Archive for the ‘Andrew Napolitano’ Category

Similar to the famous ‘what if’ speech by Ron Paul, two years ago Andrew Napolitano raised some ‘what if’ questions:

What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs the least?

What if you could love your country but hate what the government has done to it?

Read Full Post »

Adding to my recent blog posts on democracy and federalism, I’d like to share an article by Charles C.W. Cooke, published in the National Review:

Repeal the 17th Amendment

It is liberty, not democracy, that is America’s highest ideal.

The Senate was not intended to be the people’s representative body, but that of the states.

Read Full Post »

One hundred years ago, the United States experienced three major changes:

  • The 16th amendment introduced a federal income tax
  • The Federal Reserve (Fed) was created
  • The 17th amendment introduced the popular vote of senators

Some have described these changes by saying that 1913 was the worst year in U.S. history. Let us have a look at the last two changes.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman on the track record of the Fed:

It has done far more harm than good.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the 17th amendment:

It may sound like more democracy but it was the death knell of the idea that the federal government is a coming-together of independent, sovereign states.

Read Full Post »

Back in 2007, Judge Andrew Napolitano gave a speech on the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution. A video you shouldn’t miss:

In virtually every administration […] the government has sought ingenious ways to evade and avoid its obligations under our founding charter.

Read Full Post »

Although his great show Freedom Watch was cancelled some weeks ago, there are still new videos of Judge Andrew Napolitano. In one of them he describes the long history of US politics from the Stamp Act to Obama Care:

Whatever happened to the right to be left alone?

The last time a central government in America tried to force all Americans to buy something against their will, it was the King of England and his Stamp Act. And that fomented the Revolution.

Read Full Post »

The other day, I got this interesting book by Professor Rummel from the University of Hawaii:

In any case, the empirical and theoretical conclusion is this: The way to end war and to virtually eliminate democide appears to be through restricting and checking power.

The less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. I offer this proposition here as the Power Principle: power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely.

In my view, Rummel’s analysis presents a strong case in favor of strictly limited government. The book mainly consists of data, so it is not the type of history book you might expect. But all those numbers really tell a story. So, if you still believe that democracy is bad, that government power should be great, or that the Nazis killed more than anybody else, get a copy of the book.

And if you believe that a history book is no longer relevant, now that more and more countries become democratic, watch this:

The Constitution says that if the government wants your life, or your liberty, or your property, it has to articulate to a jury what law you have violated and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read Full Post »

Sad news for freedom in the United States: The other day, Fox Business Network cancelled Freedom Watch, one of the best daily libertarian news & argument shows in the history of American television. RT America reports, talking with Wayne Allen Root:

Libertarianism has two problems:

1. It is not pro-corporations and corporate welfare.

2. There is a lack of libertarian spokesmen who have enthusiasm.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of libertarianism’s great spokesmen. And his final statement will certainly go down in American history:

The greatest losses to our freedom have not come from someone attacking us but from the government ignoring the Constitution and the majority letting them get away with it.

Read Full Post »

The other day, Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed the issue of “change” in political campaigns and in politics in general. He astutely points to the fact that Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign focused on “change” in a way that people with very different political backgrounds were able to support him. However, three years later we have to accept that this campaign was a brilliant fraud.

Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

It’s a sad state of affairs that a simple return to first principles represents fundamental change.

The dirty, little secret about change in government: Nobody in power actually likes change.

Read Full Post »

On the last day of 2011, President Obama signed into law the so-called National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. The Act is a United States federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. For 2012, the budget amounts to a stunning $622 billion.

But more importantly, this year’s act contains some controversial provisions. In particular, the NDAA text affirms the President’s authority to detain, via armed forces, any person “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States” and anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S.,  under the law of war, “without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF.”

This implies indefinite detention (i.e. imprisonment) of any suspect without trial. It is hard to believe that (i) this piece of legislation was signed into law, (ii) by Barack Obama, and (iii) not heavily criticized by the media.

In order to wake up some people, let me suggest a few videos dealing with America’s so-called war on terrorism:

First, Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses on Freedom Watch what happens when presidents go bad:

When Presidents violate the Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of the land, and when they get away with it, that establishes a very dangerous precedence for future presidents to exceed their predecessors’ behavior.

Second, Stephen Colbert talks about the NDAA in his Colbert ReportThe Word – Catch 2012

Third, Napolitano describes why the US Constitution still matters.

And finally, an earlier post about the Patriot Act and how Obama tries to enhance it.

Read Full Post »

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the artificial choices Americans face in the 2012 presidential election:

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters’ choices but to limit them?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »