Andrew Napolitano exposed in his own words.

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Why do a topic on Andrew Napolitano here? He is someone who is supposedly respected by those in the conspiracy theory circle. There are people on both the right and the left that think that he is one of the more respectable fox news commentators. I want to show two videos that expose Andrew Napolitano for what he really is. Right wing commentators like Andrew Napolitano make arguments in favor of individual freedom and economic freedom- which is completely fine to do. But what they do- is they hide behind the constitution- and claim that the constitution was created to prevent the government from regulating the economy. Article 1 section 8 grants congress powers to regulate the economy, and, Andrew Napolitano and others are corporate shills that overlook this fact. It's one thing to argue for economic freedom... it's another thing to say that the constitution prevents the government from regulating it.



See? Andrew Napolitano doesn't care about the taxpayers here. All he cares about is the corporations and their bloody contracts. No, it doesn't matter that AIG has taken taxpayer money. What matters is that they get to keep their fair share, and, get to keep our taxpayer money at our expense. Andrew Napolitano- then says that telling the banks they'll be audited is akin to a threat, and, he says that if anyone touches the banks and tries to open them up- it's like the Soviet Union.

HOW DARE WE ASK FOR TRANSPARENCy OF BANKS- BE IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT- OR FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR FROM A RATING AGENCY? HOW DARE WE? IT IS EXTORTION!

Yeah, you get my drift. You can't really trust anyone in the media. You should only trust yourself.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Frankidealist35]




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Too true, this needs some attention, but in the haven of neocons ATS is becoming it'd gonna be hard to get this heard. I know so many that watch fox news just because they are Republican. People needs to think for themselves and not spout the regurgitated tripe of some "news" agency.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 





But what they do- is they hide behind the constitution- and claim that the constitution was created to prevent the government from regulating the economy. Article 1 section 8 grants congress powers to regulate the economy, and, Andrew Napolitano and others are corporate shills that overlook this fact. It's one thing to argue for economic freedom... it's another thing to say that the constitution prevents the government from regulating it.


You need to read Article 1 section 8 CAREFULLY. Here is the operative phrase you refer to:


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


It says that the government has the right to regulate commerce WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.

Translation- The government has the right to regulate commerce BETWEEN the US and FOREIGN NATIONS, AND BETWEEN STATES, in other words, REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

It says NOTHING about regulating the companies in their dealings within a corporation relating to things such as SALARY, BONUSES, or any other issue.

You are severely twisting what article 8 says.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


You are refering to the commerce clause, which says "congress shall regulate commerce between states." Regulate had a slightly different meaning in the 18th century, long before government absconded the term. It meant "to make regular." Basically, to encourage interstate commerce, specifically to make sure states didn't get into a tarrif war.
This clause does not give congress dominion over all business related activities. The constitution has 17 enumerated powers. The constitution places limits on the power of federal government, giving the bulk of powers to the states. The purpose of congress is primarily to raise an army, secure borders and make laws designed to make streets safe in a somewhat uniform manner. That's it. Period. No healthcare police, no banking takeover, in fact, no income tax, until it was bastardized by the 16th ammendment. No voting if you don't have a stake in the country. Problem is, as they knew, when you let under achievers vote, they vote to confiscate the wealth of the achievers. Consequently, we get guys who actually have no idea what the constitution means, but promote socialist and marxist philosophies because they think they can get away with it. Obama and Lincoln will have one thing in common though......they will both have started a civil war.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Napolitano was against bailing out the banks in the first place.He sees government interference as one of the main problems of the recession/depression.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I think you are taking this out of context. When discussing the audit he says quite clear in the video audits are completely legal, it is the threat(strong arm tactic) to use an audit as punishment for not complying with the government. It is also misleading for you to say he thinks that about banks when he was clearly referring to the specific bank that did not want to take any taxpayer money because they stayed out of all the financial mess. It certainly is a two way street in your reference to transparency though, many of the moves our government has made in an attempt to deal with the mess have been quite frankly on the verge of what you would expect from the Soviet Union. Stealing wealth in the name of the people, when in reality they are taking steps to preserve power and control over the citizens and companies of the US, as well as crafting a more assertive position on the world stage...but I forgot...it is the Fox News Broadcaster who is the bad guy...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
well, that is why people shouldnt get caught up in following the leader and just running with what other people say.

