The Judge is working hard to get off of Fox Business and onto Fox News Channel, because they have much better ratings, but he's as charismatic as a soggy doughnut and as quacky as Glenn Beck. He's been hammering away at not raising the debt ceiling for months now and he has the full stable of FN Pundits at his disposal.

Here's his latest attack on our social safety nets, programs that we pay into by the way. He likes to quote the Founding Fathers quite a bit, but dismisses Presidents who saw American seniors dying in the streets and average Americans struggling to live with bad health before and after the stock market crash and were smart enough to do something about it. It took a while to do, but they've been tremendous for our society. The CapoNapo is making the argument that the US is stealing from you.

Napolitano Asks Why The US Should Provide Emergency Health Care, Compares It To Theft And Slaveryor won't pay for it themselves, that's slavery.

Napolitano: When the government forces hospitals and physicians to provide free health care for those who can't. That's why we have constitutionally chaos now. The government steals and enslaves and we outlawed that a long time ago.

DOWNLOADS: (340)

PLAYS: (10131)

Embed

I'm not sure what "LessGovernment" has to do with Al Jazeera, but Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck's bookers took the opportunity to let their spokesmouth, Seton Motley (yes, that IS his name), come on and "analyze" them after Hillary Clinton's remarks and praise of their broadcasts.

Mr. Motley starts out with some incoherence about campaigning in prose and broadcasting in Arabic before launching into an indictment of Hillary Clinton as a "leftist" who likes "leftist reporting". Oh, and then there's that thing about how Al Jazeera is no different than any US mainstream outlet because they all bash the Tea Party.

NAPOLITANO: ...can get real news around the clock. Is Secretary Clinton right? Is Al Jazeera one of the few sources left for real news and should we welcome it here in America? Here now to discuss is Seton Motley, president of Less Government. Well that's a great name for your organization - Less Government. Seton, welcome back to the Glenn Beck program. What is she talking about? Is Al Jazeera to be trusted? In English? Or in another language?

MOTLEY: Well, there's an old campaign saw. You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose, and Al Jazeera campaigns in English and governs in Arabic. And if you're watching Al Jazeera Arabic you get a whole different perspective on what's going on over there than what you do over here. Part of the reason it hasn't taken off greater here in America - the English version - is because it's just like ABC, NBC, CBS. I watched segments today where they're just bashing the Tea Party just like NBC does, ABC does, so there's no difference.

Alrighty then. It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the refusal of all cable providers to actually CARRY Al Jazeera, right? No, it's just because they're no different than the others. I'm truly not sure that this guy has ever really watched Al Jazeera for any length of time, but get a load of his next "analysis".

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (422)

PLAYS: (2702)

Embed

This exchange is odious. I thought Glenn Beck was bad -- bad enough that he may be in danger of getting booted from Fox News -- but in 40 seconds or so, hater-spook Michael Scheuer just laid down some of the most disgusting commentary I've ever heard. (Scheuer, in case you've forgotten, wished for another terrorist attack on the USA so we'd "learn")

Let's start with reality, then I'll give you the transcript. Reality in Libya is that entire cities are being wiped off the map as Moammar Gadhafi cracks down on freedom fighters. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is a dictator in decline but he has no regard for his people and has no problem killing those who seek his exile and/or death. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is brutal, insane, and responsible for more acts of terrorism in the past three weeks than any other country in the last 30 years. This is before we get to the question of the Lockerbie crash and Gadhafi's hand in that.

This is who the man is. And the US response to his mayhem has been remarkably measured. Via The Hill:

Obama, in remarks with visiting Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, said he wanted “to send a very clear message” to those around Moammar Gadhafi.

“It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward, and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there,” Obama said.

The president’s tough words come as Obama and his administration cautiously weigh further steps, including military action, in the country.

Obama on Monday greenlighted an additional $15 million in emergency funds for humanitarian assistance, and the North Atlantic Council of NATO — meeting daily this week — is still considering other military options. Obama has made it clear he will not pursue military intervention unilaterally.

We've sent humanitarian aid. We're a member of NATO. Libya's unrest threatens the UK and other key allies. And Gadhafi is indulging his thirst for genocide.

Now this is what CIA counterterrorism expert and professional hater Scheurer says is the motive for 'considering military options':

NAPOLITANO: How much of a threat is Moammar Gadhafi to the United States of America at the present time?

SCHEUER: Zero, sir.

NAPOLITANO: Then what would be the basis -- moral, political, economic -- for the American president to threaten military action against him?

SCHEUER: Arrogance and racism is the answer. Every time Obama opens his mouth he sounds like a combination of Kipling and Woodrow Wilson. He's gonna teach our little brown brothers how to vote and how to elect people. He's really a tragedy for America, he's gonna get more of our kids killed in wars that we can't get out of once we start.

I can't remember the last time I heard something so unAmerican and downright hateful spoken as though it were fact. As though it were FACT! Arrogance and racism? Really? Wow, who is this guy and who publishes his books? And why should we trust ANYONE who was a career spook?

Fox is pretty cagy about how they present things, and Scheuer is happy to accomodate. On the one hand, he gets to call the President uppity and racist while on the other, singing the anti-war songs. Hey. The guy is ex-CIA. Is there really any reason to accord him any credibility whatsoever? When you've spent 20 years manipulating people, a Fox appearance is just a brush-up of the chops, not serious commentary.

Who exactly is the racist here? I think it's not the President.

The shameless Judge Napolitano actually calls Michele Bachmann a constitutional expert? If she's a constitutional expert, I'm the queen of the world.

An example of her deep constitutional knowledge, right here:

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." -Rep. Rep. Michele Bachmann, March 2009

(h/t PoliticsUSA)

Fortunately, Tarryl Clark is challenging Bachmann hard. If that loony-tunes is sent home in November I could almost live with whatever else happens.

DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (1983)

Embed

Well, you can't say Andrew Breitbart doesn't have an active imagination.

The Hollywood right-winger went on Glenn Beck's Fox News show yesterday -- guest-hosted by Judge Napolitano -- and proposed the following conspiracy theory: The White House is collecting e-mail addresses so it can send out "netroots gangs" to physically attack and intimidate its critics.

Breitbart: Well, what people need to understand here is that they're being community organized. And the White House absolutely understands how the Internet works, and understands that there are countless blogs, Media Matters, the Daily Kos, which are collecting information and putting out the disinformation.

What the White House wants to do is create a hierarchy of who its enemies are. Every week, or periodically, they meet with the netroots. And the netroots acts as an action gang that can go out there and attack the enemies of the president and attack the enemies -- the, the, the people who would attack his plan.

So it is vital for this White House to find out who its enemies are, and then to sic its gang of netroots people on the American people.

Breitbart goes on to contend that the non-prosecution of two Black Panthers for polling-place violations was connected to this conspiracy:

Breitbart: That sends a direct message to the netroots people out there: Don't worry, this administration has our back. Those people that would community organize on behalf of the president and his initiatives will be protected.

Yeah, I should have guessed that black-radicals/liberal geek connection from the Black Panthers booth at Netroots Nation last week.

Wotta maroon.

DOWNLOADS: (1217)

PLAYS: (1792)

Embed

Judge Andrew Napolitano sat in as the guest host yesterday on Glenn Beck's Fox News show, and featured a segment devoted to the notion that the hate-crimes legislation currently before the Senate might somehow be abused to undermine Americans' free-speech rights. His guest was David Rittgers of the Cato Institute.

There is, however, a problem right off the bat with their thesis: The bill in question -- the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) -- contains specific language designed to ensure that the bill is never construed in such a fashion:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.

Any honest discussion of this aspect of the legislation would have to bring this language into consideration -- but it's never mentioned by either Napolitano or Rittgers. Rittgers has written about it at Cato -- mostly objecting on the basis of concerns about federalism -- and similarly omits any discussion of the bill's actual language (which also explicitly recognizes the primary role of the states and local jurisdictions).

Watch instead what Napolitano and Rittgers do in the course of this discussion: they bring in a totally unrelated piece of legislation -- the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act", which is indeed highly dubious from a constitutional point of view -- as though it were part and parcel of the same hate-crimes legislation issues -- even though the two laws have nothing to do with each other.

And then they return almost seamlessly to the federalism and double-jeopardy issues around the LLEHCPA -- Napolitano just refers briefly to "this legislation," but it's quickly clear they're discussing not the Megan Meier bill, which does not raise such issues, but rather the LLEHCPA. It's all so muddied up that anyone watching the show could easily conclude that they're somehow packaged together.

Moreover, the double-jeopardy problems -- as we've explained in some detail -- are largely nonexistent, or rather simply reflect the ongoing debate over "dual sovereignty doctrine," which involves many more issues than merely bias crimes.

The ACLU strongly supports this bill, despite its usual concerns over double jeopardy, and if you look the bill's actual language, you can see why:

Continue reading »