Sunday, November 27, 2011

POWERFUL: What If Freedom's Greatest Hour of Danger Is Now?

Judge Napolitano comments on the current state of the Constitution.

This commentary is worthy of being placed next to the writings of our Founding Fathers.




(ViaKarenDeCoster)

27 comments:

  1. What if the biggest enemy of freedom was Fox News??

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Happy Thanksgiving Yankees. Feel free, warm and fuzzy now. Keep shopping, it will distract you all. Dreamtime has borne fruit for the elite. Your Constitution has been picked clean like your turkey at dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are still men and women among us that are such truly great and courageous leaders that it is humbling to listen to their words. They put themselves at risk to speak the truth. God bless you, Sir! I stand with you.

    I, am Spartacus

    ReplyDelete
  4. Faux News is surely an enemy of freedom. But I'd have thought that the biggest enemies of freedom were the people who used guns to suppress it and, especially, those who gave them their orders, rather than the people, like Murdoch & Co., who serve as our rulers' mouthpieces.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS Generally good stuff. But I think it's naive to assume that "the purpose of the Constitution" was *ever* "to limit the government." The Constitution was adopted precisely to expand the government's powers; and, whatever rhetoric Madison et al. used to sell it in The Federalist, their objective, on the whole, was for the federal government to be able to do as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fox Business has Napoletano, Stossel and Cavuto. It doesn't make up for O'Reilly, Beck, Greta, Rivera, etc, but at least it is more on the plus side than any of the other networks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What if Roger ailes is planning to get the judge off fox business after making that speech?

    ReplyDelete
  8. From what I understand, under the Articles of Confederation the states were united enough to raise an army to fight and defeat the redcoats.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is no way the Judge is going to be put on the regular Foxnews channel with those views because of how many more people watch and receive that channel. They will use him to generate people who demand the FBN channel, but the Neocon Murdoch empire definitely would not give the Judge a primetime platform on Foxnews.

    He really should have taken over for that moron Glen Beck at 5pm at the bare minimum, but at least we have him on FBN.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Problem is that 90% of the public school dullards can not even begin to comprehend...And they vote for terrorists who promises to steal for them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's how all Democracy end, Judge.
    Did you really think Amerika could make Democracy work?

    Democracy + Fiat Counterfeit Money = Slow Violent Death

    Simple equation...Like 1 + 1 = 2

    ReplyDelete
  12. What if Fox news would take a more positive view of our country? Ther'e like the bully in school, always looking for a fight...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Comments about Fox News clearly demonstrate that the writers know nothing about Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch. Chartier and Boetie have obviously never read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers of ever read much else written by the Constitutional Founders especially those who went on to serve as President. Unfortunately, many would rather publically and repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance rather than put for the effort to really understand their history or the true views of contemporaries whom the villify.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, I'd comment here, but I'm not sure it would be approved by Obama's travelling band of czars, cronies and corruptocrats

    ReplyDelete
  15. What if the biggest fascists come on this site like that Bob dude?

    Wait, they did!

    ReplyDelete
  16. What if Fox News wasn't the media arm of the NeoCons?

    ReplyDelete
  17. WHAT IF: The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial American civilians any where in the world.
    The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday(Nov. 28-29, 2011) The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself. (shtf.com)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Criticism of people by polarized people is small minded and worthless, i.e. the criticisms of Fox News above. That applies to everyone regardless of your right, left, or centrist stance. State facts, and back them with historical perspectives, not your own future projections. If you can't back up what you say with facts, then go find a mirror and echo all the sentiments in your little mind to yourself. Antagonistic comments force others into highly defensive positions, and there's no chance they will even look at your point of view, much less try to understand it. An opinion born of ignorance is an opinion best not stated, and name calling and making utterly senseless statements wastes everyone's time and energy. Back your statements up or keep them in the folds of your mind. Better to stay silent and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. We can disagree intelligently and civilly because after all, We all are suppose to be, "We the people."

    ReplyDelete
  19. I tend to agree that media outlets need to be examined for their motives and agendas but I don't agree about the dismissive nature of some of these comments. It suggests, to me, that only Fox News is guilty of what every outlet does. This seems to be a common theme I see especially in the socialist crowds.

    It's too bad Judge Napolitano won't get featured on the outlets those folks seem to have invested all their faith into. It is intriguing that we like to be individuals and espouse how great we are but at every opportunity we like to lump each other into these inaccurate generalizations that demean folks and lessen their relevance so we don't have to discuss and inform ourselves to the fact that others may have opposing views that don't agree with our own.

    I think this video is fantastic. It raises great questions we should be asking. I am glad to have learned of the existence of folks who can think for themselves. It gives me hope.

    I too, am Spartacus

    ReplyDelete
  20. WHAT IF THIS IS ALL TAKING PLACE!!!!!!!!!! VOTING DOES'T MEAN ANYTHING,THEIR SELECTED NOT ELECTED AND I DO HATE THIS government AND LOVE MY COUNTRY!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The constitution hasn't been the "supreme law of the land" for a while now.

    On September 10th, President Obama reinstituted the national State of Emergency first declared by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 by placing the following language in the Federal Register.

    "The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat."

    And it didn't start with Bush either, all any President has to do since at least the 1970s to override the Constitution is declare that a "national state of emergency" exists.

    As Dr. Harold C. Relyea, a specialist in national government with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, has written, “when the President formally declares a national emergency, he may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

    Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) took to the House floor in late 2007 to express his anger at being denied access to an executive branch document (National Security Presidential Directive 51 or NSPD-51) that "establish[es] a comprehensive national policy for the continuity of federal government structures" in a national emergency.
    The New York Times, in a 2007 editorial titled “Making Martial Law Easier”, offered these words regarding NSPD-51: “Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any ‘other condition.’ Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing.”

    ReplyDelete
  22. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    ReplyDelete
  23. God may have blessed America but apparently people have damned it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I see no difference between the media and those that judge the media. We are all a bunch of whiny jerks. Put your vote where your mouth is!

    ReplyDelete
  25. What if the people are so stupid as to allow the liberal socialist news media to select their man to be the republican challenger to Mr. Obomonation?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Judge N is brilliant. He points out the over-reach of both parties.

    Gary Chartier is an idiot. Just look at his blog. 'Socialist anarchist' - and then proceeds to misidentify it. And he is teaching! That shows how far our country has fallen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What if Judge Napolitano's comments were all true, but the majority of so called "AMERICANS"
    did not believe it, or worse yet, did not even care? What a SCARY thought.

    ReplyDelete