Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism. Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
By RILEY YATES
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

GINGRICH

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19946.htm

The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat

By Paul Craig Roberts

18/05/08 "ICH" -- - U.C. Berkeley tenured law professor John Yoo epitomizes the failure of the conservative movement in America. Known as "the torture professor," Yoo penned the Department of Justice (sic) memos that gave a blank check to sadistic Americans to torture detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The human rights violations that John Yoo sanctioned destroyed America's reputation and exposed the Bush regime as more inhumane than the Muslim terrorists. The acts that Yoo justified are felonies under U.S. law and war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.

Yoo's torture memos are so devoid of legal basis that his close friend and fellow conservative member of the Federalist Society, Jack Goldsmith, rescinded the memos when he was appointed head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Yoo's extremely shoddy legal work and the fervor with which he served the evil intentions of the Bush regime have led to calls from distinguished legal scholars for Yoo's dismissal from Berkeley's Boalt Hall.

Please visit opednews.com for the live html links in the pasted article- also, the Google Alerts referred to in the below article have been pasted in the comments over there.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7133
"Information wants to be free" vs. "Don't be evil". When you search online and use search "Alerts", do you want to get the info you want, or do you want the info you receive to be only what Google (and their partners in business and government) want you to know about? If you have concerns about Google's record on search quality/censorship, privacy, human rights, collaboration with people who may pose a serious threat to US sovereignty and security or anything else, read this article and please comment.

::::::::

This article is a continuation of the "Open Letter to the People & Google" article:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction Media Visibility Week

Open Letter to the People & Google

I don't have a gun. I'm an European and I even live in a state which wouldn't allow to freely keep and bear arms or to form a militia, so I have only my word - that's my only defense against that what seems to be happening.

I took the hour and a half (because I find the case be really very important for the Americans and the future of freedom) and I was listening thoroughly the whole disputation in the Supreme Court in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.

I guess I have an important note:
They disputed all the words in the 2nd Amendment and many aspects and possible meanings of the words from elsewhere - machine guns, handguns, armor piercing bullets (and various laws and regulations, sometimes apparently irrelevant in the sense when one have to decide the case according to the US Constitution - as the superior law - the US Supreme Court IMHO have no right to contradict in its judgments, nor duty to follow any precedents or laws - except the US Constitution they've the judges taken the oath to defend - as a whole), but they have "forgotten" the main one word - as it would be a big taboo - they absolutely avoided the word free - its meaning in the 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

To explain what I mean, I'll try to describe how I understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the context of the US Constitutional law by my own words (I'll borrow some):

Because there is a constant danger a state, its government, could develop into a tyranny - rendering the state and its constituents unfree - the people's right to keep and bear the arms generally (not just to form the militia) should not be infringed - because the people can defend the freedom only if they are constantly armed and continuously form a real threat of a real power against possible tyrants (foreign or domestic) - to take them down - if needed even by using the armed force - in case the tyrants would infringe, abridge or dissolve their unalienable rights and freedoms, pursuing invariably the same Object evincing a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.(I'm borrowing this from the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

This piece is a conglomeration of responses inspired by George Washington's piece entitled Are Those Who Question 9/11 Anarchists? and the dialogue it engendered. It got me thinking about the nature of our form of government, its relationship to the best in anarchist thinking and the creative possibilities for a future America post-9-11 justice. It's a bit rambling and jumbled, but I wanted to put it out there for folks to read and respond to if they so desired.

It started with a response to Jon Gold's laying out the definitions of anarchism in relation to the criminality and lawlessness:

Jon Gold:
I think it's important for people to see...
The definition of anarchy...

an·ar·chy –noun

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary
association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/12/want-to-know-a.html

Want to know a secret? There were two moments I especially enjoyed at the CNN/YouTube debate -- despite my frustration at some of the questions, and the maldistribution of time.

First, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?

I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.

Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It’s only the beginning, I told him.

We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For

More from 'puppetgov' on YouTube.com:
http://www.youtube.com/user/puppetgovcom

http://PuppetGov.com

http://www.wordsoffreedom.com/listen.html

I just purchased the $10 mp3 .zip file and burned to CD. You can buy the CD for the same price. It's a must have!

Please support this important work and spread the message.

Thanks to Michael Wolsey, Visibility911.com and the Controlled Media CD (also deserves its own blog post) I picked up somewhere along the path to truth.

White House Tells Musharraf: Never ‘Restrict Constitutional Freedoms’ To Fight Terrorism

Think Progress
Tuesday November 6, 2007

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/musharraf-freedom/

During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

Watch it:

Arrested For Reading The Constitution

Only pro-war groups are allowed freedom of speech in police state Amerika as cops kidnap people who recite the very document they swore an oath to protect and uphold

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 2, 2007

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/021007_reading_constitution.htm

Peaceful onlookers were arrested by police for reading the Constitution while a pro-war group was allowed full freedom of speech in Washington DC recently in another flagrant example of how American cops are now the enforcers of a tyrannical police state.

Police are required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but this didn't stop them from kidnapping members of the Code Pink group, who gathered on a nearby sidewalk to calmly express their disagreement with a Neo-Con pro-war event taking place nearby by reading the bill of rights.

The pro-occupation group "Vets for Freedom" held a rally at Upper Senate Park, Washington DC, on Saturday September 22nd. Their guest speakers included Neo-Con criminals John McCain, Johny Isakson and Joe Lieberman.

Watch the video.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The Patriot Act greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism, both domestically and abroad.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Pls take a good look at this.

One wonders what his (Prez Bush) true motives are.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’
By By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 5, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/genera_by_dr__r_070913_duty_2c_honor_2c_country.htm

An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots

Excerpt:

"Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."

On Friday morning, August 17, 2007, 5 federal judges from the Western Division of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California received a letter and packet of information regarding treasonous acts committed by the Bush administration (with a focus on Bush and Cheney in this communication) surrounding the attacks of September 11th, 2001. This district is the largest in the country, serving 17 million people, thus there are many judges who have not yet received information, who should and could in the future. The following judges received the letter and packets:
Honorable A. Howard Matz
Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer
Honorable Christina A.Snyder
Honorable Robert M. Takasugi
Honorable Robert J. Timlin

I had face to face contact with Judge Timlin for a few moments and announced that the content of my packet was regarding treason, misprision of treason and fulfilling my legal obligations surrounding these matters. He said, with an air of seriousness and interest, "I will read this." Check out this article I found on Judge Timlin:
http://www.pe.com/breakingnews/local/stories/PE_News_Local_C_judge26.1d2de5e4.html