27

I'm Judge Andrew Napolitano and I'm happy to have landed in the Gulch. Ask Me Anything.

Posted by JudgeNap 2 years, 11 months ago to Books
284 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I'm Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News Channel, and New York Times best selling author. I was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey and I'll be here today from 1PM to 2PM ET to take your questions and to talk about my new book "Suicide Pact" (http://suicidepactbook.com/), a book exposing the alarming history of presidential power grabs performed in the name of national security.

Today through Wednesday, when you buy "Suicide Pact", you'll be eligible to get another one of my books, "The Freedom Answer Book", for free. Find details here: http://suicidepactbook.com/bookbomb.php

Gulch Producers get a third book of mine, "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom", for free as well. Find details here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1a...

Alex will be helping me out with my today by reading me the questions over the phone and typing my responses. I look forward to your questions and comments. I'll be back at 1PM ET.

- - - - - - - - - -

EDIT 1: 12.08.14 1PM: The Judge is here. Here we go.

EDIT 2: 12.08.14 2PM: The Judge has left the building! Check out his farewell comment here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...

- - - - - - - - - -

PROOF: https://twitter.com/Judgenap/status/5419...

- - - - - - - - - -

BUY THE BOOK: "Suicide Pact" http://suicidepactbook.com/

- - - - - - - - - -

FROM SCOTT: The Judge will be here at 1PM ET. Post your questions here now as comments below. If you have multiple questions, please post them individually. Try and keep the questions brief so the Judge can get through as many as possible. Also, make sure to vote on the questions (and this post) as the best will rise to the the top of the list.

After 1PM ET, refresh this page with your browser to see the Judge's replies as they come in.

- - - - - - - - - -

NOT YET A GULCH PRODUCER?
- Create a new Galt's Gulch Account: https://galtsgulchonline.appspot.com/acc...
- Upgrade an existing Galt's Gulch Account: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/account/...

- - - - - - - - - -


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 20
    Posted by j_IR1776wg 2 years, 11 months ago
    Given that the English colonists took 276 years before they revolted against the Crown and the French and Russians abided Monarchy and Tsars for hundreds more, and, that an apparent majority of Americans have been educated or brainwashed to accept a Socialist dictatorship; do you believe:
    1) That we who love freedom can reverse this slide into darkness? Are there enough of us?

    2) That a revolution is possible in today's America in the face of the surveillance State?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 18
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      Great question. Profound question. Yes, I think that a peaceful revolution can come about when the people in the government themselves realize that they are bankrupt, that their ideas are bankrupt, that their banks are bankrupt.

      People may find that there is more freedom in certain parts of the country and if the federal government is not tamed, the United States may separate into several smaller countries each with its own culturally norms.

      I hope that it doesn’t come to a bloody revolution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the case.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
        The people in government, their ideas, and their banks are already bankrupt. Moreover, they know it, but they are hanging on to power by their fingernails and will continue to do so for a long time to come. That was the message of Atlas Shrugged.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
          That wasn't the message of Atlas Shrugged, but certainly was one part of the mentality described. The message of Atlas Shrugged was the them: the role of man' mind in his survival, with the plot illustrating what happens, in a fictionalized acceleration, when it is withdrawn. With the wrong ideas dominating a culture and a country, they never do let go. Part of the illustration of the novel was the looters willing to go down with everyone else rather than give up their power. The eventual "bloody revolution" could be mundane violent mob action of competing thugs, as in AS, or something much worse than simply separating into smaller countries with different cultural norms. The altruist-collectivist-statist mentality does not work in one country or several smaller ones.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
            You are correct. The looters' desperate clinging to complete power to dictate our lives was a message of AS, not THE message, but it was THE reason why we should all shrug.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 2 years, 11 months ago
        I think we're already seeing the precursors to that - California has had a couple of propositions at the grass roots level recently to split the state into 1 or more separate entities. It makes sense - as cultural norms for people in Trinity County or the far north of the state are very different from the ruling masses in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Gun control laws would be a notable example.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 17
    Posted by  $  Mimi 2 years, 11 months ago
    Welcome, Judge. I am very pleased you are making an appearance here!

    My question is about the ACA. I have concerns about how it is implemented. My concerns are about how many government agencies are exchanging and sharing my personal information amongst themselves through one hub, a centralizing of the whole structure. I always thought government agencies were suppose to -- by design or maybe by law, remain independent of one another. Is this a blurring of that line, and is there a constitutional reference you could point to that would justify my concern?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 18
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      There’s no specific Constitutional reference, but there are numerous federal statutes that prohibit federal agencies from exchanging information about you. The government would argue those statutes are overridden by the ACA.

      There is Supreme Court case law that would indicate that the ACA is unconstitutional where it interferes with constitutionally protected privacy. Constitutionally protected privacy has been articulated in several supreme court opinions, but in the 4th Amendment it applies to persons, papers, houses, and effects - so clearly documents that you send to your doctor’s office could not be shared with the IRS or with DEA even if the doctor is forced to share them with Health and Human Services.

      So your fear is a valid and legitimate one.

      These particular issues have not yet been litigated by federal courts because no one has complained about them yet, as far as I know, and I generally monitor this type of litigation but I suspect we will be hearing about it soon.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 2 years, 11 months ago
        Judge, as a follow-up: those who argue the ACA overrides these privacy statutes seem to argue for an abrogation principle in American law. That is, if any law conflicts with an earlier law, it overrides it automatically. I did not know that any such abrogation or automatic override principle existed in American law. Or did I miss something in my civics class?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        Obamcare law places much of the power under the IRs, which has not been impeded by Constitutional protections of privacy, due process or much else. Lots of complaints for a long time, but nothing has happened to rein it in.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 2 years, 11 months ago
        One of the most basic constitutional flaws of the ACA is so basic, yet I never hear it presented or argued:
        1) The Commerce clause ONLY applies to activity that crosses state lines and is about "regulating" said interstate commerce. Regulating is not forcing someone to buy a product.
        2) Health Insurance is not now nor has it been purchased across state lines, Insurance companies create "State ONLY" entities where said insurance is ONLY purchased by from that Sate isolated entity, therefore there is NO interstate commerce to regulate meaning the ACA in itself is a complete fraud.

        I do not blame the Supreme Court, since it is not their job to argue the points one way or another, only make a determination based on what "IS" argued.

        That in itself which I have never heard argued by these alleged Constitutional Scholars has been very disappointing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 15
    Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 2 years, 11 months ago
    What philosophers have influenced you the most?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 14
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      My political philosophy has been influenced the most by John Locke. Ayn Rand has influenced my economic philosophy. Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises have influenced both my political and economic philosophy.

      My attitude towards Natural Law has been prominently influenced by St Thomas Aquinas.

      The British author G.K. Chesterton has influenced my social views.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        It would have been interesting if he had elaborated on what particular ideas in the different philosophies were important to him and why.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • 15
    Posted by AmericanGreatness 2 years, 11 months ago
    Has our Republic always been as fragile as it now appears (i.e.- has The Constitution always been this easy to thwart), depending only on the honor of those in power? Or, are the powers of the other branches to control the executive branch sufficiently strong to reign in an imperialist President, but we're hamstrung by gutless leaders unwilling to use the power The Founding Fathers gave them?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 20
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      The Constitution is only as valid an instrument for the preservation of personal liberty as the fidelity of those whose hands it is placed for safe keeping.

      The instruments of the safe keeping of liberty are there, provided the American public, Congress, and courts have the courage and intellect to use them.

      Often the creation of an imperialist Presidency has come about because in war time people are afraid and are willing to surrender their liberty and wealth to a government promising to take care of them.

      Only when people realize such surrenders are a one way street and enable succeeding generations of imperialists Presidents to yield even more power over their grandchildren can this be reversed.

      Stated another way, Congress and the courts are as much to blame for an imperialist Presidency as are the Presidents who have made this job imperial.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 11 months ago
        There is so much in those five sentences. I agree wholeheartedly.

        I like to think the Constitution is a foolproof formula where checks-and-balances make gov't not dependeing on the fedelity of those whose hands it's placed. That's a conceit. The Constitution only only works if we the people constantly work for it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 2 years, 11 months ago
    What form of taxation (Income, Flat, Fair, none of the preceding) to fund the Federal government do you prefer?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 15
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      I prefer the system that was used before the federal income tax which is user fees on federal property typically ports or assessments to the states for services the federal government performed for the states.

      I would abolish the federal income tax. I would not permit a federal sales tax or use tax at all.

      The fantastic growth of the federal government began when the feds stopped assessing the states and started assessing individuals.

      In my world view, the federal government wouldn’t have the money to do much of what it does today because the states just wouldn’t send it [money] in.

      As interesting as it is, if the federal government assessed the states, there’s very little the feds could do to the states that didn’t pay the assessment. In fact, it would be a way of saying thanks but no thanks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 11 months ago
        " the federal government wouldn’t have the money to do much of what it does today because the states just wouldn’t send it [money] in."
        Yes! In today's world, states use taxpayer monies to fund programs to help residents of the state get money from federal programs. So people send their money to US Treasury and the State. The state uses that money to help people get back money they pay to the US Treasury. This would all stop if the states funded the federal gov't.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
          But it wouldn't stop the states from doing the same thing, which they already are and want to do more of.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 11 months ago
            They'd have to argue that *they themselves* are taxing residents so they can send money to DC b/c they know they can get more back than they pay in. Even in the Upper Midwest, not all states could pay above average. :) They would have some 'splaining to do if they sent the money to DC and it didn't come back.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by europa3962 2 years, 11 months ago
    Judge. The current political system does not seem to be working. The constitution has been eroded for well over 100 years. Some would argue Federalism died at the hands of Lincoln. At what point does tyranny become so suffocating and irreversible that serious consideration should be considered for a second american revolution?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 16
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      I think we are already beyond the point for a second American revolution.

      I speak of a peaceful one of course.

      In terms of when a peaceful revolution becomes bloody, there is no rule of thumb.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by europa3962 2 years, 11 months ago
        Thanks Judge,

        I am hopeful that Article 5 would provide the best avenue to correct and reverse the onset of tyranny but given that the 3 original branches have been wholly compromised I am afraid that a peaceful solution is becoming scarcer by the day.
        Thank you for your efforts in arguing for liberty and freedom
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
          And under these circumstances his arguments are effective and more needed than the political change, which can't precede a change in dominant ideas.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 2 years, 11 months ago
    Do you see any possibility of dissolving the majority of the regulatory agencies, and is it even possible? What is unfunded can be easily refunded.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 17
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      Well, I would think that if someone with the value judgment and mindset of Senator Rand Paul became President, he could invalidate the regulatory agencies by appointing people to them whose purpose would be to neuter them - and, if enough people in the Congress shared his view, then yes, it would be possible to deregulate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        Some deregulation is possible, but even under Reagan's efforts the net result at the end was a bigger government. And "deregulation" is not "dissolving the regulatory agencies". This isn't something that can be done in such a short time frame as a Rand Paul presidency. The president is very limited by statutes already on the books that authorize agencies and protect "civil servants" entrenched in government positions. Political appointees can't change that, and under current trends, Congress isn't going to either. Expecting that from a Rand Paul presidency is bound to lead to disappointment. Significant and cultural reform takes much longer and the current trends are against it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • 14
    Posted by Robbie53024 2 years, 11 months ago
    We once fought a civil war over secession, but increasingly it seems that might be the only recourse to gov't that no longer represents most of us in "fly-over country." Your thoughts on the constitutionality of such an action? I understand that Texas actually has that provision from its entry into the union, what about other states or portions of states?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 18
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      The Declaration of Independence says that when the government violates the basic rights of the people, it is their right and their duty to amend or abolish it. There is obviously no language about that in the Constitution.

      Surely if there were enough of a consensus, one could amend the Constitution to change the Presidency radically to remove its imperial aspects or limit the scope of the federal government precisely to the 16 delegated powers given to it.

      There is no rule of thumb of when you can resort to violence.

      There is an old phrase from a British poet, “Treason never prospers and what’s the reason? For if it prospers none dare call it treason.”

      The essence of this one liner is if you are attempting to oust the government by violence, and you succeed, you’re a hero and if you loose you’re a traitor and you’ll suffer egregiously for it. I would think that one would have a moral obligation to try all legitimate reasonable moral practical means to change the government before one could resort to violence.

      I mean violence denotes the destruction of innocence and destruction of property - all of which would be condemned except in the most egregious of circumstances, but it is contemplated by the inclusion of the second amendment which of course was not written to protect the right to shoot deer but to protect the right to shoot tyrants when they take over the government.

      Do not misunderstand what I’m saying as advocating violence - but theoretically, the basis for its exercise is there in the two documents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 13
    Posted by RimCountry 2 years, 11 months ago
    Are you familiar with the Article V Convention of States Project and its efforts to propose amendments to the Constitution that would reduce the scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and if so, would you recommend that conservatives support it?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 14
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      Well, Conservatives don’t usually take my advice. Since I am far too Libertarian for most of them.

      But my advice on this would be generally “yes.” Any lawful peaceful mechanism that can result in the reduction of the size and scope of the federal government is a step in the right direction. I am aware of the fears that people have of the Constitutional Convention.

      The vast majority of states today find the federal government repellant and would happily ratify a new document. So, I see only good that can come of this.

      If the new document is ratified by half the states the other half would suffer under the present one and would perhaps be free to leave the present one and go to the new. I can’t even figure out how this would work.

      But all of this is a step in the right direction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        It's a legitimate method and may eventually be the mechanism that is necessary to use, but who can count on power struggles between state statists and Federal statists to turn repulsion of Washington into individual freedom?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 13
    Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
    How remote are the prospects for taking power away from Washington and returning it to the people? Via the Fair Tax? Via Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments? Via some other method?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 13
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      I haven’t read Mark Levin’s work but I’m generally familiar with it. I think it's generally well thought out and would effectively return liberty to individuals. This will become easy to do when more and more people, quite frankly, have had enough. When it becomes the popular thing to do.

      If it's not the popular thing to do then it takes a very, very, determined, almost radical, aspect of the population to move the rest of the population.

      For example, there were no polls at the time of the American Revolution but it is the general understanding of most serious historians that about 1/3 of Americans were willing to tolerate life under the King and the Parliament, about 1/3 of Americans were willing to sacrifice their lives, liberty, and property to get rid of the King and Parliament, and about 1/3 didn’t care and would go either way.

      This means that a determined band of about 1/3 was able to move the other 2/3. I think that that could happen today. I think the longer we wait the easier it will be because the more out of control the federal government will become.

      Ideally you would want the federal government to be reformed in almost the way the old Soviet Union was - where even its servants and agents dropped their guns and shed their uniforms and ran into the welcoming arms of the rebels because they knew the government was unsustainable.

      Given the fact that the government just keeps taxing more, printing more cash, regulating more personal liberty, and fighting more wars, it gets less and less sustainable with each tick of the clock.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        It is only a minority of individuals who ever accomplish any significant change for the better. The minority in the American Revolution operated in a different culture than today. They had the advantage of the Enlightenment being largely taken for granted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by  $  dballing 2 years, 11 months ago
    Judge,

    Do you think it is possible that democracy - even a republican style representative democracy such as that provided for by our Constitution - simply doesn't scale?

    Is it safe to say at this point that a nation the size of ours, growing in population every day, simply is ungovernable by a Constitution such as we currently have?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 13
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      Well again I think it is governable by a Constitution when the Constitution is reposed in the hands of people who are faithful to it.

      If you take the 535 members of US Congress each session since 1900, I’m adding the House and Senate together, and throw in the 10 or 12 Presidents we’ve had since 1900 (so you’re looking at the total number of occupants of the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate in the 20th century and the first 15 years of this century) you’ll probably find less than 1 or 2 percent who are truly faithfully to the Constitution. That is the Madisonian version of the Constitution - the essence of which is not one that unleashes government but one that chains down the government to do only what the Constitution permits.

      If the numbers were reversed. If you had 98, 97, or 96 percent that were faithful to the Constitution and only a few that were not we would not have this problem. Why do we have the problem? We have the problem because of what Jefferson warned about which is when the public treasury become a public trough and the public learns of it it [the public] will only send to Washington people that promise to bring home the biggest piece of the pie. Whether that pie is bailouts for the rich, tax breaks for the middle class, or welfare for the poor or corporatism - corporate welfare (a variant of bailouts for the rich).

      The government will continue to reward those who keep it in power. Unless and until you have a critical mass of people in the government who are more faithful to the document to which they’ve taken an oath than to the love of power and office this will always happen.

