Forum Post: Judge Napolitano - open letter to Occupy "I support wholehartedly your..."
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 11:38 a.m. EST by theaveng
(602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Judge Andrew Napolitano says, "I support wholeheartedly your right to protest against the government. Its exercise keeps our Republic vibrant. Jefferson said, 'It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government.' You have a similar chance to live-up to Jefferson's prescription." - Continued here:
That is fascinating. I wish I had hi-speed.
I assume these are comments by Andrew Napolitano -- former New Jersey Superior Court Judge; current political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel?
What is interesting is the way in which even Fox commentators will jump when enough of us band together and speak in unison.
by us, Fox is divided.
strike for the heart.
z
FYI, it's Fox Business channel, to be specific. Judge Nap has been upright and consistent in his views, and so far as I've been able to see, unrestricted in his choice of issues, or his stand on them.
His show is a total anomaly, not only on Fox networks, but in MSM generally. I don't watch TV, but I know of no other person in a similar position who expresses the views he does. There is no other person I can think of on TV whose show I could endorse, but I'll stand with the Judge any day.
I find it interesting that people assume FOX is biased, while the other channels are not? Numerous studies for 2008, 9, and 10 have shown that the 6 o'clock news of ABC, CBS, PBS, and MSNBC had 70% positive stories for Obama/democrats and only 40% positive for McCain/republicans.
It's clear where the bias lies. If you hate FOX, well then you should hate the other channels too. (Like I do.)
I get almost all my news from Russia Today (RT.com) and a little bit from France24. I don't trust local U.S. media unless it's independent (not government-or-corporate funded).
I dislike TV. Don't watch it. Watch clips here and there on youtube.
TV is one of our worst enemies. Period.
Yeah but TV is free.
Just put-up an antenna and there it is. :-)
The Internet is merely a different form of TV. Instead of sending the videos by Antenna or cable lines, it uses computer data. While it's true the communication is now two-way, I still mainly use the internet like a TV to watch science stories and news reports (rt.com; france24.com).
Depends on how you use it. I'm a compulsive reader, and sometimes commenter. :-) TV is almost totally passive.
LOL ! Russia, the protectors of Free Speech !
How about PBS News Hour ?
"studies for 2008, 9, and 10 have shown that the 6 o'clock news of ABC, CBS, PBS, and MSNBC had 70% positive stories for Obama/democrats and only 40% positive for McCain/republicans.
So. No to PBS.
As for RT and France24 I'm sure they are biased too, but at least I get to hear things that the other channels don't cover. For example, did you know that Israel, Obama, and UK PM Cameron are planning a military strike against Iran? Or that Obama snubbed the Russians' request to join the European anti-missile defense?
RT.com is also very pro-Occupy and anti-police.
Yes, I knew all of the above.
The JOB of the Department of Defense is to provide MILITARY options. The JOB of the State Department is to offer DIPLOMATIC options. The President chooses from the options he his provided.
One of the most important foreign policy tools available to the President is the fact that we CAN strike with great effect. Sometimes, we rattle our saber only to force folks to accept the DIPLOMATIC solution we offer as an alternative.
Foreign policy is a very intricate game of chess. Neither the media nor the public generally has access to the 'insider information' required to develop an informed opinion. I, for example, never see the intelligence reports from the NSA, CIA, DIA, Mossad, MI-7, etc. Do you ?
I thought OWS was anti-war and anti-killing? (shrug) Well I am. I heard one guy comment on France24, all of this saber-rattling is more likely to make Iran "scared" and throw more resources towards developing a nuke. Threatening to launch an attack is the wrong answer. The politicians should be treating Iran the same way they treat other nuke-owning countries (like France, Britain, Japan, Pakistan, etc).
Also it's doubtful Iran even has a nuke.
The man who wrote the UN report is the same guy who claimed in 2001 that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction. He was proved to be wrong, but we wasted ten years because of that error. We really shouldn't be starting another war based upon this guy's untrustworthy word.
And then there's the plain fact that it's unnecessary. Iran lies ~10,000 miles away. They are not a "threat" to the U.S. territory. Their most advanced missile only travels a few hundred miles. Being afraid of Iran is as illogical as being afraid of a 5-year-old kid in California saying, "I'm gonna kill a New Yorker." Yeah. Right. Sure.
I am not 'OWS' but an individual interested in seeing some of the OWS concerns addressed. Furthermore, I am not in favor of war, but the threat of war is sometimes the only thing that convinces the bullies on the playground to behave rationally.
Russia, China, France, Britain, Japan, Pakistan, India, etc, have not declared any particular nation or race of people should be wiped from the map. Iran has. Officially.
Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction. There is ample evidence that they gassed their own people. These are the weapons of mass destruction that Hanz Blix said we could no longer account for and that Iraq was no longer allowing us to monitor. Granted, they apparently destroyed them, shipped them out of country, or did something else with them, but they DID have them at one time. That's proven. Whether or not the possession of poisonous gases was sufficient to justify war, I will leave to each reader, but Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction at one time.
No they didn't. I'm reminded of that joke from Bush: "Are there any WMDs over here? Nope. Maybe over there? Nope. I know they must be around here somewhere... where are you hiding little WMDs? (Bush laughs)." If you think they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then feel free to prove it. (You won't succeed.)
Let the European Union or Russian Federation deal with it. They're closer and within range. We have enough problems over HERE to worry about, like the druglords coming into Arizona to kill or kidnap our citizens. Plus 15 + 3 trillion in national + state governmental debt. (~125% of GDP.)
IMHO
I specifically avoided the issue as to whether Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was sufficient justification to go to war, and I never even mentioned nukes. All I said was that they CLEARLY had nerve gas weapons at some point because there is documented evidence they USED them against Iran and their own people. The inability of the UN inspector to account for the nerve agents they HAD been tracking after Saddam Hussein block further UN efforts to account for them was the sole basis of the UN approving action. There was no mention of the nukes in the UN Resolution. I'm not advocating either way, I'm simply trying to ensure the facts are not distorted by either side in the course of discussion.
So you did.
Well I will say absolutely and unequivocally that war is murder. The only time killing is justified is in self-defense (after you are attacked, or in imminent danger of being attacked). We have no business attacking countries that have not attacked us first. We HAD no business killing tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. That makes us the terrorists.
I know what you mean. In a way, FOX is less bias because they make it so obvious. CNN and specially MSNBC are as biased or even more but they are more clever about it.
I've seen obvious bias on DNCNBC. Especially when they make ridiculous claims like, "The newly-elected Rand Paul will single-handedly bring the next depression."
There was also the incident where the anchor showed video of protester carrying a gun, and talked about white racists that hate a black president. Problem: The man was black (but NBC chopped the video so you couldn't see that).
Napolitano is the only true patriot at FOX, this has always been his stance. I invite you to watch his show "Freedom Watch", it is the only real one to be seen on FOX...
I think it is wonderful if he has a credible and well reasoned perspective on the issues of the day.
That will not persuade me to abandon my
>
z
Technically the Judge airs on FOX Business, which is basically the same as CNBC. :-) Just curious: Do you also boycott FOX Broadcast, FOX Sports, Fox Movies, Fox Kids, National Geographic, Speed, and FX?
I've boycotted DNCNBC ever since I heard Obama gave them a multi-billion dollar bailout. I can't and don't trust their news. But I still watch all the other NBC-owned properties, including their business channel.
obviously you haven't seen his show before or you would know this is normal for him
i love napolitano he believes in the constitution and hates how it has been shreaded by our government
fox isn't divided they have always had liberal, conservative and libertarian commentators on
i haven't seen anyone ridicule for their point of view heck juan williams even host the factor when bill O is gone
Agree. At least Fox DOES include the opposing viewpoint (Colmes, for exmple), if only to ridicule them ;o)
No, I haven't seen Napolitano's show.
I did sign petitions encouraging advertisers not to use Fox, with the intent of getting Fox to fire Glenn Beck
so you believe in censorship when you don't like the message
It's called "voting with your dollars" as citizens have the right to do.
Government shouldn't censor. I am not the government.
I feel absolutely free to tell advertisers I won't buy their product if they sponsor propaganda, hate & lies.
you call it "voting with your dollars" i call it censorship. i happen to believe in free speech for all even those whose speech i disagree with
boycotts and protest should be used when laws or rights are being violated, not to violate the rights of others
I'm all in favor of free speech. The fact is Glenn Beck is an irresponsible fool who should be shot. Just my opinion . . . .
Chew on this
z
i happen to think rush limbaugh and ed schultz are over blown wind bags luckly in this country we don't shot fools or windbags nor should we censor them
Matthews and Mr Ed are the true whack jobs
Too bad it didn't work, since Beck is still on contract with FOX. (He's doing one-shot specials like John Stossel does.)
I wonder how long it would take Pittsburgh PD to respond to a 911 from that fool . . .
You planning to attack Beck? Or Stossel? :-|
only in my wildest, darkest fantasy . . .
Beck had a relationship with the cop killer Poplawski - Altnet article here
It is entirely theoretical - and in theory the response time should be no different than for anyone else - but you know - who could blame them?
It would make for an interesting test. An evaluation of the propensity for corruption, based on something as intangible as appeal.
Whether such a test were ever conducted or not - the mere possibility, were it presented to Beck or those like him, seems certain to induce a bit of . . .
He had a "relationship" with the cop killer? No he didn't. That comment is about as illogical as saying I had a "relationship" with child molester Jerry Sandusky just because I happened to be at Penn State the same time he was. :-|
And ALSO how do you explain the Democrat nutjobs that attacked a Congresswoman a year ago, or the Democrat that held hostages at the Discovery Channel a few months before that? I guess that's republican-leaning Beck's fault too? Sillinesss.
BTW the article seems confused about how to describe Obama. The best description is not fascist or socialist or Marxist.
It's "corporatist".
I think it's a lot more like being the head of Penn State - speaking of which, didn't he get fired?
???. Let me repeat:
Your comment that the Cop killer is Beck's fault, is about as illogical as saying PSU child molester is my fault. Your comment makes NO sense.
you can repeat all you like. but when beck provides a platform for that kind of bullshit, that's what you get.
bullshit.
And the ones that the majority of the people appreciate are the progressive libertarians.
Napolitano has always been sort of a maverick on Fox.
That is fascinating. I wish I had hi-speed.
You don't need high speed. I watch youtube on 56k dialup all the time..... you just change the video resolution to 240p and then wait two minutes for the video to load.
Then you can rewind & watch it.
:-) Judge Napolitano has been producing his show for almost 4 years now (first on the web, and then on cable). He has little in common with his FOX colleagues, and loves to tear-apart both Democrat and Republican politicians. He's a tenth-amendment constitutionalist.
Life is nothing but a process, the Marc Jacobs bags I have already written to do my comfort, I already have too much of Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbags Marc Jacobs Handbags and himself, stroking the soul has been harvested, Is there necessary to insist on the so-called fit it? Most young people's favorite is definitely Marc by Marc Jacobs's Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags. These valuable, are from Marc Jacobs's hands.
This is the only guy I watch on Fox News.
Janet Napolitano is also a know Marxist. Ask the people of Arizona. I am not so sure this person casts a positive light on the movement.
You don't like Janet Napolitano, therefore you conclude Judge Andrew Napolitano is also unlikeable?
Really???
Flawed logic.
it not a matter of likability. It's a matter of false representation and a widespread lack of trust. The majority of Americans cannot wait until she is out of office. You must be up in Canada and have little knowledge of our border problem.
Yeah but what does your dislike of Janet have to do with Andrew Napolitano??? QUOTE: "Janet Napolitano is also a know Marxist..... I am not so sure this person [the judge] casts a positive light on the movement."
It means I need to clean my lenses. I thought we were talking about Janet. My apologies.
Yeah Janet is not a judge.
Her position is "Big Brother". The woman that spies on everything we do via the Patriot Act, forces us to warrantless searches in airports and along highways, plus instructs the People to turn-in fellow citizens to the police.
Judge is a good guy..
This adds up with his ridiculous narrative that it's a Ron Lawl movement that is being hijacked by the Left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6roMF2GAZI
We must have watched different videos. I saw the Judge trying to understand/comprehend a movement that was only a week old. Even the people that were THERE had a hard time articulating what the movement was about. "Uh... I don't really know? I think they are creating a platform now," was a common protester comment at the start.
The important part of that video was learning some protesters are being PAID to show-up (by ACORN and other groups). I wonder where that money comes from? Koch Brothers? Doubtful. Someone else then.
So you take that conspiracy theory to the next level and ask WHO is paying the protesters??
You're ridiculous.
Various protesters have ADMITTED on camera that they are being paid. Not just at Occupy DC but also in Chicago, and Portland, and Wall Street. It is not "ridiculous" to ask who is doing the paying. It is a natural thing to wonder.
[Removed]