Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (293)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • So we cannot regulate Wall Street and Drug Companies?

  • Judge Napolitano... You are a great man and a REAL patriot!

  • I'm a Northern Whitebread American. I was Unusually Obedient to Authority up to age 26 before i woke up. It took me until age 29 to Fully Wake Up. I started to Wake up and smell the Coffe and question authority at age 22 1/2.

  • I wonder why Libertarians never got much power... Or did they? Did it work?

  • "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison

  • @BUGBOY10000 “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ”

    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  • Heal America. Save the World.

    The Doctor/The Judge 2012

  • What the hell is s self written search warrant? And what the hell does that do if it is "self" issued?

    Questions we may never know the answer to...

  • why aren't republicans like napolitano? 

  • @halflifeproductionz Most of them are addicted to big government like democrats are, just in different ways. Guys like Ron Paul and Napolitano are the true conservatives.

  • am i the only one who is depressed? how can this all happen - why are we in this situation?

    there's a war against darkness going on and it seems to me that all roads lead to rome

    how come the vatican own the fed reserve and all major banks?

    see Roman Empire Rules Today - The New World Order

    this is so dark.. i can't understand why people believe these untrue religious books and now we're having 3rd world war cos of them

    Iran are next - i cant take this any more

  • Ron Paul/Judge Napolitano 2012

  • I know how it is be innocent & beaten by police wife & I was driving thoughg Joliet Il A Joliet police Sgt. & son tried to rob me. My gun was bigger than his gun he ran like a coward I started my motorhome to get away from those criminals he called other criminals a.k.a. police 69 69 yo they beat her worst than I we had one speeding ticket in our life you cant tell story in 400 ca. it cost me $8000 in three days in jail if I didnt have money it would probably cost me 8 years I hate police

  • i think he'd make a great vice president to Ron Paul!!...please Ron ask Andrew to be your running mate,that would be a killer 2012 ticket!!

  • Who's running for POTUS that's more qualified than Judge Andrew Napolitano? Sadly, as per usual, no one is.

    Jon Banquer

    San Diego, CA

  • PATRIOT Act... that's some scary shit right there.

  • 7 people who disliked this video are sheep!!

  • Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano for pres. and vp in 2012

  • Great interview with a great libertarian, though I don't agree about natural law. I think laws, including "rights," exist only to the extent people establish them. I don't believe in a god that gives us rights, so that leaves man. And man can give you freedom of speech, like in the USA, or it can deny you freedom of speech, like in North Korea. The notion that these rights are inalienable (i.e. cannot be taken away) is just wishful thinking. If you want them, you fight for them.

  • Eye like this guy!

  • Ron Paul is our only hope....

  • @willv17 Don't forget, there is Rand Paul, but let's get Ron Paul in this time.

  • Judge is the fucking man

  • Mike, our disagreement is rooted in your misunderstanding of rights. Rights are only individual, read the Constitution. If that isn't enough, read the entire Enlightement. There have never been, nor ever will be, collective rights. You try to justify the state by decrying "safety". That safety you speak of has been the convenient excuse for tyrants since the dawning of government. Your faith in rules and rulers is astonishing. Rules and rulers do not prevent crime or risk, they respond to it.

  • @MikeTMerciless the above comment is for you.

  • @ProIndividual They also enable it.

  • @ProIndividual The best way to protect the rights of the people as a whole, (collective) is to protect the rights of the individual. Its when you try to give "special" rights to any particular groups that the rights of the individual suffer, thus in the end the rights of all suffer.

  • If only he would run with Ron Paul for the Presidency!  Now that would be a dream team!

  • @Captain077 Ron Paul is not electable.

    A vote for Ron Paul would be an enabling vote for Obama.

    Same goes for not voting at all.

  • @JRBeaman Its thinking like that that gets us screwed every time. Ron Paul was the only constitutional candidate in the last election, therefore the best, yet too many people like you believed he was unelectable because of what others told you. You end up throwing your vote away on a vote of the lesser of two evils. If people voted for conscience over what others tell you, this nation would be far better off. The difference between you and me. I voted for someone, you voted against someone.

  • Comment removed

  • @Captain077 You don't get it.

