In the below monologue, by Judge Andrew Napolitano, he makes a brilliant case against non-defensive, and unnecessary wars. And, how war equals the growth of Central Governments, and the death of Personal Liberty:

‎”War is the death of freedom because war is the health of Big Government.”
- Judge Andrew Napolitano

–
And, here is the text to the above (video) monologue.

Below is great monologue by Judge Andrew Napolitano, explaining why our Social Security system is worse then a Ponzi Scheme:

“Bread and Circuses” (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l’homme moyen sensuel).”

“In modern usage, the phrase has become an adjective to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life. To many across the political spectrum, left and right, it connotes the triviality and frivolity that characterized the Roman Empire prior to its decline.”

“This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal (circa 100 AD ). In context, the Latin phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which has given up its birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of his contemporary Romans. Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”, would be the most effective way to rise to power.”

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” – Juvenal (Satire 10.77–81)

–
Wikipedia.org

Below is Judge Napolitano, on Apr 20, 2011, eloquently, breaking down, the break down in personal responsibility, and our Federal Government’s efforts to diminish our individuality. He also discusses the sets of values that factions both on the left and right, historically, through The Federal Government, have been pushing on the entire country.

This is a great monologue!

Enjoy!

–

–

In George Washington’s Farewell Address – among the many insightful topics that he covered, his warning of the dangers of forming political parties, in our country, were, perhaps, his most brilliant words of all.

I’m sure there are many definitions of faction; but, when I think of political factions, I think of it as any like-minded group of voters, or elected officials, trying to infiltrate, or influence, our Government, laws, Constitution etc.

As George Washington, astutely, pointed out, the formation of factions, and allegiances, among several like-minded individuals, is, indeed, consistent with human-nature. However, in my humble opinion, they also defy human-nature. For example, we are individuals; and, as individuals, we don’t generally appreciate being controlled, or told to walk lockstep with a certain ideology; yet, we see this in so many facets of our lives, and political system - read more…

In this very unfortunate time, in our country’s history, we have come to a point, economically, where we are faced with some very daunting choices…

Naturally, and understandably, there are things, that, as a nation, we have come to expect from our Federal Government; whether they are wholly Constitutional, such as having a military to defend our nation; or were created without explicit Constitutional authority, as with Medicare and Social Security, these three things, among others, are often referred to as sacred cows. They are referred to as such, because, while the majority of Americans appear to be realizing that we do, indeed, need to make some tough fiscal choices, in regards to Government-spending - generally-speaking, it is always some one else’s programs, or sacred cows, that, when asked, should be the first to be cut, or eliminated.  I suppose that should be of no surprise, as it is a very part of our human-nature to not want to be forced into making potential, life-altering decisions.

Irregardless, according to most professionals, these are the three items, in our Federal budget, that seem to be placing our Federal Government, and country, in very serious danger of  going broke. Therefore, in my humble opinion, all programs, and all agencies, in the Federal Government, must be put on the table; and every American, who really wants to see our country be passed onto future generations, as a free and prosperous nation, must be willing to make some difficult choices.

Most, if not all, Americans, would agree, a military is absolutely critical to our security; and, like it or not, millions have become dependent on Medicare and Social Security. For these reasons alone, these three items, in our country, are classified as the third rail of politics; simply, because, they are very hot things to touch, politically. And, generally-speaking, only the most honest of politicians will give us the truth, in regards to the sovereignty, and longevity, of these three items. 

While some, in our Federal Government, including our President, have publicly acknowledged that Medicare, then Social Security, are the two Government programs, that, if unchanged, will put our nation most at risk, few are putting fourth any serious legislation that would deal with any of the these increasing monstrosities.

I don’t have all the numbers, and I am not an economist, but one idea I have heard, and really liked, was to block grant Medicare and Social Security down to the respective states, and let the states manage them, and decide their fates, going forward. That would not only be a great step, Constitutionally, in regards to states’ rights, but it would also allow our Federal Government to get back to the few things that they were initially created for, by our Founders; while, getting their own fiscal house in order! read more…

As most Americans are aware of, The First Amendment of The United States Constitution, contains these words:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

As Americans, we should be outraged by the horrific, and tragic, shootings, that took place, last weekend, in Tuscon, Arizona. And, we should all want our Representatives, and all members of Congress, to feel secure, when they are out seeing their constituents. However, even more frightening, in light of this tragedy, is some members of Congress, who think they have some right of ownership over our speech, and political discourse, are talking about creating new laws that would regulate certain types of political discourse in America! That would not only be outrageous, but very misguided, and very un-Constitutional!  

Everyday, I hear political discourse, and often from Congress themselves, that is infuriating, and divisive! However, I would never, in a 1000 years, go out and harm another person, simply because I don’t like what they are saying! 

Consider this:

So often, in the last two years, we hear members of The Democrat Party, in Congress, and The President, himself, perpetually bash rich people, and perpetuate this class-warfare, divisive, rhetoric. Now, God-forbid, if a poor person were to go out and start gunning down millionaires, can we call for a Federal investigation of members of Congress, for antagonizing murder? Of course not! Even the thought of it is ridiculous!

And, if Congress were given the ability to regulate speech, where would it end? And, how long would it be before they start regulating our religious freedoms? As our Founders, wisely, knew: such powers, in the hands of a central government, would undoubtedly become arbitrary, and inevitably, despotic! In fact, in countries where the Freedoms of Speech are suppressed, it is very likely that the bigger guns do prevail! Our Freedom of Speech, and free elections, are absolutely necessary for free people to vent their frustrations, and discontent, with their government; which, ultimately, prevents a free nation from digressing into a chaotic, and despotic, state! read more…

On June 12, 2010, Judge Andrew Napolitano launched his new show, Freedom Watch, on The Fox Business Network. On this show, I really appreciated this (below) discussion between The Judge, Congressman Ron Paul (Libertarian), and Sarah Palin (Conservative). I happen to really admire The Judge, Congressman Paul, and Sarah Palin, for their beliefs in our founding values, and our Constitution, as written, and understood, by our founders.

Due to the increasing size and scope of our Federal Government, and the increasing far-left agendas of The Obama Administration, there is no doubt, that even people who previously identified themselves as Conservatives, have increasingly moved further right, to a more Libertarian point of view. It is doubtful that our country could ever go back to a completely Libertarian state, as in the days of our founders, but it is great to see such a Constitutional awakening in our country, and a desire to move closer and closer to our founding values, and The Constitutional principles that made us such a great country, for so many years.

I have often said, “if a plant loses it’s roots,” then the plant could never survive. Conversely, if a country is too far removed from it’s foundation, then God only knows where it could lead. Sadly, the many problems that we are currently experiencing in The United States, is greatly due to the lack of prudence to our Constitution, by our Federal Government, over the last 100 or so years.

Please listen to this insightful and informative discussion:

–

–

On this episode of Glenn Beck, with a live studio audience, Glenn does a historical review of the different political philosophies in The United States…

Through various Constitutional questions, and explanations by Judge Andrew Napolitano, they help the audience, and viewers, begin to guage where they fall, in the political spectrum, in United States’ politics.

The entire show is very interesting, educational, and certainly worth watching…

Enjoy!

–

–

I believe, a very fundamental truth in respects to conservatism, in The United States, is a firm belief in the wisdom of our founders, and our founding documents. The Constitution was written to be the law of the land, and all subsequent laws were to likely have it’s foundation based on The Constitution. Also, through our founder’s great wisdom, they set forth a fair process for which amendments to The Constitution can be made, through the consensus of several states. As a conservative who believes in our Constitution, and founding principles, I do believe that each and every law that is being considered by Congress, “must” have a constitutional mandate to even proceed forward in the legislative process.

I don’t consider myself a hyper-partisan, in regards to party politics, but increasingly, I am having less and less tolerance for these so-called progressives who seem to completely disregard, even have a disdain for our Constitution, and founding principles. I have heard Barack Obama himself talk about the incompleteness of our Constitution. Really? So is the inference that our founders were not competent enough to consider the necessary factors? Or, subconsciously, would you like to toss the Constitution to the wind, and create laws as you and other progressives see fit? If that is the progressive thought process, then in my mind, that is a true subversion of our Constitution, and of the very system of governance that our founders set in motion.

I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating: If all of Congress were forced to create laws that are in line with The Constitution, as opposed to a bunch of renegade laws, I think we could get back to some uniformity and well-needed continuity in this nation. It is not hard to imagine, if all of Congress, in both parties, were forced to follow the same rule book, increasingly, the gap between both major parties would begin to narrow.

Mark

With the free market, we consumers have the power to financially boycott a particular company if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services; therefore, wouldn’t it stand to reason, if the federal government is so insistent on taking over our free market system of commerce, then shouldn’t we, the consumers, have the power to financially boycott the federal government as well, if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services?

We, as citizens of The United States, now have two very large powers that we often take for granted: One is the ability to vote for the candidates that we feel best represents us, and the other is the power to purchase, or not purchase from a particular merchant if we are not happy with their prices or services. If we, collectively, bond together, we can actually force prices to go down, if we decided not to purchase from a particular merchant.

Now, if the government were to takeover the business of health care in this country, and takes our money, via income tax, what recourse do we have if we are not satisfied with the services that are being provided?

In the free market, we have discretionary spending, and through income tax, sadly, you would be considered breaking the law, if you decided that you don’t want to participate in a federally-mandated program, and refuse to pay taxes.

Of course, everyone can draw their own conclusions, but as for me, I’d rather retain my rights to continue or end a service, at any given time.

In a nation such as ours, we are very blessed, and should be careful “not” to take our freedoms for granted; they can be here today and gone tomorrow.