Possible 2008 presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that the First Amendment, at least as interpreted now, may be incompatible with protecting the homeland. His first idea for where to curtail free speech in a time of terrorism: “You close down any Web site that is jihadist,” he said, noting a Web-inspired “jihadist” in Illinois recently sought to buy hand grenades to blow up a mall at Christmas. Gingrich went on: “This country has every right to defend itself, and you saw the same thing recently on this U.S. Airlines provocation, where you had six people go way out of their way to cause trouble, and then claim they were infringed upon. And I think, frankly, the president should invite that U.S. Airlines crew to the White House and thank them, because we ought to set a standard that if you’re provocative about killing people, we’re not going to show you any mercy.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
83 Comments
It makes more snese to me that we should deport all muslims and other interlopers before chopping down the first amendment. It is a truism that we have become far less free as our society has devolved into a multiracial toilet bowl. Of course, that was the plan all along.
V.L.R.B!!
Now we have a guy named Santiago making comments about our “multiracial toilet bowl!”Look in the mirror buddy before you start the deportation.
Forget web sites…
What about news stations that willingly play the enemies propaghanda film of them killing our own troops?
Now read the portion Rhonda left out about free speech.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech.
So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal. I’m using the word deliberately. A country—a Supreme Court justice once said “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” This country has every right to defend itself, and you saw the same thing recently on this U.S. Airlines provocation, where you had six people go way out of their way to cause trouble, and then claim they were infringed upon. And I think, frankly, the president should invite that U.S. Airlines crew to the White House and thank them, because we ought to set a standard that if you’re provocative about killing people, we’re not going to show you any mercy.
There have always been limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater is the oft sited example. I am having a hard time seeing what the controversy is here.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is an exploiter. On one hand he offers us justification for violence, force or deadly force and with the other hand offers a solution which eats away at our constitution. Civility is the enemy of the Gingrich Neocons, as the constitution only functions with a people who value a sense of right and wrong, morality, if you will.
Violence, or war, can only be justified as an avenue toward peace, not as an end in itself, or to satisfy some immoral undertaking such as greed or power for the sake of power.
When the United States can sit back and watch a country such as Lebanon being destroyed and not lift a finger to stop it, then the exploiters start coming out of the walls.
A ‘Gingrich’ cannot function in a peaceful society. For him it has no value.
Ed you just demonstrated what a fool you are. You can’t even tell the difference between a so-called neocon and Newt Gingrich.
Open the window.
Everything just ‘flies’ over your head………..
Newt has common sense. That’s what I like about him.
Since when has it become protected free speech to try and buy grenades to blow up malls? Arrest the people doing it. duh. MIght even find a few more with free speech if they are stupid enough to print it.
Conspiracy to commit a felony (planning to buy hand grenades to blow up a mall, for instance) is *already* a crime. We certainly don’t have to erase the 1st Amendment to make the arrests and gain convictions. The Fascists of Fear are just trying to use the so-called “war on terror” as an excuse to take this country back into the dark ages.
The gov’t has become a fascist tool of industry.Whatever industry wants, we get.
TRACY
If that is true why is corporate tax revenue at an all time high?
You’d think industry would be getting rid of those nasty taxes would’nt you?
Big mistake Newt!
If you stop curtailing Free Speech, the Dems will take it so far they will remove it all together.
Don’t let it start!
Since the Neocons were recently shown what the majority of Americans feel about their political views, Newt Gringich has to find another issue to get his sheeple riled up again. After all, Christmas will be over in less than a week and that “war on Christmas” issue can’t be used anymore for a whole year.
Gingrich is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Neocons that don’t like their power base being chopped off at their knees. I would submit that Gingrich needs to clean up his own personal life before he starts on someone else. Oh, I forgot, Newt has been exposed as an adulterer but it is okay for him because he is one of theirs.
A jihadist site trying to buy granades should be shut down. That’s simple common sense. A site, such as that one, is the same as yelling fire in a theater. There ARE limits to free speech. The main problem is putting into place laws that limit what government can do to limit speech. The worst thing that can happen is limiting without limits.
sunny
What does the Left care about adultery. I’ve always gotten the impression that the Left considers it a resume enhancement.
