The City Of Palo Alto’s Closed Door Police Meetings – Kennedy Speech Conspiracy Secret Societies

Secrecy is weakness

“In the 21st Century, democracy demands an innovative approach to policy making – an approach built on transparency, participation, and collaboration. These foundational qualities are the keys to creating a more effective government that taps the creativity and diversity of an entire nation to generate solutions to the challenges we face.”

Implementing the President’s Memorandum on Open Government –

http://www.justice.gov/open/

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”.

“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

“Tonight, I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger.

The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years.

Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

“Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. (…)

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. (…)

“It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

“Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply ‘give the public what it wants’ — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

“This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local.

It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission.

And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

http://bit.ly/4BrVys

By Popular Demand 1 August, 2010 @ 7:18 by Mark Petersen-Perez

Palo Alto City Mayor Engages in a “Clear and present danger”

Our First Amendment Right has and will be the Chief Cornerstone of our democracy.  Nothing is of greater importance then in defending this right.  Historically, the courts have engaged in bitter battles in defining and shaping appropriate First Amendment speech.

Many have concluded that even the most antisocial, overt, threatening gestures are protected under the First Amendment.  However, when United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s rendered his opinion in the how famous case of Gitlow vs. New York 1925, he stated,  First Amendment freedoms are lost when speech poses an emanate threat of “clear and present danger” to our safety.

Such is the case with the recent actions of Palo Alto City Mayor Sid Espinoza who continues to abridge our freedom of speech by imposing prior restraints at directing criticism at government officials.

Sid Espinoza offers no sound legal opinion other than stating it conflicts with established city protocol and relies solely on the advice of city attorney Donald Larkin.  Both refuse to return phone calls or respond to email requests.

The United States Constitution combined with the California Constitution trumps any city protocol imposed and or prior restraints without “Due process” of law.   City attorney Donald Larkin and Mayor Sid Espinoza have both failed to address the following fundamental right of every citizen as follows.

“Congress shall make no [city] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Their joints actions to impose and abridge conditions of Free Speech during oral communications can only be best described as “obscene” and represents a “clear and present danger” to the overthrowing of  everyone’s right, to the Freedom of Speech.

Editors notes:

Oral communications during city council meetings is the time which any citizen, foreign and domestic can in fact address grievances.  What Mayor Sid Espinoza vehement objects to, is the directing of criticism to a specific government employee.  He claims, it’s unconstitutionally permissible and offers no legal basis.