We are in terrible straits this presidential election. We have a choice between a president who has posed more of a danger to personal freedom than any in the past 150 years and a Republican team that wants to return to Bush-style big government.
President Barack Obama has begun to show his hand at private fundraisers and in unscripted comments during his campaign. And the essence of his revelations is dark. His vision of a shared prosperity should frighten everyone who believes in freedom, because it is obvious that the president doesn’t. He believes the federal government somehow possesses power from some source other than the Constitution that enables it to take from the rich and give to the poor. He calls this “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared,” and he declared, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Today in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or some financial benefit from the government; the other half pay for it. In Obama’s vision for America, no one will be permitted to become too rich, no matter his skills and hard work. He somehow believes that government seizures and transfers of wealth generate prosperity. We know, of course, that the opposite occurs. Seizing wealth through taxation removes it from the private sector for investment. That produces job losses and government dependence on a massive scale.
The federal government has a debt of $16 trillion. We have that debt because both political parties have chosen to spend today and put the burden of paying for the spending onto future generations. The debt keeps increasing, and the feds have no intention of paying it off. Every time the government has wanted to increase its lawful power to borrow since World War II, members of Congress and presidents from both parties have permitted it to do so.
Last week, Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, blasted Obama for borrowing more than one trillion dollars in just the past year. He must have forgotten to look at the voting record of his designated running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan.
Ryan voted for nearly every request to raise the debt ceiling during his 14 years in Congress. He voted for TARP, the GM bailout and most of the recent stimulus giveaways. He also voted to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a credit card, which added another trillion dollars to the government’s debt. And he voted to assault the Constitution by supporting the Patriot Act and its extensions, as well as Obama’s unconstitutional proposal to use the military to arrest Americans on American soil and detain those arrested indefinitely.
We have a rough idea of how Obama would bring about government control of private industry through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. From Ryan’s voting record, we have a rough idea of what Romney-Ryan would bring us: more of the Bush-era big government. In other words, Ryan is just another big-government Republican holding himself out as a fiscal conservative. Even his controversial budget proposals — which the House approved, but the Senate declined to address — would have increased government spending. It was less of an increase than Obama wanted, which is why the Senate Democrats refused to consider it, but it was not a cut in spending.
I am a firm believer that the Constitution means what it says. The federal government can only do what the Constitution authorizes it to do. The modern-day Republican and Democratic Parties have made a shambles of that principle. Nevertheless, I understand the “anybody but Obama” urge among those who fear his excesses, as do I. Obama has killed innocents, altered laws, rejected his oath to enforce the law faithfully, and threatened to assault the liberty and property of Americans he hates and fears.
Even though Ryan is a smart and humble and likeable man who was once a disciple of Ayn Rand on economics, as am I, the Republicans want the Bush days of war and spending beyond our means and assaults on civil liberties to return. The Bush years were bad for freedom; without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.
Which do you want?
COPYRIGHT 2013 JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO/CREATORS.COM
Be the first to read Judge Andrew Napolitano's columns and other Voice of Sanity articles by signing up today and having them delivered directly into your inbox each morning.
Additional articles by Judge Andrew NapolitanoComment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (maximum of 1500 characters). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.





The only conscionable choice is to not vote. But besides that, the winner has already been chosen, everything else is just for show. Voting 'legitimizes' the outcome so that people will accept it.
The saying, "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain" is false. If you vote, you don't get to complain.
Good article Judge, but be careful. If you overbash Bush, you give Dems ammunition. They'll blame all their garbage on Bush, and. we'll get Obama again. Then God help us all! Bush did do a lot of good, and although mistakes were made, he did have good intent, unlike the current occupant of the White House. Bush was able to drop the deficit and lower unemployment while having to deal with 9/11 and a war that probably prevented more terrorism or worse and slowed the spread of the Iranian Empire .
No amount of 'over' bashing of Bush would give the Dems enough ammunition. They have and are pitting Romney's riches and lack of tax return against on the poor and the middle class rather than using anything connected with Bush. Secondly, not sure that Bush
prevented 'more terrorism' or 'slowed the spread of the Iranian Empire." Bush needs to put in a place where he should, the beginning and acceleration of, as the Judge says, the erosion of the US Constitution.
In November I will write in Ron Paul's name if I have to engrave it into the voting machine with my car key. This will be the last vote I ever cast in the USA. For 2016, should the USA as we know it still exist, I will be fully onboard the "don't vote" campaign. In the interim, I will be planning/implementing offshore/multiple-flag strategies to preserve business, life, and wealth. When the US finally collapses, it is my fervent hope that I will be reading the sad news on my iPad from a cafe in Valparaiso.
WIsh that I could "get out of Dodge"; but I'll still vote for Ron Paul also.
You may be right; by 2016 there will be no vote, or I too will have "come to terms" with the fact that I shall forever be a serf to my Uncle Sam.
A Ron Paul 'victory' would not change anything (the man already said he has no intention of ending the fed, nor would he be allowed to); at most it would provide a momentary delay of the inevitable.
This talk of leaving the USA is incredible.
I am an American living in the UK and meet "Brits" everyday who would kill to relocate to the USA.
The USA is not perfect and it has its problems (always has, always will) but, compared to the UK and Europe it is a dream!
Americans have more protection and more rights than anyone in the UK or Europe.
Get your heads together and create an organized 3rd party.
I look forward to returning to the USA.
I am so tierd of holding my nose and voting for Dole/Bush/Bush/Romney. If I could get my $ out of the US I would.
Someone please set me straight here. What do politicians have to gain from destroying our country? Do they assume themselves automatically ascending to some sort of ruling class? And who determines who gets in and who is excluded? The lunacy of the path the government is on is blatantly clear. How is it that the "insiders" don't see the cliff they're running toward? What am I missing here?
I figure it's either denial, or get it while you can. Or a little of both. But it's similar to the tack that many corporations have taken, focusing on this quarter's (quick) profits, rather than long (slow) term gain. In the old days, a company that failed to provide quality customer service went out of business. And the small ones still do. But the big ones buy up or regulate the competition so that there isn't any, and you're choices are limited to the lesser of evils… hmmm….
Bryan,
I trust that your question is sincere and not veiled sarcasm. If so, the answer is quite simple: POWER. It is all they can see. We have no more Statesmen in national elected office (Dr. Paul is an exception; the Judge is not in elected office). We have men and women who seek POWER and personal gain and kick the consequences down the road. They'll "get theirs" (election, re-election, pension, nice consulting or lobbying position after time in office, etc.) now and someone in the future will fix the problem. The furute may not be now, but it seems to be coming into focus. We may need to hit bottom before we can re-ignite true American liberty. I pray not. However, I fear that only a very dire outcome will change the status quo that the Judge references.
Smith
AMEN! I have often wondered the same thing. Without getting into "conspiracy theory" that those at the top have some secret place they can go to be immune from the world they are creating, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!!!
so far the dams have not held forever. it will this time, is what they're thinking. they're sociopathoptimists.
Romney/Ryan in a split second over Obama/Biden. Not even close. There is no viable third way.
So, Judge, forthcoming ads from the Left can be expected to highlight Romney's 'immense' wealth and Ryan's voting record which contributed to higher government spending.
So, Judge, forthcoming ads from the Right will highlight Obama's slick rhetoric and Biden's not-so-smart rhetoric.
You're right….November's choices aren't that appealing to many of us. They're all politicos…..and the Obama/Biden team hasn't shown any leadership. I'd rather vote for the 'double R' team—-which may exhibit some remorse about outlandish spending, some remorse about 'let's not do that again,' and – maybe – articulate a plan to help get us out of our cultural and economic rot.
Bryan they ARE the ruling class. We the People haven't done our job, and the hired help is out of control. Voter ignorance and apathy have allowed the criminal class, Democrats and Republicans alike, to ignore the Constitution and make up the rules as they damn well please. Romney wasn't my first choice by a long shot, but he's better than the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If Romney is elected we will at least have time to rebuild a knowledgeable voter base. If Obama is re elected we may not have that opportunity.
EEEEGADS! Get over it! Ron Paul has shown that he cannot get elected. The choices might not be appealing to you, but
there are two choice that are worse: voting for Obumer or
voting for Ron Paul. Both are a vote for Obumer. Do you really
expect to change things by doing the same thing that was done in 2008?
If you use your gray matter to think about one thing, think about who is going to pick the next Supreme Court Justices.
Then hold your nose, or whatever, and think about the Court decisions that will be made over the next 30 – 40 years.
This election is about the direction of this country.
I want Ron Paul—and will write him in. Better to vote my conscience than vote for the lesser evil. If ever there was a time to stand on principle, it is now!
but Alice, Ron Paul is just the least of the lessers… there is no such thing as principled voting.
If it makes you feel better or more noble to cast a futile vote, vote for Gary Johnson. At least, he has 8 years of successful governance as Governor of New Mexico. His views are virtually identical to Ron Paul's without exuding the "crazy uncle in the attic" vibes.
Judge, what I think is that I'm voting for the one man that the next morning I can look in a mirror and know that the previous day I did the right thing for America. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate.
Judge, well said. I would say don't vote for either, vote for liberty instead. Write in Liberty.
If I had my druthers, I would vote for Judge Nap for president..,but.since he's not running, I would rather vote for Ron Paul, …but in reality, there is only one person on the planet who can possibly win against Barry this time around, and that is Romney…a ''write-in" for Paul would be a wasted vote, except that we could look at how many votes he got, and say "wow, even more than last time"…
p.s…absolutely love you, Judge Nap!
Kevorkian, rpmney, Break wind and dance
chains and things !
Rom says hating him is wrong, I disagree, all hating is irrational, as is love
Cut out the Bloody cancer of Unionized socialism that is gov't
No more jobs for life for morons by morons and their relatives
Mandatory annual evaluations for all public employees, have it so you lose a step or grade if you didn't do anything but show up & get paid, at my exspense
o'bummer vs. rum-knee?
One is a moooslim pot smoking, coffin nail sucking, drunken kommienist intent on transforming our nation into a Cuban colony, and the other a free market Christian capitalist who successfully earned millions by working for it. And you paulists still think the choice is between A and a. Do you really think you'll be able to live with your voting decision when his civilian defense corpse better armed and better trained than our military rounds you up? Or did you miss that remark? You are worse than the Ø’bumorrhoids. At least they have stupidity as a defense. Your only defense is a smug attitude that you are better than the rest of us. Makes you a bit like the loonie left methinks.
Horse racing has some interesting guidelines that apply here. Only bet a horse entered in the race and go with the one you think has the best chance of actually winning. None have a chance of winning this race but the Indonesian street punk or the former governor of MA. So you have a 50-50 chance of getting this right.
and today's false dilemma award goes to gil. sorry gil, we've had a run on horns, & we're out, but our judges have decided insectile antennae will do just fine.
♉
pssst! hey buddy! its a lock: heads they win & tails you lose to place. you can't lose! bet it all!
People, what are we thinking? I LOVE this country as much or more than anyone. However, if we split our vote and o gets re-elected, will that help????!!!! Let's show our power voting and save this country.If we make a statement and HOLD romney and ryans feet to the fire, we CAN make the change, we CAN get back to what we believe in. If we opt out, we are encouraging the behavior we're getting. Come on, think about this. Just think about it. If we're wrong, at least we get another four years to do what you are suggesting.
"if we're wrong"….
there is no question that voting is morally wrong, & that because its morally wrong, it is also "practically/pragmatically" wrong & therefore manifests all the fodder for political "debate".
you've heard the indictment against politicians forever "kicking the can down the road"? voting is also can-kicking.
besides, remember emma goldman: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Judge Napolitano has a brilliant mind and also displays a refreshing honest opinion. The main problem as I see it is pragmatic in origin. You know, the old get along to go along philosophy. There have been several principled opponents throughout history that have fought against the malevolent force behind globalism. Through the media, the social engineers have been able to manipulate millions of people and control or shape their perceptions to benefit whatever agenda the overseers see fit. The people behind the curtain have stealthily and steadily usurped all essential levels of authority and now feel confident to allow exposure of their plans.
"Do What Thou Wilt", is so prevalent throughout our culture now, that they no longer feel they need to hide behind a facade of benevolence. The masses willingly accept whatever is thrown their way. The corporations have created a world that limits competition and forces young aspiring minds a choice to work for them or be principled and be marginalized to oblivion.
My thoughts are of little consequence to the sociopaths in power. I feel like Charlie Gordan. For over forty years I was totally immersed in the mainstream. I always did try to maintain a level of independence but I was easily mislead by the propoganda. Even now after discovering certain facts it is difficult to counteract with positive actions. If there ever was a time to let the Native Americans have a voice in American politics today is welcomed by me. RONPAUL2012
you're right about pragmatism. that's short time preference, scale error, form ahead of function, a tree in lieu of the forest, to hell with the goose – gimme' those golden eggs….pragmatico's are the original add'ers, & there isn't enough ritalin…..
Again the Judge errs,
"the Republicans want the Bush days of war and spending beyond our means and assaults on civil liberties to return. The Bush years were bad for freedom; without them, we would not have had an Obama administration."
—
The error here is not the observations, which are correct regarding the Big Govt Republicans – but the idea using the word "return" implies the Democrats want something different.
This is nonsense. The Bushies were Hitler/Nazi's b/c they want one iota less Big Govt AND a few crumbs of corruption for their cronies on Wall Street. Big deal. You couldn't sandwich a butter knife between the two positions.
Nonetheless – party differences are significant. They mean the difference b/w life and death for our troops in Afghanistan; whether terrorists go free; whether taxes go higher; whether MORE Eco-Religion is established to destroy jobs in the productive sectors; and whether there will be anything left over to save.
If Libertarians don't like it – they can try to seize a party and turning around the Big Govt mindset – instead of whining like cry-babies and making false claims.
Every Libertarian who compromises with a Democrat, e.g. Ron Paul, for some FAKE "liberty" is an imbecile, a traitor, or a thief, in addition to being an ignorant, OCD, cultural free-loader.
Which means that the party to seize is the GOP – which has many local county, city, and even statewide groups NOT controlled by the Big Govt Left.
Got Brains? …
The Judge leaves us with a question after telling us neither choice is good. And Ron Paul through any write-in is not electable. What to do? Brace for more of the same, economically, politically and the erosion of Constitutional rights (i.e. privacy, freedom of speech, etc and importantly legal due process.)