Tag Archives: Rand Paul
When so many cultural institutions, from the news media to Hollywood to your local university campus, are utterly dominated by liberal Democrats, there inevitably arises a stigma toward conservative ideas and Republican politics. When people are hammered day after day by the relentless partisanship of what the late Andrew Breitbart called the “Democrat-Media Complex,” when movies and TV sitcoms habitually mock or demonize Republicans, when conservative college students are afraid of their liberal professors and radical campus activists, who can blame anyone for thinking there is something wrong with being a Republican? Cast under this shadow of stigma and suspicion, many Republicans seem to internalize the negative stereotype of themselves, to become defensive and apologetic — “Please don’t hate me” — and generally to act as if they are guilty of doing something wrong. . . .
Please read the whole thing. Republicans who send out signals of weakness and fear are, in effect, inviting attacks. And because so many Republicans lack either the courage to fight back or the skill to fight back successfully, their enemies are emboldened.
Sad but true, we have to all develop stiffer spines, McCain explains
Organizations have images — reputations — and if a negative perception develops, that perception tends to become self-perpuating. The Republican Party is currently perceived as an organization of selfish, cowardly losers, and this makes it difficult for the GOP to attract support from people who admire generosity, strength and success. The party is increasingly defined by its whining pathetic supporters.
From the perspective of the neurasthenic weaklings who now run Republican politics, anyone who wants to stand up and fight for principles is considered a troublemaker. Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Rand Paul? No, the GOP leadership doesn’t want to elect people like that. They want smooth-talking sellouts like Lindsey Graham and good ol’ boys like Mitch McConnell who understand that the job of Republicans is to “compromise” by giving Democrats everything they want.
Well, who in their right mind would fight on behalf of a such a party? Who would risk their reputation, their comfort, perhaps even their livelihood, to defend the Republican Party, when the party itself is run by wimps who only care about their own re-election?
Think about this: When Lady Liberty and Sister Toldjah came under fire by North Carolina Democrats, did anybody in the North Carolina GOP apparatus stand up for them? Hell, no.
You cannot win in political combat by continually retreating. If you ever hope to win, you must first determine to fight. And once you’re in the fight, you must never stop fighting until you win.
In short, they attack us because we, or too many of us bury our heads in the sand, or refuse to rally around those few that DO stand up. Another problem is that we, as a party, are too ready to throw the “wacko birds” under the bus to appease our “friends across the aisle. Newsflash, those folks across the aisle are not our friends. The see us not as friends, but as ENEMIES. And frankly, we have to face up to reality and grasp that anyone who considers us THEIR enemy, is, by definition OUR enemy!
*VIDEOS* 2013 Values Voter Summit: Featuring Ted Cruz, Allen West, Rand Paul, Mark Levin & Ben Carson11 Oct
*VIDEO* War In Syria: Newt Gingrich And Rand Paul Debate Stephanie Cutter And Bob Menendez – 09/09/1311 Sep
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is one of four senators on Capitol Hill who introduced a new bill Thursday that would block President Obama from getting involved in the Syrian civil war.
It comes after the Obama administration announced plans last week to send arms to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime after determining Assad had been using chemical weapons on its people.
The bill proposed Thursday would stop “the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities” from “supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.”
“The President’s unilateral decision to arm Syrian rebels is incredibly disturbing, considering what little we know about whom we are arming,” Paul said Thursday.
Said Paul: “Engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East with no vote or Congressional oversight compounds the severity of this situation. The American people deserve real deliberation by their elected officials before we send arms to a region rife with extremists who seek to threaten the U.S. and her allies.”
Other sponsors include Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, is also a sponsor.
“Any military involvement in Syria, including the arming of Syrian rebels, needs to be authorized through Congress, where concerns can be publicly debated and the American people can have a say,” Lee said.
“I’m deeply skeptical about plans for military intervention in Syria, given the dangerously fractured state of the opposition, and the very real risk of American weapons and money falling into the hands of the same terrorist organizations we’re already fighting around the world,” Murphy said.
Rand Paul To Challenge NSA Snooping In Supreme Court, Asks Phone And Internet Customers To Join Lawsuit9 Jun
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took to Fox News Sunday to declare his legal opposition to the NSA’s surveillance programs. “I’m going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level,” Paul said.
“I’m going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit,” Paul told host Chris Wallace. “If we get ten million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington.”
Like many lawmakers, Paul drew a distinction between targeted surveillance and the blanket surveillance revealed this week.
“They are looking at a billion phone calls a day,” Paul said. “That doesn’t sound to me like a modest invasion of primary, it sounds like an extraordinary invasion of privacy.”
“I have no problem if you have probable cause, you target people who are terrorists, and you go after them,” Paul continued. “But we’re talking about trolling through billions of phone records… That is unconstitutional.”
Paul also said he would introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoriation Act, though he offered few details about the still-hypothetical legislation.
“If you talk to young people who use computers every day, they’re absolutely with me,” Paul said. “What I spend on my Visa each month, that’s my business, where I spend it, and whether I read conservative magazines, whether I subscribe to Fox News, or whether I subscribe to Yahoo or Google – what I do with my private life is my private life. If you suspect me of a crime, have probable cause.”
“So much of our life now is digitalized, that we have to protect it from a snooping government,” Paul said. “We’ve now got a government that appears to target people based on their political beliefs. I don’t want my phone records being given to an administration I can’t trust.”
Paul remembered that the public outrage against SOPA and PIPA legislation last year were somewhat successful in pushing back the laws, and predicted that if people reacted with similar severity to the current surveillance measures, they would be successful in repealing them.
Watch the interview here, via Fox News:
Via Chris Wysocki, who is pretty fly for a Jersey Guy
Are you one of the millions of Americans who’ve suffered in silence after being pecked by a macaw?
Physicians currently have about 18,000 medical diagnostic codes to choose from to help them inform insurers of their patients’ ailments. However, as [Sen. Rand] Paul (himself a physician) notes, Obamacare includes a mandate for 140,000 of those codes — and some of them sound downright ridiculous.
“Included among these codes,” the senator continued, “will be 312 new codes for injuries from animals; 72 new codes for injuries just from birds; 9 new codes for ‘injuries from the macaw.”‘
“The macaw?” he asked. “I’ve asked physicians all over the country, ‘Have you ever seen an injury from a macaw?”‘
What about turtle bites? You’re in luck, Obamacare’s got you covered. And if that turtle merely sideswiped your leg? Rest assured your pain and suffering will be alleviated.
He continued, adding that he had found “two new injury codes under Obamacare for ‘injuries sustained from a turtle.”‘
“Now, you might say, ‘Well, turtles are dangerous’ — but why do you have to have two codes?” he asked. “Your doctor has to inform the government whether you’ve been struck by a turtle or bitten by a turtle.”
And just because Barack Obama deeply cares about you, should that turtle bite you while your water skis are on fire, you’re completely covered!
He added: “There is a new code for … walking into a lamppost. There’s also a code for ‘walking into a lamppost, subsequent encounter.’”
“I guess that’s if you don’t learn,” he added. “[T]here is [also] a code … for ‘injuries sustained from burning water skis.”‘
Ah, so that’s how your water skis caught fire; you walked into a lamppost! Twice!
Who dreams up this stuff?
What about if your head explodes while trying to figure out the code for being attacked by a midget wearing a sundress and a hockey mask? Is there a code for that?
Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.
On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.
“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.
His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”
The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.
“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”
“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”
While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.
“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”
Everyone who has read my writings on Trump knows that I detest this walking publicity whore. He has ZERO credibility with me frankly. He would likely run over his own dog to get some attention, and, I guess we have to give him credit because he has the media played. He speaks, and they come running. At CPAC though, Trump fell rather flat as Hot Air’s Erika Johnson tells us
CPAC announced they were inviting Trump last week, ostensibly because his “previous CPAC appearance was hugely popular” and “he’s an American patriot and success story with a massive following among small government conservatives” (small-government conservatives, say what?);
but for all the media attention Trump’s presence received, the people actually attending the conference weren’t all that excited. The ballroom was not at all full and there was some mildly assenting polite applause, at best.
Glad to see that the attendees are brighter than the folks who invited Trump.
Rand Paul had this to say about the direction of Conservatism
I believe a Republican Party that is more tolerant and dedicated to keeping the government out of people’s lives as much as possible would be more appealing to the rising generation. We have a nation of 300 million people who all harbor very different opinions on various policies. We have a Constitution that allows, even requires, many of these decisions to be made at the state and local level, which could accommodate the diversity of opinion in this country. Most young people I encounter simply have no desire to tell other people what to do or how to live.
Well I could not agree more, even though The Right Scoop disagrees
That said, I don’t agree with his foreign policy and I don’t like what I think I’m hearing now, that Republicans need to take the ‘social conservatism’ and chuck it. I don’t know what else he could mean in the above paragraph. “Diversity of opinion”? Telling other people “how to live”? “Republican Party that is more tolerant”?
Sorry, but I’m not a libertarian for a reason and I just can’t chuck my principles out the window either. As I’ve pointed out many times before, some of these so-called ‘tolerant’ views will infringe on my right to disagree with these views down the road. When we go the route that the left wants us to take, often times giving someone else a right means taking a right away from someone else.
In my view, this is not about “chucking” my, or anyone else’s principles. Paul is right about the Constitution leaving most decisions up to states and municipalities. And we DEFINITELY need to make the federal government as insignificant in our lives as possible, and, I would add making state government as insignificant in our lives at the state level, and definitely the same goes for county and city governments. It is called liberty. Sorry I DO NOT trust government to constrain itself, and I am not a fan of some Social Conservatives who want the government limited until THEY get offended by something, which is why I have disdain for groups like the American Family Association, and Conservatives like Rick Santorum. Now, Right Scoop IS correct in that we must guard against what the Left wants, which is to ban the ability to disagree with other’s choices, for example, Gay couples suing a bakery or florist who does not want to do their wedding. Businesses ought to have every right to NOT do business with anyone they damn well do not want to do business with. Again, THAT is liberty. And , I would think that taking power away from government would help in that venture. The fact is government at all levels is far too involved in our lives.
Bill Quick puts it this way
The wave of the political future in America is not socon, by the way. It’s libcon. Of conservatarian.
I agree. I talk to so many people, especially young people who have more in common with Conservatism, pro-life, pro gun rights, pro smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations than they do Liberalism. But they also cringe when Conservatives start talking about blaming video games for school shootings, or banning pornography, or turning the FCC loose on shows that some SoCons are upset by, or getting the government involved on our personal morals. Like it or not those stances turn many folks off. Frankly they think it is best if they decide for themselves in most decisions, free of government interference. they may not like big government done Liberal style, but are equally distrustful of big government that leans the other way.