Posted on 02/19/2012 10:22:33 AM PST by blam
Video: The Questions They Won’t Let You Ask (Judge Napolitano In the 5 Minute Speech That Got Him Fired)
Mac Slavo
February 18th, 2012
Asking questions as Judge Andrew Napolitano did in a recent broadcast on his now cancelled daily show may very well be the reason behind his recent dismissal from Fox. Though specific details are hard to come by because the Judge has yet to give any interviews on the matter, it’s believed that his refusal to bow to commonly manufactured media narratives is among one of several key reasons he his no longer with the network.
The following 5-Minute Speech that Got Napolitano Fired from Fox News is one that should not only be forwarded and shared with every single man, woman and child in this country, but taught and expounded upon in every social studies, civics and government class from first grade through college.
Click here to see the video.
The "judge" lit into her calling her names, hung up on her and continued his tirade and name calling. Some "judge."
Libertarians like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel are for open borders. This is just their ideology. It's not really an individual choice on their part. Libertarianism is basically a cult and they can't say they're a part of it unless they agree on the entire platform, e.g. open borders, legalized drugs, pro-homosexual (or any-sexual) agenda, antiwar, etc.
I rarely watch FOX any more, either. It was making me sick, hearing them shill for Romney.
My husband turned on Hannity one day last week and it was amusing because Hannity has been taking so much criticism about being in the tank for Romney, that he was forced to do a segment on Santorum, but he let the two guests do all the talking, praising Santorum.
amen
Greta did a great job investigating Romneycare Friday night I think it was. She hammered Tommy Thompson in her best cross examination fashion to get him to admit that Romney funded Romneycare with federal tax dollars. Her roving reporter interviewed people to get all perspectives on it, and one guy just nailed it on how it was essentially a clone of Obamacare. O’Reilly even said that Romney “might” be a charlatan, that he doesn’t think so but he just doesn’t know. O’Reilly’s been all over the map on Romney (his only bias is he likes to back whoever’s popular at the time) and Greta’s been very tough on Romney, simply by virtue of being fair to all the candidates. It’s also subtle but unmistakable that Hannity prefers Newt. He even basically defended Newt the last time he interviewed Romney.
That’s a good point about Libertarians — I was shocked recently hearing John Stossel mouth his feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
“The reason his show was suspended on the Fox BUSINESS (hint) channel, was because his show was _politically_ focused:”
Well. That makes some sense to me.
HOWEVER, I believe David Asman’s Power and Money show was also cancelled on FBN along with Bolling’s Follow The Money. These were “BUSINESS” shows, so I’ll have to call BS on this excuse memo.
Yeah, but Megan is hot!
Now I will wipe the drool from my chin and go back to watching TV......
Buy more ammunition.....
I will be cutting my Directv tomorrow...can’t stand Fox or the rest anymore..i shall read more, play tennis more and learn more songs on my guitar...also add that i will plan more backpacking trips this year...I will check FR occasionally..but this has almost become a nutter site as far as i’m concerned...some folks i do really like on here and i enjoy their take on things...others, not so much....i feel better now.
Do you have time to type up a transcription of his 5-minute tirade?
Wish I did, but am working on other stuff at the mo.
Truth!!! All Rupert’s kids are lefties and will gut FoxNews and Roger Ailes ten minutes after the the old man dies...which hopefully will not be for a while.
that lunatic made one good point. Napolitano should get his own radio show and quit being dependent to Fox News.
Its funny though... Every time I see Alex Jones, I think of when he was talking about Charlie Sheen's hernia.
I have been saying this for years. Pretty much anyone with a brain and functioning eyes can see it. The system is smoke and mirrors. It's the reason both parties fear a valid, strong third party. Imagine getting a president elected with 34% of the vote. The R and D power structure would evaporate and they can't stand the thought of it.
Everyone knows it and The Judge gets fired for it.
Great idea. I did not hear the original, and from what I can see from the video link, he merely repeated opinions expressed by many Freepers over the last ten years or so, every time there is a major election.
There Must be more to the story than what is posted here.
In any case, here is the transcript I made from the video link above, which seems to begin in mid sentence :
Judge Napolitano's 'Rant'
"...participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes. What if that establishment that doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue? But the two parties wanted to box you into a corner? One of their corners? What if there's no such thing as "public opinion?" Because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own?"
"What if what we call 'public opinion' was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, then there's something wrong with that or there is something wrong with them? What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of the government policy remains the same no matter WHO's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same no matter what the people want? What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements?
"What if both parties just want power, and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs? What if government policies didn't change when government leaders did? What if no matter who won an election government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door for political hacks bent on exploiting the people once they're in charge? What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric the candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory?
"What if Barack Obama campaigned as an anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate, and then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect?
"What if George W Bush campaigned on a platform of non-intervention and small government, and then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention, and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth? What if Bill Clinton declared that the era of big government was over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government too? What if Republicans went along with it? What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president, promising to shrink the government, but then the government GREW, while he was in the White House? What if, notwithstanding Reagan's ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan revolution at all? What if all this is happening again?
"What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though Senator Santorum voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare, and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars? What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Barack Obama? But they don't realize that Mitt Romney might as well BE Barack Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?
"What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because as a claim he's unappealing and unelectable, but because he doesn't fit into the premanufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections? What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance, but style? What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones, to reinforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans? What if Mitt Romney wins, and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Barack Obama promoted? What if Barack Obama's policies too, are merely extensions of those from George W. Bush.
"What if a government that manipulated us could be fired?
"What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed? What if it were possible to have a real game changer? What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from the government? What if we could make elections matter again? What if we could do something about this?
"From New York, Defending Freedom, every night of the week...
End of transcript.
Another opportunity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Although Ron Paul has a few positions that, for me, poisons his entire candidacy, none of them are in this monologue.
I agree with every point.
Many informed Freepers have been repeating those very observations for over two decades; just not all at one time.
Does that make them, and me, "Paulites?"
Amen, brother.
After Dubya, my resolution was, "never another "dynasty,' no matter how 'good' it seems."
For me it is simply a new basic principle, no apologies or explanations necessary.
I have been innoculated by the Roosevelts,the Kennedys, and the Bushes.
Bluntly put, one cannot hope these days to get elected by campaigning against Social Security and Medicare. Too many people depend on them now, and too many people have been taxed during their working lives on the premise that they will one day benefit from them.
Yet liberals have a far worse problem: the federal welfare state is going broke and will soon have to be retrenched, with ever greater cuts needed as public finances continue to deteriorate. The financial demands generated by Social Security and Medicare will inexorably consume many other liberal ambitions and discredit them politically.
In strategic terms, the point of the Obama program is to cement into place federal control over health care and the financial system before it becomes politically impossible to do so. If those changes survive because Obama is reelected, even a bankrupt federal welfare state will remain mostly intact as to its powers and American politics will fall into the European pattern of two parties that rotate in office but leave the welfare state essentially undisturbed in its control over the populace.
In this context, Ron Paul appeals primarily to a protest vote and sentiment that risks being not just politically sterile but destructive. With rare exceptions that almost always end badly, protest candidates do not get elected, and protest minded philosophies that are at odds with a country's fundamental politics are not a sound basis for governing or for political campaigns that aim to win.
My preference is to defeat Obama, undo his program, and then , over the course of years, slowly leverage the bankruptcy of the welfare state into a broad and permanent philosophical repudiation of the federal welfare state itself. Social Security and Medicare can be wound up in a responsible manner and then barred by constitutional amendment.
Is that Ron Paul's goal? Or Judge Napolitano's? I fear that they and many of their supporters instead prefer the glory of philosophical consistency and of "asking questions" like loud cranks at the end of the bar instead of crafting winning political strategies that can command the support and trust of a majority and change the course of the nation.
I agree. Some have taken my enthusiasm for this piece to mean that I believe in conspiracy theories or that I am a Ron Paul guy. I am not, however, just as the collusion that we see among the media et al does not require a back door conspiracy per se, the circumstances that the judge postulates here do not either in my humble opinion. He merely opens the door to some interesting considerations.
I agree though that we need to know much more about the context of these remarks.
If memory serves me right, there is nothing specifically about Social Security in the contents. Just the fact that functionally, the current parties are indistinguishable in their performance, and NOT in a good way.
That leaves the engaged citizen literally helpless, and without a viable solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.