      When you can find people who love fidelity to their oath and to the document and love human freedom over power over other human beings we can return to a small-government-maximum-individual-liberty society which we haven’t seen in this country in the memory of anyone now living.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        The kind of people who have been in those offices were there because they were voted to be there by people thinking in accordance with a progressively increasing collectivist and statist mindset under the moral criterion of altruism. Those who didn't fit that largely did not ever have a chance to take their oath of office seriously. It wasn't hard for the a minority of cronies to cash in on it, but they didn't start it. The size of the population is irrelevant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 2 years, 11 months ago
        A fundamental flaw in our government is the 'operators' of that government draw personal prestige and career advancement from 'managing' more people and resources than they did last year - its the basis for the ever ballooning size and scope of the government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
    What would it take for you to shrug like those in Atlas Shrugged?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 11
      Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
      Oh my. I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know that I’m the right person to be answering that if you’re talking about bringing about the kind of responsive behavior that came about in the novel. I’m not a titan of industry. I don’t employ a great deal of people. I’m not super wealthy. I realize I am a loud, strong, and consistent voice for the privacy of the individual over the state but I would think you would need people higher up the food chain than I am to bring about the change you’re asking about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  4evermybest 2 years, 11 months ago
        Rand's writings have nothing to do with wealth or riches, power, or any other item to designate one as set above or aside or higher in status than any one else. Remember the mother with the two children. The government, political, and social situation will not end until the entire system crashes and the leeches vanish. As in her writings and as you see on our current horizon, that will not be an easy or fast process and will not be quiet, peaceful, Most likely, we will not be able to physical leave, as in the book, but to speed up the process, we can stop participating. Stop giving them your intellectual coin. You can see them now using the intellectual information they receive from others then twisting it to serve the greater purpose for the improvement of the moment. They will implode, some of it is already happening.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
        I was thinking more along the lines of Judge Narragansett. It will take much to make Atlantis a reality, but you will be one of the first invited when we open for business.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 2 years, 11 months ago
        Yet you are the nearest real-life analogue to Judge Narragansett. I realized that five years ago, when I attended my first "Tea Party" rally, and someone showed up with a sign: "Stop taxing us or Atlas will shrug."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        "Shrugging" by anyone will not bring about the fictionally accelerated change portrayed in the novel, and that is not what Ayn Rand advocated. She did not distinguish heroes from villains on the basis of "super wealthy" or place in "the food chain" or willingness to "shrug".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sdesapio 2 years, 11 months ago
    "Brian and the Judge" was the best radio show I'd ever listened to. I actually got choked up during your last show. Any plans on returning to radio?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Eudaimonia 2 years, 11 months ago
    The best short commentary I've read to date on the ideological schism in the US was Dr. Angelo Codevilla's piece, "America's Ruling Class and The Perils of Revolution" which appeared in the American Spectator Summer edition of 2010.
    http://spectator.org/articles/39326/amer...

    In it, Dr. Codevilla described the contempt which both sides of the political aisle (The Ruling Class) view the inconvenient taxpayers (The Country Class).
    Dr. Codevilla's assertions were spectacularly borne out with the revelation of Dr. Jonathan Gruber's now infamous (yet mostly unreported) "stupid Americans" claims.

    I often wonder if the D.C. beltway understands that its contempt for us is reciprocal and that, in many ways, they have irreparably damaged their trust with us in that stupid, stupid Country Class.
    As you have much, much more experience with the D.C. beltway players and their mindset, in your opinion,
    1) Do they realize this?
    2) If they do realize it, are they concerned or do they dismiss it?
    3) If they are concerned do they realize that they are fighting the will of the people and that history almost never remembers well the people who do so?
    4) If they dismiss it, do they realize that people like me, and I'm sure others, are already referring to D.C. as Nouveau Versailles?

    Thank you for taking the time to visit us here.
    I look forward to placing your book on my stack of stuff to read.

    Eudaimonia, (Rick)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
      I think they realize it all too well, but they aren't concerned. They also dismiss anything that does not fit their agenda.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
        They're concerned enough to have announced they are out to "destroy" the tea party movement. Other than that they seem more preoccupied with their own internal power struggles and manipulating elections to stay in power. There is a different mindset in Washington that would stun most citizens to see it directly. There is kind of hubris there that is alien to everything the country was founded for. But Eudaimonia has raised good questions to explore this further with everyone who has experienced it first hand..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
          Judging by the last two elections, the Tea Party Movement is unfortunately now a matter of history. Even in relatively conservative areas like my own, Tea Party candidates can only get 40% of the primary vote.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
            The establishment party leaders did that by spending a lot of money and spreading a lot of lies -- about both the tea party and themselves. They didn't make the movement history, they are causing more resentment that is going to blow up in their faces. The question now is how much do those entrenched in power, as range of the moment pragmatists, realize it and what will be done about it. It would help a lot for the tea party movement to stop supporting flakes -- usually the religious nuts -- just because they claim to affiliate with the movement, and who are then exploited to smear the whole movement.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
              Indeed, the establishment Republicans spent our campaign money to help elect their friends in an ultimate act of cronyism. The Democrats spent our tax money to keep themselves in power. The Tea Party didn't get beaten because their candidates are not any good, or whether they are religious or atheist. They got beaten because they were not willing to compromise their values in order to get elected. The bottom line is that NOTHING can be done about it, because we are too few and too poor to make the kind of change to the USA that we want. It is definitely time to shrug and start Atlantis.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
                The establishment does not dare, at least yet, openly and systematically campaign against freedom and the rights of the individual. But it does exploit every other characteristic of a candidate that it can to create a diversion from what it is doing, and in particular it homes in on and pounces on religion repeatedly, knowing that common sense voters are turned away by it as a flaky and destructive alternative. Religion is the baggage within but unnecessary for the tea party movement. It is irrelevant to its goals, cannot be intellectually defended, and undermines the defense of freedom. Elections are not about, nor should they be about, atheism versus religion, which is supposed to irrelevant to politics and government. But the establishment will exploit it where it can, only needing to stir up enough of a controversy to turn back enough of a margin of voters and smear the entire movement.

                There are no candidates consistently promoting a proper government, and they couldn't be elected if they did because the philosophy of the culture has evolved so far to statism. But it is possible for candidates to move the system back from the progressive statism we now experience in order to reform the philosophy, of the country which is all that ultimately can save us, and that will take generations. There is a lot the tea party movement can do that would help achieve that by buying time and heading off the worst from coming sooner, but not if it continues to be embarrassed by an anti-intellectual obsession with religion undermining elections, what is left of government, and a rational philosophy.

                "Shrugging" for a mythical "Atlantis" will do nothing but hasten our own demise. There is nowhere to go to escape the progressively increasing statism that rules everywhere. The best you could do is find some area, most likely in this country, better than the rest in the hope of surviving longer. But any relative success, once noticed, will be the first to be attacked.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  jbrenner 2 years, 11 months ago
                  I don't disagree with you, but they don't have to be overt about their plans. Covert works better for them, as they have done for the last century.

                  Regarding shrugging to Atlantis, who says we have to then be productive by current standards? We would need to produce only for ourselves. That amount could easily slide under the radar (pun intended).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 2 years, 11 months ago
    Who were your heroes growing up?
    Can you expand on your concept of "natural yearnings"? How is this different than Locke 's natural rights and self ownership?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 2 years, 11 months ago
    Please comment on the history of the government suing citizens under civil law when the citizens have not entered into any contract with the govt, nor committed any tort against the govt. ie the govt taking you to civil court for taxes, or EPA violations/penalties. It seems to me, when the govt takes action against someone other than the two cases above, it is by definition a criminal case and the Bill of Rights should apply.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 2 years, 11 months ago
    If it could be proven that the Fed has been manipulating the stock market, is that a legally actionable offense?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by crystalquartz 2 years, 10 months ago
      I don't know. Probably not; they minpulate gold, the dollar and I guess if you have enough money to buy or sell enough stock to change the price, I am sure it is manipulated, but is that illegal? No, you have the money. I just play the manipulations. I go with the flow.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 11 months ago
    Can citizenship be imposed at birth?

    => The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

    => Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), and gender is not voluntary, that means citizenship must be voluntary. If citizenship was imposed at birth, mandatory civic duties become involuntary servitude.

    => If it is true that our consent to be citizens waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights such as those lost to national socialism (via FICA). . . rights such as absolute ownership of private property. . . you know . . .the stuff abolished by the Communist Manifesto.

    Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out: "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"

    Which raises the question: is fraud and misrepresentation the basis of "consent" used to govern Americans?

    Is the legal profession a co-conspirator in depriving Americans of their endowed rights?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo