Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power and Deception in American History
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Forward by Ron Paul

Judge Andrew Napolitano, of Fox Network and radio talk show host, sat on the other side of the mic on Thursday, March 25 to be interviewed by Alex Jones. Late in the interview, he answered a question foremost in the minds of many listeners. In the process of answering a question concerning abuse of power, he said, “Just like Mike Chertoff handed it off to Janet Napolitano—and I know what you’re thinking. The answer is no. We are not related.”

I have not read the book because I have yet to receive my review copy. Of course, I haven’t asked for one. It is currently listed at No. 13 on the New York Times Best Selling List after about a week on the shelves. It follows AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES, by Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell which is currently No. 7 and NO APOLOGY, by Mitt Romney at No. 10.

Judge Napolitano began by explaining his friends reaction to the book. “When I told friends I was writing a book about the government and lies and that it was 4,000 pages long, everybody laughed and said were you able to get all the lies into 4,000 pages,” he said.

About the book: “It shows you the perception that the public has that the government does lie to us, has been lying to us, and we accept these lies and are willing to laugh about it. Even though every one of those lies that I talk about in the book, and those that you mentioned in the introduction destroys our liberty, destroys our freedom by inducing us to make political decisions on erroneous information that the government claims is true. And when we give up this liberty, and loose this property, we don’t get it back.”

In response to Alex’s inquiry about the State of the Union, the Judge replied, “The state of our union is that it is a bipartisan movement toward a police state, and we don’t have two parties in this country, Alex, even though most people think we do. And your listeners know that we have one party—the big government party. There’s a Republican wing that likes war, and deficits and assaults our civil liberties. There’s a Democratic wing that likes welfare, and taxes, and assaults our commercial liberties. But they basically will feed each other because they’re not interested in freedom, they don’t believe in fidelity to the Constitution, they’re just interested in power.”

He described an interview he conducted with James E Clyburn—D, South Carolina Sixth District to illustrate his point. “I mean, on my radio show last month I asked the number three ranking Democrat in the House of representatives—Congressman Jim Clyburn—Congressman, where in the Constitution is the government authorized to regulate health care. And he said to me, Judge, most of what we do down here—referring to Washington—is not authorized by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is it prohibited that we regulate health care? The very fact that he would ask that question shows a tremendous 180-degree misunderstanding of the federal government.

“The Congress is not a general legislature,” Judge Napolitano continued. “It doesn’t exist in order to right every wrong. It exists only to exercise power in seventeen unique, discreet, specific, well-defined set-out areas in a piece of paper called the Constitution to which he took an oath to uphold. At least he was candid enough to acknowledge they’re not upholding it.”

Alex said that states joining the upcoming suit is not enough and that we need to have states nullify, under the ninth and tenth amendment, not just this but denying them from taking highway and education funds.

“Well, you know it’s one thing, Alex, for a state legislature and a governor to sign a piece of paper saying we stand on our Tenth Amendment and we are a sovereign State. It would be quite another for a state legislature to enact legislation that did the following: Prohibit state employees from enforcing federal law. Indite federal officials who come into the state with intention of enforcing federal law that conflicts with state law. Imposing real estate tax on federal property within the state. Now I know that that has been unlawful for the past two-hundred years, but suffice it to say we have a different Supreme Court, now, that might look at this differently. Drag before county and state grand juries federal officers who insist on enforcing federal law that is unconstitutional within the states. The states really have to stand up for their sovereignty. They have to do more than say we are a sovereign state. There has to be teeth to their proclamation of sovereignty.”

Judge Napolitano suggested a change in the election system. “Now I would like to see the popular election of Senators done away with. I would like to see state legislatures send members of the Senate to the Senate, because then they wouldn’t be stealing power from the states or those Senators would soon be out of their jobs.

The problem that I see is that both means of selecting a Senator—the one that we currently use and the one he suggests—is fraught with inherent corruption. Promises and back room deals could still be made at the State level. Another suggestion of term limits for Senators could, of course, cause the early resignation of a good Senator. I might suggest changing the election cycle of Senators to every two years as we do with the members of the House of Representatives. Further, citizens should be able to recall Senators. Anything we do, however, still requires due diligence by an educated citizenry.

The thing that we have learned, I suppose, is that we should be more willing to fight the government, especially at the school level. We should be teaching the true Constitution, along with reading and math. Instead of indoctrinating, we should be instilling the passion to learn in our students.

“The federal government didn’t begin to grow to gargantuan proportions until the progressive era with the popular election of Senators were able to pander to the collectivist impulses of the masses and deliver as big a piece of pie as they could and create the permanent underclass that relied on them for support and return of their votes,” the Judge explained.

You know when Janet, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet what’s-her-name, announced that the most dangerous people on the planet were the groups you just indicate—right-to-lifers, people who believe in a Second Amendment, returning veterans from the wars, people who think taxes are too high and the government is too onerous—I got in an argument on air with one of my Fox colleagues who said to me well she knows that you are in favor of Second Amendment rights, she knows that you’re pro-life and she knows you’re against the IRS, but how does she know that everybody else feels that way? I said because she can capture—her agents can capture—every keystroke on your computer. How can she do that? he says. Because she has the power under the Patriot act which you—I won’t tell you which Fox colleague this was, but you can probably guess—which you supported when your guy, George W. Bush, was in the White House. Now it’s in the hands of those who would use this power against you. What are you, Crazy? Don’t you realize liberty, once given up, and put in the hands of the government as power never comes back?

“I think the American people should vote out of office, and aggressively hound out of office—lawfully, obviously—not only everyone who voted for Obamacare, but everyone who voted for TARP—proposed by George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for the first two stimuluses that we’ve had in the past four years, which came from George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for the Patriot act, which came from George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for any tax increase. Now that would be about ninety-three to ninety-four percent of the Congress. These people’s voting records must be revealed.