    You enabled Obama so you could feel good about voting for the person with what you felt had the better qualifications. Well, you blew it because one of those qualifications is being electable. Without that, you help insure we get Obama. I did not throw my vote away, you did.

    It's like baking a cake to win the worlds fair, and not taking it with you when you go.

    It makes no difference, and insures the worst outcome.

  • @JRBeaman You actually just made my point. Your telling me that if Jesus Christ was running for president, but most of the "respectable" talking heads said he couldn't win, and perhaps even the polls say he couldn't win, you would rather throw your vote to someone who you thought could? What that shows is your convictions aren't solid. Winning is more important to you than conviction. Sadly, most in this nation are as you, and this is the simple explanation of why we are in the condition we are.

  • @Captain077 You still don't get it. One last time. three people are running for Pres. 1. Regan 2. Jesus 3. Hitler Hitler has 42%, Regan has 38% and Jesus has 20% of the vote. Wouldn't voting for Regan be a better choice? Vote for Jesus and you get Hitler. In these desperate times, voting for those you like, or those that would make you feel good is stupid. It is also screwing me as well as yourself. Your feeling good does not save our country.
  • @JRBeaman lets get a little more realistic. There is a huge difference between Reagan and Hitler. However there is little difference between establishment republicans and establishment democrats. Using extreme to make the point it would be more appropriate to have an election with Hitler getting 40%, Stalin with 30% and Jesus with 15%. Both Hitler and Stalin are bad for country and Jesus has no chance. You going to vote for Hitler since he only killed 6 million jews compared to stalins 10 mil?

  • @Captain077 You are not paying attention.

    It's about how your vote effects the outcome.

    I used those people as an example because they are different.

    If I use your example, the worst of yur choices will be enabled if you don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate.

    That is the point.

    It isn't about what makes you feel good, or your principals any more, it's about the better outcome for us all, and saving our country from destruction.

  • @JRBeaman Using two different people as your example was the problem with you example. Ultimately there is no real difference. You seem to have this idea that if a candidate has an R by their name and has the party nomination that they must be better than the one with a D. Has it ever crossed your mind that both parties are incredibly corrupt to the core, that its not a matter of lesser evil, but just a different evil? If you really look at it, it becomes clear it's really not that different.

  • @Captain077 You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with R, D or C. it has to do with the facts of life, and how things work. You are getting lost in the details and missing the big picture.

    Our country needs to be saved. It needs the path to destruction halted. Period.

    Voting for a third party is like not voting. Same results, you end up helping the one that is furthest from your preferences. That's the way the machinery works. It has nothing to do with your or my preferences.

  • @JRBeaman We're in agreement that this nation needs to be saved, that its on the path for destruction. But what your not seeing is that generally, both the Democrats and Republicans are equally taking us down that road, its just in different way. Our forefathers were not only wise, but inspired. The Constitution, had we abided by it would have saved us from a lot of our problems today and is the answer to our problems, its just neither party wants to hear that.

  • Examples:

    Bush did TARP-Obama expanded it

    Bush did non-funded prescription plan-Obama did Obama Care

    Bush fought undeclared wars-Obama just started another one

    Bush one of nations biggest spender-Obama is the biggest spender

    Bush brought the patriot act-Obama extended it

    Bush opened Gitmo-Obama continuing Gitmo indefinately

    Further proof. For 2 yrs the Dems controlled both houses and the presidency, yet undid nothing they railed against Bush about. I tire of both parties, they are the same.

  • @Captain077 Totally off topic.

    It is obvious that you hate Bush. So what?

    It has nothing to do with That at all.

    Yes, you dislike them both. Your vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote against the evil.

    Voting for a third party or not voting gives the worst the advantage.

    Do you want the worst choice to have the advantage that you just gave them, just so you can tally a protest?

    That is childish.

  • @JRBeaman No, not off topic, I was making my point. Its not a matter of the lesser of two evils for me, its the same evil. Last election for example, I believe the nation would have been just as bad off wether Obama or McCain won the election. My point with Bush-Obama was to prove my point that its the same wether you vote R or D. Yes, I do not like Bush, but you should know I voted for him in both election, but by the time he was done I was tired of the games.

  • @Captain077 One last time. The I give up on you.

    If you don't want Obama re-elected you have to vote Repub. Period.

    To vote otherwise, or not at all will help Obama continue the destruction to an unrecoverable state, if not already there.

    Voting for a third party will not help our problem.

    That is the facts and how the mechanics works.

    If you are tired of D and R both not doing any good, you are in my boat, but we cannot stand more of Obama, so don't enable him. Please.

    It is NOT the same.

  • @Captain077 One more ting.

    I agree that most of what Ron Paul wants to do will help with eliminating the cause of many of our problems, he is not enough of a businessman nor economist to reverse the path to doom we are on. We been both. If we can only pick one, then the repairs need to be made, and RP doesn't have those solutions. I only see one possibility in all the potential candidates that has any chance to reverse our economical death spiral, and that is Donald Trump. & the Judge as ChiefJ

  • @JRBeaman yeah, look at how much the business interests have fucked our country? We are a nation of laws, not business or left or right.

  • @JRBeaman are you serious? didn't donald trump went bankrupt and asked for a bail out?

  • @JRBeaman I want what you're smoking. Obama doesn't make the legislature, the people under him and lobbyists do. Having Ron Paul as president is merely a guarantee of small government and the end of debilitating regulations enforced by bloated government. Ron Paul could have the pick of the litter for his cabinet and I think he would make a very good appointment for setting this dying economy on the right track. The Donald is a casino king.  He made his money selling people a dream.

  • Excellent!

  • Napolitano for President.

  • @Stepper11 He would make a better supreme court justice. It's a wonder him and Gordon S. Wood haven't been appointed yet, but it's obvious why. Corrupt politicians who don't want to lose their power to the comstitution.

  • @Jidster01 He'd be great on SCOTUS, but it's precisely the corruption that makes me want him in the WH. He would be a charging bull for justice, and he'd have the veto pen and could appoint to the court. There is no chance he'd nominate the kind of fith we've seen in the past. Then, once he served his 2 terms, he could move on to SCOTUS. But believe me, I know how unlikely all of this is in today's hyper corrupt system.

  • @Stepper11 We need him as AG, not POTUS.

  • @JRBeaman I wouldn't complain if he was AG, for sure. But as POTUS he'd get to appoint the AG. It'd be a Twofer.

  • Comment removed

  • Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul, and Gerald Celente are the best.

  • the martha stuart example was pretty stupid. she didnt go to jail for lying.

  • @myrelative from the wiki: "Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators,"

  • @myrelative He did'nt say that was the reason she went to jail.

    You need to practice your listening skills more often and pay attention to detail.

  • Comment removed

  • There IS NO LAW. At least not for us.

  • if 911 was a inside job after THAT we kill millions of people destroy 2 countries which side do you think God is on the Al-Qaeda & Taliban is the only people that is fighting against the ONE WORLD ORDER 4 real they are protecting thir countries and its natural resources from the LIKES George Bush, Dick Chaney, Halliburton and the likes of the rich in the NEW WORLD ORDER they are going save our freedom in USA from NWO hell is going to get George Bush, if 9-11 was a inside job think about it

  • @KYKIN44 I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I'm baffled by these religious statements about 9-11 being an inside job. Libertarians are against gov't intervention because bureaucrats have a knowledge problem and are incapable of planning. We know it wasn't an inside job because it worked! Why do we attribute superhuman powers to the same people who are so incompetent, like Bush? Sometimes, having no explanation is ok.  Even if it was insiders, it only proves what we already know: gov't is evil.

  • @Soonerliberty

    a) that doesnt mean there wasnt a coverup of _something_.

    I`m pretty sure there was, and so is napolitano. I doubt it is "bush did it".

    b) I`m not sure if you understand the knowledge/calculation problem.

    if what you`re saying would be true, there would be not a single CIA mission that ever went according to plan, because they are "incapable of planning". that obviously is not the case.

  • @myrelative Why does there have to be a coverup? Why couldn't it just be chalked up to the one that got through? Bureaucrats aren't superhumans. They have limited knowledge. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Of course, clandestine missions overseas can "work," but you're talking about a conspiracy that would've required many people to stay quiet. Think of the worth of exposing such a coverup. Why has no one stepped forward? And then your coverup grows forever

  • @Soonerliberty

    ok I wasnt very clear before: there definitely was a coverup.

    the question is only what was covered up.

    9/11 commission deliberately left out able danger, building 7, and more.

    best case: to cover up incompetence.

  • @myrelative No incompetance involved with bldg 7.

    It has all been scientifically explained as a result of the twin tower incident.

    No conspiracy, no coverup, none of the above.

    Read: debunking911*com/pull*htm instead of the whackos.

  • Paul/Napolitano 2012!!

  • Is he Janet's brother?

  • @lowpricedpaint No. not at all. Not even a third cousin.

  • @RandallSteen Still, I would consider changing my name... LOL

  • Judge Dredd and the Punisher had a love-child... this guy is fascinating to listen to!!

  • i would say that the right to defend your life is the most important right, since you cant have any others without it

  • I am :) I'm just getting over the, OMG THE WORLDS CRASHING! Now, I'm trying to learn as much as I can so I can wake up my famz.

  • America are you AWAKE NOW!!!

  • @Jasonssj No, most never will.

    They want to pretend there is not problem, or that they can't do anything about it, or have no clue what to do, or vote in all the freebees they can get, etc.

    Sorry, but when that is the majority, you can understand why a "democracy" will never work and why we are a "Republic", and not a democracy which our founding fathers loathed.

    The dumbing down of Americans has been a resounding success.

    Proof??? - Obama was elected against dire warnings by many..

  • I wonder how many judges out there have the character that this ex-judge has.

  • It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees! -Zapata

  • @dinamo4889 Great quote.

    Problem is most Americans are sitting on their asses.

    Easier to get them to their knees, than up on their feet.

    Just ask the Democraps, as they are doing a thorough job of it.

  • everytime I see him, "I woke up this morning and I got my self a gun" pops into my head. He even has the pin-strip suit. I hope he and Paul run in 2012

  • I wouldn't be bothered with the torture or spying or whatever as long as it promotes American security, sovereignty, and power in this world. What's the alternative? France? Britain? Germany? All who have been compromised by Islamic Jihad? Inevitably, it will come down to what is important. Does warfare mean something or doesn't it? Does law mean something or doesn't it? Does it matter that there are those who are willing to use our own principles against us if it means our own defeat?

  • @MikeTMerciless sovereignty is individual. Individuals have Rights, and sovereignty...no institution has Rights, or sovereignty, according to our Constitution anyway. So, you cannot abuse individual Rights, and sovereignty, and still be protecting our Rights and sovereignty as Americans, or collectively as America. This notion your Rights come from the state is the flaw in such logic. And why tyrants make you safe when you kneel before them, while freedom is a risky proposition, and should be.

  • @ProIndividual Wrong. Utterly wrong. Because if Men were Angels, there would be no need for government. We need government to not only secure the liberties that the citizens may enjoy, but against those who would seek to take them away. This is the Reality of the World. Understand that the world does not share the value of liberty we place upon it. You submit false premises against a cold reality.

  • @MikeTMerciless Hoping beyond hope that you read this, understand nothing else but this; we will, and forever shall always, live in a world governed by the aggressive use of force. This is our lot in life. Sorry, but that should've been Lesson 2 after the Birds and the Bees (read A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell). Ultimately, we have a choice in whether or not to propagate our vision of the way the world should be, or surrender.

    The choice is ours. There is no middle ground.

  • @MikeTMerciless The answer to all your questions is this rhetorical question:

    What have you won, when in victory, you have no freedom? What defeat have you suffered to die free peoples? You'd rather be safe than free, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. It's a "glass half full/half empty" situation.

  • @ProIndividual Consider what you're saying for a moment. You'd rather eat food even if the food is poisonous.

    That's precisely what you're saying. You don't care about the nature of the food so long as the food is there to eat. You don't care about the freedom so that the freedom is there for all. But what is Freedom (what is food)? Freedom, in a word, is Power. And if you let our enemies, which seek our subjugation and destruction, partake of this freedom, you destroy it for all.

