The video above is of Judge Napolitano. I used to see him sometimes on Fox News, but I think he was mostly on Fox Business, which I don’t get. However, he disappeared. Supporting youtubes to the one above claim that he was fired shortly after this episode of his show because he was promoting Ron Paul. I have no inside information, but he only mentions Ron Paul a couple of times at the end of the video. Plus – how can Ron Paul be a threat – he keeps running, but he never comes anywhere close to winning. If Judge Napolitano did indeed get fired because of this video, I would guess it was because of the substance of what he was saying. Other than the Ron Paul references, he sounds an awful lot like a war-weary, but much wiser PUMA. I’ve transcribed his words below:
…participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes?
What if that establishment doesn’t want and doesn’t have the consent of the governed?
What if the two party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion?
What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you into a corner, one of THEIR corners?
What if there is no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his (sic) own?
What if what we call public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, then there’s something wrong with THAT, or there’s something wrong with THEM?
What if the whole purpose of the democratic and republican parties was not to expand voters’ choices, but to limit them?
What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion?
What if the heart of the government policy remains the same no matter WHO is in the White House?
What if the heart of government policy remains the same no matter what the people WANT?
What if those vaunted differences between democrat and republican were actually just minor disagreements?
What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power?
What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?
What if government policies didn’t change when government leaders did?
What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same?
What if government was really a revolving door for political hacks, bent on exploiting the people once they’re in charge?
What if both parties supported welfare, war, death, bailouts, and big government?
What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory?
What if Barack Obama campaigned as an anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate, and then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the constitution is supposed to protect?
What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of non-intervention and small government, and then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?
What if Bill Clinton declared that the “era of big government was over”, but actually just convinced republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what THEY want out of big government, too
What if the republicans went along with it?
What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink the government, but then the government GREW while he was in the White House?
What if, not withstanding Reagan’s ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution at all?
What if all this is happening again?
What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government, even though Senator Santorum voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare, and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars?
What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Barack Obama, but they don’t realize that Mitt Romney might as well BE Barack Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?
What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media, not because as they claim he’s unappealing or unelectable, but because he doesn’t fit into the pre-manufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate to create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?
What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style?
What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to reinforce the illusion of a difference between democrats and republicans?
What if Mitt Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Barack Obama promoted?
What if Barack Obama’s policies too, are merely extensions of those of George W. Bush?
What if a government that manipulated us could be FIRED?
What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed?
What if it were possible to have a real game changer?
What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from the government?
What if we can make elections matter again?
What if we could do something about this?
Granted, there are SOME specific differences between the parties – one of them is playing out right now, diverting the public’s attention from the economy. Certainly there are right wingers in the population who want “none of the above” and left wingers who want any abortions, even if it’s close to delivery time. But abortion and contraception are well-used wedge issues. Most people have a more nuanced, graduated opinion of abortion, not so different from each other, even across the aisle. The danger is to what extent the wingers and media will whip them up in a frenzy with a siren call back to the base, using lots of misconceptions and misleading arguments to turn the moderate temporarily wingish.
So, basically I’m getting more convinced that there isn’t much difference between the parties – not on the big things. They pull out these little (but not insignificant) wedge issues at election time, but I don’t think they are truly illustrative of a big chasm between the parties’ individual power structures. They’re not so much differences as they are useful tools. They sometimes even draw up new legislation, but most never see the light of day once the election has passed. It’s all a big game.
But if all these “what ifs” listed above are true – it’s more proof of why they had to cheat against Hillary in the caucuses and then steal her delegates on May 31, 2008 so that she could not have her win. I still can’t believe that the person who won the most primary votes in ANY primary of ANY party in the history of record keeping just could not be allowed to win. But a true public servant like Hillary would be working, as she has her whole life, based on her principles (look it up in the dictionary, Obama). She would be working for the PEOPLE, not playing the game. They could harass her, and rain on her all they could – but she wouldn’t run, she would stand , soaking wet, and keep fighting for what was right. And that couldn’t be allowed.
By EITHER party.