About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Malkin: "We've lost plenty of liberties," under Obama, "every unalienable right" has been affected

May 20, 2009 5:44 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
      11 1
      Wow. What a long winded, convoluted pile of incoherent crap.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Digital Jedi (May 20, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
        1  
        It wasn't incoherent. At least, I'm pretty sure it makes sense once you translate it from gibberish.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 20, 2009 8:05 pm ET)
        4  
        NERZOG,I couldn't have said that better myself.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (May 20, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
      10  
      Wow. NO idea Obama had done so much in just 4 months. Guess I better go look for those liberties I didn't even know I had lost.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (May 20, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
      8  
      However, Michelle Malkin still has the right to go on TV and say stupid things. Which she does with alarming regularity....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
      10  
      Does anybody remember how this nitwit earned her pledge pin in the Troglodyte Punditry Club? She wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (May 21, 2009 5:39 am ET)
        1  
        OMG Her woefully ignorant statement(s) as Mike put it, are pointed out on a daily bases. However I never heard about the book. Thanks I will be looking for that. Is she allowed anywhere near a Japanese? Can we start an internment camp for loons? Maybe a wall around Fox and talk radio. When can we convince these loons that they have lost their liberty to free speach along with all those other liberties they have already lost. Oh wait..that will come with the fairness act hahahahah
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 20, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
      8  
      this woman is nutso. she is tooting the far right horn all the way into oblivion. what a train wreck.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cpinva (May 20, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
        2  
        true, but she's getting well paid for doing so.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 23, 2009 7:08 am ET)
             
          oh yea, for sure... fox news pays the propaganda artists VERY well.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (May 20, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
      6  
      Just so we get it straight... what she was trying to say in a very clumsy way is, "we lost liberties under Bush", She said so... and it "has been exacerbated by the Obama Administration"

      So a mess that Bush started and inherited by Obama is still a mess. She just admitted it. Obama inherited Bush's assault on liberty. Of course she would be hard pressed to note what other liberties we have lost under the new Administration.

      Nice. What a convoluted way to say it but she is right about that.

      What she is very wrong on is her first statement: "The Government never has to worry about paying anything back" That is a woefully ignorant statement. Does she not understand what the Full Faith and Credit Clause is in the Constitution?

      For all the blustering about the Constitution from wingnuts they prove daily that they have never read it much less understood it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ewl94232 (May 20, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
        1 5
        Article. IV
        Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

        mikelartist -
        "What she is very wrong on is her first statement: "The Government never has to worry about paying anything back" That is a woefully ignorant statement. Does she not understand what the Full Faith and Credit Clause is in the Constitution?

        For all the blustering about the Constitution from wingnuts they prove daily that they have never read it much less understood it."

        Okay ... you've got me here. No doubt you know of some subsequent ruling that makes this clause relevant to Michele's statement. Or maybe there is another reference to "Full Faith and Credit" that I've forgotten about. Please explain.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikelartist (May 21, 2009 10:32 am ET)
          1  
          So in other words, you think the full faith and credit of the United States, which includes contract, law and commerce is just a "catch phrase" to dupe everyone, including other nations that buy our bonds, into giving us money and we have no intention of paying them back? Wow.
          Why does anyone pay anyone back then? The full faith and credit of the UNITED States. We are still United Right? Why do you think the Treasury uses the Full Faith and Credit clause?

          Her statement reeked of ignorance. You defend it. The United States does not shirk it's obligations. If it did we would have NO deficit and no debt now would we.

          The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (May 20, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
      6  
      Actually, the supreme court just ruled that you can't sue the people who torture you. So I'll give her that one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 20, 2009 6:54 pm ET)
        7  
        It's supposed to be inalienable isn't it?

        Not unalienable.

        This woman is truly embarrassing. It's painful to watch.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (May 20, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
          6  
          Well, Ms. Manglalang is an Anchor Baby . . . so, perhaps in this case, "unalienable" does apply . . .

          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 20, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
          4  
          Maybe she meant alienated rights. You know, the ones we deny muslims in Guantanamo.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (May 20, 2009 7:29 pm ET)
      8  
      "Malkin: "We've lost plenty of liberties," under Obama, "every unalienable right" has been affected"


      Yeah, Ms. Manglalang -- like the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be wiretapped only with a warrant that allows it, the right not to be sent away if you disagree with the president . . .

      Oh, wait . . .


      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 20, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
      5  
      Earth to Michelle Malkin.....

      Name one liberty lost under president Obama that was not already lost by the time he stepped foot into the White House? You crazy bitch!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by adrian_nyu (May 20, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
      1  

      Someone needs to tell this misguided, angry, woman about "the hidden costs of what she calls entitlement" such as Healthcare, hmmmm, the USA Today reported that 18,000 people Die everyday from lack of sufficient healthcare...

      how dare she, to mock such vital basic health care for children, especially the poor, what a disgrace that anyone would give this lost soul, hater, any forum...so sad...

      oh, and the money that businesses will save from not having to subsidize health care any longer, will put Billions back into the economy, not to mention all the money the health care industry losses when forced to give health care to those who can't afford it...where are we as a country when we can't think to join the Public and Private sector for business venture, Rep are incapable of innovative, creative thinkin

      ...that's why this party is lost in a new time, new ways of doing things, that's why they are so loud and angry, because they can't let go of old ideas, and the public sees right through there fear!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TheThief672 (May 21, 2009 12:07 am ET)
      1 2
      The only thing Michelle Malkin should be doing is getting my dry cleaning. What a maroon.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (May 21, 2009 1:59 am ET)
      1  
      "It's about limiting choices..."

      Thank you MM. I would have never guessed Michelle Malkin was pro-choice.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by maxxadamkurt3798 (May 21, 2009 5:51 am ET)
      1  
      Why is she even considered serious by anyone? Just look at the still frame of the video. It's the face of a person who loves to hear herself arguing. Yow, what a used car salesman.
      I bet she thought she killed it, too. A Debate Team reject, if I ever saw one.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by required_screen_name (May 21, 2009 6:54 am ET)
      1  
      is she related to michele bachmann?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (May 21, 2009 10:32 am ET)
      2  
      Am I the only one creeped out by this woman? I'm not even quite sure why. She has a crazy look in her eyes, and is always spouting complete nonsense.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (May 21, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
        1  
        _____________________________________________________________________
        "She has a crazy look in her eyes, and is always spouting complete nonsense."
        _____________________________________________________________________

        IOW, she's no different than Beck, Hannity, Limpballs, Coulter, Boortz, O'Reilly, or any other neoKKKon noisemaker in the known universe . . .


        Report Abuse
    • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 21, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      3  
      What the hell is she whining about? What liberties has SHE lost? She can still shoot her mouth off, right?

      Michelle, quitcherbitchin.
      Report Abuse