0 votes

The Judge Explains Why We Have A 1ST Amendment To Newt Gingrich

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Newt Getting-rich is a total scumbag. Why this guy is given a platform is beyond me. Hopefully it's to expose his war-mongering and anti-American sentiments. I usually try not to hate, but this guy really grinds my gears.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now Scooter libby, and Robert Novak

(and Dick Cheney, No one said anything about their outing of a CIA agent.

newty

little naughty newty, a lying POS
why neo-cons believe him is anybody's guess.
He hides behind the wars and he hides behind the flag,
And now he's afraid that wikileaks will show us he's a f**.

Live free or DIE!

..."There's something profoundly wrong with the system"...

...Yea, no kidding Newt...it's too bad you support that system of Tyranny...

RON2012PAUL...The r3VOLution continues...
"I always win"
http://youtu.be/Xtl2ZuJpG9M
+GOLD and SILVER are money+

we at least know now that the

we at least know now that the judge is not "psyops" just because he's on fox business? are you guys at least on the same page with that now? (mikelawson)?

Why does the judge say that he "agrees" with any of it?



The judge should have just slammed Gingrich for advocating for a totalitarian state, and one where the truth is equated to treason.

Wasn't this Country supposed to defend and protect unpopular speech?

And what evidence is there that any of these revelations from Wikileaks has killed Americans or is tantamount to "Warfare against the U.S."? The evidence shows that Government policy is totally corrupt, and is what is getting millions of innocent people killed.

We should be talking about prosecuting government officials -- not Wikileaks, or The New York Times.

Why did the judge let Gingrich just rattle off all of his talking-points with any strong counter argument?

Definition of Information Warfare

Information Warfare: Communicating information that is detrimental to US federal government interests.

Hey, Johnjen...

"Newt Gringrich is trash
Submitted by johnjen on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 13:20.
good ol' boy NEWT Gingrich is a lying filthy piece of trash"

Listen my friend, don't you mess with my trash. It might be trash, but don't compare it to Newt.

Newt gets all patriotic... "my daddy served..." and with that he reveals his true identity: a scoundrel.

Patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel. Not very smart, old Newt.

As for calling Newt a scumbag. That's insulting scumbags. There isn't a word rich enough to describe this tyrant.

Plano TX

Newt is a new world order

Newt is a new world order wantabe. He and his kind are extremely dangerous to our liberty.

Reality Check

America does not think this is kooky talk.

(But could it get any kookier?)

Gingrich tells us that Federal Personnel have no rights

watch @ 1:50

"the Private, who is not protected by any kind of first Amendment"

Why does the private not have 1st Amendment protection?? Because he is a Federal Person.

    "It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia"
    [U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

If the Constitution doesnt apply to you, then what is the point of arguing it? The Constitution does NOT apply to "Federal Personnel" or "Federal citizens"...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00000552---a0...
see USC Title 5, 552
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

for more info see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/151305
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/136332
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142862

What rights has he completely

What rights has he completely given up? It certainly wasn't the right to remain silent.

All of them! When you become

All of them! When you become a Federal person, ie. Officer of the United States, Enlisted Military personnel, etc. you give up all of your human rights, and instead get "civil rights" which really aren't rights at all because they can be taken away at any time.

As I pointed out above, any person with a Social Security Number is considered "Federal Personnel", and "citizen of the United States" means "citizen of the Federal Government"

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

See also Tashiro v. Jordan

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia"
[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

Are you saying?

Are you saying that none of us SS#-holders have the protection of the Constitution?

If not, what is your point?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Yes, that is what I am

Yes, that is what I am saying. I know this sounds astonishingly impossible, but it is how the Government obtained its control beyond the 17 enumerated powers of the Constitution.

This is why you need a license to marry, to drive, to have a business, to fish, to hunt, to sell goods, practice law, and so on, and why you need a permit (short for permission) to assemble, to protest, to build, and so on.

The 14th Amendment created a "new class" of citizen, distinctly different from a "Citizen" with a Capital "C" found throughout the ENTIRE Constitution up to and including the 11th Amendment.

The new lower case c citizen is a Federal citizen with limited rights called civil rights, they are known as a "citizen of the United States" and they are not protected by the Constitution UNLESS congress or the courts allow it.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
[Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) ]

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
[Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36

what is it about the

what is it about the information leaked that makes it "information warfare"? simple question that should have been asked.

lol

lol

"...

GET THE F AWAY FROM ME"

Newt is just..... Newt.

don't shoot the messenger

don't shoot the messenger

A true...

Newt G. - a true fascist!!!
My God how the US has derailed. And thank the same deity we have The Judge and Ron Paul.

Look at this man...

He stops...takes his time to call for death in a cold, calculating fashion for those who'd tell the truth about our government.

This. Man. Is. Dangerous.

I think even the Judge stopped the interview because he was getting the creeps.

Newt Gringrich is trash

good ol' boy NEWT Gingrich is a lying filthy piece of trash! Anybody not knowing this guy is as UN-AMERICAN as the next closet communist in our government should watch the documentary "The Real Newt Gingrich" from the JBS. It's available on youtube.....

Ugh, I'm going to have to go beat something with a hammer after watching Gingrich ......

UPDATE: I was wrong, it's on vimeo

http://vimeo.com/6445068

Love the Judge

Best of all, he brings these "anti" Freedom Watchers, like the so-called Speaker, on to make themselves look like the A$$h0!e$ they are.

The newt represents the 1950's rule the World mentality. Until they die off or are voted out of government for good, we will continue to hit a brick wall with subjects the good Judge brings to fox business.

Another reason

To end these so-called "wars".

The Judge should have asked him, "when did Congress declare war?"

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

'War'?

With that definition of 'war' we end up with a situation where the truth can never be exposed without exposing yourself to a death penalty. This definition of 'war' is part and parcel of why we are in this current situation.

Newt

Gingrich stars in Lord Of The Douches. Take Him Away!!

9/11 was an inside job .....time to get some answers..RP 2012

Can we stop calling retired

Can we stop calling retired politicians by their old titles?

Mr. Speaker? Seriously? He's been out of that role for over a decade!

A President I could understand. (maybe).

Either way Newt doesn't get it. It's startling to see how quickly some of the things we all talked about in 2007/2008 are coming to fruition. The attack on civil liberties is astounding to say the least but the speed at which it is occurring is even more astounding. From the TSA at the airports, to random searches on the streets, the first stages of internet regulation, and the further deterioration of our financial system.

I don't even think that the Soviet Union came to life THAT fast!

Guys, 2012 may be our last hope. If we don't get someone in the White House that understands these things , may God help us.

Not just...

...out of the job; THROWN out by those he would lord over.

jaseed's picture

Bump!

!!!

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson