Video: The Questions They Won’t Let You Ask (Judge Napolitano In the 5 Minute Speech That Got Him Fired)

18
2191
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Mac Slavo
http://www.shtfplan.com
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.

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-the-questions-they-wont-let-you-ask-judge-napolitano-in-the-5-minute-speech-that-got-him-fired_02182012

Share Button
SHARE
Previous article2012 Hyundai Accent
Next articleThe Other Things

18 COMMENTS

    • IP Copyright argument aside. It seems to me the Internet is a lot like newspapers and maybe a, “Save Video Here” website is needed, much like how libraries have old newspapers on microfiche? Hey, maybe there’s a use for what the NSA has at its disposal after all? Open to, “The People”, that is.

      … Or maybe not? Idk.

      Do a F.O.I.A. on the whole of NSA and turn it into a private/open to the public, or a small fee, library? Or, something like that? With an Opt Out provision for anyone who wanted it, of course. …Just a thought. Hopefully not a bad one.

      [The NSA workers as private librarians – low pay, long hours, no phero recognition. And, they can’t break into computers to get material. They could only save what’s freely available.] Again, just thinking out loud here.

      • This is the solution proposed some time ago by David Brin in his non-fiction, “The transparent society.” It was a good approach, making the infrastructure a real part of the public domain – you could look to PREVENTING crime by avoiding bad situations.
        But then you could also find documented cases of bad behavior by police; illegal and immoral actions by elected officials; etc. The Gunvermin CANNOT have that – they MUST be NEEDED! And they’d gladly injure us to “remind” us how much we need them…
        So even if such infrastructure existed (London; Hong Kong; Washington, D.C.; NYC, NY; Buffalo, NY; Baltimore, MD; etc.) It could only be under GunVermin control.

        CANNOT have people thinking for themselves – GOVERNING themselves – being “well-regulated”….

      • Second thought:
        We need to have inviolable “drop-boxes,” and hard copies. Anything Digital can be altered. Printed text not so much – it leaves evidence…

        It’s a real problem.

        Funny how “they” want to ensure we can’t retain “freedom of the press” to put up information on the Web….
        Almost as funny as how, concurrently with the IRS targeting of “conservative” non-profits [let’s go with that meme] that the two people most likely to have control over, or knowledge of, these events? Had a “hard drive crash” which wiped out all the emails.
        Further, the company hired to do the backups was supposedly fired right afterwards. Two thoughts come to mind there: 1) IF they lost all the archives, then firing them makes sense. HOWEVER, 2) I’d wager that there was a clause in the contract that WHEN they were fired, all the emails were to be destroyed…. Possibly down to physical destruction of the disks.

        Either way, THEY win, and WE are unable to hold them accountable….
        But if we can’t find a travel receipt on a tax audit from 5 years ago? We get SCREWED….

        Hmmm…. Terminating the psychotic gene might truly be the SANE approach. As Malkav’s childer say, “The only sane solution to an insane situation is insanity.” So if you find you are falling into madness – dive…. (Or maybe, for this site? DRIVE!!! 😉 )

  1. Why do we sit down when all should be standing, and why do we back down at the critical moment, like running away from the waves of the ocean, we head for the hills with a high tide approaching, as sand slips away from the castle.

    When its time to stand upright why do we falter, like placing our freedom on the sacrificial altar, we hold tight to our fears and defend our oppressors, as we fight for their lies and become the transgressors, as pacifists transform to violent aggressors.

    When is the right time to stand up for freedom, could it be when you start to fear creating children, who’ll inherit the pain and the debt of this nation, and be slaves to the banks that cause hyperinflation, who are masters of commerce, lies, and bad legislation.

    If you looked in the eyes of a thousand young children,
    through fences of razors, their innocence stolen, as the red flag of tyranny flies in the open, is that when you’ll finally notice?

    Where will you be when the order is given, to censor your mind as free speech is forbidden, as martyrs for peace from the world will be driven, away by the sound of a bellowing thunder, and choke on the blood of a dream going under.