Gingrich is the man.Does the left all of the sudden care about adultery?
Hmmm I wonder if Newt would want to shut down web sites that openly advertise for the sale or purchase of AK-47 rifles, and armor piercing ammunition, and automatic or semi-automatic weapons?? My goodness, that might fly in the face of the NRA and other so-called sportsmen?? Hmmm… Oh, I get it, Newt only wants to shut down web sites of foreigners who want to buy/sell powerful weapons…not American ones…
Ian–
Your stay at the treatment facility for the mentally unstable was all too brief.
Go back for a second round, and tell them that this time you want the FULL lobotomy.
Thank you,
The Management
Being an admitted adulter should appeal to the liberals – heck, he’s kinda like one of them…
…only smarter.
Gingerich.
If this guy mattered, what he says might make some kind of difference.
I’m more interested in what the right-wing does. Not what it says.
Bush said–I’m going to cap CO2 emissions, and I challenge my opponent Al Gore to pledge the same.
Bush did–quickly renounce CO2 caps after taking office.
Bush said–I’d never send in the military unless the mission were clear and we had an exit strategy.
Bush did–get us bogged down in a four year quagmire in Iraq.
Bush said–”the vast majority of my tax breaks go to those on the bottom.”
Bush did–give tax breaks 100 times bigger to the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent.
Bush said–”there’s a new sheriff in town, one that’s dedicated to fiscal responsibility.”
Bush did–increase spending faster than any other President in the modern era, more even than Johnson and cut taxes at the same time. Result massive historic high national debt.
Bush said–”we’re gonna smoke him out of his hole . . . we’re gonna get him dead or alive.”
Bush did–never catch Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in the US since Pearl Harbor.
So you can see that what CONservatives say doesn’t mean much.
Cheap talk from cheap talkers.
Advertising for grenades and jihad is still free speech. I’m sorry! That isn’t like yelling “Fire” in a theater.
Even better, it’s out in the open to find them.
It’s free speech because it’s written words “freedom of the press”. I consider websites, the press.
So you can write anything you want. The overthrow of the government and everything else.
I’m telling you! Once you start chipping it away for “security” purposes, the Democrats and Leftist here in the USA will take it much further. We will end up with the Nationalization of the Press like they have in Russia and other Dictator and Leftist nations.
Keep running against Bush, Capn.
Newts coming up fast!
Hank
I’m sure that this prediction will have the same validity as your last one.
You know, about how the Democrats would lose seats in Congress in November.
Instead they held EVERY incumbent seat without exception and took the Senate and the House.
Let the record show, Newt isn’t going anywhere except back under the rotting log with the other newts . . .
Hello, did anyone think that since the guy was making all those claims on the internet is how we found him in the first place?
How are we going to limit what someone puts online in another country? We can’t even stop the stupid Nigerian email scams.
Newt is part of the pro- Anticonstitution group that gave us the patriot act, scare us into handing over our rights. NOT ONE MORE.
“pro-anticonstitution” oh brother.
Someone please explain how the patriot act is hurting you.
The Democrat’s Prayer:
“I offer mine enemies this joyous plate,Brownback & Gingrich in 2008 !
“Our motives are suspect, oh that’s to be sure,But THE God, OUR God, knows they are pure.
“We’ll rally Your forces, Lord, and save all the pain,of having a choice of one like McCain.
“We’ll convert all the Muslims, and feed all the poor,stop all the abortions, and open the door,for your left handed partner,the back stabbing whore.
“In the name of the Deadbeat Father, hia unclaimed Son Bill, and the Holy Ghost of Whitewater, for this we pray.”
Exactly, political_mom.
Capn
It seems I need to point this out again to you.
BUSH IS NOT RIGHT WING. Not if his actions mean anything.
Heckler,
Everyone is to the right of the Capn!
Ok, but not Brownback. Brownback is too pro-wetback.
