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.

 

At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj

Hell, maybe we should push forth a resolution requiring that the president can only say something he knows to be true.

But then his speeches wouldn't be very good.




His speeches would be non-existent. For years now, everything a "president" says beyond the greeting is suspect. With good reason. These people have been using treaty law to circumvent normal protections at law.

If this story is true, it's just one more piece of evidence that this criminal trash running this country has seriously evil intentions toward our people.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Whats that sound I hear?

Oh yeah the sound of another moron (Obama) flushing our constitution down the toilet. I wonder what the Obama Zombies will say about this since they love the Messiah so much and pretend to love the constitution?

I find the Obama zombies just want thier own constitution to love, not the original (the only one that matters).

I for one will pray for and be glad the day the goverment collapses. The economy will have to get worse to cause that, so Im willing to make that sacrifice to get rid of the Goverment in DC. So no more scum bags like Obama can get elected.

If people like Obama are the ones in power we dont need the goverment anymore. We would be better off as a bunch of little republics. The federal goverment is a worthless nightmare.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by calcoastseeker
 


I think that this is more or less a statement against the press. And truth be known, the press have been out of line for quite sometime, so, I can't tell whether this is good or bad, but, this country has been going this direction for quite some time. The Bush administration used to call anyone who didn't believe in the war "Anti-American" or "enablers of terrorism," so, this isn't anything new.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman84
Whats that sound I hear?

Oh yeah the sound of another moron (Obama) flushing our constitution down the toilet. I wonder what the Obama Zombies will say about this since they love the Messiah so much and pretend to love the constitution?

I would agree with you except for the fact that this has been happening for a looooooooooooong time. And keep this in mind when you're attacking Obama...HE'S NOT THE ONE IN CHARGE!!!

It's easy to play the blame game when you're not aware of who is pulling the strings. Just remember, Obama is on the same strings as most of our public representatives. Corporations are the main objects that you need to be concerned with, not the idiots that are slaves to them.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Yes I know about the whole puppet and puppet master thing. The trilateral commision, I believe its called the commitee for foreign relations, Illuminati, Free masons.

But you cant get past the idea that it is Obama doing thier bidding. Hes just as guilty in my eyes and deserves no respect or remorse. If he was a true patriot he would come out and expose them and take the killing he would get for it and the ridicule like a man.

But nope he will just continue to enjoy the power they allow him to have. Like I said hes just as bad and just as guilty.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Give the land back to Native Americans, and let them make the laws for once, I bet we would be better off.

has any tribe, or therefor country ever taken another country to a world court to reclaim they're land? I mean we force people to give back money and good stolen..... Why not land acquired through a war......



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 





By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, or where they need a legal team like O.J. Simpson to interpret it for them, while we as citizens do not have billions to get away with murder, it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.


After this last six months, I already expect I will be incarcerated or at least they will try. I have been law abiding for all my life but I refuse to bow down and give up my Constitutional rights therefore I will be incarcerated.




Do not worry as these individuals have to be rounded up first before anyone else will. Why is it that the homeless, jobless, and insurance less people would be targeted this way? Because, they have no place to live, no money to pay taxes, and no coverage to pay for medical bills should they need medical attention but will have the most time on their hands, the loudest voices, and the worst need.



I remember I had heard that Iraq War veterans (which I find hard to swallow) were going to be put on the terror watch list once they came back from the Middle East and I just hope that is not true because it means the bigger push for those veterans who were sent over for a war we did not want for WMD's that were never there will become the targets of the Government to stop the influx of those men and women in filling the lack of people within militia's which is something that is seen as a major threat.

While I can certainly understand that this is only talk at the United Nations, our presence in the United Nations Security Council is usually propped up by the United Kingdom, meanwhile the legs are kicked out from under us by the Russian's, Chinese, and French.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 




By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, ..... it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.

..... I have been law abiding for all my life but I refuse to bow down and give up my Constitutional rights therefore I will be incarcerated.



Again this is NOT a LAW, but rather by design just an opinion expressed by the UN assembly...not the USA. Not Law.

To go from a a UN resolution (Opinion) to law to infering it is a US Law and then talk of pending arrests....well IMO that crosses from exagerration to just being dishonest in the discussion.


I do believe you missed the entire context and intent of my original post.

I did not state that this was a law, the United Nations and Obama backing limits to Free Speech, I was commenting in a generalization towards the laws that are passed within our country faster than we can keep up with them and utilizing the O.J. Simpson trial, being a mock-trial, a sham, as an example of what our legal system has more and more consistently become. By only quoting one small part of it, either you have locked in on that part only, or your are trying to intentionally or even unintentionally misdirect and or misquote my original intent.

