08/12/2010 Freedom Watch Freedom Week w/ Geraldo Rivera, John Stossel, Bruce Fein, more

Here is Thursday night’s edition of Freedom Watch’s Freedom Week with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FADC93AD8CDF3F5D

-->

18 Comments

  1. MegansDad Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 12:56 am

    Bruce Fein Wow

    I love this show

  2. Larry Perrault Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 1:26 am

    Everyone is wrong. No one restrains homosexuals from doing anything. But the federal government has no business defining the parameters of a license for anyone. Civil benefits may be, but a piece of paper is not a constitutional right.

  3. Larry Perrault Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 1:33 am

    When did The Constitution say, "Straight people have the right, but gay people don't…" The Constitution doesn't address it, but states have ALWAYS said it.

  4. Henry Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 6:08 am

    And the States don't have the Right to define who marries whom either. If you don't have the freedom to marry who you want, that's called eugenics on a good day. Hell on a bad day. This is the domain of the Church or the Individual. Not the State.

    And why the hell is Geraldo on Fox news. I still can't figure that out. Is he like the RINO placeholder or something? Was O'Rly getting lonely?

  5. J. Gross Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 11:24 am

    Is this new show on television or do we have to watch on the computer?. We have been searching everywhere on the cable menu.

  6. Bob Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

    Julian Assange should not be prosecuted for treason but iprosecuted as a receiver of stolen goods. He was fully aware of the theft and chose to accept and use the stolen documents. This is not a freedom of speech issue.

  7. langa Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

    To say that something was "stolen" from the government assumes that the government was the rightful "owner" of it. But the government can't rightfully be the owner of anything. Everything the government claims to "own" was obtained through force, fraud, or a combination of the two.

  8. Zack V Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

    Judge, this may have very well been my favorite show you have aired yet! Wonderful!! Freedom of speech is an inalienable right and it appears to me that Noelle Nikpour is to easily offended by freethinking individuals and would prefer to be a sheep herself and that we all accompany her in her poorly developed concept of what freedom is. Additionally, Julian Assange is wholly innocent in this matter. The information was SENT to wikileaks, wikileaks did not persuade such information to be released to it. If someone came up to you on the street and handed you one thousand dollars with no strings attached, would you not take it? Even if, unknowingly to you that one thousand dollars was stolen from a bank and given to you by the thief. That information was released to the public domain by the individual/organization who originally dispersed it to another individual/organization, or in this case wikileaks. Wikileaks simply published the information it received (given the exemption of some censorship, particularly of names of military personnel to protect certain associated individuals). Just like that one thousand dollars would be utilized by the individual receiving it, wikileaks decided to share their wealth of newly acquired information. I applaud wikileaks and their decision to be altruistic enough to publish such a multitude of reports, after all, Congress has not even declared war upon the nations we are currently occupying illegally, by that simple assertion, I declare the right to know what my government has been lying about all this time. Finally, it seems as if Noelle Nikpour is unfamiliar with the Freedom of Information Act that provides a means for citizens to acquire information that IS CLASSIFIED!

  9. LibertarianMike Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

    >
    > Finally, it seems as if Noelle Nikpour is unfamiliar with the Freedom of
    > Information Act that provides a means for citizens to acquire information
    > that IS CLASSIFIED!

    Negative. All classified information is exempt from the FOIA.

  10. Zack V Said,

    August 13, 2010 @ 8:35 pm

    Interesting Mike, my apologies for this misunderstanding but it has been my understanding that classified documents could be obtained through FOIA, provided government compliance. Thank you for this correction, upon further investigation I have also come to this conclusion. My misunderstanding stemmed from a misinterpretation that permits citizens to obtain "PREVIOUSLY" classified information. Nonetheless I still hold perception that Noell Nikpour does not value the rights of others to say what they please or their right to know the activities of our government.

  11. Larry Perrault Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 2:20 am

    On the next day, I'm still a little stunned from this program. I agree with the judge 95% of the time and love his zeal. But, I was a little non-plussed at his glee about a federal judge overruling the democratic vote of a state. That's judicial tyranny that I'd think Andrew Napolitano would hate. I don't, but I might better understand why he takes this position if he operated on the un-demonstrated and evidently undemonstable assumption that a homosexual disposition is a physical state. Still, I think states have the deference to define the elements of a marriage license as they will, and nothing is withheld but a piece of paper. At least without a fishing license, you can't fish. But without a marriage license, you can still do whatever you want.

  12. langa Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

    Both sides of the gay marriage debate are wrong, because they both assume that the decision of whether to recognize a marriage as legitimate is a decision that should be made by the government, rather than by the individual. Those who are for gay marriage want the government to "legalize" it, by which they mean they everyone should be forced to recognize gay marriages as legitimate. Meanwhile, those who are against gay marriage want the government to "prohibit" it, by which they mean that no one should be allowed to recognize it. Both these positions violate the individual's right to freedom of association, by unjustly vesting the government with the power to determine which voluntary relationships are to be considered legitimate and which are not.

    The proper solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business (not just gay marriage, but all marriage) completely. The government should stop issuing marriage licenses, stop taxing married people at different rates than single people (of course, they really shouldn't tax anyone at all, but that's a separate matter), etc. If this were to happen, then anyone would be free to marry whomever they chose. Just as importantly, anyone else (by which I mean any individual, not any state) would be free to choose whether or not to recognize any particular marriage as legitimate.

    For example, if Bert and Ernie got married, Bert's boss might choose to recognize their marriage for the purpose of work-related spousal benefits, while Ernie's boss might not. Of course, if Ernie didn't like that, then he would be free to quit and seek employment somewhere that had policies more to his liking. Similarly, if people objected to the policies of Bert's boss, they too would be free to "vote with their wallet" by taking their business elsewhere. In this way, the whole issue could be resolved by the market, which always provides fairer and more efficient solutions than the "one-size-fits-all" policies of the government.

  13. ConstitutionalChris Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

    May I humbly suggest: As Public Law 97-280 states clearly, The "Bible IS the WORD of
    GOD" / (Yhwh) and man is URGED to Learn and Apply IT!
    to Witt: As Marraiage; is a Holy Union ( between man, and woman) sanctioned
    ONLY by GOD; not (mere men) the Federal Government in it's extremely limited
    sphere of operation, is per the First Amendment and the "Unanimous Proclamation"
    i.e. "Declaration of Independance", July 4, 1776) expressly by: TERMS of the Contract
    (the Constitution 1791, Amended) excluded (HAS NO Right) from meddling in the:
    Practice of Religion (within the bounds of the "jus naturale", common Law of Nature's
    God the Creator and Source, of the Natural Rights of man on Earth or in Heaven
    above!

  14. ConstitutionalChris Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

    Mere "civil unions", under mutual assent, by the partys thereto, are : "UNLIMITED" in
    their ability to CONTRACT, ad infinitum,
    However, a Chuch of Satan provided, "State / County License (Permission to do that
    which is otherwise Illegal!) crafted for the mere purpose of:: "Revenue Enhancement"
    has NO; Force nor Effect, under the Common Law of the Land, of the Continental
    United States of America, Republic! *see next post

  15. ConstitutionalChris Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

    Nor is any: "Heavenly License", attributed to any State Incorporate, conjurgated legislative Civil Unions (contracts) of UN-Natural, abominous, Church of Satan
    Administrative unions, and are of NO good Force nor effect at the Final Judgement of
    Good and Evil at the END of Time!
    Man may not serve mammon and GOD, as one or the other, will suffer the disabilities
    ascribed by the Oaths and Obligations of the Other!
    All though the DELUSIONS of: carnal convienience, may be suited by mere BELIEF in
    the usurpations, assumed by the STATE, or it's instrumentalities, THEY are mere
    entities; crafted by man, for Control of men whom: "Render unto Caesar" that which
    is GODS"! Unfortunately for the worshippers of Ba'al and Ashtoreth; Yhwh does not

  16. ConstitutionalChris Said,

    August 14, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

    "operate under the mere Rule of Man"( jus fetiales, jus publicum, jus privatum, nor
    Administrative conjurgations of legislations of the artfull craft of the brotherhoods of the Black Robed Nobility of ancient secret masonic cabals of mere judges,
    magistrates, lawyers nor attorneys, nor is BOUND by the mere supplications of:
    beneficiums provided to Entrap or Enslave mere men! May the TRUE GOD of the
    Universe have mercy on all whom have been Victims of the Deceiver? Ahmen!
    *All professional Legal terms and technical words of the mystic art of what is
    asserted as LAW emminate from Black's Law 6th

  17. Passer-By Said,

    August 15, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

    "ConstitutionalChris" what a farce of a name… this country was founded as a secular nation, NOT a christian nation. Religion has no place in politics and as such neither does your oppressive religion. I suggest you move to Israel, you come across as being the type of person who justifies the oppression of others with your fanatical religion. You'd fit right in there with all the Zionist Jews who cite words from a book of questionable integrity as a means to justify the displacement of the Palestinian people. Yet in all your self proclaimed divinity, I am certain of your own shortcomings as the book of Leviticus certainly holds 'laws' you yourself have failed to uphold. Take your religious fanaticism to the bowels of the Sahara and get lost.

  18. Redman Said,

    August 15, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

    Do you really think or believe your grandparents, great-grandparents and state politicians of that day freely voted to allow a federal bureaucrat, hundred of miles away, to decide what percentages of their earnings could be taken from them via federal taxes? Clearly, they would not and they did not, the 16th amendment notwithstanding. See The Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America by P.E. Hendrickson for details and documentation.