Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Napolitano’

The way you can tell freedom is in trouble is when it’s voice is silenced.  Here’s a link to the article.

Advertisements

Shortly after September 11, 2001 Anthony Shaffer came out against the Bush administrations “official story”.  He appeared on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch to discuss a 9/11 cover-up at the highest levels – the CIA.  Who else?

Whatever the government knows, it is vital to the Republic and to Democracy that the American people know.

Watch the following video clip of Andrew Napolitano (the best thing to come out of Fox News) debate with Bill O’Reilly on the trying of terrorists as criminals. As Napolitano makes a point, O’Reilly interrupts him. At one point, Napolitano qoutes the Constitution and O’Reilly says, “I don’t care about the Constitution.” This clearly states how Fox News feels about liberties greatest defender.

It is my feeling that 9/11 was not an act of war, rather, it was a criminal act.  Specifically because it was not by a nation-state.  Japan and Germany were different because they nation-states.  As I stated in another post, the Bush administration six months after declaring “dead or alive” said that they did not know where bin Laden was.  The FBI said they had no hard evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11.  In no way should have the events of 9/11 justified the invasion of Iraq.  See Project for a New American Century.

At one point O’Reilly says that Bush and the CIA and waterboarding are going to be on trial.  Great!  Put them on trial.

Oh yeah, Bill, you’re a pinhead.

Every politician has an ego.  Why else would they tell us that their way is the best?  They scratch and claw at one another during the primary debates, then when the winner is declared, they pile in their support in the hopes of a Cabinet post.  President Obama is possibly the most egotistical president since LBJ.  This is a man who does not like the answer “no”.

When healthcare reform didn’t pass the usual rigors of the Congress, Democrats used an un-Constitutional pathway called reconciliation to pass the economically disastrous bill.  GOP leaders who criticize Obama’s humongous spending rates are vilified as “being against the American people.”

The President’s initiative to sign Executive Order’s as if they are law, is not only un-Constitutional, but economically disastrous.  His piece of legislation laying the blame on the financial sector and not the Federal Reserve, thusly, giving the Fed more regulatory power, is nothing more than our capitalist system being overthrown by a small and very powerful sect of secret men.

Since its start, the Federal Reserve has overseen at least twelve recessions.  They have the power to influence or destroy our economy.  The President’s administration is in bed with such corrupt bankers.  So with a clear mind and a free thinking process, one could see why he wants to give more power to the Federal Reserve.

BP is not the primary target of President Obama’s Cap and Trade agenda.  It is the American companies.  As Ron Paul says, “BP loves Cap and Trade.”

With an injunction placed by a federal judge against the Obama administration (they have since said that they will issue a new order), a commission panel created by the President alone (made up of environmentalists), a sinking approval rating, a faltering conflict in Afghanistan; November could pose dangerous to Obama and the Democrats.

End the Mandate
By Ron Paul
Last week I introduced a very important piece of legislation that I hope will gain as much or more support as my Audit the Fed bill. HR 4995, the End the Mandate Act will repeal provisions of the newly passed health insurance reform bill that give the government the power to force Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance.

The whole bill is rotten, but this provision especially is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives it the power to do this. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Not only is it unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.

The new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.

Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes it more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasing subsidies for more and more Americans, adding astronomically to our debt burden. An insurance mandate undermines the entire principle of what insurance is supposed to measure — risk.

Another likely response to rising costs is the imposition of price controls on medical treatments, and limits on what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will have to reimburse. This is happening in other countries where government is intrinsically involved in these decisions and people suffer and die because of it.

This will only increase the bottom line of the very insurers the legislation was supposed to control. Meanwhile, alternate methods of healthcare delivery and financing, such as concierge doctors, alternative medicine, or physician owned hospitals will be greatly harmed, if not put out of business altogether, when the entire country is forced into the insurance model. It will be difficult for families to come up with extra money to pay for alternate healthcare of their choice when their budget has been squeezed by this mandate to buy insurance. This will in turn reduce competition for healthcare dollars. Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.

Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. It is time for legislation that fights back for the freedom of the people on this issue. It is time to End the Mandate.

Rand Paul (the son of Ron Paul) talks to Glenn Beck and Andrew Napolitano about the political climate.