Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

By: Jason Easley and Sarah Jones 

Thursday, November, 21st, 2013, 3:27 pm

The crying has only just begun now that Republicans won’t be able to hold up judicial and executive branch nominees (the filibuster rule changes do not apply to SCOTUS nominees or legislation). Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson inaccurately accused Obama of court packing, and now Rand Paul started a whine fest on CNN during which he complained that Republicans need an anti-bullying ordinance to protect them from “dictator” Harry Reid.
Video:

Senator Rand Paul said on CNN, “I think what we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate. I mean, now we’ve got a big bully, Harry Reid says he’s just going to break the rules and make new rules. Never been done this way before.”
“He’s gotta have everything his way, he’s gotta control everything. This is more about them trying to control the agenda and shift it away from Obamacare than it is about anything else. Basically, he’s become the dictator of the Senate. He’s going to bend and break the rules to get his way.”
Rand Paul has been one of the main sources of Republican obstruction in the Senate, so it isn’t a surprise that he would cry a river over the fact that he has lost a critical tool that he has used both to gum up the works and call attention to himself.

Harry Reid’s rule change will make it a lot more difficult for look at me 2016 Republican wannabes like Paul and Ted Cruz to use obstructing the Senate to further their presidential ambitions. Obstruction of nominees will no longer be a prime PR tool for Sen. Paul as he daydreams about a presidency that may never be.
The root problem is that Rand Paul rejects the purpose of the Senate. Sen. Paul doesn’t believe in passing laws. Rand Paul thinks he is in the Senate to prevent progress. If Paul can’t obstruct, he serves no purpose in the Senate.
Sen. Paul is throwing a tantrum because he had his favorite toy taken away. Instead of looking like a visionary leader for America’s future, Rand Paul is stomping his feet because Republicans are no longer going to get their obstructionist way on everything.
Mostly though, Rand Paul is upset because he lost a vehicle to promote Rand Paul.

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully was written by Jason Easley and Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Thu, Nov 21st, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Read More

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazi Website, Finds Ron Paul Connection

November 18, 2013 | Filed under: Right wing hatred | Posted by: Kimberley Johnson

 

Internet hactivist group “Anonymous” broke into the white supremacist website America Third Position (A3P) and found more than they bargained for. In the document dump that consisted of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes and other personal information, they found connections with former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The documents revealed Paul held meetings with the group and regularly met with many A3P members, engaged in conference calls with their board of directors and participated in a “bridging tactic” between A3P and the Ron Paul Revolution. Not surprisingly, A3P is heavily involved in campaigning for Paul. Also revealed, Paul met with Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party — the UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots.
Live Leaks reported:
“Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meetings between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul (sic). ‘I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,’ reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. ‘Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).’ In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb 12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.”’
Paul denies the connection. Paul also denied authoring a series of racist newsletters, despite confirmation from his staff that he signed off on every detail.

---

Kimberley A. Johnson (BIO) is the author of The Virgin Diaries and an activist for women’s rights. Like her on Facebook, Twitter or follow her on FB HERE.

 

Read More

Rand Paul has another problem

• By Jennifer Rubin

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) 

(James Crisp/Associated Press)