Lenin is to the right of CapnUSSA
If this whacko-nutso freak, or someone like him, should be elected president, just bend over and kiss your rights good-bye. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather keep my rights and take my chances with the terrorists than have an over zealous government take my rights. I fear a tyrannical governmnet much more than I fear terrorists.
By it very definition, the term jihadist implies a holy war against the Crusader. So, why not take it down, they are readily admitting being enemies of the United States.
Appears simple to me.
Who is this fucknut using my email addy?
BUSH IS NOT RIGHT WING. Not if his actions mean anything.
Posted by: Heckler | December 19, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Is Bush a Republican? Did the Republicans not do anything that the Capn. described? Then what does the republican party stand for or are they just left of Lenin?
“By it very definition, the term jihadist implies a holy war against the Crusader.”
What definition is that? Clearly, you don’t know what the term “jihad” means.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_jihad.htm
“So, why not take it down, they are readily admitting being enemies of the United States.
Appears simple to me.”
Make that simplistic.
“What definition is that? Clearly, you don’t know what the term “jihad” means.What definition is that? Clearly, you don’t know what the term “jihad” means.” Posted by: ksagnostic | December 19, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Evidently you don’t know what the word context is. Yes, I know all those other definition of Jihad. It’s similar to the word ‘war. or even the word ‘action.’
If you see a commercial that states “Mr. Clean declares war on dirt!” It’s obvious what the intention is.
If you find a website advertising for hand grenades with the intent of blowing up a mall at Christmas time, then the intention is very clear.
In this particular instance it is very obvious what is implied and what the meaning of jihad or jihadist is.
Perhaps you want to discuss on what the meaning of the word “is” is?
Sorry, 0 points for style and execution, you did a belly flop.
“Evidently you don’t know what the word context is. Yes, I know all those other definition of Jihad. It’s similar to the word ‘war. or even the word ‘action.’
If you see a commercial that states “Mr. Clean declares war on dirt!” It’s obvious what the intention is.
If you find a website advertising for hand grenades with the intent of blowing up a mall at Christmas time, then the intention is very clear.
In this particular instance it is very obvious what is implied and what the meaning of jihad or jihadist is.”
No, it’s really not. Indeed, the noun “jihadist” is a term that is often used broadly to describe any Islamists (those who argue that governments should or must be based on Islam). Gingrich performs an enormous leap when he moves from web inspired “jihadist” to “ANY website that is Jihadist”. What about websites that contain arguments that the only ethical and appropriate governments are based on Islam and Sharia law? How about any website that is white supremicist, or Christian Reconstructionist, or Survivalist?
“Perhaps you want to discuss on what the meaning of the word “is” is?
Sorry, 0 points for style and execution, you did a belly flop.”
Wasted ad hominem.
Thank God I moved out of Kansas!
“Wasted ad hominem.”Posted by: ksagnostic | December 19, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Wasted CO2 expelling organism polluting my planet with his hot air.
It just blows my dress up that so many on the left don’t give a Rats ass about the free speach rights we lost under McCain/Feingold, speach that threatens no ones life. Yet you all get your panties in a knot over the thought of shutting down websites dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.
That’s the insanity that Gingrich points out in such common sense terms.
I know Hank, the Left has never been known for having common sense.
Where to, Nestor … what state?
“Wasted CO2 expelling organism polluting my planet with his hot air.’
What an intelligent comeback, ignore the argument for another one liner.
The point I was making about Newt’s adultery is that the Right is very hypocritical when it comes to their ‘leaders’. Obviously, my entire post was not read.
Neocons want to rule everyone and everything, even though their own leaders are nothing but corrupt, hypocritical liars.
This issue is just another way for a big bag of wind like Newt Gingrich to get the Religious Right and any other Republican riled up and foaming at the mouth. Quite possibly, Newt is looking to run for president and I hope he does. Maybe if he gets his butt kicked by the voters he will finally get the message that his days of corrupt power are over.
I think we’d best shut down all websites that purvey the destruction of the American way of life.
We can start simple, with:
http://www.whitehouse.govwww.senate.govwww.house.gov
“Organism”? I think I had one of those last nigh…
Oh wait. Nevermind.
