Rachel Maddow and the NDAA

I watched Rachel Maddow last night and commend Her for bringing up the NDAA and its implications...

But, like the habits of virtually ALL the media, She did not ask the RIGHT question:

HOW IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL?

I would like to see what other ATSers think of this avoidance of the question of constitutionality of this "Act," passed by a very small number of Americans (statistically none), that blatantly disregards the Constitution and how They feel about the media ignoring that question.

She touched on the constitutional aspect of it in a previous episode. Video here...

reply to post by Amaterasu
You don't understand. Most people think the constitution is outdated and stupid, so don't even bother trying to make an argument for it (ugh...it's so "old-world"...).

Otherwise, they'll just tip their hat to the interstate commerce clause, since EVERYTHING relates to interstate commerce on some level due to their perverted understanding of the clause, so hey - no issue! Anything the government wants to do is legal because at some level it will affect interstate commerce (someone's disappeared? Well, they can't buy products from other states - interstate commerce! And so on...).

Frustrating.

reply to post by Amaterasu
ok I ask where is the "why is the "P" act still around or the right for TSA to feel me up if I fly DHS to have someone spy on me for taking a picture are these not all unconstitutional but still are held up in court? if you say no they are not think again

Originally posted by Epirus
She touched on the constitutional aspect of it in a previous episode. Video here...

Thanks for that. Sadly, "touching" on it is not enough. Outrage and focus are appropriate. With repeated mention, over and over.

But Her media masters probably insist that this question be downplayed or ignored...

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

ok I ask where is the "why is the "P" act still around or the right for TSA to feel me up if I fly DHS to have someone spy on me for taking a picture are these not all unconstitutional but still are held up in court? if you say no they are not think again

Yes. Good questions that "Our" media SHOULD be asking.

It always amazes Me how often I see questions that glare to be asked never even skirted closely around.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Thanks for that. Sadly, "touching" on it is not enough. Outrage and focus are appropriate. With repeated mention, over and over.

But Her media masters probably insist that this question be downplayed or ignored...

Yeah I'm very annoyed by the lack of attention given to this bill by the MSM but I can't say I'm surprised.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

You don't understand. Most people think the constitution is outdated and stupid, so don't even bother trying to make an argument for it (ugh...it's so "old-world"...).

I don't think this is true. MOST of Us value the Constitution and its Bill of Rights highly. If MOST of Us think it needs changing, We can pass amendments to it. NOT allow a rogue gallery of a very small number of Us to hack it apart.

Otherwise, they'll just tip their hat to the interstate commerce clause, since EVERYTHING relates to interstate commerce on some level due to their perverted understanding of the clause, so hey - no issue! Anything the government wants to do is legal because at some level it will affect interstate commerce (someone's disappeared? Well, they can't buy products from other states - interstate commerce! And so on...).

Frustrating.

Well, You do have a point... Maybe We should pass an amendment. Maybe I'll write one up...

Originally posted by Epirus

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Thanks for that. Sadly, "touching" on it is not enough. Outrage and focus are appropriate. With repeated mention, over and over.

But Her media masters probably insist that this question be downplayed or ignored...

Yeah I'm very annoyed by the lack of attention given to this bill by the MSM but I can't say I'm surprised.

Outraged, I am, but, like You, surprised... No. Sadly.

reply to post by Amaterasu
I'll disagree on the first part, somewhat. While I don't doubt it's true that a lot of us at least think we value the constitution accordingly, that usually only extends so far as we understanding it let us do what we want, while seeking to use it to limit others from doing what we don't want them to do.

In my small town, they had to install bullet proof glass in front of the tax collector's office and hire extra security. We have a population of less than 2000 people, so why was that necessary? Because when people are getting severely SCREWED over, they get pissed, and when they get too pissed off, they may get violent (in a self defensive way) to protect themselves and their property.

When the government severely screws over their people, the people get really pissed, and sometimes have to resort to violence to defend themselves/ their property. So... the government, knowing what they are doing wrong to the people, have to insert their own "bullet proof glass" legislation to protect themselves from us, the folks being harmed.

The more they do to us, the worse their legislation against us will get.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
In my small town, they had to install bullet proof glass in front of the tax collector's office and hire extra security. We have a population of less than 2000 people, so why was that necessary? Because when people are getting severely SCREWED over, they get pissed, and when they get too pissed off, they may get violent (in a self defensive way) to protect themselves and their property.

When the government severely screws over their people, the people get really pissed, and sometimes have to resort to violence to defend themselves/ their property. So... the government, knowing what they are doing wrong to the people, have to insert their own "bullet proof glass" legislation to protect themselves from us, the folks being harmed.

The more they do to us, the worse their legislation against us will get.

Well... I have a solution to taxes... If You want to consider the solution (the ridding of Humanity's need for money at all), please visit this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rather than get violent, rather than "occupying," demand the tech of electrogravitics be released from black ops - and spread the awareness that it exists and CAN solve Our issues related to money (virtually ALL issues We presently have).

reply to post by Amaterasu

...demand the tech of electrogravitics be released from black ops - and spread the awareness that it exists and CAN solve Our issues related to money (virtually ALL issues We presently have).

I do spread what I know, saw a TR-3B triangle looking thing up close and personal so I know some of the tech they are hoarding. Thing is no one cares, even if you have video evidence, they just don't get it. People are still dying needlessly in car wrecks, plane crashes, etc. because of the hoarding of this technology.... that to me is murder!

"Demand" the tech be released? Fat chance that's going to happen peacefully. We need to get a mob of people together to overrun facilities holding this technology that's "off the books", which is nearly impossible to "expose" when it's not in public record. They got their act together when it comes to dominating society.

Now NDAA will stop people like me who are suggesting things that may target the roots of our problems with the government. If China can do something, we certainly can do it too.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

...demand the tech of electrogravitics be released from black ops - and spread the awareness that it exists and CAN solve Our issues related to money (virtually ALL issues We presently have).

I do spread what I know, saw a TR-3B triangle looking thing up close and personal so I know some of the tech they are hoarding. Thing is no one cares, even if you have video evidence, they just don't get it. People are still dying needlessly in car wrecks, plane crashes, etc. because of the hoarding of this technology.... that to me is murder!

"Demand" the tech be released? Fat chance that's going to happen peacefully. We need to get a mob of people together to overrun facilities holding this technology that's "off the books", which is nearly impossible to "expose" when it's not in public record. They got their act together when it comes to dominating society.

That is why I addressed Anonymous... I figure THEY are good at getting the word out on other things. Maybe We will have to overrun facilities, but... Maybe We won't as perhaps some of the People involved will question Their oaths to the oathbreakers... (Uphold and protect the Constitution, for an example of broken oaths...)

reply to post by Amaterasu


I know someone will correct me if I am wrong; but, in it's strickest interpretation the consiquences of this law could be a good thing.

It would seem since the CIA established Al Queda and are now admitting engaging in talks with the Taliban, just how would we go about arresting and prosecuting them ?

It has also been stated they, the CIA, have to some degree help to fund both groups.

Things could get very interesting.

No, on second thought, this will go the same way as our drug laws.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I know someone will correct me if I am wrong; but, in it's strickest interpretation the consiquences of this law could be a good thing.

It would seem since the CIA established Al Queda and are now admitting engaging in talks with the Taliban, just how would we go about arresting and prosecuting them ?

It has also been stated they, the CIA, have to some degree help to fund both groups.

Things could get very interesting.

No, on second thought, this will go the same way as our drug laws.

Guaranteed this will go as the drug "laws" have gone. The CIA could easily have been prosecuted under treason.

We are now unprotected from Our government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are, as Bush-baby said, merely pieces of paper.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I'll disagree on the first part, somewhat. While I don't doubt it's true that a lot of us at least think we value the constitution accordingly, that usually only extends so far as we understanding it let us do what we want, while seeking to use it to limit others from doing what we don't want them to do.

I agree that that has been the focus in "Our" media, as They spin things. But many of Us see it applying to ALL of Us, nonetheless.

My view, for what it's worth.

reply to post by Amaterasu
Agreed, I feel the same way. I should have clarified that better to not be all-inclusive. My apologies as no offense was intended, I'm feeling a little frustrated with a good share of my fellow man today.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Agreed, I feel the same way. I should have clarified that better to not be all-inclusive. My apologies as no offense was intended, I'm feeling a little frustrated with a good share of my fellow man today.

No offense taken. [smile]

You have visited My thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com... ? I offer a channel for the frustrations. [smile]