Judge Napolitano’s Last Freedom Watch Missive (Sample of why he was fired from Fox News)

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Judge Napolitano’s Last Freedom Watch Missive (Sample of why he was fired from Fox News)

The truth hurts and the machine (TPTB) does not like it!

Witness the Judge's (a true American Patriot) last cannon volley and rage against the machine as he knew he was a short timer on the network. He consistently lifted the corporatist and fascist vail and delivered THE RED PILL on his quite popular show, FREEDOM WATCH. It was one of the few things worth watching on the entire FOX NETWORK.

Truer words were never spoken judge. Best wishes to you, much respect and appreciation for doing your part.

A SALUTE TO THE JUDGE!!!

Please spread the message, alert and awake your friends and loved ones and consider supporting Dr. Ron Paul for President. 

Best,

JG

RON PAUL 2012

---

 

SHORT RON PAUL ADS & CLIPS

ANTI-FED & ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC WAR-MONGERING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hltnc4CFucY

PRO LIBERTY & PROTECTOR OF THE US CONSTITUTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JBmyMMkc5RE

A TRUE PATRIOT

 

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Thanks, JG

Great catch from the mostly dead ocean of mainstream broadcast media.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2385
JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Thanks 2Old4OkeyDoke...

Many people fall for the FAUX NEWS perception of being a legitimate conservative news channel. The Neocons are simply another shade of the deceptive PTB rainbow.

There are few people on TV like the Judge. You can catch parts of his previous shows on You Tube. He lends quite an articulate and credible voice to the Libertarian & Austrian Economics perspectives.

By the way, Ron Paul even specifically said recently that the Judge would be someone he would consider seriously for his VP running mate. What a brilliant stroke and coup that would be! I don't know any RP supporters who would not be doing backflips over that suggestion.

In previous interviews however, the Judge had said he would not be interested in a VP appointment, that was before getting canned by FOx of course and prior to seeing just how well Dr. Paul is actually doing. Amazing what Dr. Paul is doing with less funding than some of the other top candidates plus a complete mainstream media blackout and bias.

The Judge did say he would be very interested in a Supreme Court appointment. Does that court ever need more judges like him!

Thanks and enjoy the clip. He sure packed a powerful wallop in 5 minutes!

JG

RON PAUL 2012 

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Thanks, Jim H!

BTW: I recently posted something under June C's recent link to Jesse's earlier 'The Failure of the Current Banking Model and the Calculated Mispricing of Risk', (linking in turn to Golem XIV) --

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/131895#comment-131895

There, I noted that little attention is paid to American Monetary Institute's presentation of monetarism (including critique of fractional reserve banking and the Fed system). I agree with Jesse on the gist of "modern" monetarist theory (which he takes from a Wiki article) and also on Jesse's misgivings. I am even tending to agree with Jesse that IMF SDR basket of currencies should include substantial PM -- not that there's anything I can do about any of this other than put in my 2¢ on the history and theory. I can here note Hayek's proposal for a basket of PM and also the broader basket of metals proposed way back in the early days of the Kennedy administration but buried because of JFK's  inherited -- from his father, Joe -- liking for the gold standard. Of course that was back in the days of Bretton Woods, now long gone. Anyway, Hayek's approach, as well as the broader metals basket approach, are different than the pure monetarism theory of the AMI and also different than Ron Paul's (von Mises Institute) more-or-less pure gold-standard theories.

Here's what Jesse quotes from Wiki --

"a country that controls its own currency does not need to sell bonds to 'borrow' funds" (so much for the Fed's excuse for existence!)

That is one of AMI's key criticisms (based on U.S. Const.) of the Fed system, but Jesse omits another extremely important tenet of AMI monetarism, namely, putting an end to fractional reserve banking.

Here's Jesse's comment --

"True, a sovereign issuer need not endure a hard default on its obligations because it can simply print more money. But this is a de facto default as anyone who has ever read any history will know .... The biggest single issue in any money system that is not tied to an external standard is: 'how does one regulate its growth, especially in situations where there are conflicting priorities?'"

So, the pure monetarist theory -- as a theory -- is entirely sold, but solid theory never guarantees solid implementation.

I guess I'm still with William Jennings Bryan on the bimetallism side of the aisle -- wherever that is anymore.

"I will not help to crucify man on a cross of gold." --- William Jennings Bryan, July 9, 1896

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan

 

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
You're welcome, JG

I sitll like Buddy Roemer, but "country before party" describes Ron Paul too.

It's truly inspiring to see Ron Paul knock out the cow pucky artists with simple, direct and true statements!

Go, Ron Paul!

http://aregularguyontheissues.blogspot.com/2012/02/country-before-party-...

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
The good thing about a guy like this....

 The good thing about a guy like him,  is that I, as a progressive found some of what he said likely to lead to objectionable decisions.  But, I am certain that libertarians and conservatives would likely find some decisions that would come from what he just said objectionable as well.  If he is serious and if he behaved truly to his word,  then he would deregulate alot of business - something I would object to.  But, he would permit gay marriage - something most conservatives would object to.

The problem is not that one side or another gets their way,  it is that BOTH sides tend to be hypocrits.  

The problem is defining what freedom is.  I want freedom from oppression,  which includes the oppression that comes from overly strong corporations forcing the results of their behavior on me.

Conservatives want freedom to do what they want,  which includes not having government tell them how to run their businesses.

I accept that freedom from oppression by others means some of my personal freedoms are curtailed.  I don't want to drive on a highway with people who are drunk,  so I choose to follow a law (or deal witht he legal consequences of choosing not to follow) that says I cannot drive while drunk.  I give up my right to do what I want in order to be free of the consequences of other people doing what they want.

 

Its a balancing act.  Many liberals are too willing to sacrifice too many freedoms for too little return.  But, many conservatives are too willing to go so far in seeking freedom that they unwittingly set up a situation in which they canbe oppressed by a majority or simply some one or something that is capable of overpowering them.  

The corruption in the government that we currently have supercedes party.  And seeking party related solutions will not fix it.  

The government our founding fathers designed included both freedom to AND freedom from.  They had laws about barrel sizes and what constituted tea.  They appreciated property rights and contract law.  But, they thought that property rights could be applied to people.  They weren't perfect.  but, they were right about a lot.  Sadly,  many libertarians seek something that disrespects the constitution.  If you remove government in order to keep it from oppressing you,  then you leave a vacuum into which will move other forces that will end up oppressing you.  

We severely need to regain control of our government.  How do we do that wihtout destroying it?  Remember that BOTH parties are complicit here.  

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Scrap BOTH parties! Support Buddy!
land2341 wrote:

 

We severely need to regain control of our government.  How do we do that wihtout destroying it?  Remember that BOTH parties are complicit here.  

 

It seems to me that those who are currently controlling "our" government are also those who are destroying it. How else can it be when, despite an effort by Democrats in 2010 (DISCLOSE Act), the GOP as a matter of "principle," prevented and continues to prevent disclosure of campaign contributions by foreign interests -- up to, and including, the Communist Party of China acting through the many corporations it controls?

I'm not here defending the DNC or the Obama administration -- just reviewing recent history of how far any concept of reponsibility to the people by our "elected" representatives has gone down the digestive system of Orwell's infamous Memory Hole.

Buddy Roemer

http://www.buddyroemer.com/

As of today, Buddy is seeking Americans Elect nomination as an independent candidate for President of the United States.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments