24 replies to this topic

[regeneratia]

The media silence is atrocious. Strange, here on this forum, they use the mainstream media to legitimize their theories and stances. Yet the media is so slanted and controlled. Controlled by whom? You have to think it is the government.

Wickian, on 18 September 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Yep, looks like we'll have to wait 'til the 28th to see how this turns out.  Kind of sad I have to use a search engine to find up to date news about this since no big media sites are covering it.

Edited by regeneratia, 19 September 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Babe Ruth, on 19 September 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Hutton

If you think the right to privacy is not in the Constitution, you should acquaint yourself with that part of the document known as the Ninth Amendment.  Seek, and ye shall find.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You think that says "right to privacy?"

Maybe you are talking about this...

From Wikipedia
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),^[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

[CommunitarianKevin]

regeneratia, on 19 September 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

The media silence is atrocious. Strange, here on this forum, they use the mainstream media to legitimize their theories and stances. Yet the media is so slanted and controlled. Controlled by whom? You have to think it is the government.

I must admit that this is the first time I have personally seen this type of thing from the media. It does have me thinking...

[regeneratia]

HuttonEtAl, on 19 September 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I must admit that this is the first time I have personally seen this type of thing from the media. It does have me thinking...

Don't give up the thinking! Demand privacy from your government. AND if they get you, lawyer up. Don't talk to anyone until you see a lawyer.

It is time for revolution!!


Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:14 AM PDT
Appellate Judge Protects Indefinite Detention Provisions After Gov’t Cries “National Security”
by Jesselyn Radack

Late Monday, Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond J. Lohier granted the government’s request to put on hold District Judge Katharine Forrest’s recent opinion in Hedges v. Obama permanently enjoining the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Unsurprisingly, the government argued that Forrest’s ruling compromised national security, specifically
“saying that Judge Forrest’s ruling had gone beyond the new statute and jeopardized some of its existing authority to hold certain wartime prisoners under the 11-year-old Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Warning, this is the cyber rape site:
http://www.dailykos....tional-Security

Edited by regeneratia, 19 September 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[OverSword]

Appeals judge reinstates:

http://www.thenewame...tention-for-now

Forget about freedom. Power to the government.

[CommunitarianKevin]

OverSword, on 19 September 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Appeals judge reinstates:

http://www.thenewame...tention-for-now

Forget about freedom. Power to the government.

I guess that is the problem with having courts be A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. That is pretty handy when you can increase your power with yourself. At many times the courts have been just as political as the rest of the government.

[preacherman76]

Wearer of Hats, on 17 September 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

And this decision is going to stop him, if the conspiracy believers are to be listened to, how exactly? If they're right, he'll just go ahead with it anyway.

No doubt they would have just done it anyway. But it was still a small (and short lived) victory in that this administration took unpreseidented power, and waved it in the faces of the American people, and was told no. That this will not be the norm. That this isnt acceptable public information.

[regeneratia]

I just heard a Ben Franklin quote the other day.
He said something like "We created a Republic. The issue is how long we can keep it."

OverSword, on 19 September 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Appeals judge reinstates:

http://www.thenewame...tention-for-now

Forget about freedom. Power to the government.

[regeneratia]

I would say about as many times as they step outside the political agendas. Some judges love the law.

HuttonEtAl, on 19 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

I guess that is the problem with having courts be A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. That is pretty handy when you can increase your power with yourself. At many times the courts have been just as political as the rest of the government.

[Babe Ruth]

Judge Lohier's action qualifies him as a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.

Yes, the US government, all three branches, are as corrupt as can possibly be.

The few courageous defenders of the Constitution, like Judge Forrest, are marginalized and rejected.  Indeed, the barbarians have been inside the gate for quite a few years now.  Liberty dies to thunderous applause.