I really like and respect Judge Napolitano, but I disagree with him here. Good article though, thanks for sharing!
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > November 5, 2014 > > *Can the Republicans make a difference? *By Andrew P. Napolitano > > With the midterm elections complete, it is clear now that the Republicans > will control the U.S. Senate for the next two years. Will it make a > difference? > > The two major political parties are more alike than they are different. On > the two paramount issues of our day war and debt they are identical. > With the exception of Democratic progressives and Republican libertarians, > the two parties stand for perpetual war and perpetual debt. Both stances > increase the power of the government, and each invites present and future > destruction. > > A healthy society should avoid war at all costs, except when immediately > vital for its own self-defense. A healthy government should pay its bills > and not push them off to the next generation. Do you know any American > whose freedom and safety have been enhanced or fortified because of all our > empire-building in the Middle East? Do you know that the federal government > borrowed $2 trillion to wage these wars and now spends 20 cents of every > dollar in interest on its debt? Do you know that the congressional > leadership and most of the rank and file of both political parties have > brought this about? > > There are two great freedoms being assaulted under the radar that will > soon come to the fore: the freedom to live and the freedom to speak. Both > parties use abortion as a litmus test. You want the Democratic nomination > for any federal or state office: You need to support a woman’s right to > abortion. You want the Republican nomination for any federal or state > office: You better claim that you are pro-life. > > I say “claim” because that’s all Republicans need to do to satisfy each > other. If Republicans truly were pro-life, they’d have passed a > one-paragraph statute when they ran the Congress > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> and George W. Bush was > in the White House that legally defined a fetus in the womb as a natural > person. Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. > The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome > all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess > self-directed humanity. However, no such legislation ever came. > > Since the Supreme Court denied personhood to every fetus in 1973, much as > it had done to blacks in 1857, more than 44 million babies have met the > abortionists’ vacuum and scalpel. Will a newly revived Republican Congress > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> address personhood to > the abortionist in chief in the White House? Don’t hold your breath. > > After the right to life, the next great freedom under siege is the freedom > of speech. Here, too, both parties in Congress > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> have failed us. When > Congress <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> in 2001 > enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own > search warrants in utter defiance and direct contradiction of the Fourth > Amendment’s command that only judges may do so, it also prohibited the > recipients of agent-written search warrants from talking about them. At > least a half-dozen federal judges have found this infringement of speech > unconstitutional, yet federal agents who serve their own search warrants > continue to threaten the recipients against talking to anyone about them. > This, too, came about with the support of the leadership of both political > parties in Congress <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> . > > Not content with commanding silence about search warrants, the Democrats > in the Senate attempted to offer an amendment to the Constitution last > summer, which, if ratified, would have weakened the First Amendment by > permitting Congress <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> and > the states to punish the political speech of groups. Three years ago, the > Supreme Court, in a case called Citizens United, held that free political > speech is such a highly valued and constitutionally protected asset in > American society that it may be enjoyed not only by individuals, but also > by groups of two or more persons, such as labor unions, foundations, > nonprofits, think tanks, partnerships and corporations. > > Outraged that corporations can spend money to affect the outcome of > campaigns, rejecting the concept that buying an advertisement in a > newspaper or on TV is speech, and wanting to remove the word “free” from > free speech, the Democrats attempted to circulate to the states an > amendment to the Constitution that would have made the government the > arbiter of acceptable political speech. Is Vladimir Putin consulting the > Democrats? > > Yet, did you hear any Republicans in the recent elections call out any > Democrats for this stunt? The First Amendment has remained pristine since > it was ratified in 1791. The Democrats want to change that, and the > Republicans have gone mute. > > A lame-duck President Obama facing a Congress > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> he hates and fears may > become reckless. We should expect that. But if somehow he facilitates the > killing of more babies in their mothers’ wombs or the suppression of more > political speech from his critics, what will a Republican Congress > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/> do? What is its track > record? > > > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/napolitano-after-stopping-obama/ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
