03/01/2011 Freedom Watch w/ Glenn Beck, Scott Garrett, Dan Mitchell, Al Angrisani, Dan Halloran, more

The Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 edition of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano is now available below.

-->

7 Comments

  1. Jeffersonianideal Said,

    March 2, 2011 @ 9:28 am

    We interrupt this thought provoking episode of Freedom Watch to bring you Glenn Beck. An intellectually bankrupt religio-con whose only talent is in emphasizing the obvious to make it appear insightful to his cerebrally limited fan base. Genuinely relevant and perceptive broadcasting will resume at 09:31.

  2. Kaj Grüssner Said,

    March 2, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

    Exactly which wars and welfare programs did Warren G. Harding fund with the Fed's printing presses? I seem to remember Woods saying he cut government spending in half during in 1920-21.

  3. Jean Said,

    March 2, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

    Agreed Kaj!! In fact, tax rates were reduced, and government spending was cut under Harding. The Great Depression of 1920 didn't last long enough to ever be put in the history books, because Harding did nothing. Good for him!!
    As far as the Freedom Fighters, really Mike Norman a Freedom Fighter? I don't get it Judge. Why do you continue to bring these popuous wind bags of John Maynard Keynes onto to your show. Stock Market is up, and cars are being made and purchased. Really, why then did GM just announce another round of no-interest financing, since it seems they aren't selling to many of them. Bless you Ben Powell. Can't wait to get you back on and rip this guy and new one.

  4. Tom Said,

    March 2, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

    "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
    A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
    Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
    therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
    We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
    controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
    No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
    conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
    the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

    –Woodrow Wilson

  5. Gaz Said,

    March 3, 2011 @ 2:30 am

    So, ‘libertarian conservative’ Glenn Beck is effectively a cheerleader for every authoritarian police-state between Iran and the Atlantic? Wasn’t he quoting Hayek’s Road to Serfdom a year ago?

  6. THOMAS F. BOMAR Said,

    March 8, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

    Dear Judge, Dear Andrew,

    Thank you for your official judicial voice in the media. Recently you commented on the right of gays to marry. However, I have a problem with that when anyone or everyone wants to alter the MEANING of the term "marriage." For the duration of recorded human history and also in the minds and cultures of our forefathers, the MEANING of "marriage" has always meant a relationship between one man and one woman.
    Just because a group of people desire to define their relationship in the most
    legitimate of terms possible does not change the fact that homosexuality is still
    a perversion in Scripture, and Scripture is the BASIS of the Declaration of
    Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Thank you, your honor, for your wonderful constitutional voice. Please be mindful
    of meanings of terms and how no one has the right to change the meanings
    of historical institutions to accommodate whatever deeds they wish to perform.

    THOMAS F. BOMAR, A.B., M.Div.

  7. Rexi Said,

    March 9, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

    …And if you want to believe that two people of the same gender can't marry, you are entitled to believe that, because you have first amendment rights. However, if two people want to call themselves married, the government can't stop them, because they have first amendment rights as well. To be honest, I don't understand this controversy. The government sanctions civil unions for legal reasons, but marriage is a concept; a term that people can use or not as it suits them. No one is entitled to tell someone that they can't use the term. If homosexuals want to refer to themselves as married, no one has the right to stop them.