The 5 Minute Speech Revealing The TRUTH That Got Judge Napolitano Fired From FOX



Judge Napolitano finally had had enough, and spoke the truth by asking a series of questions. He never made any specific allegations, and simply asked thought-provoking questions, in order to skirt around what was likely limitations  imposed by FOX “News”on what he could say. Nonetheless, he was soon kicked out, his show canned. He risked his livelihood to tell you the truth, and unless we pay attention, whistle-blowers will become extinct.

Transcript of his speech:

“What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of preyWhat if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn’t want and doesn’t have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system were actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion?

What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?

What if there’s no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion were just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there’s something wrong with that – or something wrong with them?

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters’ choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties were just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who’s in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?

What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs? What if government policies didn’t change when government’s leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government were really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they’re in charge?

What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory? What if Barack Obama campaigned as an antiwar, pro-civil liberties candidate, then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect? What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of nonintervention and small government, then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?

What if Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government, too? What if the Republicans went along with it?

What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink government, but then the government grew while he was in office? What if, notwithstanding Reagan’s ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution?

What if all this is happening again? What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though he voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars? What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Obama, but don’t realize that Romney might as well be Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?

What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because they claim he’s unappealing or un-electable, but because he doesn’t fit into the pre-manufactured public-opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?

What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style? What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to reinforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans? What if Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies Obama promoted? What if Obama’s policies, too, are merely extensions of Bush’s?

What if a government that manipulated us could be fired? What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed? What if it were possible to have a game-changer? What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from assault by the government?

What if we could make elections matter again? What if we could do something about this?

Why was he fired though? Well, for one thing, his speech was NOT divisive. No, he did not simply blame the Democrats, perpetuating the false democrat-republican dynamic that often ignores the truth. No, he went straight for the jugular and told you what he KNEW FOR A FACT to be true; a former puppet who knows very well how his masters pulled his strings. Every question he asked speaks to the heart of the people, spoke to my heart, and I had to bold almost every sentence because every sentence of his speech was important.

He ended with two important questions, questions that should make you think long and hard if another Bush, or another Clinton would really make a difference. The brother of a Warmonger, or the wife who stuck to an unfaithful husband simply to claw her way into power. Or that rich tycoon with floppy hair, who will screw Americans over, but at least (so his faithful will say) because he wants to and not because he was ordered to.

What IF Americans dared to vote for a third party, or better yet, pulled an Iceland?


Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. That’s really so sad – the last MSM has finally caved to the government!! Empires will fall – that is a fact!! Soon, the government will start hiring foreign mercenaries to provide law enforcement and crowd control! That is the mechanics of a declining empire. The Romans used ‘barbarians’, the English used Hessians. National Guard from Alabama will provide ‘security’ in New York. National Guard from Michigan will provide ‘security’ in Florida.

  2. The video that played was about the constitution, not about elections, and is not the same as the transcript above reads. I’d like to see the correct one. =))

  3. Napolitano implies that the libertarian Ron Paul would offer a viable alternative to the problems he outlines. Not so. Economic inequity would only increase under Ron Paul, as would environmental devastation and the suffering of the poor and disabled.Libertarians basically just want government to get out of the way of huge corporations. The result of their policies would amount to a kind of anarchy where the weak would have no protection from the strong and the environment no protection from those who would destroy it for profit. If you want to know who would benefit, think of the Koch brothers and their ilk. The problems Napolitano addresses would best be alleviated by a parliamentary system, not by libertarian anarchy.

    • You obviously do not understand Libertarian ideology. Libertarianism is about INDIVIDUAL rights, not corporate kleptocracy. It is about Liberty, sovereignty, freedom, free markets, and a non-aggression principle.

      The false left-right political paradigm presents the illusion that at one end of the political spectrum is Fascism, and at the other extreme, Communism. Should we live in a society where the corporations puppeteer the state, or one where the state dictates to corporations? What’s the difference when either way the same dynastic oligarchies are pulling the strings in a totalitarian state devoid of being based on the rights of the INDIVIDUAL?

      The only real spectrum and index of human freedom and sovereignty is as thus: At one extreme is totalitarianism (in all its’ forms), and at the other extreme end of the spectrum is Anarchism, Voluntaryism, and Minarchism. Free people, living in a free state, participating in free markets. As long as one individual does no harm unto others, and does no harm unto their property, he is otherwise free to do as he chooses. There is no coercion, every choice you make is voluntary. It has nothing to do with letting corporations run roughshod over peoples rights and Liberties.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here