Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act *Video*

Remember, if there ever comes a time that the illegal aspects of the patriot act are used against you there is only one person responsible for allowing it - YOU. Just because it's law doesn't mean that it's "lawful". Don't think that you can't win... many, that we've never heard about, have won. The only way you can't win is for you to accept that it is lawful.

In this video, although Judge Napolitano is primarily talking about how federal regulation of health care is illegal, he gives a beautiful, real life example of how two women fought the illegal patriot act and won... that example begins 2:00 minutes into the video.

The whole video is (and it's 2 predecessors) are worth watching though...

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Remember, if there ever comes a time that the illegal aspects of the patriot act are used against you there is only one person responsible for allowing it - YOU. Just because it's law doesn't mean that it's "lawful". Don't think that you can't win... many, that we've never heard about, have won. The only way you can't win is for you to accept that it is lawful.

Interesting that you are forbidden to speak to anyone regarding the FBI, etc. visitations. I was unaware that this was part and parcel to this particular seizure of our rights and dignities.
Very clever clause.

In this video, although Judge Napolitano is primarily talking about how federal regulation of health care is illegal, he gives a beautiful, real life example of how two women fought the illegal patriot act and won... that example begins 2:00 minutes into the video.

The whole video is (and it's 2 predecessors) are worth watching though...

I agree, and he had me before the one minute mark!

I wish he had continued on the track he was on at the end of the video. Is there more to the speech after this section?
I'm going to watch the first two segments now, but thanks for the vid.

(I like The Judge. I used to listen to his radio show when I had the chance.)

Ha ha, so the Fed's didn't want their precious Patriot Act to get challenged in court so they threw out the case. They will do anything to keep their stranglehold on power. The fact that they would even go after these ladies for this is insane.

A very similar thing happened to Jefferson Davis, ex-President of the Confederate States of America, when the Fed's had him in custody after the war and never put him on trial. They knew damned well they would lose because every state had the right to secede and their was no valid legal basis for the war.

Napolitano is quite cool. He's one of the few constitutionists we have.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Thanks for the vids. Could you imagine a debate between this guy and the "supposed" constitutional scholar O.

It would be a scream.

reply to post by TheLoony


Oh, but don't you know, Honest Abe was the bestest Prez ever??? He never did nothing unconstitutional to lead to the largest killing of Americans ever.

Our founding fathers would have puked upon seeing what he did to provoke a cival war.

reply to post by Tinman67


Yes, I think Lincoln was the beginning of the countries decline.

The slavery issue withstanding, I believe he helped usher in the biggest move towards the power being centered in Washington. Except for maybe Wilson, I blame him the most for our situation now.

The thing about Lincoln, though, is that he got assassinated. He had a meeting with Grant and Sherman in, I believe, March 1865, to discuss what terms of surrender were needed and how he was going to treat the South after the war as he didn't want ANY recriminations. His only goal was to get the South back into the Union, period, and he wanted to let the country heal so he wasn't going to have endless trials and such.

Grant's terms to Lee were outstanding and Sherman's terms to Johnston were even better the first time around but the buttheads in Washington said no, Bill, you gotta go and fight as those terms are unacceptable(remember that Lincoln was not dead when Lee surrendered but was by the time Johnston did) and they finally agreed to terms more acceptable to Andrew Johnson, who is a bizarre character in all of this being as he was from Tennessee but wanted to come down hard on the South and he did.

So, while John Wilkes Booth thought he was doing the South a favor, all he really did was piss off the establishment and lay more waste to the South as it was put through hell with the Reconstruction, not being properly represented for years after the war and all the Carpetbaggers came in and bought out the South.

Remember also that Lincoln knew our biggest enemy were the bankers and "tried" to get our money straight(at least I think he did, I still have trouble with money and how it works) but he was killed before he could serve his second term. Who knows what he might have done with that as we will never know.

So, IMO, Lincoln wasn't all that we are told he was in school but he wasn't all bad, either. He did many shady things but he wanted only one thing and that was to preserve the Union, rightly or wrongly, through war or not, with or without slavery.

I guess it just matters on what history book you are reading. As far as this war goes one must read many books to get any idea of what happened. It's taken me many years to get this far with it and there is still so much more to explore. Take James McPherson's "for Cause and Comrades" book. Loads of letters from soldiers on both sides and there is no clear cut consensus why brother would fight brother, as often happened when families fought for both sides, for many different and hard to understand(to me, at least, in this day and age) reasons.

Was Lincoln a good or bad guy? Was Lincoln wrong or right? Should he have let the South go, as was their right? He did what he thought was necessary at the time, to keep the Union intact. Maybe the real question is was the Union deserving of being kept together? Should this war have ever been fought, at all?

At it's core, the war was not about slavery or State's Rights, it was about money and the South was being strangled by Washington. A bit like today, in fact, with Washington strangling the whole country with a slowly building totalitarian state and with things like the bailouts, giving our money to the corporations. They have done all they can to wreck the economy and damn near putting us in the position of having to fight soon to regain our country, our jobs, our money.

Money is still a major problem and will most likely cause this country to go into it's first true "Civil War" as the last one was The War of Northern Aggression. A Civil War is two or more factions competing to overthrow a government and not what happened in the 1860's. This will be different and is almost assuredly going to come unless something radical happens to change future events. We can only go down this road so long before it all falls apart.

Here endeth "History for Idiots by The Loony". I don't know if this is a classic derail or if I'm on topic. Sort of both, I think. History is always a good way to learn about current events. As some wise dude once said "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" or something to that effect. I think I got my story mostly right but you guys can correct me where I'm wrong.