Insofar as Judge Napolitano mentioned Natural rights belonging to all, I would have to agree that Natural rights do belong to all. I find that it isn't a question of belongingness, but rather preparedness. Alexis de Tocqueville mentioned in "Democracy in America" that a nation of people who are not accustomed to governing themselves, as the American colonists were, would virtually self-destruct if democracy was introduced to them too quickly. This will be the inevitable outcome of democracy in Iraq, and everywhere else that the US Armed Forces are being misused to build nations in our image. American citizens are being de-democractized by larger and larger government. What sort of government could we possibly establish when we're destroying our own democracy.
Oddly enough, de Tocqueville's book led me to believe that the democratic republic that our Founders were trying to establish was more like a staid republican central government that changed little over the decades, while the democratic experiments would be carried out on the local level. It gave me the impression of the physical laws of a ferris wheel. Little circles of local experimentation while the circle at the center spins slowly.
Some people WANT to live in socialist republics and there's no reason why they shouldn't have that freedom in some county in the USA, as long as they can voluntarily opt out when they change their minds. But to change the very structure of our national government is another matter entirely.
We the people are truly making a maudlin mess of our Founders' vision. Perhaps if they'd had a little more time than 4-1/2 months, our democractic republic would endure longer than 220 years.
Nancy Skinner, read about the boom and bust cycle. Read about monetary policy before saying stimulus spending from credit expansion helps. It makes the poor even poorer instantly when the credit transfers into cash: inflation!
Judge; Love the show. I know you try to add excitement to the show but when you have guests that interrupt and talk until their talking points are finished. I suggest you have some method of cutting off their microphones.
Example- Ms. Skinner will interrupt and continue until her talking points are finished.
When that happens I turn to a cartoon channel and then return to watch the remainder of the show.
Mr. O'Reilly had a contributor and he always seemed to interrupt, talked a mile a minute until his talking points were finished and he was finally asked to not return. Seems a lot of democrats do that sort of thing.
For all they mention about the senate races in relation to Tea Party backed candidates, there seems to be a repeated failure to mention Peter Schiff’s senate campaign. He is an individual who deserves and represents the voice of reason that this nation needs to get back on track. It’s sad to see a lack of media coverage, as this show would speak very well to his would-be audience. Do yourself a favor and click on the link under Freedom Links for Peter Schiff’s website. Learn about him and his senate campaign, and do this nation a favor by telling everybody else out there that there was a man who got it right, and he is a choice for our future. Once enough people simply realize that he’s an option, a win is virtually given, and a win for Peter Schiff is a win for this nation.
I think the Judge is great, but I'm not liking the new show format.
I feel like there are too many guests and not enough time given to delve into deep discussion of the topics. I really hate seeing the Judge be under a time constraint as many of his arguments are eloquent and take time to explain.
Less guests with a longer debate format would be more interesting in my personal view only.
The same thing happened in the first several Internet only shows. The situation gradually improved, as I hope it will this time around. What I really miss, though, are the guests that I thought made the old show such a great success:
Thankfully, Ron Paul is still a regular on the show, and Tom Woods and Peter Schiff have each made an appearance. But it seems the others have for the most part been replaced by statists of one sort or another. Without fairly regular appearances by articulate libertarians who are able to discuss issues to some depth, I'm afraid the new show won't be as valuable to the cause of liberty as it might have been.
Doug, you make a valid point. I imagine Fox is attempting to make the show appear more “fair’ in that they want the show to appeal to a wider audience instead of just the freedom loving patriots, which, I think is an understandable objective, hopefully more people will come to understand and adopt the libertarian mentality as THE JUDGE continues to educate fools like Skinner. I would really like to see Lew and Walter back on Freedom Watch again soon. Both of them bring so much knowledge and expertise with them from their careers, I learn something new (or several things) every show I’ve seen of them.
Judge, I love ya, but please stop crying about the rights of ILLEGAL immigrants. The rights of American citizens have been trampled- ever heard of the stop-and-frisk? Half a million in 1 year in NYC alone! I don't support racial profiling, but these people have special privileges that can find them above the law. Once our rights are secure as Americans, and our borders are properly regulated, then we can worry about rights of illegals. But until then, you are lobbying against illegals having to carry and show the same documentation that the rest of us do. And trust me, I'm a civil libertarian- against enhanced "anti-terror" police powers, Guantanamo, military tribunals, and the rest. How can a nation secure liberty for its people if an invading enemy can merely flood across its border? Your argument is like cutting off your nose to spite your face…
I sympathize with Lou Dobbs and agree that there is a moral argument for "buying American" and that the United States was better off when we produced over 90% of what was consumed domestically. However, that economy was not a product of protective tariffs. It is possible that tariffs kept it afloat longer than a truly free market would have but it is really hard to tell. The sheer magnitude of government interventions since the creation of the Federal Reserve make it very difficult to determine what kind of economy the United States would have had under genuine laissez faire capitalism. Also, most people base their economic decisions on a simple cost benefit analysis not on some overarching moral code. Admittedly you do see some of this with wealthy liberals who can afford to indulge their economic fantasies (Whole Foods, organic bath towels, etc.) but this is not the norm and cannot be the basis for a healthy economy. Something similar occurs with people who buy automobiles solely from what we used to call the "big 3." Dobbs is right, though, on immigration. We have got to control the borders. It is the right of legal U.S. citizens to determine (through their elected representatives) who does or does not get to come to this country. And in closing, I have know idea how people like Skinner can insist that the stimulus "saved" jobs. How do you know? The government does not poll every business in the country and ask how many people they would have fired had the stimulus not been acted. And since the money was largely spent at the government level in the first place makes the whole argument a non-starter. Keep up the good work Judge.
I have to laugh at the idea that the government ever can, or was ever designed to, "secure liberty for its people", or any such nonsense. The whole point of government is to take away the liberty that every person is born with.
Also, the idea that the government should be allowed to determine who can cross some imaginary line on a map assumes that the government really owns the land, and just grants its citizens the right to live there.
The truth is that if I own a piece of land, I should be the one to decide whether to rent to "illegal" aliens, or to hire them to work in the business that I own.
Those decisions are solely the business of the property owner, and everyone else (especially the government) should mind their own business.
My guess is that the higher-ups at FOX are trying to pressure the Judge into having a lot of guests, in hopes that the show will deteriorate into a meaningless series of soundbites and cliches, like virtually every other "mainstream" news show.