1/12/2011 Freedom Watch w/ Rand Paul, Charlie Rangel, Ralph Nader, Tom McClintock, William Anderson, more

Here is the Wednesday, January 12, 2011 edition of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.




  1. Cheryl Johnson Said,

    January 13, 2011 @ 2:02 am

    I just want to say thank you!!!!!!!

  2. Carole Scott Said,

    January 13, 2011 @ 2:58 am

    Undoubtedly, hundreds of times my throat has been made sore and my nose stopped up by smokers. Therefore, I didn’t take kindly to your defense of smokers’ right to do with their body what they want. That’s fine and good so long as they do not deny me the right to do what I want with my body, and I do not want to inhale smoke because it harms my body. They should have no more right to smoke in my presence other than on their own property than to slap me because they want their hand to sting.

  3. Roland Said,

    January 13, 2011 @ 9:32 am

    I admire Judge Napolitano, but it continues to baffle me that he appears not to understand earmarks. He spoke of “Ron Paul Republicans,” whom he assumes are on the anti-earmark bandwagon. In fact Dr. Paul believes that Congress should earmark 100 percent of the budget – it’s their job. Here’s Dr. Paul trying to educate Tim Russert during the 2008 campaign:
    Here’s a great article by Eric Phillips explaining the issue:
    And here’s a silly little video I made about it:
    I'll bet most people who watched Meet the Press that day still believe Russert exposed Dr. Paul as a hypocrite (note the “tries to defend” title on the YouTube). They haven’t bothered to listen carefully and learn how the process works.
    Judge, how about giving Ron the airtime to explain it?

  4. Carla Said,

    January 13, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who agrees that outlawing picketing at funerals is misguided and unconstitutional.

    Since Westboro announced they would picket Christina Greene's funeral, many have said that the law should stop them. I got attacked from more than one person when I said that while it was a shame that people would choose to use a time of mourning and grief to say hateful words, and that it takes some extremely insensitive and inconsiderate people to do so, utilizing the government to outlaw it is plain wrong. Freedom of speech is guaranteed.

    The best thing we can do is stop giving Westboro the time of day.

  5. Roland Said,

    January 13, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

    Carla, I can’t think of anybody whose free speech rights are tougher to defend than the Westboro folks – you’ve got your work cut out for you. I have a problem with people who claim to know whom God is punishing for what at any given time, and of course their cruelty to mourning families is sickening.
    But equally sickening, I think, are politicians who brag that they will silence the protesters but who lend unwavering support to the stupid, unconstitutional wars that necessitate so many of the funerals in the first place.
    It seems that hardly a week passes around here without a funeral for an Afghanistan casualty. Having the Westboro protesters show up wouldn’t bother me nearly as much as when I hear flag-waving bystanders telling reporters how wonderful it is that “he died protecting our freedom.”

  6. Truth Said,

    January 14, 2011 @ 3:22 am

    Yes, the best response to bad speech, is MORE speech, not less speech, not silencing speech, but letting others convey their ideas, and the truth will win out.

    Congress makes these laws thinking they can control people, but just because someone is banned from expressing themselves in words or actions, like protesting, doesnt mean people will stop THINKING those crazy thoughts. I would much rather let people express their ideas, no matter how crazy, with Words, and not in a sudden outburst of violence. You can not legislate morality, you can not legislate thought.

    Free societies are always safer than authoritarian societies. It does come at a price, but its better to pay the price for freedom, then a heavier price for slavery.

  7. Wookie Said,

    January 14, 2011 @ 8:16 am

    Earmarks take up such a small percentage of the budget.

    I understand both sides of the earmark issue. Ron Paul want Congress to have 100% earmarks so the executive branch doesn't determine where the money should go.
    Someone like Jim DeMint is against the earmarks. Even though it might take up such a small percentage of the budget it leads to much more spending then the earmarks. Jim DeMint understands that with earmarks it is how the powerful Congressman/ Senators bribe other weaker members to agree to pass different legislation. You saw this with TARP, with the Stimulus Package, Obamacare, etc… The members that might slightly lean towards the bill or neutral in opinion about it, are bought by Congress through earmarks. I remember one congress person in California when the TARP came up, she said she going 90 thousand calls and 80 thousand of them were against the TARP/Bank Bailout, but she voted for it anyway, because she received earmarks in the bill.

  8. langa Said,

    January 16, 2011 @ 12:48 am

    I totally agree. The more unpopular the speech is, the more important it is to protect it. After all, freedom of speech isn't worth much if it just means that you have the right to say stuff that everyone else agrees with.

  9. Luis Said,

    January 12, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

    Wow, that's a tough one, isn't it? One of those places where principal and basic human needs conflict. Those families' memories of this critical event in their lives gets colored permanently in the hateful din of the protesters' free speech. Hopefully the family was somewhat comforted by the nation's total condemnation of the protesters, but I would have lost my ever-loving mind and gone shotgun-crazy if I were that boy's dad. Hopefully Christ will set those freaks of nature straight when it's their turn to face up.