SSS
November 28th, 2006The man whose ultimate wet dream as Speaker of the House was the possibility of a double impeachment leading to dual resignations leading to his ascension to the Presidency (making his wet dream a wet but bloodless coup) wants to be the Gingrich who Stole Free Speech, more here.
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. Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech. Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens’ ability to express themselves and their faith.
Maybe we should cut out elections, because if we get infiltrated by enough terrorists, they might elect a Democrat. And maybe we should cut out campaign financing because the terrorists might finance a Republican. And maybe someone should tell newspaper editors that Newt Gingrich is not a viable Presidential candidate and never will be so they should stop pretending that he is. He’s a Mayberry Machiavelli and his ideas suck, too. My ISP couldn’t Steal my right to free Speech; let alone Newt Gingrich and his army of none.
Through the press, a couple of messages have been sent today: first, George W. Bush has pledged that America will remain in Iraq. I’m not sure I believe him. He did, after all, promise Rumsfeld’s continuance for the remainder of his Presidency. It could very well be lip service to Conservatives before he flipflops in light of the coming Baker Report on Iraq. Who knows? Just don’t be surprised if he doesn’t stick to his word.
The second message sent through the press today was this one, the news that American military officials are publicly blaming Iran for violence in Iraq and for funding terrorism. It is very much a sign, to me, that the Administration is desperately looking to avoid Iran’s assistance — or asking for it, anyway, as it’s doubtful that Iran would help us genuinely in Iran — and is, therefore, looking to shake things up internationally and draw more support for efforts to stop the Iranian bomb.
At this point it looks like Iran will get the bomb in time, and Iran looks like the most unstable country to possibly have one. I still doubt that they’d nuke Israel, considering the fact that the third Holiest Islamic city is there, but it’s possible, and if anyone would do it, it’s Iran. And to that effect, it looks like today’s news is a Signal to the Iranians and the rest of the world telling them that the US wants a confrontation. That is probably not a good Signal to shoot into the sky, but it’s inevitable. With Iran.