So, which is it, exactly?

I can smell intent like it was Dick Cheney walking through Washington D.C.

The smell of total corruption is totally unmistakable like rotting meat with festering maggots, it is quite one of the most unforgettable and memorable smells ever.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 




By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, ..... it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.

..... I have been law abiding for all my life but I refuse to bow down and give up my Constitutional rights therefore I will be incarcerated.



Again this is NOT a LAW, but rather by design just an opinion expressed by the UN assembly...not the USA. Not Law.

To go from a a UN resolution (Opinion) to law to infering it is a US Law and then talk of pending arrests....well IMO that crosses from exagerration to just being dishonest in the discussion.


I do believe you missed the entire context and intent of my original post.

I did not state that this was a law, the United Nations and Obama backing limits to Free Speech, I was commenting in a generalization towards the laws that are passed within our country faster than we can keep up with ................ either you have locked in on that part only, or your are trying to intentionally or even unintentionally misdirect and or misquote my original intent.

So, which is it, exactly?

I can smell intent like it was Dick Cheney walking through Washington D.C.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]


Actually I was responding to Crimevet and didn't read the post he had responded to (yours) and made the mistaken assumption that by "these laws" he was reffering to the UN resolution...which of course isn't a law.

I hadn't realized you had hop-skipped to the premise that US law was de-evolving with regards to freedom of speech.

as far as your sense of smell...well I don't know what to say beyond my explanation and admitted error. The Dick Cheney thing was a fun turn of phrase.

This resolution is toothless, predictable and does nothing to curtail freedom of speech in the US either in reality or sentiment...the rest is just connect the disparate dots and adding created context where there is none IMO...but you are welcome to your opinion as well...freedom of speech and all


[edit on 6-10-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
Talk about assumptive.

So let me get this straight, Obama, as president gets his foot in the door with these problematic entities in order to understand them and hopefully foster them into a new social construct that is more in line with modern thinking.

And because he does this he now stands for what he wants to bring change to in those countries?

sounds like a bunch of BS right wing doublespeak to me.

down with the fascists. let the government do it's jobs and you can all crawl back under the rock you came out from under. thanks.


Anytime free speech is policed,it is no longer free speech. It is just that simple!!!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Well met and well said.

Glad that all got straightened out in the wash.

I read a fascinating book called The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World

Pretty good explanation how America is getting screwed by foreigners, and not the illegals sneaking over the borders, our "Allies" in the U.N.S.C.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno

I understand the part about racial slurs. A person's race in an innate thing. You can neither choose it nor change it and as such should not be subject to negative stereotyping.



Micheal Jackson did!




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by eclectic.thoughts

But I hope it does stop silly religions (so called) like Scientology and extreme fanatical groups of a hypocritical book like the Bible.




Why is everyone always bashing Christianity and the Bible? There are tons of other religions out there. From what I understand, Jesus never raped a 5year old girl, like, maybe....muhammed? Why don't we bash islam and muslims? The Jesus supposedly died on a cross for all of our benefit, but muhammed supposedly raped a 5 year old girl... So explain to me again why so many people hate and bash Christianity but not islam. Thanks.


Edit: Besides all that, I'll be printing up my copy of the Bill of Rights to keep in my wallet to flash at any officer who decides they need to take me in for...I dunno, being negative? Ask them which sheet of paper they made an oath to. What happens next is their decision. They'll either leave me be or I'll be excercising my 2nd amendment right, and that's all their is to it.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by sr_robert1]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The Constitution is not the only source of the law concerning freedom of speech. For those who have forgotten (or never knew), Congress in fact did pass a law forbidding certain types of speech critical of the Government. This was the Alien and Sedition Act, passed in 1798.

During World War 1, other laws were passed, forbidding criticism of the Government or the war, and also forbidding speech that supported Germany or Kaiser Wilhelm. Some of these are still on the books.

The Supreme Court validated these laws, claiming that freedom of speech does not apply when there is a "clear and present danger".

We really don't have the right to say anything we want. Try talking about a bomb as you're trying to get onto an airplane. Or mentioning an explosion, airplane crash, or heck - even speaking in Arabic. You may not be charged, but chances are very good you'll be stopped and questioned, and miss your flight.

What troubles me about prohibiting speech is that something like "religion" is so utterly vague. I could call my political beliefs "religious". Would that make it illegal to say negative things about my politics? If so, then anyone can prevent political discussions. If not, then where *do* we draw the line at religion?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Obama has only two problems with this.

First is that we don't kowtow to international agreements to the detriment of our own Constitutional rights.

Second, Obama cannot negate our Constitutional rights.

And with the mood of the country - God, how I'd love for him to try it.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sr_robert1
Why is everyone always bashing Christianity and the Bible? There are tons of other religions out there. From what I understand, Jesus never raped a 5year old girl, like, maybe....muhammed? Why don't we bash islam and muslims? The Jesus supposedly died on a cross for all of our benefit, but muhammed supposedly raped a 5 year old girl... So explain to me again why so many people hate and bash Christianity but not islam. Thanks.


I think you may have read too much into that comment. While I can't be certain what the other poster meant, I took that sentence to mean they were talking about the Christian extremists more so than someone who is Christian but not an extremist. There are many groups who claim they are Christians and claim they follow the Bible but take it to such an extreme that I hardly think they can claim that and be honest about it. Every religion has it's extremists, Christianity is no exception.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Where the # is ET when we need him?


at least you don't normally remember when you've been reamed hard, then, eh?

let this probe into the annals of the UN continue!

ben dover and phil mccraken would be the dream team for the presidential ticket in 2012. those two could really lubricate the slide into complete domination.

and, therein lies the rub. whose "laws" are more "legal", the local, or the federal, or the global?

i vote for fiefdoms over empires. centralised control is inefficient, and ill equipped to deal with the vast diversity of the planet.
like, for example, in ontario, there was a crisis where e-coli leaked into the groundwater from all the cattle pee and poo. this happened in an area where there were multitudes of wells, some ancient and abandoned, some new, all leading from surface to water table.
7 people died.
after that, they passed legislation (tried to? i don't know the end of the story, just the outrage caused at the time, and the bill may have been quashed) forcing the entire province to one standard.
a great deal of ontario is covered by the cambrian shield, a massive rock crust, that is completely immune to the problems experiences in walkerton. no cattle, no universal watertable, yet the government would set expensive to implement standards that were to be broad-brushed across the province, which are really only beneficial in flatlands with a common watertable.
that is the problem of centralised control.
of course, agendas which a despot, or small group of controllers can force on a populace are also a major problem
and then there's plain ole stupidity and shortsightedness.

the most successful societies in history are the ones that teach self-reliance, and the strength and sovereignty of the individual.
like sparta, basque, and the good OLD us of a.
as soon as a country teaches people to overspecialise, that country is weakened.

[DAMN, what i wouldn't do for a canadian/english spellchecker. say NO to ZEE!! lol.]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
So, the EU is going to have Blair as president. Obama has been giving away the store while he was at the UN.
China owns us.
Saudi wants to dump the dollar.

And I can't get abducted to save my life!

Friggin' great!

Where the # is ET when we need him?


I like your new avatar.

I agree we are so screwed. I feel like i'm in junior high again. The bully beat me up for my lunch so he could take what I have and give it to the girl he was trying to score points with. The Gov't is taking rights from us to try and impress the despots of the world.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
....................
And because he does this he now stands for what he wants to bring change to in those countries?


Am I the only one who doesn't understand what in the world is djusdjus trying to say in the above statement?



Originally posted by djusdjus
sounds like a bunch of BS right wing doublespeak to me.

down with the fascists. let the government do it's jobs and you can all crawl back under the rock you came out from under. thanks.





Riiiiight....nice try to turn this around...

It would do you some good to actually READ the article excerpted instead of blowing off, and feeling insulted when some members show what president Obama is doing....

BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet president Obama, and his administration are the facists, because they are consolidating power for the elite who own corporations, and are also Socialist dictators because they are using Socialist ideals, and programs to consolidate power.

The Socialist facists, or as they are also known "Progressive liberals."





Socialism and Fascism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.
www.lawrence.edu...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



Negative stereotyping or defamation of religions was a modern expression of religious hatred and xenophobia. This spread not only to individuals but to religions and belief systems, leading to violence, discrimination and hatred, negatively affecting human rights.

It occurs to me that the Islamic Conference has this point of view because it has in fact been their experience in their own countries. The irony lies in the fact they have often been the instigators of this injustice through intolerance of religions other than Islam in their own lands.

Traditional Islam itself is the greatest example of intolerance towards other religions. Mind you that should not be an obstacle to peace. Christianity has largely moved beyond a similar prejudice in recent years. One would hope that there is a chance at least for Islam to do the same eventually.




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join