  • @MikeTMerciless @ProIndividual To put it another way, you think there is no such thing as Treason, no such thing as Insurrection. You think there is no such thing as enemies; that anyone who hates us does so because of what we might've done ourselves and not for any other reason, because you cannot fathom why anyone in such a weaker position than a stronger nation would dare defy us except for hatred. Could it be that your views on Reality are not quite clear?

  • @ ProIndividual To go even further, you don't think there is any such thing as Crime. Because Crime would involve the use of Force to prevent and to punish. Without Sovereignty that comprises of a common basis of law, culture, and civilization as we know it, we have no country. Therefore, what ideals of liberty and freedom we may express have no meaning. Ultimately, then, here lies the problem of Libertarianism, that absence of Force for one aim only allows it to blossom for another.

  • @MikeTMerciless FAIL. Huge logical fail. You can google better than that. It's like saying the nonsense "liberty is no good woithout life". In fact, life is no good without liberty...why else would people willingly lie down their lives for it over and again?

  • @ProIndividual Because it's really not so much liberty they're fighting for, but the potential for success. Why have liberty in the first place? Because you want to make a better life for yourself and those in your charge by pursuing an interest by which you'd profit off of. To some, that's exploitation, but in truth there are common factors that make some cultures more successful than others. Traits that promote healthy, successful lives go hand-in-hand with liberty, and .....cont...

  • @ProIndividual cont... and that's what people are fighting for. To some, liberty means never having to worry about anything, never having to take care of yourself because someone else is taking care of you. By that definition, the North Koreans are free. But that's not what freedom is. Freedom involves taking care of yourself, without a safety net of any kind beyond what is provided for you voluntarily. There are those who adamantly disagree with that, and will use force to rob you of it.

  • This man should have starred in The Sopranos. I mean his voice and looks... He's even from New Jersey.

    Besides he is correct on free speech though he doesn't go as far with natural rights as Rothbard

  • I'm quite torn by Judge Napolitano because I wish he were still on the bench making good decisions, but at the same time, I think the good he's doing by speaking out is just as important. Keep up the good work!

  • @gmbrannan As he's said himself, his job as a judge was NOT to be activist, subverting laws even if he didn't like them.

    He is MUCH more effective in the position he's in now.

  • @CurtHowland I would never suggest he be an activist judge, just one making good decisions rather than bad ones. Now that I think about it though, I think you're right that he is more effective speaking out.

  • I like Napolitano ice cream. Therefore, this man is deliciously truthful.

  • @marsbarz Unless you're trying to be facetious, I think you mean neapolitan.

  • @yuppyguitar

    Nay, 'twas a jest my good man!

  • LEAD JUDGE ON THE SUPREME COURT !..AS LONG AS HES NOT LYING.

  • The judge, as many others, diverts to limited hangouts long established. As such, he is absolutely partisan to Rome.

    Just another sheep dipped RC, providing cover for Praemunire.

  • They did have WMD and harsh interrogation for people who are neither civilians nor soldiers isn't torture. Also, while I despise Roosevelt's domestic policies unreservedly (a (nother) socialist failure), his very duplicity made him a great wartime president (a classical liberal success).

  • awesome, thanks for sharing.

    the judge is absolutely non-partisan, objective, matter-of-fact and just great. he believes in the constitution and its effect on our lives for better or ill and he's not shy to indict someone when they act unconstitutional, ie, congress, presidents, police, etc.

    i think o'reilly is afraid of the judge's analyses which is why he doesn't have him on regularly.

    republicans + democrats = unconstitutional big govt.

    follow the constitution, get freedom.

  • And the problem with internet propandists like kawaiigardiner is that they wish to remove issues from all proper context.

    Linguistic sorcery? Hardly. Hard cold fact, butressed by proof available in the public domain...yep.

  • The Judge should have put some kittens into the video maybe the stupid people would have watch the video. Or maybe have the communists show this video in the colleges. LOL

  • I listened to every word...and every word was diversion from first causes...long term Praemunire. Diversion to all the limited hangouts is the sum of all his discourse.