    As arrogant men tear up our constitution, and from every direction we cry revolution, standing together and without permission, soldiers for truth in the war of attrition, the love of our country as our ammunition.

    Liberty – Jordan Page
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bitxwy6okn4

    Connor Boyack’s book, Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics — http://latterdayliberty.com has received numerous positive reviews. Here is an interview with the author.

    Connor Boyack TV interview on Latter-day Liberty
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf1zLXruCqI

    Q: Can you give us a few sentences on what Latter-day Liberty is about?

    My book looks at scriptures and statements from leaders of Church to analyze what our faith says about government and politics. It explores the topic of individual liberty in depth and provides members of the Church with a guide to understand what laws they should support, and what criteria should be used to judge candidates for political office.

    Q: Why did you write the book?

    I believe that a fundamental aspect of the gospel is the message of agency and liberty, which prophets have spoken about repeatedly. Unfortunately, I also believe that their collective counsel has gone mostly unheeded. My purpose in writing Latter-day Liberty was to provide an analysis that exists in bits and pieces in various scriptures, talks, books, and other resources, compiling it all into one resource for those interested in learning more on the topic.

    As I’ve followed my own educational path over the years, I had to rely on these fragments and independently arrive at the conclusions and opinions I now hold. I wanted to provide for others a more comprehensive resource that gathers those fragments and makes a case for liberty in an easily digestible format.

    Q: Can you name two or three political events in church history that every member should be aware of?

    It’s fairly common, in my experience, to hear Latter-day Saints reflexively point to the 12th Article of Faith whenever discussing opposition to a given law. The argument effectively declares that we should be subject to political rulers, and, well, that’s that. I think that’s a misreading of the Article, which I expound on in my book. So one example stands out in my mind that stands at complete odds with this misreading: Helmuth Hübener.

    Helmuth, a German teen and Latter-day Saint, defied Nazi “law” and disseminated information that conflicted with the government’s propaganda. For his “crime” he was beheaded, yet Latter-day Saints the world over recognize and praise his defiance of unjust law. Helmuth saw and objected to tyranny, and decided to do something about it. While this form of disobedience should be encouraged only with a number of qualifiers and restraints, I believe that Helmuth’s example makes clear that Latter-day Saints should not be (and are not) bound to comply with any government edict. To the extent that a law unjustly violates a person’s liberty, that person has the moral authority to appropriately resist. After all, that’s what the Declaration of Independence is really all about, and several other scriptures support the idea.

    Another example (one of many I list in the book) is Alexander Doniphan, a Missouri lawyer, state representative, and member of the militia. Though not a member of the Church, Doniphan repeatedly defended the Saints against punitive legislation and frivolous lawsuits. When anti-Mormon troops surrounded Far West and ultimately forced its surrender, General Samuel D. Lucas ordered Doniphan to summarily execute Joseph Smith, along with six other leaders who were being held in custody. To this objectionable order, he responded: “It is cold-blooded murder. I will not obey your order…. If you execute these men I will hold you personally responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God.” Speaking of this act of defiance, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland offered praise:

    To his eternal credit, Brigadier General Alexander Doniphan, an officer in the Missouri forces, boldly and courageously refused to carry out the inhumane, unjustifiable order. In a daring stand that could have brought him his own court-martial, he cried out against the commanding officer….

    In showing such courage and integrity, Doniphan not only saved the lives of these seven men but endeared himself forever to Latter-day Saints in every generation.

    I’m not highlighting these acts of defiance to suggest we all resist and thumb our noses at the government. Rather, I like them (and many more such stories like them) because they show an adherence to a higher law–one that is being violated by a conflicting man-made edict.

    I think another historical example that shows this desire is the one mentioned a few years ago by Pres. Boyd K. Packer in general conference. After fleeing westward to escape persecution, and despite having had to deal with a government that failed to protect them and uphold their constitutionally-guaranteed rights, the Saints held a large parade two years after their arrival in the valley. The theme of that parade was patriotism and loyalty to that same government which had been, at best, a passive accessory to the crimes committed against them. More specifically, they celebrated the founding documents of that government, and the principles they codified and were based upon.

    In my book I document many other examples where the Saints either defied an unjust law or were denied their rights, all while upholding the Constitution and individual liberty as their natural right and divinely-given blessing. I think in our day there is plenty of potential application for these historical examples.

    Q: Will Democratic mormons be shut out of the Celestial Kingdom?

    Well, many Republicans support a foreign policy with unjustly kills innocents around the world, while many Democrats support a domestic policy with unjustly permits the termination of life in the womb. So on the single issue of wrongly killing God’s children, both major parties have their faults. I think members of both parties (as well as those of no party, of course) support policies which are repugnant to God and violate his commandments. Republican Mormons may like to think of themselves as being in God’s party, but that’s flat out wrong. And as I discuss in the introduction of my book, Mormons were once largely Democrats. We shouldn’t be so much concerned with political parties as we should the underlying principles and policies being advocated and enforced.

    • Hi JdL. I was confused for a long time by the apparent contradiction between being libertarian and being anti-abortion. But the positions are not inherently inconsistent. If you believe that a human life begins at conception, then even as a libertarian, you believe that government should protect that life. In that view, killing a human, even in a doctor’s office, should be prohibited, just as a pediatrician is prohibited from sexually molesting kids in the examining room.

      My own problem is that I am not convinced that a human life begins at conception. Apparently, the issue is settled for the judge by his religious beliefs. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable with a scientific conclusion on the subject. Surely, at some point a fetus has its own personal DNA (i.e., it is clearly a distinct human being) and the ability to survive outside the womb. It seems to me that abortion at that point is indistinguishable from infanticide. Earlier than that, I don’t see that the government should be involved. That’s roughly, though by no means precisely, what Roe v. Wade said.

      • Hey Mike,

        This is a tough one. I think we can agree (have to agree, if we’re going to be factual) that biological life does begin at conception. But, does a mass of undifferentiated cells – without a nervous system, without consciousness – qualify as a human being? I dunno. People have been arguing about that for a long time.

        My position: I am ok with terminating a pregnancy in the first few weeks after conception; because as I see it, a mass of undifferentiated cells is not possessed of consciousness, cannot feel pain, isn’t human. It is alive, yes – but so is my finger.

        Potentially, the fertilized egg could become a human. Well (and not to be gross) that’s also true of every sperm I produce. Did I commit infanticide all those times I committed (cough) self-abuse?

        I do have qualms about terminating a pregnancy once the pregnancy has developed to the point that it’s a recognizable human, with nervous system and a brain – and probably, some capacity to feel pain, some awareness – etc. I would not do it at that point. Those late-term. third trimester abortions are a horror.

        Ideally, people who did not want to carry a baby to term would deal with their pregnancy shortly after they discovered the fact of their being pregnant. Of course, I recognize that some people (minor girls, say) may not be in a position to do so. Or it might be very difficult for them to do so.

        What’s the answer? Is there a definitive answer?

        I dunno… what are your thoughts on this?

        • Hi Eric. I don’t believe there is a definitive answer, but it sounds like we are basically on the same page here. Up to some point, abortion is fine. After that point, it isn’t. My recollection from looking at English common law, as it existed when this country was founded, many years ago is that the relevant point was at “quickening”. As I recall, that meant the point where that mass of cells had assumed human form, developed all human systems, and could possibly survive if delivered prematurely or if removed by C-section. Sounds to me like they had it about right. It also seems like that would have been the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.

          I have no problem if someone’s religious beliefs forbid all abortions. They should be free to live their lives according to those beliefs. But they shouldn’t impose them on everyone, any more than the early Mormons should have tried to require every man, Mormon or not, to have several wives. (Although, as Jed Clampett once observed when told that an oil sheik had many wives, “Well, there’s a pretty good chance that at least one of them will be in a good mood when you get home.”)

          I am also troubled by the fact that the Supreme Court took the whole issue out of public debate. They went far beyond their authoritah in doing so. Their action has allowed the issue to fester and create a lot of frustration and anger. We the people might have had some knock-down, drag-out fights about this issue, but maybe we could have come to some accommodation. Or, more likely, different states would have made different laws. Instead, the anger continues to build on the part of many Americans because their beliefs have been made irrelevant, or worse, completely disrespected.

          • Well-said.

            I wish more of us could be so, you know, reasonable.

            If they were, we could have a sane discussion and come to a sane understanding.

            Instead, we have ranters who believe even a just-fertilized egg is morally fully human, the equivalent of you or I – and on the other end of the spectrum, the sick fucks who think it’s ok to abort even a nine month old fetus – so long as it’s still in its mother, it’s not fully human.

            Both are demented.

          • I’ve been looking through some of the old discussions here, and I just came across this one. I guess I’m “demented” on this one issue, because I believe life begins at the moment of conception.

            Whatever, I guess.

            • You’re not demented, David!

              Life – biological life – not only begins at conception, it continues.

              Both parents’ reproductive cells are alive, biologically speaking. There is no life from death. The spark of life is transferred.

              This is hard to debate, from a biology/science point of view. The cells are demonstrably alive both prior to and after conception.

              The tougher question – the one that obviously tears so many people up – is whether that life-at-the-cellular-level constitutes a human life. We’ve had this discussion at length before, so I won’t rehash it here. I just want to repeat my earlier point that while some things are objectively clearcut (e.g., is it alive or dead?) other things (e.g., is it a human being?) are vulnerable to speculation and so, disagreement.

          • Let me clarify again: I believe that a fertilized egg is morally fully human.

            Which would fall under the “dementer ranter” category that you originally mentioned.

            lol.

    • This just shows how rare a true libertarian is. There have been about 50 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade. In most every case, it is not a good thing that women are not carrying there children to full term for whatever reason.
      But to advocate puting a woman under the drawn sword of state decision making and prior restraint laws, for me it negates everything else he says and stands for.
      His notion of an potential individual being equivalent to an actual individual is sheer lunacy.
      Surely, there can be ways to mitigate and reduce the number of abortions, but criminalizing normal decision making and saying that a woman’s life is no longer her own once she has a fertilized egg, come on man.

      • Totally agree on the potential vs. actual – the problem is, when exactly does the line get crossed?

        You and I probably agree that a just-fertilized egg, or a recently fertilized egg, or a mass of undifferentiated cells is potential, not actual – because as a matter of biology, that’s exactly what it is – a mass of cells, nothing more. Yet. But how about a seven month old fetus? Eight? If a woman eight months pregnant is shot by a thug and dies, many (me included) would regard that as a double murder. Not because of how we feel about it – but because biologically, two people were involved – were they not?

        It’s a tough call.

        I personally am comfortable (morally, intellectually, etc.) with terminating a pregnancy from conception through the first month or so because as you say, it’s not a human being. It’s a mass of cells. But at some point down the line that undifferentiated mass becomes a fetus with a nervous system and almost certainly the capacity to feel pain, etc. Certainly by seven or eight months, it would arguably be infanticide and not abortion.

        As I see it, the “woman’s right to choose” thing is an intellectually dishonest straw man in re the above (seven, eight month pregnancy – perhaps sooner…I dunno what the exact moment is) because no one (male or female) has the right to choose to kill. It’s part of the brainless PC orthodoxy of our times that rights vary according to your sex or your race or some other thing. We all have the same rights – and the same obligation to respect the rights of others.

        It seems to me this problem would mostly solve itself if people who did not want a baby terminated the pregnancy shortly after its discovery.

  2. Excellent video. I believe in everything he said here 100%. Won’t be long now boys! I’ve been preparing for a while now, but I think I’ve been going the wrong direction all along. Leaving the country might be the solution.

LEAVE A REPLY