"Trust Me…We Are US and There Is No 'THEM.'" Podcast of January 18 Show

Hour 1
Hour 2
Here are the articles, quotes and videos I mentioned on the air…
The excellent book by Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Constitution…

Text of the President’s Speech here.
Rand Paul’s excellent rebuttal to the President’s speech:

Cass Sunstein: Domestic PsyOp Tsar? Click here.
Noam Chomsky’s “manufacturing consent” here.
Classic Zbigniew Brzezinski quotes here.
New York Times propaganda piece on Obama’s “transformation” from dove to hawk here. (I say the candidate worked for the power elite from the start.)
Here is a telling quote from years ago…
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” – Barack Obama
And it’s always good to reread the Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


  1. hugh says:

    Monica, I agree that Rand Paul’s rebuttal was excellent. But there sure seemed to be a disconnect as to how Rand graded Obama’s speech. I really hate politicians! Where are the statesmen?

  2. margie says:

    There is no “balance between liberty and security,” Mr. President. Either there is liberty or there isn’t. Without liberty, there is no security. There is only the illusion, which may be dissipated at any moment.

    1. Monica Perez ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      Righteous liberty is limited only to the extent you use it to encroach on the rights of others – that single limitation is the essence of security. I agree with you, Margie, either you have it or you don’t, there’s nothing more to discuss.

  3. margie says:

    It’s the modern-day equivalent of government agents coming to your door and collecting all of your personal papers with assurances that there’s no need to worry, and a promise that “we won’t actually look at them unless it turns out that your name appears in someone else’s papers, who is mentioned in the papers of someone who might be planning to do some mischief,” (or unless you run for office representing a party whose ideas we don’t agree with, in which case we won’t be able to resist secretly looking in the hopes of finding something with which to discredit you, or unless we can rationalize any other reason at all).

    1. donniesee says:

      I agree Margie. In 10 years they will have a dossier on everyone in the country. Then the only ones who will be able to run for office are those who the elite want to run. This is tyranny at its worst.

  4. I can’t think of a more short-sighted argument in defense of a system than relying on the mystical belief that only your friends will be in control of it forever. It’s like bringing home a 12-foot-long venomous snake (that is of course immortal) and telling your family not to be afraid of it because, “it let’s ME hold it.”

Leave a Comment