  • @abbesieyes Intellectual wankery of zero content doesn't make up for the fact you provide zilch in the value of contribution to the discourse regarding limited government. The problem with people like you, you're unable to get your head around the most basic of concepts because you wish to drizzle linguistic sorcery over an otherwise open and shut case.

  • Amen! He should be a Supreme Court Justice and we need a few clones of him to still be on tv and on radio and in the senate and house. Hell lets clone him and make one of the clones president!

  • Roosevelt, LBJ, Bush....thralls of Rome. Just like Napolitano.

  • @abbesieyes Congrats for not listening to a word he said.

  • Yep that is our Govt - going after 86yo librarians! Makes you feel proud to be an American! Yes that is what we do in America! Read our Patriot Act! "Protecting liberty through suppression and coercion." Obama who extended the Patriot Act, YOU ROCK!

  • Absolutely one of my favorite defenders of Liberty, but Jesus, he looks like he walked straight out of "Gold Fellas" Ha ha!!

  • When is it enough America?

  • Wow! This guy is too smart too be in Fox News!

  • @truevoice08 not really, Fox News does have some... ok one other smart guy... *cough* Shep Smith *cough*

  • These 2 men have LUSH hair :D lol great video

  • The non-libertarian Napolitano. He's RCC, and part of the block subverting this nation.

    His show, hosted on FOX, owned by a Papal Knight of Malta.

    Go back a few days and read the rest.

  • Comment removed

  • @crashtestkarma diametrically opposed to Kagan

  • @crashtestkarma Better yet, our next U.S. president!

  • @crashtestkarma Appointed by President Dr. Ron Paul.

    After, that is, he starts as Attorney General.

  • It's great to see someone who can walk and chew gun at the same time-- criticizing restrictions on free speech by both Democrats and Republicans (and neither) alike.

    Most of the people who so loudly cried out under Bush haven't said a peep under Obama.

  • @promisedeyes And most of the people who defended Bush ever so loudly are outright bashing Bush.

    It goes both ways. Politics is a silly game.

  • @promisedeyes bashing Obama*

  • Wikileaks looks pretty important right about now.

  • @promisedeyes That's because under Bush we were dragged into an illegal war. However, I believe both parties, Democrat and Republican, are fucked up. Vote third-party!

  • @clumpofdirt77 The "war" was not illegal.

    You need to stop drinking the coolaid.

    The congress approved of the resumption of the "gulf war" and to go into bagdad because of 16 UN violation that were the requirement to maintain the cease fire. That "war" was never over.

  • @JRBeaman

    It was illegal, just as Obama's war in Libya is today. Think of it in terms of if the U.N. tried to get rid of the First Amendment and voted to do so. It doesn't mean the President has the authority to carry out that order legally just because the U.N. approved of it. Stated differently, only Congress under the Constitution can declare war with a formal declaration of war.

  • @rmccay88 You are not paying attention.

    I never said that UN approval gave Bush the legal right.

    It was necessary to get UN approval as they were the governing body

    of the resolutions that the US agreed to abide by.

    I agree that "Congress must approve of a Declaration of War",

    but that is not what that was. So that does not apply.

    It is not "illegal" if Congress also approves of the "action".

    Otherwise you would have to impeach all of Congress AND the president.

  • @JRBeaman

    I see what you meant now. I still think, at least my viewing of the Constitution and the debates about it when it was being formed, that Congress has to have a formal declaration of war in order for a war to be constitutional. It's no coincidence that the U.S. has been in endless, senseless, and unnecessary wars since the last time Congress enacted a formal declaration. But your right, most of the time when the President does do something illegal, Congress participates in it as well.

  • @rmccay88 Not really. The war on Iraq was not Illegal.

    Calling it "The Gulf War", does not mean war was declared. It wasn't.

    The last time Congress formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Since then there have been extended military engagements. Votes were taken in Congress for the approval of the President's call to arms to make it legal. Since then we have had 5 major fights to protect our interests, which is part of the Presidents duties to do.

  • @rmccay88 THe Iraq "war" was still in progress when we finished it by going into Bagdad.

