Theodore and Woodrow

How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

De: Andrew P. Napolitano

Narrado por: Scott Moore

Napolitano’s shocking historical account of how a Republican and a Democratic president oversaw the greatest shift in power in American history, from a land built on the belief that authority should be left to the individuals and the states to a bloated, far-reaching federal bureaucracy, continuing to grow and consume power each day.

“Either the Constitution means what it says, or it doesn’t.”

America’s founding fathers saw freedom as a part of our nature to be protected—not to be usurped by the federal government—and so enshrined separation of powers and guarantees of freedom in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But a little over a hundred years after America’s founding, those God-given rights were laid siege by two presidents caring more about the advancement of progressive, redistributionist ideology than the principles on which America was founded.

Theodore and Woodrow is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s shocking historical account of how a Republican and a Democratic president oversaw the greatest shift in power in American history, from a land built on the belief that authority should be left to the individuals and the states to a bloated, far-reaching federal bureaucracy, continuing to grow and consume power each day.

With lessons rooted in history, Judge Napolitano shows the intellectually arrogant, anti-personal freedom, even racist progressive philosophy driving these men to poison the American system of government.

And Americans still pay for their legacy—in the federal income, in state-prescribed compulsory education, in the Federal Reserve, in perpetual wars, and in the constant encroachment of a government that coddles special interests and discourages true competition in the marketplace.

With his attention to detail, deep constitutional knowledge, and unwavering adherence to truth telling, Judge Napolitano moves through the history of these men and their times in office to show how American values and the Constitution were sadly set aside, leaving personal freedom as a shadow of its former self, in the grip of an insidious, Nanny state, progressive ideology.

The influence of these two men sadly permeates today

I knew a bit about Wilson, his racism, etc., but was totally unaware of the destruction caused by Theodore Roosevelt. This book is forthright and an easy listen. There are many things to learn. Thank you, Judge Napolitano.

A very enlightening history lesson.

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

The time was very well spent. A good history lesson most people are not fully aware of.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

I enjoyed the comparisons made between the two Presidents.

What about Scott Moore’s performance did you like?

Scott has an easy voice to listen to as well as good cadence to his voice.

Did Theodore and Woodrow inspire you to do anything?

Pay more attention to what is really being done by people in office as opposed to what they say.

Enlightening and Frightening

Learn the valuable lessons of history our state run schools refuse to teach. Judge Napolitano explains how our nation (The United States) strays from the constitution and the dangers the straying poses to state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Unfortunately Napolitano misunderstands pragmatism

What made the experience of listening to Theodore and Woodrow the most enjoyable?

Exposing these men for the destroyers they were.

Any additional comments?

Unfortunately Judge Napolitano does not understand that pragmatism is a tool of the left He incorrectly states that the founders were pragmatic. Pragmatism was not developed until nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written. The founders were intellectuals. Pragmatism is an anti intellectal method of problem solving, so called. Intellectuals investigate, debate, and exhaustively explore a given problem in an attempt to find the most viable solution possible in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Pragmatic approach is quite different. The pragmatist throws a solution, or even multiple solutions at a problem. They understand that there well be unintended consequences, but are more concerned with immediate response than they are with finding eloquent solutions which spin off minimal unintended consequences. Rather they expect unintended consequences and intend to pragmatically deal with them as they arrise.

Obviously those solutions will often result in their own unintended consequences. As can readily be grasped, this is a very sloppy method for dealing with problems. It is anti intillectual in it's nature and would have been completely reprehensible to our deep thinking intellectual founders.

I was disappointed that Judge Napolitano so misunderstood our founders and suggests that they would ebrace such an intellectually bankrupt philosophy which has been so central in the destructive legislation which has been enacted in this and the better part of the 20th century.

Intellectuals, for instance, understand human nature and account for it in their politics. Thus they understand that government welfare necessarily revolves around the lowest common denominator. That being the case it is immediately obvious that many who are not deserving will receive it.

Furthermore, one of the stated missions of the Church tis care for the poor. That caring for the poor by the Church will tend to result in less abuse as those just wanting a free ride will generally be weeded out, where as the government being restricted to operating with out the benefit of local discrimination is forced to squander precious resources on the freeloaders.

Furthermore, that the governments intervention in the Church's work is a blurring of the separation of the Church and the State. While State governments are not necessarily so restricted, the Federal Government has no businesse in this arena for that reason as well. Of course there are myriads of examples, that is merely one such example.

As long as the reader is aware of this flaw, he can expect to learn quite a bit from this book which is good and correct technically and historically. I highly recommend it with the exception of my stated carve out.

Good

It’s very insightful. Well researched. In fact it’s hard to believe that one guy could do that much research. Makes me feel stupid.