HECK, you really gotta quit wearing that dress in public.It gets to be a traffic hazzard when people stop to get a Jamie Farr autograph. HA
Nut, if you have an organism,go to the doctor and get a shot.
He’s running sunny.
It’ll be interesting during the primaries, if he wins the nomination who can the democrats possibly come up with that can expoloit Newt’s moral foibles?
I always knew the right could give a fuck less about the Bill of Rights or freedom of speech, if they don’t advance their bizarre agenda. This just proves it. RIGHT WINGERS BELONG IN DEATH CAMPS
“who can the democrats possibly come up with that can expoloit Newt’s moral foibles?”
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Wesley Clark
Tom Vilsack
Evan Bayh (chose not to run)
And that’s just off the top of my head.
Yep, ol’ John Edwards is pure as the driven snow. Of course you’ll have to overlook the creative way that he’s found to get real estate kick-backs from Saudi agents. There’s still a little flap over the illegal campaign contributions in 2004 from his fellow attorny friends too.
Poor ol’ BHO has a few problems with real estate deals too. But Billary will chew him up and spit him out, he’ll never get close to the nomination.
Wesley Clark? Get serious!
Tom who?
Nice try Clark!
Good thing Bush and family have never had any questionable dealings with them there Saudis,huh Hank?
You are funny man, Hank! Do you really think that Gingrich and his ethical lapses are going to stand up to any real scrutiny?
Funny, funny, funny, Hank.
Newt makes Cheney look like Mother Teresa.
Free speech means nothing to Republicans. They figure you oughta have to have the bucks to have a voice.
Gingrich should go back to writing bad books.
I like Newt.Roasted lightly with a little mustard.Either that or used as fish bait.
Junior,Imagine an election: Newt vs. Billary.
Oh man, I’d love to see that.
Billary would kick his butt.Her balls are bigger than golfnuts and Newtie put together!HA
Ack! Visualizing what’s between Billary’s legs just made my lunch wanna come back up.
Please – No Mas! No Mas!
Newt on Bill Clinton – “I just melt when I am around him.”
Maybe the Newtster is jealous of Hillary.
Yuk!!!!
What ethical lapses? You’re pretty good at getting crap off the top of your head, how about coming up with one or two.
Hank
Aw hell Hank, everbody knows he can’t keep his pecker in his pants.That’s not a problem with me.
After all, I remember the….BEST.PRESIDENT.EVER.Who was in trouble for getting a BJ with his pizza.(say it)Bill Clinton!!Bill Clinton!!
“What ethical lapses?”
Jeez, Hank, did you forget that Newt was fined $300,000 by the (Republican) House Ethics Committee?
The House Ethics Committee (controlled by the GOP) didn’t even fine DeLay, Cunningham or Ney. Newt had to have been a real bad boy to get hit that badly.
Do you remember that Gingrich resigned from Congress after he lost all his power due to his ethical lapses?
Or doesn’t history count when it involves a Republican?
IOKAYAR!!
As I have pointed out before calling Al Qaeda members jihadists assists their propoganda. It would be like saying “good protestant Christian Nazis” – not a good idea.
And, isn’t it going to be tough for Newt to overcome those stories about him leaving his wife for another woman when the wife was in the hospital for cancer treatment? It just doesn’t smell very good. And, he left the second wife for a staffer. Newt makes Clinton look like mother Theresa for heavens sake… Newt’s record would even be a challenge for Karl Rove.
Ethics charges
Gingrich was accused of hypocrisy and unethical behavior when he accepted a $4.5 million advance as part of a book deal, in light of his previous role in the investigation of Jim Wright. Following the accusations, Gingrich returned the advance.
Including charges related to the book deal,Democrats filed 84 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich during his term,including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes and using the GOPAC political action committee as a slush fund.All charges were eventually dropped following an investigation by the Republican-led House Ethics Committee.However, Gingrich admitted to unintentionally giving inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee during the course of the investigation.The committee did not indict him on charges of intentional perjury.The matter was settled when he agreed to reimburse the Committee $300,000 for the cost of prolonging the investigation.The payment was described as a “cost assessment” and not a fine by the Committee.He also agreed to not “spin” the story in the media, but admit publicly to his transgressions.
On January 10, 1997, the New York Times printed a story that revealed Gingrich, in collusion with other House Republicans, planned to abrogate his agreement by misrepresenting the ethics violations he committed.The story was supported by quotes from a taped phone conversation between Gingrich and his fellow Republicans.
Actually Clark, My factually challenged friend, the $300,000 wasn’t a fine. It was characterized as one but Gingrich merely reembursed congress for the three year investigation into his GOPAC finances.
Gingrich was a very sucessful politician able to win wiht his ideas. The dem fought in the only way they could, bring him up on ethics violations. 84 times. 83 times the charges were dismissed. The 84th time he merely paid them off and the charges were dismissed again. Newy neer admitted wrong doing and they never proved any.
The same thing is going on with Delay. Can’t win in the arena of ideas? Just trump up some charges, then based on the trumped up charges destroy a man’s character.
“then based on the trumped up charges destroy a man’s character.”
Jeez, Hank, that really sounds like the impeachment of President Clinton.
If Delay, Gingrich, Livingstone, Cunningham, Ney, Foley, et al, were so pure and innocent, why did they resign?
Thanks for boldly predicting that Hillary will be the next Democratic candidate for President.
I was a little bit worried that she might actually get the nomination, but now that YOU think she’s going to get the nomination, I know that she will never get it.
Given your track record, you haven’t been right yet.
That is a real relief.
Heckler wrote–
“It seems I need to point this out again to you.
“BUSH IS NOT RIGHT WING. Not if his actions mean anything.”
Thanks for taking the first round on this one .Morg.
Man, do I love this! The right-wingers are backing away from Bush like stinking road-kill.
I don’t blame you, Heckler. I don’t blame you.
Off to buy a Christmas tr– I mean, a SEASON tree.
Gingrinch has NO chance. Too many people have come to realize that the “Contract with America” was a contract ON America. His breed of neocon will shortly need the protection of the Engangered species act. He is fortunate that good liberals will put some teeth back in that act to protect him!
Amazing! All these many months you nitwits have been setting up straw men and then tearing them down. Always avoiding the real issues.
I don’t know many of the real conservatives on this BLOG that are enamored with Bush. I’ve never thought he was a conservative.
If he only had the balls to carry out his “Bush Doctrine” as far as the war on terror goes I might eventually become enamored with him.
Newt on the other hand has the ability to win the consevatives over. Get ready!
Hank
The only thing Newt Gingrich can and will do is line his own pockets with even more of the sheeple’s money. This is a man who spouts off alot of garbage and then tries to point fingers at the ‘other guy’ for the very same thing he himself is doing.
As for that $300,000 repayment to the Ethics committee – if that was a Democrat doing the same thing, I’m sure the Republicans would be calling it a fine. The mantra of the GOP party is – do as I say and not as I do. Sorry to tell you this boys, the American voters have caught on to your little scam of the neocons and the majority are not buying into your fantasy world anymore.
84 times the dems brought ethics charges against him. 84 times the charges were dismissed.
They can’t win in the arena of ideas they try to destroy a man’s reputation.
Congress will finally get some ethics, when the Repugs. can’t dominate and prevent house cleaning.
You’re right steve, They’ll get on it right after Pelosi’s four day corporate sponsored coronation party is over.
What a fantasy land you dems live in!
Hank
$15,000/plate for pelosi’s coronation party.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20061217132752lill.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html
Hank,
If Delay, Gingrich, Livingstone, Cunningham, Ney, Foley, et al, were so pure and innocent, why did they resign?
How much did it cost per plate for the Republicans. And, Hank, you shoud be proud of the corporate sponsored coronation of Pelosi – isn’t that what a good Republican would do?
I would welcome a Gingrich nomination. The dems could even beat him with Kerry, sans a personality transplant.
Kerry needs a transplant, all right, but involves something to put in his bag.
And I don’t mean golf bag.