compared to other journalists out there, napolitano is pretty good. but he isnt perfect. im sure he has many different view points we wouldnt agree with if he shared them.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I do not quite understand what the OP is getting at, am I being told that an individual who is a commentator for a corporation is just a cheerleader?
I do not see how any of the talk in this video is relevant to any real world event.
Sure it mentions banks and they are real, they mention people and people are real.
But anything you hear on the news is just Professional Wrestling, designed to make us feel one way or another depending on how the PTB are swinging this week.
They are all Cheerleaders and or Wrestlers.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 

Not only are banks real, and people are real, there is no doubt..we see them on TV...
and everyone knows it ain't real until it's seen on TV.

Have you seen your money on tV?
If you do, that might be the exception that proves the rule.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 




HOW DARE WE ASK FOR TRANSPARENCy OF BANKS- BE IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT- OR FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR FROM A RATING AGENCY? HOW DARE WE? IT IS EXTORTION!


I hate to be rude, but you need to watch the video again. You are only hearing what you want to hear.

He says the Fed's used to threat of a public audit directly in order to coerce them into taking the TARP money. This isn't about the audit at all. The banks are already audited fairly often. It is about using the threat of a lawful action to force the bank to take money it doesn't want.

This would be like a police officer who caught you speeding telling you that he won't write you a ticket if you sell him your favorite jacket.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Do you really think the framers were that stupid- and that they didn't address the issue of regulating the national the economy in the constitution? Article 1 section 8 may have indirectly applied to commerce among the several states, and, between other nations- and with trade- but the founding fathers wanted one of congress' chief duties- to regulate the national economy. They felt that the individual states should do their own particular matters but that congress should be regulating the economy as a whole. You should read the Federalist Papers. The idea the framers didn't want congress to regulate the economy is a complete myth and a fabricated lie by right wing business leaders who have never read the constitution! I'm not saying the government should regulate the economy- but that the constitution doesn't prevent them from doing so.

Also, if you're going to be accepting public funds- I fail to see how telling a bank that they're going to be audited is a threat. It seems to me that if you're going to be taking taxpayers money- you would naturally avail yourself to more transparency than if you were relying only on private funds.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 





Do you really think the framers were that stupid- and that they didn't address the issue of regulating the national the economy in the constitution? Article 1 section 8 may have indirectly applied to commerce among the several states, and, between other nations- and with trade- but the founding fathers wanted one of congress' chief duties- to regulate the national economy. They felt that the individual states should do their own particular matters but that congress should be regulating the economy as a whole.


Actually, the Founding Fathers were quite brilliant, so brilliant, in fact, that if they WANTED to stipulate that the economy should be regulated, they would have SAID it DIRECTLY.

Again, you need to actually READ the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
regulating commerce means the government must protect against fraud, that is at least what Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano believe, and since the government is fraud, I'd say it's safe to say they are doing a horrible job. So the government can regulate commerce, that's fine, so long as we have all our rights remaining in tact. the constitution is divided in two, the legal power of the government, combined with constitutional rights, so as long as one is not contradicting the other, everything is fine. government should regulate commerce, Ron Paul and A. Napolitano are not anarchists, and although people claim they are for the corporations, they are against the government sponsored corporations, those "too big to fail/too big to be productive" corporations and banks. I think that just because government is allowed to regulate the commerce does not mean they can shut down the free market. Regulation is creating laws to make business run smoothly, namely to protect against fraud, regulation does not mean shutting down business, unless it is the mob doing the regulation.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join