On FoxNews.com's Freedom Watch, Napolitano and guest push "secession" from Obama "regime"
September 29, 2009 8:15 am ET by Media Matters staff
During a discussion on FoxNews.com's Freedom Watch, senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed that the White House is taking "an aggressive role in local politics" and wondered if "secession movements" are the answer to maintaining "freedom." Guest Lew Rockwell - a regular on FoxNews.com - said that "we need to return to the original American principles of secession, of nullification, and of interposition."
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Jackasses.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out Red States.
------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Cheers!
You think that as a former judge he would have more sense than this but; since he is obviously more concerned with his "career" he probably feels this is the best way to keep the dollars rolling in.
If Lew rockwell had been talking about secession under the Bush "regime", which he did, you guys wouldn't have batted a eyelid, only now lord Obama is in you take notice, the lefts hypocrisy is almost as bad as the rights.
What freedoms have any of these people lost? Answer? None. They have lost NOTHING. If they don't like the outcome of the election (which apparently, they don't), then work to change the future outcomes of other elections. Talking about seceding is stupid, dangerous, and anti-American. Don't like the government? Let's quite the Union! Yeah, that's the answer.
These are the kooks in our country, who are getting exposure via FoxNews, and of course, nobody on FoxNews is really disagreeing with them, and they are giving voice to the really super lunatic fringe here. Is this really good and or responsible? That's what FoxNews has to think about in their coverage.
For me, Sarah Palin is valuable simply because she is a shining example of the new conservative strain of American. She is a quitter, barely making it halfway through her term as governor of Alaska. Had she been elected V.P., how long would she have lasted? Can you see Russia from Alaska? Perhaps from very remote parts of it. Does that equal foreign policy experience? Hardly. She exemplifies the idea that it's better to have opinions than facts, and to use the two interchangeably.
And, of course, there is FOX Propaganda, the ideal outlet to stir up just these kinds of thoughtless yokels. If it weren't happening in my country, I could actually laugh about it.
The Secret Service tracks these wackjobs.
Since when did "liberals" become totalitarians? Sheesh!
Is there a difference between the controlled distribution of marijuana and say any other prescription drug? Any drug can be abused, societies issue is figuring out how to they want to handle the issue. It is like politics and religion. Complex and sure to cheese someone off when you have a debate about it.
The concept of secession was an important principle in the 18th and 19th centuries. The original states would have never agreed to enter the union without it. Our Founders and most of the citizenry( being a little more sophisticated in this regard than the majority of the public today) understood this to be the last line of defence aginst an out of control federal government. It didn't start with this president, of course, it's been a long time in the making. We lost our federated constitutional republic a long time ago. We now have a heavily centralized national goverment with the allegedly sovereign state nothing more than glorified vassal states to the Leviathan in D.C.
I wonder, where will you colectivists turn when the real crisis comes? I am speaking of the currency crisis that is coming. Our glorious central planners and statists in congress are making sure that that outcome is inevitable. Will you again support an economic deictatorship like F.D.R.'s?
The concept of secession was important to the founders and the general public(being a little more sophisticated about such thing than today's public) because they recognized it as a last defense against an out of control federal government. The old federated constitutiotnal republic has been dead for a long time. We now have a highly centralized national(as opposed to federated)government where the alledgedly sovereign states are vassal state to the Leviathan in D.C. We now have a "living consitution," which means we are governed by a blank sheet of paper. This monster didn't begin with the last two buffons in office, but it is accelerating at warp speed now.
The thing is that the states are angry because over the past couple decades, they've lost the power they were supposed to have. (The federal government powers are only what's enumerated in the Constitution, Article I, Sec VIII. The states get powers over all other items such as health care, taxes, education...)
Why they waited so long, who knows.
Also, here are a couple of sites you should visit if you want know what these men actually advocate, not what you hear from your demaguoges in the media.
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
Read up and hopefully you'll learn some history.
As it stands now we are all captives of DC, and the "One Size MUST Fit ALL" policies is enacts. Competing states would have incentive to manage their own laws more effectively.
The US experiment had a good run. Let it be seen as a failure, and start anew.