judge-andrew-napolitano

The NSA now freely admits that it listens to every phone call made on every telephone land line or cell and reads every email and every text made in or passing through or originating from the United States [and beyond that keeps it for a period of time] yes, yes, they keep it for over six years.
—  Judge Andrew Napolitano on TGBP 9-11-13, 30 mins in-ish

First they came for the ████,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ████.

Then they came for the ████ ████,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ████ ████.

Then they came for the ████,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ████.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

—  Judge Andrew Napolitano
youtube

The Declaration IS LAW, & The 16th & 17th Amendments

Numbers don’t lie. From 1790 to 1913, when the federal government existed without a Federal Reserve to print money and lend to the government whatever it wanted, the value of the dollar rose by 8 %. From 1913 to 2011, in the 98 years we have had a Federal Reserve, the value of the dollar has decreased by 93%.
—  Judge Andrew Napolitano
At the dawn on the twentieth century, Wall Street was losing power in the banking industry. Powerhouses like J. P. Morgan and the Rockefellers were losing significant market share to the new banks arising in the West…Wall Street needed the government to help it to devise a way to capture the market once more and put an end to these smaller banks. To answer their quandaries, they devised the Federal Reserve. It is a rights-violating, property-stealing, unconstitutional cartel that is sponsored by the government, which is the only thing which makes it legal.
—  Judge Andrew Napolitano
Numbers don’t lie. From 1790 to 1913, when the federal government existed without a Federal Reserve to print money and lend to the government whatever it wanted, the value of the dollar rose by 8 %. From 1913 to 2011, in the 98 years we have had a Federal Reserve, the value of the dollar has decreased by 93%.
—  Judge Andrew Napolitano

OPINION:The President’s private war

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Did you know that the United States government is using drones to kill innocent people in Pakistan? Did you know that the Pakistani government has asked President Obama to stop it and he won’t? Did you know that Pakistan is a sovereign country that has nuclear weapons and is an American ally?

Last week, the Obama administration not only acknowledged the use of the drones; it also revealed that it has plans to increase the frequency and ferocity of the attacks. White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan argued that these attacks are “in full accordance with the law” and are not likely to be stopped anytime soon. 

Brennan declined to say how many people were killed or just where the killings took place or who is doing it. But we know that Obama has a morbid fascination with his plastic killing machines, and we know that these machines are among the favored tools of the CIA. We also know that if the president had been using the military to do this, he’d be legally compelled to reveal it to Congress and eventually to seek permission.

We know about the need to tell Congress and ask for permission because of the War Powers Act. This law, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, permits the president to use the military for 90 days before telling Congress and for 180 days before he needs congressional authorization. Obama must believe that he can bypass this law by using civilian CIA agents, rather than uniformed military, to do his killing.

The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. In this case of Pakistan, the president has neither. And international law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent. But Brennan argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 to enable President Bush to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, is essentially carte blanche for any president to kill whomever he wants, and that the use of drones, rather than the military or rather than arresting those the government believes have conspired to harm us, is a “surgical” technique that safeguards the innocent.

Attorney General Eric Holder made a similar unconstitutional argument a few months ago when he stated in defense of the president’s using drones to kill Americans in Yemen that the AUMF, plus the careful consideration that the White House gives to the dimensions of each killing and the culpability of each person killed, somehow satisfied the Constitution’s requirements for due process.

What monstrous nonsense all this is.

These killings 10,000 miles from here hardly constitute self-defense and are not in pursuit of a declaration of war. So, what has Congress done about this? Nothing. And what have the courts done about this? Nothing. 

Prior to the president’s ordering the killing of the New Mexico-born and unindicted and uncharged Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Awlaki’s American father sued the president in federal district court and asked a judge to prevent the president from murdering his son in Yemen. After the judge dismissed the case, a CIA-fired drone killed al-Awlaki and his American companion and his 16-year-old American son.

In his three-plus years in office, Obama has launched 254 drones toward persons in Pakistan, and they collectively have killed 1,277 persons there. The New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that monitors the presidential use of drones in Pakistan, estimates that between 11 and 17 percent of the drone victims are innocent Pakistani civilians. So much for Brennan’s surgical strikes. So much for Holder’s due process.

The president is waging a private war against private persons — even Americans — whose deaths he obviously believes will keep America safe. But he is doing so without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution, and in a manner that jeopardizes our freedom. 

Who will keep us safe from a president who wants to use drones here? How long will it be before local American governments — 313 of which already possess drones — use them to kill here because they are surgical and a substitute for due process? Can you imagine the outcry if Cuba or China launched drones at their dissidents in Florida or California and used Obama’s behavior in Pakistan as a justification?

How long will it be before even the semblance of our Constitution is gone?

*The views in this article are neither condemned or endorsed by FNN. Any writer at FNN is entitled to their own opinion, but none of these views represent a hidden agenda by this news blog.*

While the nation’s political class has been fixated on the government shutdown in Washington this week, the National Security Agency (NSA) has continued to spy on all Americans and, by its ambiguity and shrewd silence, seems to be acknowledging slowly that the scope of its spying is truly breathtaking.

The Obama administration is of the view that the NSA can spy on anyone, anywhere. The president thinks that federal statutes enable the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to authorize the NSA to capture any information it desires about any persons without identifying the persons and without a showing of probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the persons to be spied upon. This is the same mindset that the British government had with respect to the colonists. It, too, thought that British law permitted a judge in secret in Britain to issue general warrants to be executed in the Colonies at the whim of British agents.

General warrants do not state the name of the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, and they do not have the necessity of individualized probable cause as their linchpin. They simply authorize the bearer to search wherever he wishes for whatever he wants. General warrants were universally condemned by colonial leaders across the ideological spectrum — from those as radical as Sam Adams to those as establishment as George Washington, and from those as individualistic as Thomas Jefferson to those as big-government as Alexander Hamilton. We know from the literature of the times that the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment — with its requirements of individualized probable cause and specifically identifying the target — is to prohibit general warrants.

Yet the FISA court has been issuing general warrants, and the NSA executing them since at least 2004.

Last week, we learned in a curious colloquy between members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and Gen. Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney General James Cole that it is more likely than not that the FISA court has permitted the NSA to seize not only telephone, Internet and texting records, but also utility bills, credit card bills, banking records, social-media records and digital images of mail, and that there is no upper limit on the number of Americans’ records seized or the nature of those records.

The judges of the FISA court are sworn to secrecy. They can’t even possess the records of what they have done. There is no case or controversy before them. There is no one before them to oppose what the NSA seeks. They don’t listen to challenged testimony. All of this violates the Constitution because it requires a real case or controversy before the jurisdiction of federal courts may be invoked. So when a FISA court judge issues an opinion declaring that NSA agents may spy to their hearts’ content, such an opinion is meaningless because it did not emanate out of a case or controversy. It is merely self-serving rhetoric, unchallenged and untested by the adversarial process. Think about it: Without an adversary, who will challenge the NSA when it exceeds the “permission” given by the FISA court or when it spies in defiance of “permission” denied? Who will know?

For this reason, the FISA court is unconstitutional at best, and not even a court at worst. It consists of federal judges administratively approving in secret the wishes of the government. By not adjudicating a dispute, which is all that federal judges can do under the Constitution, these judges are not performing a judicial function. Rather, they are performing a clerical or an executive one, neither of which is contemplated by the Constitution.

Yet the president, his secret agents and the politicians who support them would have you believe that the NSA’s spying has been approved by bona fide federal courts. It has not. Does the Constitution permit the federal government to put us all under a microscope? It does not. The government is supposed to work for us and derive its powers from the consent of the governed. Do you know anyone who consented to all this? I do not.

The traditional bar that the government must meet in order to begin gathering data on any of us is individualized, articulable suspicion about criminal behavior. The purpose of that requirement is to prevent witch hunts and inquisitions and knocks on doors in the night. Without that bar, there are no limits as to whom the feds can pursue.

What will become of us if the feds can watch our every move, hear our every conversation, learn our every expenditure, read our every email, find out what we eat, whom we love and how we live? There are well over 4,500 federal crimes. The feds can find something wrong that anyone has done. Stalin’s chief of secret police, the monster Lavrenti Beria, once famously proclaimed: “Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.” History teaches that a government on a witch hunt, unconstrained by law or Constitution, will not stop until it can brand someone as a witch. And an unbridled inquisition will not stop until it finds a heretic. The Constitution simply can never entrusted the people who run the government with this awesome power. Rather, in the Fourth Amendment, it prohibited it.

If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — which are the stated reasons for forming the United States of America in the first place — means anything, its means that we all possess the inalienable right to be different and the inalienable right to be left alone. Neither of these rights can be honored when the government knows all. When the government knows all and doesn’t like what it knows, we will have an authoritarian state far more odious than any other that history has ever known.

On the face of an all-knowing secret government are large and awful eyes — and no smile.

youtube

Drug War Update with Judge Andrew Napolitano

We all have the natural right to put into our bodies whatever we want!

Cannabis is found in the home of the director of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, a grandmother is arrested for purchasing Sudafed, and the Judge catches up with Ethan Nadelmann (of the Drug Policy Alliance) on the status of the cannabis legalization movement.