Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Judge Napolitano Gets Set-Up On the 'Daily Show'

Judge Napolitano's appearance on the Daily Show, to discuss Lincoln, slavery and the civil war, last night was all smiles and laughs, but don't believe that's all that was going on during the show. The judge went up against MSM and lost.

I was wondering how the show would turn out and there is a lesson for all libertarians in what occurred. MSM is not going to give libertarians a break on MSM turf---and they will only deal with libertarians on their turf.

Walter Block tried going up against MSM on their turf when he agreed to be interviewed by NYT and NYT simply lied and distorted what Dr. Block had to say (SEE: Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy).

With Judge Napolitano, since he is a FOX News commentator and smart, I was really looking forward to his appearance on the show. Surely, with a taped record, it  would be difficult for the Judge to be distorted. But here's what the evil bastards did.

There were two segments to the Judge's appearance. The first segment was the Judge saying one thing and the well prepared Stewart throwing out opposing facts. For a newcomer to the debate about Lincoln, it might have raised enough curiosity about Lincoln  to have caused a few to look into the matter, but here is what happened in the second segment, with Stewart still all smiles and repeating what a great guy the Judge was, he was preparing to stab the Judge in the back.

Stewart announced that they were going to play a game, "The Weakest Lincoln". Hahaha, lots of laughter from the audience (By the way, on these type of shows, there are usually employed as part of the audience professional laughers. I am not making this up.)

As part of this "game" the Judge would be a contestant against Lincoln. "Lincoln" marched on to the set and it was a black female with a fake Lincoln beard. More laughter. Than Stewart introduced a panel of three judges, all of whom were mainstream Lincoln professors/historians.

The "game" went like this. Stewart would ask a question about Lincoln or the civil war. The Judge would answer it, correctly. "Lincoln" would offer up some banality and then Stewart would turn to the panelists, who took turns telling the audience that the Judge was wrong.

The Judge smiled through it all, but he was destroyed by these mainstreamers, who didn't offer facts to dispute the Judge, but simply declared him to be wrong. There was no attempt at balance. Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo, historian and expert on Lincoln and the civil war, was not on the panel, nor anyone else that was going to go up against Stewart's cherished myths about Lincoln. It was a set up from start to finish. That's how MSM works. They control things when they operate and they will do whatever to twist an outcome so that it favors the cherished version (which usually includes putting libertarians in a bad light).

Lew Rockwell did the right thing when NYT showed up at the Mises Institute. He did the Clint Eastwood thing, he showed them the door and told them to get the hell out. (SEE: Lew Rockwell Faces Down the New York Times).

Libertarians aren't going to win on MSM turf. If Walter Block and Judge Napolitano can't win on that turf, the the rest of us have no chance. We can battle MSM from our blogs, web sites, books and institutions, but it should now be clear that it is stupid to go up against MSM on their turf.

UPDATE: This Saturday: Thomas DiLorenzo Discusses the Jon Stewart View on Lincoln and the Civil War

90 comments:

  1. Despicable. I'm holding out hope for Tom Woods; if he's ever beaten by the MSM then I'll finally admit it's a futile effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are completely missing the point. The MSM want to have these confrontations on their turf, so that they can edit, distort and move the goalposts in their favor.

      If the Judge was in a proper debate under neutral rules and venue, he would have wiped the floor with these guys - even three against one.

      As an aside, the three "experts" looked like John Cleese in the Argument Clinic sketch when he just says "no it isn't" to any statement Michael Palin made.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

      Delete
    2. Do you really want to see Tom Woods get beaten by conniving propaganda machines?
      It *is* futile.
      Let's not wish for Tom Woods to get caught in a trap, which he would.

      Delete
  2. Agree about Tom, but the Judge lost by just agreeing to play the stupid game in the first place.In fact, why would anyone that wanted to have a serious conversation go on a comedy show?

    One thing that will make you happy, my oldest is a senior in government school and we had a conversation about some of the iconic near God like Presidents that the statists worship. Her teacher actually taught her class that most of the history in our history books glorifies the government and that the great Presidents weren't that great at all. We got to discussing Lincoln and she had actually been taught that there were many issues that lead up to the war, that slavery was not the only defining issue and that the war could have been avoided. I was shocked! I'll be even more shocked if her teacher is teaching next year. Maybe there is hope, and perhaps Libertarian attention, both positive and negative is at least getting some of the statists to question the things they hold true to heart for no other reason than that is what they were told.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Has anyone watched the "extended version" online? I heard no mention of the Corwin Amendment. Or killing all the dogs during the March to the Sea. Or Lincoln's plans to "ship them all back to Africa". I would have said that the "progressives" like Lincoln because they like those policies. Then they wouldn't have me on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine how much better off, how much healthier, the USA would be today if the blacks had been shipped back.

      You know this, of course, but you can't acknowledge it. There's something wrong with an ideology of freedom when its advocates don't feel free to speak their real opinions. Then again, maybe libertarians are just cowards.

      Delete
    2. I think you should be shipped back from wherever you came, troll land.

      I believe forcibly "shipping people" somewhere against their will was a statist-Lincoln-progressive idea, not a freedom-libertarian one.

      Libertarians do not think like you do.

      Delete
  4. Napolitano claimed Lincoln "tricked South Carolina into firing the first shots." That's ridiculous.

    Napolitano claimed Lincoln attacked the South to collect tariffs. C'mon, that's absurd.

    Search this document for the word slave. Search it for the word tariff. Secession had nothing to do with tariffs. It was all about preserving slavery.

    Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JW: statist idiot

      Delete
    2. Secession may not have been explicitly about tariffs but the northern invasion was. Why does no one quote Lincoln's first inaugural address?:

      I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend, and maintain itself.
      In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.


      http://www.ushistory.org/documents/lincoln1.htm

      Delete
    3. Lincoln: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government, shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable.

      Delete
    4. Tom DiLorenzo: Lincoln was hard at work diligently counting up transport ships and communicating with foreign governments about purchasing land from them for all the deported black people up to three days before his death, as documented in the widely-acclaimed book, Colonization After Emancipation, by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page. This research blows out of the water the tall tale told by the Lincoln cult that Lincoln mysteriously gave up on his life-long advocacy of “colonizing” all of the black people outside of the United States sometime around 1863.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/thomas-dilorenzo/the-regime-celebrates-its-birthday/

      Delete
    5. JW: Showcasing the highly successful government-run schools one comment at a time.

      Delete
    6. "Napolitano claimed Lincoln attacked the South to collect tariffs. C'mon, that's absurd."

      Jerry, you first have to explain why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slave holding states not in the Union(Confederate states) to make your case.

      The following states were not subject to the Emancipation Proclamation(per wiki):

      "While the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland,[25] Missouri,[26] Tennessee,[27] and West Virginia[28] prohibited slavery before the war ended. In 1863, President Lincoln proposed a moderate plan for the Reconstruction of the captured Confederate State of Louisiana.[29] Only 10% of the state's electorate had to take the loyalty oath. The state was also required to abolish slavery in its new constitution. Identical Reconstruction plans would be adopted in Arkansas and Tennessee. By December 1864, the Lincoln plan abolishing slavery had been enacted in Louisiana.[30][31] However, in Delaware[32] and Kentucky,[33] slavery continued to be legal until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect."

      "Search this document for the word slave. Search it for the word tariff. Secession had nothing to do with tariffs. It was all about preserving slavery. "

      Jerry, you haven't considered that the reason the North wanted war might be different from the reason the South wanted secession. While I agree with you that a major reason for Southern secession was slavery(but certainly not the only reason), your logic fails in that you assume the North & South were fighting over the same issues.

      You don't consider that Lincoln, who has a long and documented history of quotes disparaging the black man/slaves, even outright stating that if he could save the Union without freeing a slave he'd do it, had differing reasons for war than the South.

      Delete
    7. Learn about the Star Of The West and the correspondence between Lincoln and Anderson (Ft. Sumpter's commander).

      Delete
    8. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln4;node=lincoln4%3A573

      To Gustavus V. Fox [1]
      Capt. G. V. Fox Washington, D. C.
      My dear Sir May 1, 1861

      I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprize. [2]

      I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation.

      For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select.

      You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend A. LINCOLN

      Delete
    9. Instead of doing a word search on the SC reasons for secession, read it. The point of the document was to make the case that the terms of the Union agreed to under the Constitution had been broken. Having been broken, the compact between SC and the rest of the states was void - a nullity. This being the case, SC was no longer obligated to remain in the Union and resume its sovereignty in its entirety.
      There is no mention of the tariff in the document because it was within the power of Congress to enact tariffs. It therefore could not be cited as a violation of the terms of the Constitutional compact and federal Union. If anyone believes the power to tax being abused by Congress to favor one part of the economy over another was not an issue should read the Confederate Constitution and Thadeus Stevens' explanation of the taxing provisions in it in his "Cornerstone Speech."

      Delete
    10. Re: Jerry Wolfgang,
      -- Search this document for the word slave. --

      You're conflating two completely different issues. Whereas the Confederacy's reasons for SECESSION may have or not included the tariffs, Lincoln pursued the war to maintain the union with the purpose of collecting the tariff from the very busy Southern ports.

      Delete
    11. Yeah I'll but those secessionists in Ukraine are ALL about preserving slavery.... Whatever guy.....

      Delete
    12. "secession" and "war" are not interchangeable words. Stewart thinks they are---as do all Lincoln cultists. The four declarations of secession might mention slavery and not tariffs (although Georgis's does), but the reason for that is moot, because the Morril Tariff was not signed into law at the time of the secessions, but get this straight---------EVERYONE KNEW IT WOULD BE, because it was the KEY Republican platform of 1860 and several Southern senators had resigned when their states seceded. Ironically, had they not resigned, the Southern states may have had enough representation for the Morrill tariff to fail.

      "Secession" is NOT THE SAME as "war". Stewart asked Napolitano what started the WAR, not what caused the SECESSION. Napolitano correctly said tariffs is what caused the WAR. Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he would not invade or cause bloodshed UNLESS the duties and imposts [tariffs] were collected. That's basically saying "pay tariffs or we invade".

      The federal troops occupied the Fort for FOUR MONTHS after the secession of South Carolina. They would NOT leave despite all of Lincoln's cabinet urging him to vacate. The Confederates even supplied the federal troops with food so they wouldnt starve. Lincoln, knowing that his troops had enough food, sent armed warships to the SC harbor ANYWAY, in the hope that the sight of warships would provoke SC into firing first. It worked and Lincoln got his war.

      Delete
  5. Stewart's show was a hit piece on libertarians. He was well prepared and, in my opinion, scored the bigger victory in the first segment. The second segment was an absolute joke, which served mainly to ridicule academic opinion on Lincoln during Stewart's hagiography of the mass murdering tyrant. Surprised to see Foner on the panel. One benefit of it is that it is making the discussion of Lincoln topical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The show never mentioned libertarians.

      Delete
  6. What is it with these guys?
    What is this need to try to fight on the MSM's turf and expect an "honest" approach. Of all the despicable things they do, and all the lies and propaganda they vomit out, what makes otherwise smart guys think they'll get an honest approach from the likes of Jon Stewart or the NYT?

    Really, the way Block was treated was completely predictable (which is why his remarks about slavery being "not all bad" were so dumb. Yes, i'm calling it. They were DUMB.) and i knew in advance that Napolitano wasn't going to "win". He didn't win last time around either. As a matter of fact, his previous appearance on the Daily Show was embarrassing.
    When you get in a boxing ring, you won't fight Mike Tyson if the referee is his brother.

    There is NOTHING to be gained from engaging the MSM if the moderator isn't proven and trustworthy as objective and honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think it's dumb you're a mental midget.

      Delete
    2. @ anonymous

      Yawn. Get off your moms computer and do your homework like a good boy.

      Delete
  7. I am now dumber for having read this. There are professional laughers in the audience? I have been to a taping of this show...it is intimate. Where are these implants located?

    This article is like a Monday morning following my team's loss. I usually whine about the refereeing as well...

    The difference is self-awareness. I know I am complaining because my team lost...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/01/humor-code-professional-laughers/

      Delete
    2. You making a leap to state The Daily Show employs professional laughers. I agree with Anonymous.

      Delete
    3. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/01/humor-code-professional-laughers/

      Read it and declare whether you've learned something or not.

      Delete
  8. Nothing wrong with this, the crazier and more stalinist and orwellian the left become the more they expose themselves for what they are.

    He should have just agreed (in a mocking patronising tone) with everything they said and then eviscerated all their claims on his own show simply by reading from lincoln's own biography.

    ReplyDelete
  9. wow napolitano showed up unprepared...real shocker. he's an entertainer, he doesn't give a shit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You have to stick to THE point with these bratty socialist/collectivist chimpanzee parasites in the MSM.
    Only mental retards watch TV so there is no way you can use reason and logic to convince them anyway.
    Public school guarantees a retarded TV audience...Why even bother with these losers in the broadcast format?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the people on Fox News were on our side? The Judge goes on Fox News. Please explain?

      Delete
    2. Sides? Do you really think there are Sides?
      There is only political terror and individual freedom. Choose just one.
      You are either an individualist or a collectivist Turrurist.

      Delete
  11. The fact that one watches TV just proves that they are too stupid to be free. Right?
    This was pointless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add or posts on the internet.

      Delete
  12. At least people are beginning to question Lincoln. He's no longer a deity.

    The same is true of FDR. One of the other dieties in the statist pantheon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cry me a river. Napolitano got the game show questions ahead of time to prepare. Do you think he was dumb enough to go on the show without knowing ahead of time what the questions would be asked? He was more than well-prepared.

    This wasn't about who was on who's turf. This was about someone from "Faux" news getting called out for making up the facts and rewriting history. Thank God for real historians.

    Also, if you wanted to make it a turf war, Stewart's been on Fox plenty of times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?

      Let us know when you have the ability to reason and read. Idiot.

      Delete
    2. I love Napolitano. I have all 7 of his books, but anonymous is right. Napolitano DID get the questions beforehand. They even said so during the game show segment. Stewart even yelled out "Judge, everyone was supposed to think we were smart". He wasn't "set up".

      Delete
    3. The point isn't that Napolitano didn't answer the questions correctly, even though he received them. The point is that after he correctly answered the questions he was discredited by a bunch of lying panelists. Listen to my interview with Tom DiLorenzo on the special edition of the Robert Wenzel Show, this Saturday.

      Delete
    4. I understand your point. I just have an issue with the term "set up". What you're saying is the "debunkers" didnt refute anything, but they simply just said "you're wrong". That's true. That's exactly what happened. Spouting off "you're wrong, that's not true" is NOT a refutation. So, in the sense that Stewart's goal was just to toss in "gotcha" soundbytes, yes he was set-up.

      You said:

      "The Judge smiled through it all, but he was destroyed by these mainstreamers, who didn't offer facts to dispute the Judge, but simply declared him to be wrong"

      I disagree that Napolitano was "destroyed". If they didnt offer facts, their opponent can't be "destroyed". To any thinking, educated person (even to people who don't agree with the Judge), he was not "destroyed", because "destroyed" would mean that the debunkers ACTUALLY debunked him, by listing sources, dates, quotes, etc. Only THEN would he be "destroyed".

      All this was, was Stewart making a mockery of the Judge simply by denial alone. If I invited a guest on my show to discuss a topic and they stated a fact about that topic, just me saying to them "that's not true" creates the perception in anyone viewing it that my opponent is dead wrong even if he is 100% correct. I would have to depend on the ignorance and apathy of my audience to achieve my goal: making someone "appear" clueless, when in fact they are 100% correct. That's what this charade was...smoke and mirrors...nothing more.

      Delete
  14. Do people realize that the show is a fake news show with the aim of producing satirical comedy. To say that the show was a good representation of news media is to say that a stand-up comedian is a good reference on airplane food

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are only Hysterical Emotionalists(TM) in the MSM...Government licensing assures this. My 12 year old daughter is more "man" that these infantile "socialist" parasites. Democrats really are screeching tribal chimpanzees. This is the Trivium without Logic that is "schooling" today.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This article and the majority of the comments contained herein are absurd. If the Judge was able to convince even ONE individual to investigate and scrutinize the myths surrounding Lincoln then he was successful. I am as cynical and crabby (attitudes that I do not attach negative connotations to) as the next An-Cap regarding the current state of affairs or the ability of everyday Americans to entertain, let alone comprehend the complexities of historical contexts; however, this constant belly-aching and self-defeatism plays directly into the MSM and statist hands. As if you all were the final arbiters of engaging new audiences you summarily conclude that engagement in their forums is not worth the effort. When has non-participation in the market place of ideas even achieved a successful acceptance of our ideas? Answer: Never. Ron Paul constantly engaged all forms of communication and despite the vicious lies and attempts at destroying him he prevailed and greatly increased the following of Liberty. How can your memories be so short?

    The Judge's willingness to march into the lion's den and confront this topic was courageous and bold. I doubt very much that our blogs (which generally preach to the audience) have the same ability to reach the masses as broadcast and radio formats. If we refuse to engage, we might as well curl up in the fetal position and cry that the world isn't being "fair" to our ideas. Oh the self-pity! So much has already been accomplished by adhering to it. From small brush fires comes the possibility of the expansion of Liberty. Or have we all forgotten Sam Adams?

    I submit to you the following Sam Adams quotes to alleviate your self-induced depression:

    "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

    AND

    "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."

    That is the goal, that is current contest, and we are winning. With every new outrageous move our current overlords make, and with every engagement we can make on our end, perhaps, just perhaps, Liberty may once again call this land home.However, if Liberty's greatest warriors (the LRC readers and writers) lack the constitution to defend Her in any and all formats, we are perpetually doomed to ever growing statism. Search your soul, the answer lies within.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen! Are Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul wasting their time going on 24-hour news to talk about liberty? Is Fox Business not MSM? This argument makes no sense to me. I don't see how the goalposts were shifted, as Wenzel claims, in this interview. I think Napolitano going on could only be a net benefit. Also the reason he was on this show in the first place is because he attracted attention to himself by talking about Lincoln on another show, also MSM. He created value out of thin air.

      Delete
  17. Maybe it's time for libertarians to focus on the 21st century and not bother to get bogged down in these Lincoln debates. Even if you win the grand debate, what have you got?

    Virginius Dabney wrote a great book on the history of Richmond, my home, and the stories about Jefferson Davis made my skin crawl. Davis was no libertarian, unless you consider martial law, conscription on the street, prohibition, etc. to be freedom.

    As someone who was alive 100 years after the Civil War in Richmond and all the hoopla about it then, I think it is time to try and move on from this unfortunate time in history. I do my part by switching channels on TV whenever the face of Doris Kearns Goodwin appears.

    If libertarians quit trying to teach history, maybe there will be more time to teach current events. This is where the correct perception may pay off in terms of freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Current events are incomprehensible without a firm understanding of history.

      Delete
    2. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

      Delete
    3. I was thinking today about the far reaching consequences ideologically speaking in this debate.
      I think this is why it's an important debate and why so many people are interested.

      Percolating below the surface of the US's decaying empire TODAY and constant DC overreach/intervention(both foreign and domestic) is this debate about the right of secession.

      Statists in general don't like acknowledging it exists on a wider basis, but I think it's actually there. I think even the "little people" are thinking about the absurdity of the US gov't debt and the possible implications.

      If the US experiences a fiscal collapse, what are the odds of a USSR style breakup? I think that's partially what is underpinning this interest and revival in the Civil war causal debate.

      Statist are trying to equate secession with the evil of involuntary slavery in order to demonize those seeing it as a fundamental liberty. The question is, how successfully are they doing it?

      When I'm in a demogoguing mood, which usually arises from wanting to extricate myself from debates with stupid people I somehow wandered into, I sometimes say, "Yes, the abused wife should have no right to leave her abusive husband.", if it's someone that has half a brain they might response, "Where's the abuse to states?" and though it's obvious on the surface I say, "You're right, the wife should have to prove that she's entitled to leave before she's allowed to do so."

      There's also the whole "freedom of association" thing wrapped up in it too.

      These historical debates definitely have relevance today in my mind.



      Delete
    4. Learning about Lincoln was very instrumental in my "wake up" process. It's not so about the man and his deeds as it is the system of lies built around him.

      Delete
    5. Dilorenzo's book on Lincoln is what made me anti-war.

      Delete
    6. Tell Speilberg that. He's the one that made a whole movie about Lincoln and it was one big lie from beginning to end. And it was Stewart who brought up Napolitano on his show. So, what you're really saying is that Stewart and Speilberg have the right to state their views on Lincoln and no one else can?

      Delete
  18. This is overall a good thing. We are not ignored, but at the "then they laugh at you" stage. When they fight us, they will lose.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Watch the movie Idiocracy. That's were we are now...Hysterical morons...The logical outcome of parasitic Democracy. Why be surprised or angry at anything on the idiocracy box?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wait a minute! Professional laughters? You mean Jon Stewart really isn't funny? Next you will tell me Krugman is serious too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I watch the Daily Show and give the Judge credit for going on the show. Can someone answer if the North started buying the South's slaves, why wouldn't the South just get more? There were still ships getting thru. The answer is never that easy. One solution creates may other problems. The South wanted slavery. What ever it takes to extend slavery. Look at polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, those Yankee slave trading ships were getting thru...

      Delete
    2. Yankee slave ships or Southern slave ships, there was almost an endless supply of slaves. President Lincoln would start buying slaves and freeing them, the South would just bring more in. Capitalism 101. Didn't plant enough or yields off due to dry Spring, sell your slaves, then buy more later.

      Delete
  22. Wait a minute... you mean the last laugh was paid for?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not sure why anybody is surprised by this...They do it to anyone who disagrees with their position. What do you think, because we agree with them on a couple of fringe issues that we should be good buddies? They hate liberty and they won't tolerate dissent in any form.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The silliness never ends, does it?

    "Current events are incomprehensible without a firm understanding of history."

    Ahh, a great little platitude indeed. But. I'll bet if I punched you in the face and took your wallet, you'd be able to comprehend that. Perhaps if even a limited government forced your employer to deduct a large percentage of your income from your paycheck, you might comprehend that with absolutely no knowledge of the history of income taxation and the role "libertarian" Milton Friedman played. Of course, I could be wrong and you might just blubber and drool each time you looked at a paycheck.

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

    The number one absurd bromide of all. This confuses memories with the received wisdom manufactured by the history book establishment. In recent times, the neoconservative philosopher kings that see Neville Chamberlain hiding behind every tree have raised this old chestnut to the status of a religion.

    The problem is, as demonstrated by this article, there are multiple versions of history and not one single person can remember exactly what happened because they weren't there. Even if they were there, they may not have been exposed to every detail required to form a complete understanding of events taking place. Even today, those without the ability to read minds and unable to use x-ray vision have trouble explaining exactly what is going on.

    Historians often come to the table with a bias when trying to analyze the current in context with the past. First, it is a given that both current and historical facts will be incomplete. Second, the historian often discards facts in order to compare current events with a historical event. So, we must be careful when listening to people who have a vested interest in having people listen to them based on their ability to analyze the past and present to predict the future.

    Besides, when it comes to politics, it often boils down to debating which team is the most evil or which leader is not as awful as the other. Are we to believe that once people realize that Lincoln was much more of a bastard than Jeff Davis, people will be in the streets demanding secession? Will the federal government suddenly shrink up and vanish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The problem is, as demonstrated by this article, there are multiple versions of history and not one single person can remember exactly what happened because they weren't there."

      While I agree that history can be very subjective in nature, when we specifically talk about the Civil War era, we have letters, notes, etc. to validate the actual thinking of those calling the shots.

      By it's very nature, it's not that subjective. When Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union" ...WHAT IS SUBJECTIVE ABOUT THAT?

      Why is it that 98% of the general government schooled population probably memorized the Gettysburg address in primary school but none of them know the above quote?

      So before any change can occur, people must first change their thinking...which is why historical context to today's thinking is important in my view.

      Delete
    2. Nick - IMO you have the best post.

      Delete
  25. Does anyone honestly believe that whites in the north would go to war if they thought it was over slavery? I mean, yes, there were abolitionists. But, to assume that most white northerners were eager and willing to die for blacks, when they didn't even like white immigrants (who weren't really considered to be "white"), is just absurd. Why would you need conscription, then? Most abolitionists were as such because of their religious beliefs, not because of some devotion to equality.

    Also, how typical of liberals to not look at the aftermath of their idiotic policies. Ever heard of peonage? It basically replaced slavery, and was much worse.

    Btw, just for the record, I'd say the judge did pretty well here. He definitely won round one, and round two wasn't that bad either. The "historians" had nothing to offer besides a "no, never happened. Says me." The judge could have named some sources to back up his claims, but, anyone who denies tariffs were an issue has no understanding of economics or history. (Tariffs still made up 94% of federal revenues in 1960)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Does anyone honestly believe that whites in the north would go to war if they thought it was over slavery?"

      No, they wouldnt. That's why many of them defected to Canada right after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. They were outraged that they had been fighting a war for 2 1/2 years for BLACKS.

      Delete
  26. Who is this MSM you guys keep talking about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mainstream media=MSM

      The major news networks in other words. You know them because when you click around on the tv or radio all the reports sound the same...because they are for the most part! It's a form of corporate group think that projects formed messages very well and the question is "who controls them and what is their agenda".

      You can ask that of any reporting organization...but the MSM is unique in that they all seem to broadcast the same opinions of any given event with little to no variation.

      Delete
    2. Miami Sound Machine

      Delete
    3. MSM = Someone who doesn't agree with you. MSM isn't fair, I have all these great "facts" I found on the internet.

      Delete
  27. Since when is The Daily Show mainstream media? Last I looked, it's a comedy show. I thought FOX was mainstream media since they claim the largest viewership of all the cable networks. And since they have the largest viewership, that makes them THE main stream. I'm confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is that no one here is surprised you are confused.

      Delete
    2. Your guess is right. We're not surprised.

      Delete
    3. You gotta start somewhere. Confused, is as good a place as any. It's better than indoctrinated, anyway. At least you can become unconfused.

      Delete
    4. You guys seem stupid.

      Delete
    5. Exactly, MSM is an excuse. The internet is full of expert history professors.

      Delete
  28. Should one go on these shows?

    NEVER LET THEM FOLLOW YOU AROUND ALL DAY AND FILM FOR HOURS--If you give these jokers all that time, they're going to find at least one clip to make you look stupid--and that's the one they will use. Sarah Palin's campaign consultant Nicolle Wallace treasonously allowed Katie Couric to follow Palin around all day and use the clips that made her look stupid. Peter Schiff allowed The Daily Show to do the same to him. Never, never, never give an enemy (and that's what they are) every opportunity to hang you.

    NEVER APPEAR ON MSNBC. IF YOU APPEAR ON RACHEL MADDOW, EXPECT HER TO DIRTY TRICK YOU--MSNBC is more partisan than Fox News. Everything is Democrats good, Republicans and Libertarians bad. You're not going to convince the audience. Why appear there? Rachel Maddow gave a terrible interview to Rand Paul, trying to make him into a racist. Then, she begged on air for Republicans to come on her show! She interviewed a Republican Congressional candidate and asked him about a technical paper he'd written 20 years before. He wasn't prepared for that question and there wasn't time to discuss the technical aspects of a long-forgotten paper. But Maddow had prepared graphics in advance to make the guy look dumb and bigoted, She would never sandbag a Democrat like that. So, if you must go on MSNBC, expect dirty tricks.

    FIGHT THEM--When Andrew Breitbart went on Martin Bashir's MSNBC show, Bashir showed something bad that a Republican had said and asked Breitbart for his opinion. Breitbart fought back. "Are we going to talk about my book? What does that have to do with me?" Breitbart took the fight right back to Bashir, who is no longer on the air.

    RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE IN ENEMY TERRITORY--Jon Stewart invites both Democrats and Republicans on the show. Democrats, for the most part--even someone as bad as Kathleen Sibelius--get a pass. Republicans never get a pass. Everything a Republican does and says is attacked. Expect the crowd to cheer wildly for Stewart, no matter how outlandish his act. If The Daily Show is interviewing you for an extended pre-packaged piece, recognize that they're going to do everything to make you look stupid and ask yourself if it's worth it.

    DON'T GET ANGRY--Stewart says outrageous things and will treat you unfairly, but don't get angry. Refrain from strangling him or calling him an a-hole. Be gracious. Say that we'll agree to disagree. Do not say to him what I say to him on my tv screen.

    Just my opinion. Stewart has been a shill for Obamacare lately--something that is a tax on his many young viewers. It would be nice to tell his viewers the truth and to put him in his place, but he usually doesn't invite those guests on the show.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It takes the greatest of publik skewl phools to think northern whitey was just "dying" to kill-and-be-killed to free black slaves in the south. The war WAS about slavery which the government-worshiping little people and parasites call "Taxation"...This should be obvious by now. The Fascist Ape(TM) Lincoln didn't free the slaves...It enslaved us all - Malcolm X

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment referencing Malcolm X, I had no idea.

      I found an interesting short video of him saying a similar thing here:

      http://www.budgetfilms.com/clip/13991/

      Delete
  30. Im confused. Didnt the Judge say they got the questions to the game show BEFOREHAND? There was even a big scene where Stewart said "You wasnt supposed to tell them....they were supposed to think we were all smart." How was the game show segment a "set up" if the Judge knew the questions beforehand?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Judge should have found his own history professors and used some youtube videos and maybe Glenn Beck's chalkboard.. Also the Judge is a member of the MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  32. TODAY'S BIAS EXAMPLE:
    A Congresswoman just said that the U.S. Constitution is 400 years old. This Congresswoman also once said that we landed men on Mars. She is a black Democrat. No late night comedy show told a joke about her.

    Do you think that would happen to a Republican?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I experienced this sort of thing in a recent debate with a facebook friend. I merely suggested something in direct line with Federalism and rule of law (in that laws have exact meaning and should be enforced as such). The resulting charade, in which I was ganged up on by 4 people, was a sad excuse for an honest and intellectual debate (that even made it to the topic of the war between the states). Long story short, I received no "good faith argument" courtesy as I had given them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BlahBlahBlah Fox News! BlahBlahBlah Tea Bagger! BlahBlahBlah Hannity! BlahBlahBlah Fox News! BlahBlahBlah Tea Bagger! BlahBlahBlah Rush Limbough! BlahBlahBlah Fox News! Orielly! BlahBlahBlah Glenn Beck! BlahBlahBlah Judge Napolitano!.....

      Is this about right? These bleating cows are created by the central bank/government mafia cartel. It is easier to own a dumb tax cow.

      Delete
  34. Right. Most Americans are mentally retarded and programmable violent monkeys because of government-run school and television programming. You will not have a rational debate with these shrieking monkeys because they are not capable. If you go against the political narrative, you just scare the imbecilic bratty chimps into memorized emotional/shrieking sound bites.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I say it's time to make the MSM and establishment historians squirm. Every time they declare Napolitano or someone like him "revisionist" on Lincoln, fire back with a rejoinder on real Lincoln history from Gore Vidal. That way, it will at least show that it's not just a liberal vs. conservative thing, but that both reputable voices on the right [and the left] have raised criticisms of Lincoln and his prosecution of the Civil War during his presidency. It's these academic historians who are the real Lincoln "revisionists" with their sacrosanct historiographies of that president, not Judge Napolitano. Way to go Judge! You have at least this Leftist's sympathies with your points (for all that it is worth).

    ReplyDelete
  36. You guys are looking at this the wrong way. First of all, the Judge has more charisma in his little finger than any roomful of nobodies who would agree with Jon Stewart.

    Second, if even a handful of Stewart's audience, seeing what a gracious and gregarious man the Judge is, Googles him and reads an article or two, they'll be converted if they are capable of any rational thought.

    Those who are "convinced" by the cheap tricks of the statists are likely not going to convert to our point of view anyway, but I suspect there are those, even in Stewart's audience, who are susceptible to truth, logic, and justice.

    So, don't fret friends. The judge and those like him must be exposed to the widest possible audience, and I'm not convinced that it matters how. The curious, upon merely learning of his existence, will begin down the path to enlightenment!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure this is the case. Yes, Napolitano has charisma, no question. But this isn't about charisma or what would happen in a situation of 'all things being equal.' This is about the MSM having a monopoly over how the mass public gets its information/shapes its ideas. Corporate media at present controls the terms of discourse. The only alternative is – not to abase yourself in the mainstream press – but to generate more, better independent media outlets in juxtaposition to the establishment news. I'm not just talking here about sources like The Young Turks or InfoWars, but honest to goodness independent journalism and/or commentary venues sort of like what Luke Rudkowski does with We Are Change. Saturate the public commons with that, and you'll have a real way of taking on the mainstream press and its propaganda. Bring back the equivalent of the 'local papers” controlled by individual communities and persons, and not corporate conglomerates (what Vidal called the “great octopus”), and you'll have the surest way of fighting and winning against the disinformation of the mainstream press.

      But to just appear on the Daily Show or Maddow or even go on Fox is just to invite trouble. If you can't beat 'em, don't join 'em. Make them irrelevant instead.

      Delete