12/03/2010 Freedom Watch w/ Newt Gingrich, Geraldo Rivera, Eric Garris, more

Here is last night’s edition of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. The Judge and Newt Gingrich do not see eye to eye on Wikileaks, of course.




  1. HDThoreau Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 4:18 am

    Pardon the length of this post. But I think we have a problem in the logic department.

    I think the judge needs to rethink his position here. He is not following logic or Libertarian principles. If I were to ask him, what the most important Amendment to the US Constitution would be, what do you think he would say?

    The 2nd Amendment. Why? Because without that, all other Amendments and Rights are null and void. In that same vein of self-preservation, National Security is the macrocosm of that reality. If you release the names, addresses, and affiliation of military personnel and their contacts, you have flushed all of your other "Rights" down the toilet.

    Rights exist because of FORCE. Hillary Clinton charting personality disorders and swiping CC number's has nothing to do with the first release of information. Nobody is going to get shot in the face with a AK-47 because of a Credit Card.

    Newt, and I hate saying this, is correct from the Libertarian perspective aka Natural Law aka Reality. You will cease to have a military, and cease to have a Legal system, and cease to even exist if your ability to "ENFORCE THE LAW" is not maintained. Notice the "force" before the "law".

    This is a war and he released names and operational data of our military men in the field. Read it. It's on the Internet. It is not the sensational crap in the newspaper's. It's much worse.

    Your "interest" in that material will end either because the enemy puts a bomb in your newly disclosed base of operations or because you kept your mouth shut. It's your choice. He has 5.2 GB of data in regards to this war. One with Afghanistan. One with Iraq. And one called "insurance.aes256" at 1.4 GB.

    This is not free speech. This is literally a terrorist attack. Russia would not even be this stupid, and their government hates us.

  2. ally from Poland Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 8:03 am

    Americans, America's allies and other thousands of people were killed because U.S. government provided false intel. on WMD in Iraq.

  3. langa Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 8:25 am

    The reason the "enemy" is interested in attacking is because of the bad things that our government does. By exposing these things, Wikileaks helps the American people to see why the world hates us. Americans must drop the foolish belief that "they hate us because we're free" and begin to demand that our government stop trying to rule the world. Only then will we have peace. The only people threatened by Wikileaks are arrogant tyrants like Newt, who are afraid of being exposed as the criminals they are.

  4. Gaz Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 8:34 am

    I think that the military, the legal system, and the countries very existence are under far greater threat from Newt Gengrich and the many war mongering, deficit spending, corrupt, hypocritical crony capitalists of both parties than they are from Wikileaks.

    You express concern about a theoretical threat to American soldiers in the field (as if the Taliban aren't aware of the English speaking soldiers operating in their country). What about the 4000 dead American soldiers, 285,000 Iraqi casualties (as revealed in the Iraq War leak) and a total cost of at least $3 Trillion, over Iraqi WMDs that were never found?

    A true libertarian perspective is hostility to the Welfare-Warfare State, the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, and the professional parasites that make a living profitting from it.

  5. Jeffersonianideal Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 10:21 am

    There is absolutely no reason to ever have Newt Gangrene, that is Gingrich on a show such as Freedom Watch ever again. He has taken up valuable airtime that could otherwise be given to reasonable, principled libertarians. There are plenty of mainstream news outlets that will cater to the crowned prince of neocon statism.

    Gingrich professing to be concerned with “responsibility” is like equating fire safety with a pyromaniac.

    His infamous “Contract With America” was not worth the rhetoric it was built upon. Lucky for Gingrich and his cronies in the 104th Congress that WikiLeaks wasn’t around to expose their corruption, incompetence and ineffectiveness back in the mid 1990s.

    It should be obvious, at least to the thinking minority, that Gingrich is resorting to the politics of fear in an attempt to gather support for a ban on the information published by WikiLeaks. It is unlikely that this information will result in the death of innocent people. What the WikiLeaks material should result in, is an impetus to force crooked government officials to resign and to assist in having the bureaucratic bums who won’t , demoted or fired.

    If Gingrich pursues the Presidency in 2012, Americans who cherish truth should recall what the former schnook of the House has been saying in 2010.

  6. Karl Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:15 am

    Great show Judge. We must all understand the limitations implicit in hosting a show on a Fox network.

    Especially appreciated hearing from Dr. Heldman a point rarely made on Fox, regarding the massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in the past few decades. Bollings cringed when she said it.

    Fact: 20% of this nation owns 85% of the wealth.
    Fact: The remaining 80%, who have seen their wealth dissipate, are just hanging on.
    Fact: We have an enormous debt brought on by Bush and Obama's wars and social engineering.
    Fact: The sooner this debt is paid down, the less it will cost.
    Fact: The only significant source for these funds is the 20%.

    Therefore: The Bush tax cuts should not be extended for the rich. If there are to be new taxes, the first should be a wealth tax specifically assigned to paying down debt. And a balanced budget amendment.

    It's not the Constitution that guarantees liberties, but a strong middle class with an economic interest in defending those liberties. Allow the rich to continue to destroy the middle class, and we will all become slaves.

  7. LysanderSpoon3r Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:45 am

    Gingrich is a state-worshiping goose-stepper. He essentially stated on air (again) that he does not believe in individual/natural rights, but rather adheres to the doctrine of "that which is best for the state is best for us all." The Judge took him apart without even trying that hard and exposed Gingrich's belief that publishing documents created by the state is an "attack" on said state. In other words, if the state committed crimes (like it did in this case and many others) and then documented those crimes, there is no way a journalist can publish these documents without fear of imprisonment or death. That, my friends, is a police state.

    Further, Gingrich stated that "we are at war." No, I'm sorry, he is mistaken. If you say that you support the rule of law and the Constitution, then you CANNOT say that the U.S. government is at war. No war has been declared; end of story. Moreover, the state has no authority to violate its own laws just because "it is at war," which it is not. Even more fundamentally, the state has no authority not given to it by the consent of the governed; those in power have no rights to confer upon themselves that are not intrinsic to all human beings in the first place.

  8. trident Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

    Don't be ridiculous.
    From a libertarian position virtually everything the government does is criminal. There is no supporting the actions of the government, and any criminal activity should be exposed. The right to bear arms is an ammendment aimed at civilians, not a "collective government-run army". This is pretty obvious since there is no "right to bear arms" in most other countries while their armies are still armed.
    To equate the 2nd ammendment with the ability to have an army is completely irrational.
    Is this a war? Maybe so. But you have apparently never asked yourself who is the culpable party in this war. If you support your government and army no matter what, it would be better if you not pretend to know what libertarianism is about.
    Next thing, you're going to tell us that the U.S. government killing people in Yemen and having the Yemeni government take the blame is somehow "libertarian".
    As far as rights existing due to force is concerned, they do NOT. It is the infringment against rights that exist due to force. If nobody infringes against rights, there would be no force.
    It's ironic how you talk about the 2nd ammendment when it is obvious that it exists as a safeguard against your OWN government. Yet here you are, coming to your own governments defense.
    So stop pretending to be a libertarian, because your "logic" betrays pure neo-conservatism.

  9. J Hall Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 12:57 pm


    I love it how these people pretend that the exposure of criminal misdeeds by the empire America has become somehow damages the "good guys".

    Real good guys arent afraid of the TRUTH.

  10. J Hall Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

    To these folks,we are 'at war' constantly,and in their warped system,this entitles government to trample civil and Constitutional rights and limitations,to these people,civil rights and Constitutional limitations on government are coddling the enemy in the war on (fill in the blank).

  11. J Hall Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

    Only the democrats would hold hostage tax cuts for everyone in order to further their agenda of socializing the nations economy.
    So myself,one of those poor middleclassmen you pretend to know so much about,I have to hold my breath and wait for all the political games to end to see if my taxes will go up and whether or not I will be forced to choose between feeding my family or paying my mortgage.
    Right now,we can use all the help we can get,and rich folks getting tax breaks that allow them to create more work,along with me not having to pay more taxes,is a good thing.
    In fact,perhaps we should be talking about dealing with the deficit and government spending by cutting it off at the source -where the government gets all its money- and not only extend these tax breaks,but expand upon them.
    Now theres a concept.
    But NOTHING will happen while the process is being held hostage for political games.

    And the democrats just keep playing games……..with out LIVES.

  12. J Hall Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

    Love The Judges take on Rangel.
    Any of us 'common folk' that should 'mind our own business' pulled what he did,and we'd be in jail.
    Tell you what Chuckles-why can't you mind YOUR own business and stay out of my health care!

    Of course Newt "The Gink" Gingrich agrees with Hitlery-they both want the same thing-


    Anyone who disagrees with their world view of a giant government that has total control over everything and can do as they please is an 'enemy combatant'.

    And his comparisons with the wars of this empire with world war 2 to justify censorship is nonsense.Were not facing Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan,who both had the military power to conventionally attack us and take and hold territory.Were running around the world playing Team America World Police.

    Our Founders didnt want an empire with military outposts all over the world and a permanently standing army.They wanted America to remain neutral unless attacked,and then they wanted a clear cut declaration of war with a publicly known enemy for obvious reasons to mobilize our national forces.
    They recognized a permanent army as a detriment to liberty.
    But these clowns think that they can just manufacture wars to keep us in a non-declared state of pseudo-war,and thus ignore the intentions of our founders that America be a neutral nation with peaceful policies.

    Of course these people want those that expose the FACT that our so-called Saudi Arabian 'allies' fund our so called enemies,because that makes it even easier for the public to see that there is good cause to question whether our ever protective,oh-so benevolent government might have actually KNOWN ABOUT or even SUPPORTED the nefarious deeds of these enemies,which were more and more likely nothing less than false flag attacks designed to continue this blasphemy of what the American Republic has become.
    In the least,people should be questioning why were running around claiming to bring democracy to the world with military force,while allowing Saudi Arabia,a brutally repressive regime,to fund our so called enemies without so much as a whimper from government that claims its "at war with terror".

    Soon,any American that speaks out against this blatant tyranny will be labeled 'terrorists' and 'enemy combatants' and secretly 'green lighted' by government because the information contained in our opinions will be detrimental to the continued Orwellian police state and its never ending war on whatever.

    "War is Peace".


    Newt-I think we have to have a national dialog about where this nation is headed-a fascia/socialist empire of a magnitude unimaginable in the dark days of World War 2 or a truly free nation.

  13. Hiqutipie Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

    Nice going Judge!!! In the Dark Ages someone has to stand up for the Truth & shed a little light lest all be lost…

    Its rather ironic that those that like to scream the loudest about "Freedom of Speech are usually the liberals and the ACLU etc. The Aclu has made a mild statement but hardly voiced their concern now that one of their own (Obama) is right in the middle of the infringement. But you are not seeing many that are coming to the defense of Freedom other then bloggers…

    On the other hand you have all these politicians & pundits like Newt calling for the head of Assange but noone has figured out what to legally charge him with. The government has had 7 months to figure out what to charge him and the private with as well as how to deal with the leaks and the best they can do is attack and threaten the messenger. With all their political pressure the best they have come up with is "Sex by Surprise". If that is the best Sweden and the US can come up with maybe they should have called Dick Cheney for some suggestions…

    To Top it off most Americans don't trust their government and now the government is turning the tail on "Truth & Light" and saying there is the enemy and using war & safety to turn the tables on Freedoms…

  14. AntiFed1791 Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

    As repugnant as Newt is to my libertarian sensibilities, it is always good to hear all points of view.
    We must not become so settled in our own philosophy, that we become stale and cease to question. Newt and many neocons are good examples of what happens when you stop listening. Besides, it is always wise to learn what your adversaries are thinking. :)

    Judge, I am so pleased with your show. It is so buoying to the soul. Keep up the good work.

    Please have Jan Helfeld on your show. http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld
    From his YouTube page:

    “Jan Helfeld is a unique TV interviewer who uses the Socratic interviewing technique to reveal contradictions in our politicians’ thinking.

    Unbelievable, dramatic, explosive interviews.

    Watch Jan Helfeld nail the politician or journalist of your choice. Enjoy watching politicians and journalists go crazy as the result of rational, legitimate questions and thus, with no excuse to be upset.

    “Utterly fascinating” — Mike Wallace, 60 minutes

    “I learned a lot” — Senator Joe Biden

    “Piercing questions” — Congressman Charles Rangel

    “Pretty intense” — Barbara Cochran, CBS News

    “Off the charts” — Bill Avery, WNEM

    “Fun” — George Will ”

    Put that guy to work for you!

  15. Sally O'Boyle Said,

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

    You make assumptions about the judge, then explain why your assumption is wrong? Sheesh, that is hard to follow.

    It's not a war. And there is no evidence that anyone is in danger. Gingrich hopes like hell a few people are killed because of this info so he'll be right. Gingrich is a dangerous man. And I'll bet he's a tiny bit worried that a leak will come out with his name on it… what a crock.

    Stealing cc# is a crime for which you and I would go to jail for a very long time. Because Hillary does it in the name of war, it's ok?

    Here's the solution: end the entanglements overseas, bring our troops home before another person, U.S. citizen or otherwise, is hurt. Then we have nothing to worry about except how this country is falling apart within our borders.

  16. John Said,

    December 5, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

    Judge always says that freedom watch is 7 days a week but I never see anything from the weekends posted

  17. Rexi Said,

    December 5, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

    Adding the words "war on" give urgency to anything that the government wants to do. One trillion dollars in Iraq, and subsequent profits to various private interests because after all, "there is a war on," and we ended up being there longer than we were in Europe during WWII. Billions of dollars spent on the "war on drugs" in order to irradicate a plant, with subsequent profits to the jackbooted thugs at the DEA, because after all "there is a war on," and has been since the Nixon administration.

    The government should declare war on education. Within weeks we'd all be hooked on phonics.

  18. Craig Said,

    December 5, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

    It is George Bush and Newt Gingrich who (like Barack Obama) are traitors. They are the ones who have betrayed American principles and are destroying the country.

  19. Ted Keller Said,

    December 5, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

    I'm puzzled. Gingrich argued "We're in a war!" Now, according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare a war. When did it declare THIS war, and against whom? Apparently I missed the declaration.

  20. Nils Said,

    December 6, 2010 @ 7:03 am

    I'm surprised by the complete misunderstanding of the concept of net neutrality. I want to emphasize one point: the internet, as it exists today, *is* neutral. Again, net neutrality is simply preserving the status quo.

    As it stands, Internet Service Providers (such as Comcast) cannot discriminate traffic based on destination. If they were allowed to, they could effectively hold certain sites at ransom, charging the site (or even the customer) additional fees just to be usable. So, without net neutrality, your ISP could prevent you from being able to visit freedomwachonfox.com, as well as prevent you from commenting, effectively trampling your right to free speech.

    Rep. Blackburn is completely incorrect, net neutrality has *nothing* in common with the fairness doctrine. She is also incorrect in stating that the FCC will "insert itself in the information highway." Monitoring traffic is simply not a part of net neutrality. Finally, she is incorrect in saying that net neutrality will have the FCC as the gate keeper. In fact, without net neutrality, the ISPs will be the gatekeepers, deciding what content you are allowed to see. About the only thing she gets right is her acknowledgement that the internet spurs innovation.

    Admittedly, I'm not a legal scholar, but I think the goal of the Federal Communications Commission is to ensure fairness for communications over electric medium, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the internet falls (or should) fall in its jurisdiction.

    If you want more detail on net neutrality, here are a few references: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/01/hehttp://www.savetheinternet.com/

  21. langa Said,

    December 6, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

    According to your logic, if a restaurant charges more for chicken than for fish, this is apparently somehow unfair to chicken eaters, who are being denied their "right to eat chicken". Of course, this is preposterous. The right to free speech does not entail free access to a public forum from which to broadcast your speech, nor does it entitle you to commandeer the property of others to aid you in broadcasting your message. Finally, no matter how noble the goal might be, government has no right to dictate the prices that private companies charge their customers.

  22. Kevin Said,

    December 6, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

    You make a several absolutely glaring mistakes. You assume that if the rich pay more, the poor pay less, you also assume that giving handouts to the poor on an ongoing continuous basis is actually "help". First, transferring wealth to the government does not in any way guarantee better conditions for the poor. The government simply spends more, it does not have to do anything for the poor with that money. Secondly, you seem to think, like so many progressives, that the rich are basically the "host" and the poor are parasites that need to feed of of them, with government help.

    Recognition of private property is the only solution. Insisting on getting to keep what's yours is NOT greed, and spending other people's money is NOT charity.

  23. Dave Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 12:49 am

    I used to have a fair amount of respect for Gingrich but it is apparent where his vested interests lie; not with the American people. When TPTB called out the wardogs on Assange, Newt answered the call along with several other of our "leaders". He is a …….!

  24. TroubleMan Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 1:50 am


    You've got the idea of net neutrality completely twisted.

    Imagine if the electric company figured out a way to differentiate whether you were using a Toshiba tv versus a Sony tv. Then the electric company tells you that you cannot run a Toshiba tv with the electricity that you're paying for, because Toshiba didn't pay your electric company a fee. Only Sony televisions would get power because Sony paid the fee. That is what the ISPs are trying to do. That's what net neutrality is about.

    The government isn't monitoring anything – it only insures that the bandwidth both parties are paying for is not throttled down or cut off by a 3rd party. I pay for an internet connection and bandwidth in an amount agreed upon between me and my ISP. The website or internet service that I access pays for an internet connection and bandwidth in an amount agreed upon between them and their ISP. The ISPs have bandwidth agreements among themselves. Throttling or shutting down internet between the two end parties breaks all of these agreements.

    Without net neutrality, Comcast can censor Fox News, Freedom Watch, or any other website, simply because they can. AT&T can block any website or internet to their users, simply because they can. These companies can blackmail any small business or news organization into paying hefty fees just to be seen. It's not speculation – they're already attempting to do so. Every website will have to pay every ISP a fee in order for their users to see that website, and the ISP will reserve the right to block that sight or service completely if they don't agree with the content.

    How far will this go? I have my phone lines through Comcast cable. Without net neutrality. Comcast can block the business down the street, who uses AT&T phone service, from calling me or block me from calling them, even though I paid for phone service and so did they.

    It's not government dictating prices that private companies charge, as you seem to think it is. Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with that. Those prices have already been negotiated and agreed to when I signed my contract with them. They're breaking it by limiting the content and bandwidth that I pay for.

    Net neutrality is pro-freedom, pro-first amendment, and anti-totalitarian. Anybody who says otherwise has no idea of what the issue is about, and has been fooled by bought-off politicians and propaganda from ISPs.

  25. TroubleMan Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 2:10 am

    One more thing.

    Without net neutrality all small business and business innovation on the internet will be completely shut down. Innovation and new ideas on the web will be nearly nonexistent without net neutrality.

    Any new business or website right now with a great idea, can simply pay their ISP for bandwidth and a website. If it's a great idea, and their website is getting flooded with customers, all they have to do is pay for more bandwidth. The free market can determine whether they succeed or fail. That's the current model – the one that's working. However, the ISPs want to change all of that.

    Without net neutrality, every new website, internet service, or internet business idea will not only have to pay their ISP for the bandwidth they use, but they'll have to pay a fee or subscription to each ISP if they want the customers of that ISP to be able to access their website. These kind of fees and restrictions will kill any small business or new website.

    Also, without net neutrality the ISP can just fee them out of business and then set up their own service like the one that new business just came up with. This is what Comcast is doing to netflix. They are like a mafia who will put Netflix out of business if Netflix doesn't pay them protection money. In fact, they'll probably do it anyway even if Netflix does pay the protection money – without net neutrality there's nothing to stop them.

    With net neutrality the free market and customers can decide. Without net neutrality, there's no free market on the internet anymore. The lack of net neutrality would destroy millions of small business around the world.

    The way the internet is now is the way it should be. It works. Net neutrality keeps things the way they are now. Without it – bye bye first amendment on the internet, bye bye small business on the internet, bye bye innovation on the internet, bye bye free market on the internet.

  26. langa Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 2:23 am

    Saying that an ISP is a "3rd party" to a transaction between a customer and a website is like saying that a restaurant (KFC) is a "3rd party" to a transaction between a customer and a chicken farmer. It's just not true. The ISP is providing a service, and they have the right to charge whatever they like for that service. If others (be they web surfers or website owners) don't like that price, they're free to do business with a different ISP.

    As for all this talk about "censorship" and the First Amendment, the First Amendment was never designed to prohibit "censorship" by private entities, only by the government. If you write a letter to a magazine and they elect not to publish it, has their "censorship" violated your right to free speech?

    Finally, there's no need for any new regulations to address any breach of contract, since that's already illegal, and can be remedied through the courts.

  27. TroubleMan Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 2:52 am

    You've got it wrong. The ISP is not analogous to KFC in that transaction. KFC makes it's own chicken. It doesn't act as a middle-man between you and a chicken farmer. It produces it's own product completely different from buying a chicken.

    What the analogy would be is that if KFC owned all the roads around your house, and wouldn't let Chick-Fil-A into your neighborhood, because they offer a competing product.

    Again the analogy that is germane to this discussion is that the ISP is a electrical company but won't let you run a certain brand of televisions, because that manufacturer did not pay them a fee.

    They are a 3rd party in an internet transaction, because they don't own both end of the lines. The business or website I'm accessing is already paying for bandwidth to it's ISP. Comcast has no right to cut that off or slow it down. I paid for bandwidth – Comcast has no right under our current contract to censor or throttle it.

    From your statement:
    "As for all this talk about "censorship" and the First Amendment, the First Amendment was never designed to prohibit "censorship" by private entities, only by the government. If you write a letter to a magazine and they elect not to publish it, has their "censorship" violated your right to free speech? "

    No , but a private company has no right to censor another private company that is unrelated to them, and that's what's happening here. Also you can't always go to another ISP, because many customers only have one choice.

    It's funny that you would like to see a bunch of lawsuits over this. Instead of one simple, common sense rule that easy to understand and has been already been implemented for years on the internet. You'd rather see big government intervene via the court system. If you think they'll ever do the right thing, and that you can trust a bunch of litigating lawyers, you're delusional.

  28. langa Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 4:45 am

    You act as if ISPs provide no service, but rather simply exist to skim money off the top. However, you've got it backward. It's actually government that provides nothing of value and exists solely to take a cut off the top. The free market does NOT need government regulation to function properly. If you think it does, that's just a sign that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated (or "educated", if you prefer).

    You keep saying that without net neutrality, there's nothing to stop ISPs from engaging in fraud, breach of contract, extortion, etc. But all those things are already illegal. There's no need for any new laws or regulations. If an ISP is violating your rights, you can take them to court. And as for your last point, I would rather trust a bunch of lawyers (who I can fire if they fail to deliver) than a bunch of nameless, faceless, totally unaccountable bureaucrats.

  29. Alex Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

    The whole WikiLeaks situation is really a great way to clearly "separate the wheat from the chaff". If Hilarious Clinton, Newtie, the "President", most of Fox news, and the other assorted neocon talking heads are against something, it must be great for America (and the rest of the world).

  30. rdd Said,

    December 7, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

    wikileaks is rubbish, j assange mk ultra zombie!

  31. Ronnie Said,

    December 9, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

    Point out that the IF the information gets anyone killed then the person(s) who created the situation in the first place are responsible. NOT the ones who exposed the crimes. This would reduce the evil doers.

  32. scarlett Said,

    December 10, 2010 @ 10:16 pm

    Rivera is a coward. I will get irradiated and groped. What a loser. This guy is not fit for consumption.

  33. blackseabrew Said,

    December 12, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

    Newt is a tyrant! To most observers that is obvious as is the disrespect he shows for human rights. But to many, I'm sure he came across has a 'strong' individual saying that we are at war and implying that we automatically give our rights because of that.(Of course Congress never officially declared war but I digress)

    It's a difficult task, but we have to do a better job of showing that Newt would have no problem imposing his tyrannical will against any of us who would question him or the the state.

  34. James Horner Said,

    December 12, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

    This is not a complex issue. Receiving stolen property is a crime in every state and is a federal crime if state lines are crossed. Wikileaks have knowingly received stolen property of the US government and damaged it. They are traitorous criminals. The judge is a fool for not realizing this. The "freespeach" argument is bogus. All arguments as to whether the stolen information reveals nefarious activities or general incompetence are irrelevant. If the government does not prosecute these jerks from Wikileaks then all of it's protected information is subject to compromise.