    Since the US relinquished the authority and control of the ceasefire (temporary stoppage of hostilities) & our Congress must approve of the action as well as the budget to do it, Bush had to answer to both the Congress AND the UN. The reference to the Constitution that everyone likes to quote is not applicable here. So all the claims to impeach Bush for his illegal Iraq war is nothing but left-media coolaid.

  • @JRBeaman

    You and I will agree to disagree about Iraq. As far as Bush being impeached? I could name half a dozen to a dozen things about him and his administration that are easily grounds for impeachment. Same with Obama...

  • Comment removed

  • Lies are the bodyguards of truth.

  • SEE YouTube video:

    The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act - David Goodman

    Mother Jones journalist David Goodman tells the story of four Connecticut librarians who were ordered by the FBI to release library records under the Patriot Act. After filing suit against the Attorney General to challenge the order, the librarians eventually won the case.

  • the judge is awesome and hardcore, i'm with him. i'm a Reason TV fan also, great work.

  • Judge are you planning to run for president.

  • I have to say that I always found the Judge to be a little bit over the top. Still, if he ran for office then I'd vote for him.

  • 7:08 Why was it a crime to criticize everyone in the government except the vice president? I don't get it.

  • @Giwen GenitalBen007 has it right, but missed an important point. Adams as pres and Jefferson as veep were unique in that they were the only Pres/VP combination who were from different political parties, hence the animosity.

    They got over it and became friends, later in life.

  • Yes, even law enforcement is trained to lie. Incompetance and lying have become very much apart of our culture. I've seen crime reports completely fabricated and by officers not even present. Lying is found at all levels of government and during the normal course of business. It is expected in some circles.

  • More 'gross generalities' for the boiler room to deny...

    Vietnam, why did we go? Roman Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom. The Vaticans Holocaust. Just a few of many by Avro Manhattan. quite well footnoted.

    Behind the Dictators, LH Lehman

    Ought to put several errant assumptions regarding events of the past 50years in proper context.

  • @abbesieyes <<-- Politico-Psycho-Babble

  • hmmmm, where did that supposedly popular comment go? hahahahaha

  • In spite of the American practice of disqualifying jury members who are prejudiced, and contrary to the oath of office taken by the judges of our courts, the Pope, as reported in all our newspapers, instructed Roman Catholic judges "that in any case involving an interest of the Roman Church the judge is under moral compulsion, as a Catholic, to rule in the church's favor."

  • The members, or at least the leaders, of nearly all these Catholic organizations take an oath or solemnly promise that they will defend the Catholic cause in all phases of life.

  • All men are born 'self righteous'...and with un a lien able rights from god (however a man may choose to define said). It is only the Divine Rights crowd that tries to strip that from a man, and set up their own crooks in gods stead.

  • @abbesieyes

    Rights granted by a ghost should be returned collect.

  • @UnHolyTruth uh-huh. You may leave first.

  • @abbesieyes

    Leave 'what' first?

  • @UnHolyTruth What the supposed 'ghost' gave you. The predicate of the rights is life.

  • @abbesieyes

    'Life' was not received from another entity beyond human parenthood.

  • @UnHolyTruth uh-huh. atheism...as weak a belief as religion. neither deal with the godhead. the first is a wedge of rome used against her targets, the later a viel over the godhead.

  • @abbesieyes

    Who said anything about atheism? Your projected intelligencia is failing you (again).

  • @UnHolyTruth well, your comment regarding the source of life is typical of their drivel. And as you have neither discussed (not to mention 'refuted') anything I have posted that is verifiable.....I've failed at nothing in this discussion even once. Hmmm. Had to remove your highest rated comment huh? wonder why? heheheheheh

  • @abbesieyes

    When your obtusely gross generalities become "discussion" worthy of being countered, I'll let you know.

    You've failed in more ways than your little noggin can imagine. Imagine that! =)

  • @UnHolyTruth Hahahahaha. The viewer may google "25 tools of truth suppression". Unholy is holding to the playbook. When is your shift in the boiler room over?

    The game was set in motion long ago. And judging by your (and other thralls) reactions, I'm not failing at all. If I was failing, I'd be ignored. Hahahahahaha.

  • @abbesieyes

    Thanks for your admission of solely seeking attention. Asperger Disorder or have you not been properly diagnosed yet? Need a referral?