The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
More Culture Wars?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Because of the way the news business works, I am writing this column before the close of the polls in the so-called midterm elections, and hence as I write, I do not know their outcome. Will the Republicans or the Democrats control the U.S. Senate for the next two years? Will it make a difference?

The two major political parties are more alike than they are different. On the two paramount issues of our day — war and debt — they are identical. With the exception of Democratic progressives and Republican libertarians, the two parties stand for perpetual war and perpetual debt. Both stances increase the power of the government, and each invites present and future destruction.

A healthy society should avoid war at all costs, except when immediately vital for its own self-defense. A healthy government should pay its bills and not push them off to the next generation. Do you know any American whose freedom and safety have been enhanced or fortified because of all our empire building in the Middle East? Do you know that the federal government borrowed two trillion dollars to wage these wars and now spends twenty cents of every dollar in interest on its debt? Do you know that the congressional leadership and most of the rank and file of both political parties have brought this about?

There are two great freedoms being assaulted under the radar that will soon come to the fore: the freedom to live and the freedom to speak. Both parties use abortion as a litmus test. You want the Democratic nomination for any federal or state office; you need to support a woman’s right to abortion. You want the Republican nomination for any federal or state office; you better claim that you are pro-life.

I say “claim” because that’s all Republicans need to do to satisfy each other. If Republicans truly were pro-life, they’d have passed a one-paragraph statute when they ran the Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House that legally defined a fetus in the womb as a natural person. Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome — all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess self-directed humanity. But no such legislation ever came.
Since the Supreme Court denied personhood to every fetus in 1973, much as it had done to African-Americans in 1857, more than 44,000,000 babies have met the abortionists’ vacuum and scalpel. Will a newly revived Republican Congress address personhood to the abortionist in chief in the White House? Don’t hold your breath.

ORDER IT NOW

After the right to life, the next great freedom under siege is the freedom of speech. Here, too, both parties in Congress have failed us. When Congress in 2001 enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own search warrants in utter defiance and direct contradiction of the Fourth Amendment, which commands that only judges may do so, it also prohibited the recipients of agent-written search warrants from talking about them. At least a half-dozen federal judges have found this infringement of speech unconstitutional, yet federal agents who serve their own search warrants continue to threaten the recipients against talking to anyone about them. This, too, came about with the support of the leadership of both political parties in Congress.

Not content with commanding silence about search warrants, the Democrats in the Senate attempted to offer an amendment to the Constitution last summer, which, if ratified, would have weakened the First Amendment by permitting Congress and the states to punish the political speech of groups. Three years ago, the Supreme Court, in a case called Citizens United, held that free political speech is such a highly valued and constitutionally protected asset in American society that it may be enjoyed not only by individuals, but also by groups of two or more persons, such as labor unions, foundations, nonprofits, think tanks, partnerships and corporations.

Outraged that corporations can spend money to affect the outcome of campaigns, rejecting the concept that buying an advertisement in a newspaper or on TV is speech, and wanting to remove the word “free” from free speech, the Democrats attempted to circulate to the states an amendment to the Constitution that would have made the government the arbiter of acceptable political speech. Is Vladimir Putin consulting the Democrats?

Yet, did you hear any Republicans in the recent elections call out any Democrats for this stunt? The First Amendment has remained pristine since it was ratified in 1791, and the Democrats want to change that, and the Republicans have gone mute.

A lame duck President Obama facing a Congress he hates and fears may become reckless. We should expect that. But if somehow he facilitates the killing of more babies in their mothers’ wombs or the suppression of more political speech from his critics, what will a Republican Congress do? What is its track record?

Copyright 2014 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion, Civil Liberties 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
8 Comments to "More Culture Wars?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome — all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess self-directed humanity”

    No argument coming from me, Judge. The argument I have is the enslavement of too many women to count raising a child in poverty, struggling with loneliness, depression and perceived as damaged goods as single mothers… limiting their opportunities to move forward and raise children that will become constructive citizens:

    “Dear Diary, today I faced the choice of raising a child for a man who’s just told me he won’t be there for us, or terminating”

    Concerning these issues a man does not necessarily face, our conservative ethic is supposed to honor the commandment of Jesus: “Do not judge” in the spirit of ‘don’t throw stones.’ Many males have not evolved beyond what appears to justify Darwin; they will tell any lie to pass on their genes and then move on as though the impacted lives have no consequence. Fix that and you’ll have worked a true miracle. And perhaps have a justified moral authority to speak to a woman’s right to decide how to proceed with her dilemma, my opinion.

    Meanwhile, why not focus on aspects of our crumbling republic? Like how Jane (or Joe) Citizen are ripped off for their rights in a system where Congress routinely ignores the oath of office to uphold our constitution and instead defers to the courts where individual citizens cannot afford to secure their rights; when faced with the crushing stress of attorney fees that are financial ruin when up against the bottomless war chests of the state and the special interests that own our institutions? And the other numerous cheats perpetrated on our rule of law intended to benefit and protect the greater citizenry? Here’s some examples:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/23/if-the-left-are-sheep-the-right-are-fish/

    &

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/20/the-anti-federalist-urban-legend/

    Whether or not you agree with most of the rationale, if you find something you like, it’s yours, take it and run with it ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Metronomicon
    "The argument I have is the enslavement of too many women to count raising a child in poverty, struggling with loneliness, depression and perceived as damaged goods as single mothers… limiting their opportunities to move forward and raise children that will become constructive citizens..."

    The children are better off not existing than not becoming whatever you believe is a "constructive citizen".

    To paraphrase Jonathan Swift, you can solve both overpopulation and famine by eating your children. Because adoption services don't exist.

    Hallucinating up asinine, touching scanerios to rationalize it into a great moment of humanity, compassion, etc. helps a lot. Especially to justify mindless lechery.
    That's how demagogues roll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Kevin says:

    SOLUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S WAR ON
    THE PEOPLE: BINDING SUPERSEDING NATIONAL REFERENDA.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir.

    I think the root of the problem is that we do not have binding superseding national referenda, which even many 3rd world countries have. So we do NOT have real democracy in USA. And that is the root of the problem. This has allowed the govt. to terrorize the public.

    So there is one great solution: It is a constitutional amendment to allow irreversible binding superseding national referenda, so people can pass good laws in the national interest themselves. These laws will supersede laws passed by Congress or Parliaments and Sup. Ct. rulings cannot be overturned except on constitutional grounds by a supermajority of both houses and a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. The people can then still override it with a 66% vote. Some believe that this right to amend the constitution is inherently vested in the American people (the citizens of respective nations). Others suggest an actual amendment to the country’s constitution. A survey showed that 76% of the American public approved the idea.

    Even 3rd world countries have it–that is why they do not have the alien invasion. So many 3rd world countries have real democracy but the white countries do not! Isn’t that ironic?

    Laws that affect the nation as a whole, such as raising taxes, large welfare programs, foreign aid, immigration, bailouts, and raising the debt ceilings, etc. can become law only if finally approved by the people (by paper ballots and after proof of citizenship). We will solve 90% of our problems this way.

    For eg., see:

    http://ni4d.us/index.htm

    http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm

    We Americans (and Europeans and Australians and Canadians) need to visit these websites, join these groups, contribute and call radio talk shows, etc. and promote this idea and get the process started soon, before it is too late or America (and similarly Europe/Canada/Australia), as we know it, will be finished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I think the root of the problem is that we do not have binding superseding national referenda…
     
    How can you have a national referendum in a country without a national electorate? You'd have to create one.

    Unless you use something like the Electoral College (or reconvene the actual Electoral College), you're forced to override state voting laws to achieve uniformity. And that's un-American.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Kevin says:

    CORRECTED LINK FOR NATIONAL REFERENDA WEB-SITE:

    National Citizen’s Initiative for Democracy: http://ncid.us/index.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. ” Is Vladimir Putin consulting the Democrats?”

    For the Russian peoples’ sake, let’s hope not, as Boris Yeltsin disastrously did to the detriment of Russians’ well-being.

    If both duopoly parties don’t have anything to offer hope to “real” Americans – the 300 million of us without our own Washington lobbyists – how could they help make life better for those in foreign countries?

    It is tragic that two trillion was borrowed and squandered on failed foreign military adventures, instead of domestic infrastructure, and that the interest on that debt hobbles any attempt to make the improvements that are needed so our businesses that would employ us could flourish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Art says:

    A healthy society should avoid war at all costs, except when immediately vital for its own self-defense.

    Gee – we can see why the judge is not on Fox anymore. AIPAC/ADL/New American Century do not like that talk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. so-called midterm elections

    Yes! Someone else finally noticed the bogus nature of this epithet!

    These elections come at the end of the office’s term. Calling them “midterms” just serves someone else’s agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @Kevin
    SOLUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S WAR ON
    THE PEOPLE: BINDING SUPERSEDING NATIONAL REFERENDA.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir.

    I think the root of the problem is that we do not have binding superseding national referenda, which even many 3rd world countries have. So we do NOT have real democracy in USA. And that is the root of the problem. This has allowed the govt. to terrorize the public.

    So there is one great solution: It is a constitutional amendment to allow irreversible binding superseding national referenda, so people can pass good laws in the national interest themselves. These laws will supersede laws passed by Congress or Parliaments and Sup. Ct. rulings cannot be overturned except on constitutional grounds by a supermajority of both houses and a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. The people can then still override it with a 66% vote. Some believe that this right to amend the constitution is inherently vested in the American people (the citizens of respective nations). Others suggest an actual amendment to the country’s constitution. A survey showed that 76% of the American public approved the idea.

    Even 3rd world countries have it--that is why they do not have the alien invasion. So many 3rd world countries have real democracy but the white countries do not! Isn’t that ironic?

    Laws that affect the nation as a whole, such as raising taxes, large welfare programs, foreign aid, immigration, bailouts, and raising the debt ceilings, etc. can become law only if finally approved by the people (by paper ballots and after proof of citizenship). We will solve 90% of our problems this way.

    For eg., see:

    http://ni4d.us/index.htm
    http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm

    We Americans (and Europeans and Australians and Canadians) need to visit these websites, join these groups, contribute and call radio talk shows, etc. and promote this idea and get the process started soon, before it is too late or America (and similarly Europe/Canada/Australia), as we know it, will be finished.

    I think the root of the problem is that we do not have binding superseding national referenda…

    How can you have a national referendum in a country without a national electorate? You’d have to create one.

    Unless you use something like the Electoral College (or reconvene the actual Electoral College), you’re forced to override state voting laws to achieve uniformity. And that’s un-American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Ronald Thomas West
    "Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome — all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess self-directed humanity"

    No argument coming from me, Judge. The argument I have is the enslavement of too many women to count raising a child in poverty, struggling with loneliness, depression and perceived as damaged goods as single mothers... limiting their opportunities to move forward and raise children that will become constructive citizens:

    "Dear Diary, today I faced the choice of raising a child for a man who's just told me he won't be there for us, or terminating"

    Concerning these issues a man does not necessarily face, our conservative ethic is supposed to honor the commandment of Jesus: "Do not judge" in the spirit of 'don't throw stones.' Many males have not evolved beyond what appears to justify Darwin; they will tell any lie to pass on their genes and then move on as though the impacted lives have no consequence. Fix that and you'll have worked a true miracle. And perhaps have a justified moral authority to speak to a woman's right to decide how to proceed with her dilemma, my opinion.

    Meanwhile, why not focus on aspects of our crumbling republic? Like how Jane (or Joe) Citizen are ripped off for their rights in a system where Congress routinely ignores the oath of office to uphold our constitution and instead defers to the courts where individual citizens cannot afford to secure their rights; when faced with the crushing stress of attorney fees that are financial ruin when up against the bottomless war chests of the state and the special interests that own our institutions? And the other numerous cheats perpetrated on our rule of law intended to benefit and protect the greater citizenry? Here's some examples:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/23/if-the-left-are-sheep-the-right-are-fish/

    &

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/20/the-anti-federalist-urban-legend/

    Whether or not you agree with most of the rationale, if you find something you like, it's yours, take it and run with it ;)

    “The argument I have is the enslavement of too many women to count raising a child in poverty, struggling with loneliness, depression and perceived as damaged goods as single mothers… limiting their opportunities to move forward and raise children that will become constructive citizens…”

    The children are better off not existing than not becoming whatever you believe is a “constructive citizen”.

    To paraphrase Jonathan Swift, you can solve both overpopulation and famine by eating your children. Because adoption services don’t exist.

    Hallucinating up asinine, touching scanerios to rationalize it into a great moment of humanity, compassion, etc. helps a lot. Especially to justify mindless lechery.
    That’s how demagogues roll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?