Must watch: Ralph Nader interviews Andrew Napolitano on C-SPAN's "After Words"

Tom Usher wrote or added | Thanks to Scott Horton for pointing me to this interview of Andrew Napolitano by Ralph Nader. I encourage people of all ideologies to view it. Please feel free to comment here as well.

Napolitano gave a brilliant answer regarding abortion.

He transitioned fairly well into the illicit- or illegal-drug area, which also has a great deal to do with the "cult of the pharmaceutical industry" with its high priest and priestesses (crony capitalism).

There are issues of competing interests (state versus individual) concerning drugs that he did address, as with pointing out that the state has a right, even obligation, to step in to prevent injuries to others by intoxicated drivers and operators, etc. However, there is the issue of the longer-term injury to society by reason of the less obvious "harm" to others caused by prematurely degrading health — mental and/or otherwise. Who picks up the costs, not just in dollars but to children in the same house who are harmed every bit as much as by accidents of operation within the home? Andrew touched on it, but didn't make clear why the protection starts, or stops, at the individual home's boundary lines.

Andrew starts to break down on the issue of food safety and governmental inspection/regulation. When Ralph asks why the insurance companies don't get in there and Andrew says it's because the government does (hence the insurance companies rely upon the government), he really isn't being as logical as he appears to want to believe that he is. There is no reason the insurance companies don't get in there other than that they are using their stats that tell them that it doesn't pay. However, we all probably believe that that's just being shortsighted, but the insurance company executives and investors don't live forever. They want theirs now, and they are leaving the next generations to worry about it — the consequences manifesting in that future as a result of stupidity that is selfishness now.

I do think Andrew is showing deeper, unselfish thinking when he stands opposed to "tort reform." I wrote a speech decades ago, for someone who will remain unnamed here, in which I pointed out that punitive damages are one of the only ways available to people to change the practices of the recklessly selfish. Today, I am now a Christian and do not hold with "punitive" or otherwise. I seek the law written on every heart. However, those of tort reform really do not have the interests of the general population at heart but the interests of the wealthiest professionals, the medical doctors. The argument is often couched in terms that pit doctors and their insurance carriers against trial lawyers, and there is much of that embedded; but the real issue goes to the core of whether or not we practice the law of the Good Samaritan, whether individually or collectively, a distinction I would prefer not exist.

Andrew does demonstrate here something that separates him from the bulk of the "conservative Republicans," and that is that he uses the more enlightened unselfish portions of his brain matter (frontal and temporal lobes — nearly uniquely human). He does put himself in other people's shoes — suffering people. Unfortunately, the hard-hearted do not do this until they suffer directly, and sometimes not even then.

He calls out that Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago {not a good sign(?) — think Chicago Boys and Chilean fascism under Pinochet} and that he therefore has no excuse of ignorance regarding the President not having the power to assassinate Americans upon some mere suspicion or to torture anyone.

It's disgusting to hear the silence of the "left" (not all) and Blue Dogs ("Dogs" is apt) and the DLC, etc., about Obama. I am totally fed up with this neocon garbage. This is where the expression, the "silence is deafening" applies. It screams out "selfish!!!!" It screams out that there is not a dime's worth of substantive difference between Democratic Party and Republican Party on war. In fact, I know that the Democrats are "better" at making war than are the Republicans. Andrew doesn't seem to see that, however, as he names the Republicans as principally the War Party.

Don't you love how Ralph Nader and Andrew Napolitano don't talk over the top of each other? I think the interview (less a debate), shows how it should be done.

Napolitano also beats back all attempts to "prove" that Tea Partiers are inherently racist. There is not a racist bone in his body. I don't mean to suggest that there aren't racists in the "Tea Party," but there are racist socialists and Communists too. Let's grow up here and face the issues inherent in the false spectrum of a vaguely defined left versus right. I commend Alex Jones on this point, even though Alex is not on the level of Nader and Napolitano — but only due to circumstances and audience. Alex was, and remains, capable of grasping both the complexities and simpleness of these issues. It's simply a matter of exposure. So let's not censor these discussions, as so many on both ends of the false spectrum so desperately clamor to do.

Andrew misspoke in saying that only the President has the authority to declare war. He meant to say that only the Congress has that authority. Ralph may not have caught it or simply didn't want to interrupt the train of thought by pointing it out.

Andrew's false-flag info is terrific. Ralph doesn't argue against any of it. We know Ralph agrees with Andrew about it; but the "left," many of who say they see through Obama (now; finally) still won't go there and, in fact, call us all "nuts," or on the other side of the pond, "nutters." What's up with that, to use Obama's familiarity sentiment on them?

I've routinely raised this false-flag fact on various Facebook threads where once the discussion gets to the meat, the left (including those now opposed to Obama) flakes out, disappears, and goes dark and silent. It's pathetic.

What wasn't mentioned in the interview was 9/11 in terms of any hints of false-flag. It was, of course, deliberately avoided — a real shame — intellectually and academically cowardly. Let's be brutally honest about it while we "lionize" these two.

Oh, I like it when Andrews says the bailouts were "taking from the poor and taking from the rich and giving it to the superrich who were the government's friends": plutocracy! I think William K. Black and Andrew Napolitano should compare notes. If you can get them on your show together, Scott, be sure to message me about the where and when.

There is, of course, a great deal more there that I could have addressed. The topics touched upon fundamental issues.

I lean to Ralph's mundane views about government, but there is much where Andrew and Ralph agree. I believe in good government and that if it's good, size is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is "good."

Betty Molchany

I listened to it on my car radio, Tom. It was excellent.

15 hours ago • Like •

Tom Usher

I agree, Betty. I think the two of them are to be commended for getting together that way. I was wondering if there would be an awkward moment, but one never arrived.

I do wish people on that level would not be afraid though to say more often that there are important unanswered questions regarding US governmental complicity in the events of 9/11. They are too politic. I want that to change. I want truth to be everything. They don't have to change into yelling hotheads. They just need to be less afraid of what others will think. Ralph tried to come across as pressing Andrew to see where the limits are on self-censorship — would he do it; but Ralph's balls were not all that fast or hard. I think it was still slow-pitch softball. At the very least, you'd think that they'd push for a new investigation simply because the 9/11 Commission was so, so bad.

It is obvious though that Andrew Napolitano is vastly more intelligent and thoughtful and caring than the left makes him out to be. I've seen lefties call him names as if he can't put two ideas together. Many of the same people will speak highly of Ralph Nader though while Nader obviously has a fairly high impression of Andrew.

Of course, many on the left hold it against Nader that Gore lost. Nader had nothing to do with Gore's loss though, as Andrew Napolitano made clear. Anyway, Nader would have made a better President (vision wise) than Gore would have. They all should have wanted Ralph over Al. They compromise and end up with one Barack Obama after another.

I'm not saying that I think Al is anywhere near the evil one the libertarian capitalists try to make him out to be. He was though way too conservative for me.

8 hours ago • Like •


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.