“The collusion of Rand Paul being forced against the guy who’s in charge of counting the ballots. Even Joe Stalin wouldn’t have been so bold as to do that. he would have put a crony in to count the ballots. But in Kentucky, the Republicans are forcing Rand Paul to run against the guy who will decide who wins the election. The American public cannot put up with that.”

Jones asked why the government would want to destroy the economy?

“The government wants to control us because of what Saint Augustan called libido dominandi. Look, we all know about certain types of libido. This is a lust for power. Before the Civil war, we sent people to our State houses and to Congress who were interested in Liberty. Who were concerned with confining the government with assuring that it did not interfere with our natural rights, with our civil liberties, and with our property rights. Since the Civil war, we have sent people to the government—by-and-large. There are exception both before the Civil war and after wards.

“But by-and-large, people who were not interested in liberty, but people who were interested in power. Power for its own sake. Power in and of itself. Power to control other people. Government attracts those with lust for power. Ron Paul and Rand Paul, and Ron Paul’s colleagues in the House and—if there are any in the Senate I’m unaware of them—are the exception to the rule. But for the most part, this is the type of human being that the government attracts.

“And this type of illicit aggregation of power gets worse, and worse and worse, because when they get power, they hand it off to their successors. Just like Mike Chertoff handed it off to Janet Napolitano, and I know what you’re thinking. The answer is no. We are not related. This happens generation after generation after generation. That’s why I’m not optimistic about our future because it will take a generation of Drs. Paul to change this. To stop it. To reverse it.”

Also discussed was the recent move by McCain-Liberman to destroy personal liberties by revisiting the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. You can find Senator McCain’s statement on the matter here. The Senate Bill proposed is S. 3081 entitled Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. The Judge pointed out that under this bill, it would require an act of Congress to release you from U.S. government custody. This interferes with the due process clauses of the Constitution.

In a recent television interview concerning health care legislation, purported to understand what the founding fathers envisioned. About the lawsuits he said they are going, “…pretty well. You notice that State Legislatures and Attorneys General and Governors all over America are challenging the Constitutionality. I think they have very legitimate Constitutional challenge. The government’s now going to force individuals to buy health care insurance at the level they want them to have it, and if they don’t they are going to fine them. I’m not sure that is what the founding father’s that had in mind.”

It’s amazing that Senator McCain cannot see the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the same light. He does not seem to understand the separation of powers inherent in the words of the Constitution. He apparently is unfamiliar with Article III of the Constitution. It is amazing how people invoke the image of the brown parchment when it suits their needs.

Judge Napolitano explained a bit of Constitutional History. “Do you remember, Alex, studying basic American History? The King of England had ingenious ways to tax us. The last straw was the Stamp act. It required that every colonists have on every piece of paper in his or her home a stamp. Every book, every bank draft, every mortgage, every lease, every deed, every pamphlet, even a poster that was going to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. Imagine having to go—we have enough difficulties with the Post Office, as it is—you had to go to a foreign post office in the colonies and buy the King’s stamp.

“Question. How did the government know if you had the King’s stamp on every piece of paper in your house? Answer: The Parliament enacted the Townsend acts which permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants. And thus they would show up at your home and hand you a piece of paper on which they had purported to authorized themselves to enter your home ostensibly to look for the stamps. Of course they would confiscate alcohol. They would confiscate furniture which you couldn’t demonstrate you had paid taxes on. They would even sometimes kick you out of the house and take it over for days, or weeks, or months.

“We fought a revolution. We won the Revolution. We wrote a Constitution. We added the Fourth Amendment to that Constitution. Which, next to the right-to-life, is the greatest right there is; the right to be left alone. And it says the government can’t come onto your property and can’t seize what you have and can’t intrude into your privacy unless it goes to a judge and demonstrates to a neutral judge that its more likely than not that you are committing a crime.”

“Fast forward two-hundred years to the Patriot act. What does the Patriot act do? It allows federal agents to write their own search warrants. We have elected a government that has done the very same thing to us, which was the last straw when we broke away from an island three-thousand miles away that was regulating us as if we were chattel and as if we were slaves to them.”

2 Responses to “Judge Napolitano discusses new book on Alex Jones.”

  1. Dan Scott says:

    Are You Scheduled For Government Interrogation If Senate bill 3081 Is Passed?

    On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

    Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations.

    Considering how often Sarah Palin defends Free Speech, one can’t help wonder why Palin is helping McCain’s reelection to the U.S. Senate after he introduced possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. Perhaps Palin or her Tea Party supporters haven’t considered McCain’s legislation might be used by a corrupt government administration to crush them. Tea Parties might question Palin whether she supports Sen. McCain’s bill the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” (S.3081)

    Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”

    How might Americans respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill will drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.

    McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts” supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts” are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause. Interestingly a Rand Report prepared for the Army, recently made public, appears to suggest that U.S. Government develop a Local, State and Federal U.S. “National Police Stabilization Force merging State law enforcement with the Feds. What could happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by the President into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:

    Historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 that “erroneous informant information” could be used to detain innocent Individuals. Other countries have used lying informants to imprison; even execute political opposition.

    Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity against a U.S. civilian population or the United States to detain Americans.”

    (Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:

    FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:

    See Section 1
    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

    Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged a protest-supported hostilities.

    See Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.


    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior
    Reich Minister of Justice

  2. Glen Davis says:

    THIS COMMENT IS SPAM. This comment has been attached to several web sites. I do not even know if the name of the author is really Dan Scott. However, it does contain some information that you can look up yourself, if you desire. It is allowed for informational purposes ONLY. You are welcome to explore the truth of the statement.

%d bloggers like this: