1/14/2011 Freedom Watch w/ Jerrold Nadler, Sister Helen Prejean, Stuart Varney, Matt Welch, Larry Gatlin, more

Here is the Friday, January 14th, 2011 edition of Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F5AB5AB3DD2B83B9

-->

17 Comments

  1. Jean Said,

    January 15, 2011 @ 11:43 am

    First and foremost, Rep. Nadler isn't a defender of individual rights. Anyone who supports the Fairness Doctrine isn't a defender of individual rights. The FCC should be abolished, and the spectrum should be sold to any private interests who wants to broadcast whatever they want. Satilite Radio seems to be working, and let private property rights and contracts,and the courts decide when someone is violating someone else's airspace.
    Sister Prejean, you are indeed a gift to this country. Finally someone who is consistant in their beliefs about being pro-life. BTW, for those who support the death penalty, here's a question for you. With the fairly recent overturning of convictions for individuals sitting on death row, how many innocent people have to be killed in order to end the death penalty?

  2. Jean Said,

    January 15, 2011 @ 11:47 am

    I keep shaking my head about Prof. Heldman. She will never get the notion that the free market is the best regulator when it comes to banking. But then again, Ludwig Von Mises said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Whenever old laws don't work, bureaucracies create new one to fix the previous errors of the old ones, and this cycle persists".

    Then there is Steiger's Law, named after former Rep. Sam Steiger from Arizona. "Whenever a new department or bureaucracy is created, over time, keeping the department or bureaucracy running is far more important than it's stated mission".

    Keep up the great work Judge!!!

  3. Jim Said,

    January 15, 2011 @ 9:13 pm

    Re: Capital punishment, Pro

    Addressing appeal to religious sources: The Bible calls for such actions both within AND outside of the Mosaic theocracy.

    Addressing appeal to libertarianism: When stealing property from others, you forfeit the right to retain an equal or greater amount of your own property for reparations.

    Addressing common sense:
    1) Imprisoning someone for life IS taking their life from them–Taking their breath is not vengeance, it is the most exacting payment that may be extracted.
    2) 95% of career criminals are afraid of physical harm or death; it IS a deterrent.
    3) It is a means to uphold the ultimate in societal standard. It says: We Really Mean It!

  4. langa Said,

    January 16, 2011 @ 12:39 am

    I'm all for restitution (or reparations, if you prefer), but killing someone doesn't provide restitution, it prevents restitution. You can't get money from a dead man, and even in the case of murder, killing the murderer doesn't bring his victim back to life. In fact, it provides no benefit to the victim's family, other than satisfying a morbid desire for revenge.

  5. Jeffersonianideal Said,

    January 16, 2011 @ 11:16 am

    Your Honor, you prefaced your introduction to Representative Nadler by describing him as a “fierce defender of civil liberties”. If you were wearing your judge’s robe, I would have to declare that it was on too tight. Nadler is as much as defender of liberty as Caroline Heldman is worthy of being placed on your panel of freedom fighters. Unless of course, you specify emphatically that Heldman fights against freedom at every opportunity she is granted.

    Not only is there no need to placate and kowtow to the big government promoting, collectivist statists, invited to appear on your show but doing so discredits you, the show’s central premise and is an insult to the intelligence of your avid constitutionalist libertarian audience. I strongly suggest you make a resolution in 2011 to simply cut it out. Better still, replace all democratic socialist guests with astute, articulate, principled libertarians.

  6. Jim Said,

    January 16, 2011 @ 11:33 pm

    Sister needs to read her Bible and so does His Holiness. God instituted human government. "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt do no murder" – in the original language. NOTE – the death penalty is all through civil law soo Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, 14-17, Deut. 24:7 and Deut. 19:16-20. Certain crimes deserve the death penalty. Not free board and room for the rest of ones life.

  7. Truth Said,

    January 17, 2011 @ 12:11 am

    The Bible also says to stone people who have committed adultery.

    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

    Is lying okay? Exodus 20:16. Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden. Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

    We do not base our laws on any one religion. That always turns out bad. Look at the whole middle east. Some of the ideas from religions are good, but they are not holy. Religion is simply a primitive form of philosophy, of people trying to make sense of their world. The books of the bible were written by men, thousands of years ago, and then assembled by men hundreds of years later. And those men picked which books to include and which not to include.

    We should be against the death penalty, because it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free, then 1 innocent man be murdered by the government.

    Lets not rule with emotions, but with logic, law, and order.

  8. David C Pederson Said,

    January 17, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

    The ultamate word on what is right or wrong comes from God's word. Read Genisis 9:6 It gives the death penality to man. Don't write off this verse because it is part of the Mosesiac Law. Jesus didn't do away with the law, He fullfilled it. Since God's word says "Thou shalt not kill", which means You shall not murder. That means even one viable cell in a mother's body . Don't write off my argument because I can't spell. David Pederson Kewaunee Wisconsin

  9. Kevin Said,

    January 17, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

    You'll notice, if you read your Bible, that shortly after God supposedly told the Jews "Thou shalt not kill" He promptly instructed them to do just that. Kill every man, woman, and child, except the virgins of child-bearing age. Please do not attempt to use the Bible as an appeal to morality, when it it so lacking in that quality.

  10. jack Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 6:06 am

    This is why the _State_ shouldn't be in the business of punishment; it should be the victims, through private defense and court systems, who choose and execute the punishment.

  11. Greg Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 8:24 am

    Judge, I really wish you would challenge Stuart Varney on the things he says.

    1) We will live in shame for a generation if we default on the debt? Really? Shame is the biggest evil that we need to prevent? I'd rather live in shame than to continue to rack up debt that future generations will have to pay.

    2) Not raising the debt ceiling will not cause default. It will simply mean no more borrowing beyond what we have already done. Current creditors don't get told that they will not be paid back. We will simply have to start spending only what we take in through taxes (minus the interest on the current debt of course). This will hopefully lead to a scaling back of our empire. Make people decide between housing tens of thousands of troops in Germany or their social security, and we'll begin to get a rational foreign policy.

  12. Jeffersonianideal Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 10:15 am

    Your honor, you prefaced your introduction to Representative Nadler by describing him as a “fierce defender of civil liberties”. If you were wearing your judge’s robe, I would have to declare that it was on too tight. Nadler is as much as defender of liberty as Caroline Heldman is worthy of being placed on your panel of freedom fighters. Unless of course, you specify emphatically that Heldman fights against freedom at every opportunity she is granted.

    Not only is there no need to placate and kowtow to the big government promoting, collectivist statists, invited to appear on your show but doing so discredits you, the show’s central premise and is an insult to the intelligence of your avid constitutionalist libertarian audience. I suggest you make a resolution in 2011 to simply cut it out. Better still, replace all socialist democrat guests with astute, articulate and principled libertarians.

  13. Jim Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

    @ Ianga: There is no possible way to give a murder victim his life back. Therefore, no possible restitution. Biblically, SOME restitution is implied in capital punishment–Practically, and as extension of this restitution:
    The people of society have no obligation to the murderer. The murderer has no claim to his own life .If the bible is correct, capital punishment is not only the best thing for society, but also for the murderer. If the bible is not correct, practicality is the only consideration, and he should be disposed of as cheaply as possible.
    @jack: In our case, the "State" is the people. "Private" court systems have been exercised, somewhat. It never turns out well.

  14. Jim Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

    Replying is the Jim from under Jean. The Jim I am replying to is a different one. While I may agree with this Jim's take on the Ten, I would not have endeavored to not insult anyone.

  15. Jim Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

    Jim from under Jean to Truth: Adultery: Within the Mosaic theocracy, and they were free to flee to avoid punishment. Slavery: Was indentured servitude, and not at all like the conditions in our south. Lying: Bearing false witness against someone, or for personal benefit is different from self-preservation, treacherous situations, and military tactics.
    To your later point: I agree that the death penalty should only be applied when there is an absolute surety.

  16. Jim Said,

    January 18, 2011 @ 1:36 pm

    oops–tried not to insult anyone.

  17. Jim9827underJean Said,

    January 20, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

    @ Kevin: re: shortly: 40 years later. The premise is that God knew (and would take care of) the just outcome. Not Jews. At the time, they were known as Israelites. The distinction of Israel and Judea was around the time of David. Study, study.