, and any other individuals that comprised the hundreds detained in Guantanamo Bay for years without trial you should have joined the minority in outrage. Instead most of you chose to brush it off as a necessary tactic in fighting the war on terror. Essentially allowing the concept of guilty until proven innocent to be utilized by a country that prides itself on freedom.

That tactic you ignored when used on foreigners is about to expand.

We were the enablers and as such, we have allowed the justification of these despicable acts on foreign nationals, and consequently paved the way for the practice to transition into our world.

When a country allegedly representative of equal justice, freedom and human rights forgoes its on doctrine by arbitrarily and indefinitely detaining human beings in flagrant violation of their human rights then the doctrine itself is made invalid. The claims of freedom become hollow. You can’t uphold them if you remove even one of them for a matter of convenience, no matter the reason.

Is it a shock that it would inevitably be turned on us?
Only if you were asleep for the last eight years!

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
- Benjamin Franklin

We fell silent on the more recent activities in Guantanamo.

It proved to be a testing ground for the limits of our tolerance regarding the possible suspension of certain rights and freedoms in the presence of danger, whether real or merely perceived.

This is the result.

Welcome to the NWO.
Brought to you by indifference.

- Lee



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
One more thing.

I have always been a Maddow fan since her early stint on Air America radio.
I knew she had the chops to move beyond that small liberal radio network, and beyond her colleagues therein.

I am not surprised she mentioned this in spite of her obvious left-leanings as she has seemed to me to be a person honest enough not to sidestep and bury any abuses committed by a representative of any political party. She wasn't about playing the role of blind partisan mouth piece.

I wish more of the rambunctious and incendiary conservatives radio show hosts would have done so during the last presidency, rather than suddenly snap into action with the urgency of a person calling for help while trapped in a burning building that they WATCHED spread.

Sitting silent just long enough until they came across the right arsonist to blame.

- Lee



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join