Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Judge Napolitano Responds to 'The Daily Show'

This is a must view video, linked in this tweet that Judge Napolitano has sent out. It is the basis for The Daily Show's absurd attack on the Judge. It is a great response to The Daily Show's distortions, let the facts speak for themselves.





10 comments:

  1. I don't need to watch the video. JW already said the The Daily Show historians already refuted everything Judge Nap said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This full video made him look even worse since he gave him an opportunity to express more misinformation.

    Lincoln's income tax was never struck down by the court. In 1871, Grant let the income tax expire because the federal govt was running a surplus and he was running for re-election. In 1881, the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War Income tax.

    Springer v. United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_v._United_States


    In 1895 the Supreme Court struck down a new income tax. Congress passed a tax bill in 1894. This was not Lincoln's tax bill. The Constitution prohibits direct taxation without apportionment. The Supreme Court previously ruled that property taxes were direct taxes. In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, the Supreme Court extended that ruling to income from property including intangible property such as bonds. Since Congress can't tax property, they can't tax income from property. The Supreme Court however made clear that an income tax on wages was constitutional. The 16th Amendment was enacted to tax income from property, not wages. The 16th makes clear that all income taxes are indirect taxes, including income from property. It did not expand Congressional power to tax, merely cleared up confusion regarding what is a indirect tax. Congress still can not enact direct taxes without apportionment. Income from wages were never ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court held several times prior to the enactment of the 16th that income tax on wages was an indirect tax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can say income taxes are ruled constitutional all you want but you cannot say they are moral. Governments frequently rule that what they do is a OK.

      Delete
  3. This must be getting to the Judge as he was a bit bombastic, and not that strong on property rights, regarding the present Arizona bill.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is it about a statist's mindset that he won't consider the possibility of peaceful means to settle problems? Is violence a indisputable good to them? Wouldn't a great statesman have ended slavery peacefully?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was very skeptical of this new "independents" show, but the few times I've caught it so far I have been pleasantly surprised.

    Does anyone even read JW posts anymore?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JW is either a useful idiot or a paid govt establishment shill (look at his Google Plus page link - he only goes after the Freedom movement, never criticises any statist apologist for their predictions no matter how abysmal you think his analysis is).

      The below link will explain why people like JW are being encountered so often in cyberspace comments section:
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

      Delete
    2. Re: Anonymous,,
      -- Does anyone even read JW posts anymore? ---

      They are mostly banal and derivative.

      Delete
  6. I see Daily Kos, Salon, and Huffington Post are calling Judge Andrew Napolitano a "historical revisionist" about Lincoln. Ironic ...

    Gore Vidal writes in "Mickey Mouse, Historian" - (pp. 362-3)

    "It is a little late in the day to turn Lincoln into an abolitionist ... 'He disliked slavery but thought the federal government had no right to free other people's property. In this case, three million African-Americans at the South.' In should be noted - yet again - that American history departments are now bustling with propagandists revising Lincoln so that he will appear to be something quite other than the man who said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do so, or freeing some and not others, he would do so, or freeing none at all he would free none for the Union's sake ..."

    - Gore Vidal, The Last Empire, Vintage Paperback, 2001

    Andrew Napolitano, a "historical revisionist?" I don't think so! But I think we all know who the real historical revisionists are.

    Congrats to the judge for appearing on the Daily show and taking on the real Lincoln revisionists.

    ReplyDelete