In the spring of 2010 stories first swirled around Sen. Rand Paul’s certification as an ophthalmologist by an outfit called the “National Ophthalmology Board,” an entity he founded. This week I discovered that while he continues to present himself as “board certified” the NOB has been out of business since 2011, and in any event, does not under Kentucky law permit him to advertise as “board certified.”
In 2010 Rand Paul explained that he formed the board in 1997 along with 200 young ophthalmologists to protest a decision by the American Board of Ophthalmologists to grandfather those who were certified by 1992, but to limit certification for a ten year period for those first certified after that date. Rand Paul fell within the latter group. He found that decision “discriminatory” and unfair so he set up the NOB along with his wife and father-in-law to certify himself. Despite calling itself “national,” it appears to have operated purely in Kentucky. The board remained in operation until 2000, when it was dissolved. It was reinstated in 2005. Since the certification story broke, the NOB again dissolved in 2011.
However, it is not clear how that entity would have comported within Kentucky law. Michael S. Rodman, executive director of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure tells Right Turn, “The Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure does not  license physicians based on their specialty board certification nor is it a requirement for licensure. ” However, he explained that “Board does address specialty board certification  through our regulation on physician advertising.” Rodman confirmed that if a board is not on the list, then a Kentucky specialist is prohibited from advertising himself as board certified.  That list does not include the National Ophthalmology Board.
A physician in Kentucky and elsewhere can still practice without certification, but since the 1990′s the certification has become increasingly important in the medical field. Beth Ann Comber of the American Board of Ophthalmology tells me, “Board certification, and especially MOC [Maintenance of Certification] participation, by an ABMS-recognized board helps patients make more informed choices regarding their medical care. Today, the internet connects patients with a wealth of physician information, but it’s often difficult for patients to determine where the information on those sites comes from, how the ratings are determined, and where paid advertising stops and unbiased information begins. . . .Certification is voluntary, so physicians who make the choice to participate in continuous learning and quality improvement activities are doing so out of a personal commitment to high standards for their patients and their practice.” Moreover, “there are many hospitals, private practice groups, insurers, etc. that require board certification for staff privileges or leadership positions. Some medical specialty societies also require board certification for membership or offer a special class of membership for board certified physicians.”
Rand Paul continues to perform eye “surgery in his home state, often getting favorable media attention for performing free eye procedures. His profile on the website of the Tri-Star Greenview Regional Hospital, where Paul has privileges, includes the notation “Specialty Board Certifications: Ophathalmology.” Likewise on the Healthgrades  Web site where patients can locate physicians his entry reads: “Ophthalmology, Board Certified.”
Since 2005 Rand Paul has not been certified by any board recognized by the state of Kentucky, and since 2011 has had no certification since the NOB was dissolved. I asked Rand Paul’s staff a series of questions, trying to determine why he still held himself out as a “certified” ophthalmologist:

Did the National Board of Ophthalmology have examinations and/or continuing education requirements? If so, what were they?
How many doctors claimed certification through the NBO? Did they continue to do so or did they obtain American Board of Ophthalmology certification?
When it dissolved, did Dr. Rand stop presenting himself as “board certified”?
The Kentucky Board of Licensure’s list of approved accreditation boards does not appear to include the NBO so why did Dr. Rand believe he had the right under Kentucky law to advertise as board certified? Did he receive an exemption or opinion of some sort from the state licensure board?
Is he continuing to hold himself out as “board certified”?
Has he taken any continuing education since he was originally certified? Since 1997?

I got back a nonresponsive answer that recited his medical school and residency record. As to the certification issue, a Rand Paul spokeswoman would only say:

In 1997, Dr. Paul led a nationwide protest against the American Board of Ophthalmology’s decision to require recertification for younger ophthalmologists, but not for older ophthalmologists. Over 200 young ophthalmologists co-signed a letter with Dr. Paul to protest the policy. When ABO refused to extend their recertification policy to all ophthalmologists, the group formed a competing board certification group called the National Board of Ophthalmology.  The group administered its own certification exam for about a decade, but is no longer active.
NBO is a nonprofit corporation and all who took part were volunteers without salary. Dr. Paul has not profited in any way from this group.
The decade-long battle against a policy that the ABO did not make binding on all members is just another example of Dr. Paul’s willingness to fight against any law or rule that doesn’t include equal protection for everyone.

In refusing to answer the direct questions Rand Paul will prompt further inquiry as to whether he skated around Kentucky law, received appropriate continuing education and represented himself forthrightly to his patients, paid or otherwise. It is noteworthy that he says 200 people signed the letter; he does not confirm that any of them relied on the NBO certification.
Rand Paul is already under fire for plagiarism charges, and has reacted angrily to that story. (“It annoys the hell out of me. I feel like if I could just go to detention after school for a couple days, then everything would be okay. But do I have to be in detention for the rest of my career?”)  His reaction doesn’t bode well for presidential campaign-level scrutiny. At one point he told the New York Times, “To tell you the truth, people can think what they want, I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they’re tired of me. I’ll go back to being a doctor, and I’ll be perfectly content.” If he does, he would be smart to get certified by the American Board of Ophthalmologists to be fully compliant with state law and give patients the reassurance he’s current on the latest developments in his field.
So long as he is a U.S. senator with presidential aspirations, however, he will need to respond calmly and honestly with controversies about his own actions and record. By providing so little information he guarantees continued scrutiny.

Read More

Jon Stewart Blasts Rand Paul For Plagiarizing Wikipedia

Posted: 11/08/2013 10:30 am EST  |  Updated: 11/08/2013 10:40 am EST

Rand Paul has had a tough last few weeks as he's addressed charges of plagiarism, seemingly against his better nature. And Jon Stewart was not about to let him off the hook for copying from Wikipedia, of all places.

Read More

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party's 2016 problem

By Bill Scher 10 hours ago The Week

.

View gallery

Frenemies.

As the New York Times detailed over the weekend, and as The Week's Matt Lewis predicted in July, a rivalry is brewing between Tea Party favorites Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Each side is badmouthing the other, saying its rival is unelectable in the 2016 presidential race. Cruz reportedly trashed Paul as fatally linked to his extremist father, while Paul's aides call Cruz "the chief of the wacko birds."

Related Stories

• Ted Cruz's Terrible October The Atlantic Wire
• Divided Republicans bicker over restoring their tarnished brand AFP
• US shutdown leader Ted Cruz, a conservative rock star AFP
• Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Are Frenemies The Atlantic Wire (RSS)
• Dick Cheney defends the tea party: 'These are Americans' Yahoo News

Intra-party scraps are nothing new, and often the survivor emerges stronger. Barack Obama went the full 12 rounds with Hillary Clinton, and came out the other end battle-hardened. But for conservative insurgents hoping to take over the Republican Party from inside, a Paul-Cruz throwdown is the absolute last thing that they need, because it risks knocking them both out of the ring.
SEE ALSO: Meet the 4 Marvel superheroes who will soon have their own Netflix shows
Many people assume that the right-wing ideologues in the Republican "base" dictate the outcome of their party's presidential primaries. That's not true. A movement conservative has not triumphed over an "establishment" candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1980.
There is a reason for that: Uncompromising conservatives tend to cling to their favorite candidates for too long, dividing their votes among several instead of consolidating their forces behind one. As the base splinters, the establishment's preferred (and always well-financed) choice is able to win early contests with relatively small pluralities. Party loyalty eventually kicks in, peeling off conservative votes and propelling the establishment pick to the finish line.

SEE ALSO: Which professions have the most psychopaths?

This is why Rush Limbuagh's 2008 tirades against John McCain could not make conservatives choose between Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. Instead, McCain was able to take the pivotal South Carolina primary with a mere 33 percent of the vote. Nor could Limbaugh derail Romney in 2012. Conservatives fractured between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, allowing Romney to win most contests with less than a majority.
Compare that to 1980, when Reagan was the only movement conservative facing off against a pack of establishment types. While George H.W. Bush was able to emerge as the most plausible alternative, Reagan was able to easily defeat him mano a mano.
SEE ALSO: Watch out, Chris Christie: It's a trap!
I wrote back in May that Rand Paul had a solid shot at the 2016 GOP nod, despite being anathema to the "national security" wing of the party, because the 1980 dynamic could be replicated. Polling at the time showed Paul consolidating conservatives, with the establishment camp splintering between Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, former Gov. Jeb Bush, and others.

But that was before Ted Cruz became the Tea Party darling du jour, interrupting Paul's ascendency. Now it's pile-up at the top of polls. The most recent survey from Public Policy Polling shows an effective four-way tie between Paul, Cruz, Christie, and Bush. But take either Cruz or Paul out of the mix, and a four-way tie would become a Tea Party romp.

SEE ALSO: Advice for your wedding night (from 100 years ago)

Which raises a serious question for conservative insurgents: How bad do you want to remake the party?
Are you prepared to organize behind a single candidate, even if you have a few quibbles of tactical or substantive disagreement? Are you prepared to pressure anyone who might stand in that person's way to stand down and put their principles ahead of personal ambition?
SEE ALSO: He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
Or are you going throw away a rare moment of establishment weakness and repeat the same mistakes of the past? Are you going to give the establishment you loathe time to regroup and figure out to whom they should funnel their money to because you couldn't collectively decide whether Cruz or Paul would strip down government the most?
The establishment's favorite is always going to have plenty of money, and plenty of prominent surrogates in the media validating his presidential bona fides. Any insurgency is an uphill battle, and it can't be won with divided leadership. If the Tea Party wants to overcome money and elitism with people power, either some of its leaders will have to voluntarily check their egos at the door, or its followers will have to force them to.

SEE ALSO: Why Democrats think they can compete in the South

Read More

Did Ron Paul Advocate an Armed Rebellion Against Our Government Over Obamacare?

November 7, 2013 By Allen Clifton

Anyone who follows me knows I can’t stand Libertarians.  Sure, some of them are great people who mean well, but their political philosophy is so completely flawed that I view the entire movement as similar to some kind of adolescent rebellion.  The thing I always laugh at when it comes to Libertarians is the fact that they can’t even define what it means to be a “real” Libertarian.  I can’t count the times I’ve cited something said by one Libertarian only to have another tell me that person isn’t a “real” Libertarian.
Even among themselves they can’t agree on what it means to be a Libertarian, yet they believe this ideology is what’s best for the United States and all humankind.
For many Libertarians, Ron Paul is their hero.  Personally, I think he’s a creepy old man who’s completely out of his mind.  But for many Libertarians (many known as “Paul-bots”) he’s the only hope for the salvation of the United States and true liberty.
But of course he is.
That is, when he’s not advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States and bashing several of our Constitutional Amendments.
Because that’s exactly what it seemed like he was doing a few days ago when he was in Virginia speaking at a rally for the newly failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.
During this rally, Paul said:

“Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification.  I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come.  It’s going to be a de facto nullification.  It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states.”

In other words, Ron Paul is currently living under the belief that the United States is headed for an all-out revolution.  Not that it could be headed that way—but that it is inevitable.
He also went after the Seventeenth Amendment (which allows for the direct election of our United States Senators) and our Sixteenth Amendment which allows the government to collect income tax.
In fact, when arguing against the Seventeenth Amendment he used the argument almost all racists used (and a primary argument of the Confederacy during the Civil War) — that it undermines “states rights.”  Isn’t that basically the calling card of ignorance in this country?  Be it in support of slavery,  advocating segregation, denying women or homosexuals their rights — “states rights” is almost always the argument used by these ignorant bigots.
And it just so happens to be the cornerstone argument made by almost every Libertarian.
But Paul went even further, pushing his belief that our Second Amendment wasn’t meant for hunting, but to give citizens the right for revolution against the tyranny.   Paul said, “The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits.  Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally.”
Let’s just look at those two sentences, shall we?  First, Paul believes the Second Amendment is meant to give Americans the right to rise up against a tyrannical government.  Then he follows that with the warning that we’re currently under a great threat to our liberties internally.
Who would have ever thought a health care law protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, and requiring that they purchase comprehensive health insurance so that they don’t go bankrupt paying for medical expenses, would be something that would call for the overthrow of our government?
That’s how ridiculous these people are.
And let’s not pretend that Ron Paul is some freedom loving good person.  He’s been tied numerous times to racist organizations or individuals, has spoken out in opposition to gay rights and is against abortion.  At the end of the day he’s just a typical Republican who rallies against the federal government—until he wants that same government to restrict the rights given to Americans that he disagrees with.

Ron Paul is someone who claims Libertarian principles, but sold out to the Republican party to win elections.  How noble of him.
I would like to invite Ron Paul and all of his supporters to head off to live in any number of poor, developing countries with small centralized governments, low taxes and few regulations.  Considering human history has never yielded a single successful society built on Libertarian principles, those are about the only places they would be able to move to.
In fact, the closest examples we have are poor, disorganized nations.  But hey, I hear Somalia is gorgeous this time of year.  I’m sure Libertarians will love the freedom of no Federal Government, no Federal Reserve, little or no taxes and all of the guns they can possibly get their hands on.

Related Posts on Forward Progressives:

• Rand Paul Proves His Ignorance, says “Liberals Have No Idea of How Capitalism…
• Not The Onion: Rand Paul’s Appallingly Ridiculous Claim about Science and…
• Texas Tea Party Candidate for Congress does Reddit “AMA” – Brutal…

 

Read More

GOP’s latest, desperate Obamacare strategy: Try to confuse Americans!

Rather than field inquiries or provide constituents with information, Republicans want them mixed up by Obamacare

By Brian Beutler

 

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul

 (Credit: Jeff Malet, maletphoto.com/Reuters

/Gary Cameron/Jonathan Ernst)

 

If you’ve received a letter from your health insurance company advising you that your plan has been canceled because of Obamacare (and perhaps offering to shift you into much more expensive coverage) you’re probably wondering what remedies are available to you.
In an ideal world you could call your member of Congress or one of your senators and ask his or her staff to help you sort through your options.
But if your representatives are Republicans, the very idea of providing you assistance runs at cross-purposes with their desire to turn you into a talking point.
Introducing… #YOURSTORY!
It’s a new campaign organized by the Senate Republican conference to turn your frustration, anger and/or confusion over the Affordable Care Act into an anecdote for a floor speech or a sound bite for a reporter whose job it is to find some Obamacare “losers.”
Now obviously most of the submissions Senate Republicans will field will come from constituents who are already unfavorably disposed toward the law. And their stories will be relayed to other constituents who are unfavorably disposed to the law. So the public relations value of #YOURSTORY is probably pretty marginal.
But consider for a moment what it implies about the GOP’s commitment to providing responsible constituent services.
Recall Dianne Barrette, who did an about-face on Obamacare once its benefits were explained to her clearly and responsibly. But it wasn’t a member of Congress who provided that assistance. It certainly wasn’t any of the Republicans who helped turn her into the embodiment of the Affordable Care Act’s failure and President Obama’s broken promises. It was a reporter.
Now I don’t know if Barrette reached out to any elected officials in the first place. For all I know her member of Congress is a Democrat. But it speaks volumes about the GOP’s commitments that they pounced on her story when it was so borderline to begin with, and moved on once she was no longer of any use.
In reality, Barrette’s story illustrates that a little bit of information about Obamacare can turn bewilderment into satisfaction. Many of the people receiving cancellation notices or experiencing rate shock will eventually find that they’re pretty happy with their new options. But when that happens, their human interest value collapses, as does their usefulness toward the end of undermining Obamacare. So what are the odds, do you suppose, that Republicans are providing this kind of information to their constituents themselves?

The ugly subtext to stories like these — which proliferate so rapidly, but then turn out upon closer inspection to be less black-and-white than originally depicted — is that Republicans are fostering and nurturing constituent confusion.
#YOURSTORY is a manifestation of that strategy. A site like #YOURSTORY could be just as easily used to field inquiries and respond to troubled constituents with useful information. Instead it’ll be used as a crowdsourcing tool for anti-Obamacare opportunists.
The existence of a campaign like this suggests that the universe of individual Republicans who are refusing to help constituents navigate the Affordable Care Act is larger than we know. And we know it exists.
“Given that we come from Kansas, it’s much easier to say, ‘Call your former governor,’” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., told the Hill, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “You say, ‘She’s the one. She’s responsible. She was your governor, elected twice, and now you reelected the president, but he picked her.’”
“We know how to forward a phone call,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. “I have two dedicated staff who deal with nothing but Obamacare and immigration problems. I’m sure there will be an uptick in that, but all we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration. The ball’s in their court. They’re responsible for it.”
The strategic logic here is perverse, but there is a logic to it.
Millions of people are getting cancellation notices from their insurers. Most of those people will be pretty happy with the new system — if they’re made aware of and guided through it by conscientious public servants. The conundrum for conservatives is that once enough people are enrolled in Obamacare, its constituency will be too large for them to support repealing it without offering some alternative that also expands coverage to millions and millions of people. Which is to say, Republicans would be working against their own public policy ambitions if they did right by people receiving these letters. So they’re using them as pawns instead.

Brian Beutler is Salon's political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler. More Brian Beutler.

Read More

Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul Hope To Tack Right-To-Work Law Onto Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Posted: 11/05/2013 11:58 am EST  |  Updated: 11/05/2013 12:54 pm EST

Dave Jamieson 

dave.jamieson@huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have proposed an amendment to a workplace discrimination bill in the hopes of creating a national right-to-work law.
The measure -- which, as Roll Call reported Monday, would be tacked onto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- would forbid contracts between companies and labor unions that require workers to pay the union for bargaining on their behalf. Prized by Republicans and business groups and loathed by unions, such laws have made it onto the books in 24 states, most recently in Michigan.
Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, McConnell praised Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who signed the state law in December after it was fast-tracked through the Republican-controlled legislature. McConnell said he and Paul were following Snyder's lead.
"The truth is, over the years, 'Big Labor' had come to care more about its own perks and power than the workers it was charged with protecting," McConnell said. "Snyder knew that. And he knew it was time to tip the scales back in favor of workers. Well, he’s not alone."
Right-to-work laws diminish union membership and weaken the clout of organized labor. Unions like to refer to such legislation as "right-to-work-for-less" laws, pointing to studies finding the laws depress wages. Right-to-work's boosters, including McConnell, portray the laws as a matter of workplace choice and a necessary counterweight to "Big Labor," even though unionized workers now make up only 6.6 percent of the private sector.
The Senate cleared a major legislative hurdle Monday night by voting to move forward with debate on ENDA, which would bar discrimination in the workplace for large businesses on the basis of sexual orientation or identity. The measure introduced by McConnell and Paul will now become part of that discussion.
It's highly unlikely, however, that the Democratic-controlled chamber would ever send right-to-work legislation to the president's desk. Unions remain a strong base of the Democratic Party, and right-to-work has proven deeply divisive in states like Michigan.
Speaking after McConnell on Tuesday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said a national right-to-work law would lead to more inequality in the U.S. economy.
"If you look at the state of unionism today, I think the facts speak for themselves," said Durbin, referencing the country's falling union density. "Those who want to eliminate the opportunity for collective bargaining and make it more difficult for workers to stand up and speak for themselves in the workplace, I think frankly are going to condemn us to a much slower-growing economy and much more injustice when it comes to compensation."
Correction: This post originally referred to ENDA as the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. It is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
 

Read More

Sen. Rand Paul Wishes He Could Challenge Plagiarism Critics to a 'Duel'; Calls Them 'Hacks and Haters'

Sen. Rand Paul Wishes He Could Challenge Plagiarism Critics to a 'Duel'; Calls Them 'Hacks and Haters' 

By Imtiyaz Delawala 22 hours ago 

On "This Week" Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., dismissed charges of plagiarism in his speeches and writing made in the last week, saying he was being "unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters" who he wishes he could challenge to a "duel."
"The footnote police have really been dogging me for the last week. I will admit that. And I will admit, sometimes we haven't footnoted things properly," Paul told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
"In some of the other things that are now going to pop up under thousands of things I've written, yeah, there are times when they have been sloppy or not correct or we've made an error," Paul said. "But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so."
"When I wrote scientific papers, I sometimes had statements with eight footnotes for one sentence. Is that what you want me to do for my speeches? If it's required, I'll do it," Paul added. "But I think I'm being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. And I'm just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character."

Sen Rand Paul (R) Kentucky on 'This Week'

Last week, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow accused the Kentucky senator of plagiarism, alleging that he lifted lines from the Wikipedia entry on the film "Gattaca" in a recent speech in Virginia. Paul seemingly used several lines of description of the film from its Wikipedia page as part of a critique of pro-abortion rights advocates. Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski also reported that Paul had used multiple lines of text from Wikipedia for his description of the film "Stand and Deliver" during a speech in June.
Paul brushed off the accusations of plagiarism in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos the following day, but new examples have continued to surface. On Saturday, Buzzfeed reported that Paul had used nearly verbatim more than 1,300 words from a 2003 Heritage Foundation case study in his 2013 book "Government Bullies." Politico also reported similarities between text in two of Paul's speeches and text from reports by the Associated Press and a conservative magazine. A Paul adviser responded to Politico that Paul would be "more cautious in presenting and attributing sources" going forward.
On "This Week," Paul joked that he wished he could challenge his critics to a "duel" over the charges.
"If dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge," Paul said. "But I can't do that, because I can't hold office in Kentucky then."

Read More

Rand Paul’s staff on Ted Cruz: 'Chief of wacko birds'

November 3

By STEVE KRASKE

The Kansas City Star

The political yak on this Monday morning:

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/03/4596106/buzzchatter-monday-you-wont-believe.html#storylink=cpy

• “Chief of the wacko birds.” — the staff of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul referring to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a fellow Republican, according to a piece by Jonathan Martin of The New York Times.
Martin’s story chronicled the growing rivalry between the two conservative senators as Republicans start to look toward 2016.
• “This is not about conspiracy, this is about transparency.” — Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and author who’s neck-deep in a decade-long lawsuit against the CIA, seeking release of the closed documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Thousands of pages of documents about the 50-years-ago assassination remain closed, and historians, conspiracy buffs and others are puzzled why the government — seemingly inexplicably — won’t release them.
• “I don’t think there’s any shame in saying we didn’t anticipate this one glitch.” — former White House senior adviser David Axelrod on NBC’s “Meet the Press” refusing to acknowledge that President Barack Obama erred when he said Americans could keep their health care plan if they liked it.
A simple admission that he made a mistake could get this latest Affordable Care Act controversy behind the president. But Axelrod and the administration refuse to budge on that point.
• “Run Hillary run.” — New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, urging his fellow New Yorker during a speech in Iowa to run for president in 2016.
Schumer, who was relentless in his successful pursuit of Claire McCaskill to run for Senate in 2006 two years after her loss for Missouri governor, painted Hillary Clinton as the Democrats’ best hope for defeating the tea party.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/03/4596106/buzzchatter-monday-you-wont-believe.html#storylink=cpy

Read More

GREED? THY NAME IS AYN

GREED? THY NAME IS AYN

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 13, 2013 at 12:00 am “Thirty years after her death, Ayn Rand’s ideas have never been more important.
“Unfettered capitalism, unregulated business, bare-bones government providing no social services, glorification of selfishness, disdain for Judeo-Christian morality—these are the tenets of Rand’s harsh philosophy.”
So reads the jacket blurb for Ayn Rand Nation: The Struggle for America’s Soul, by Gary Weiss.

“The timing of this book couldn’t be better for Americans who are trying to understand where in the hell the far-out right’s anti-worker, anti-egalitarian extremism is coming from,” asserts Jim Hightower, New York Times bestselling author of Thieves in High Places.
“Ayn Rand Nation introduces us to the godmother of such Tea Party craziness as destroying Social Security and eliminating Wall Street regulation. Weiss writes with perception and wit.”
For those who believe that Rand’s philosophy is the remedy for America’s economic and social ills, a 60 Minutes news story sounds a warning.
New England Compounding Center (NECC) pharmacy, based in Framington, Massachusetts, is under criminal investigation.  The reason: Shipping, in the fall of 2012, 17,000 vials of a steroid to be injected into the joints or spines of patients suffering chronic pain.
But instead of relieving pain, this steroid–contaminated with fungal meningitis–brought only agony and death.

The vials went out to thousands of pharmacies scattered across 23 states.
Forty-eight people have died, and 720 are still fighting horrific infections caused by the drug.
Just as Ayn Rand would have wanted, the pharmacy managed to avoid supervision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
NECC was one of thousands of pharmacies that Congress exempted from FDA oversight. The reason: By law, they are allowed to make custom drugs for just one patient at a time.
But within a few years, NECC went national–and vastly expanded the quantities of drugs produced.
“The underlying factor is that the company got greedy and overextended and we got sloppy, and something happened,” John Connolly, a lab technician for the company, told 60 Minutes, the CBS news magazine.
And, also as Rand would have wanted, the four family members who founded the pharmacy were enriched by it–receiving over $16 million in wages and profits, from December 2011 through November 2012.
Bankruptcy records show the family members racked up $90,000 on corporate American Express credit cards, including charges made after the company shut down in early October.
A month before the first steroid death, Connolly says he warned his supervisor: “Something’s gonna happen, something’s gonna get missed and we’re gonna get shut down.”
His supervisor just shrugged.
NECC was shut down by the authorities.  Barry Cadden, the president and lead pharmacist of the company, was subpoenaed by Congress to testify.  In true gangster fashion, he pleaded the Fifth.
He claims he doesn’t know how the contamination started.
Which brings us back to Ayn Rand–and, more specifically, Ayn Rand Nation.
Among the themes explored in Weiss’ book:

• Atlas Shrugged–Rand’s 1957 novel–depicts a United States where many of society’s most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike. The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world.  The novel continues to influence those who aren’t hard-core Rand followers, who are known as Objectivists.
• Ayn Rand’s novels dramatically affirm such bedrock American values as independence, creativity, self-reliance, and above all, a permanent distrust of government.
• In Rand’s 1936 novel, We the Living–set in Soviet Russia–her heroine, Kira Argounova, tells a Communist: “I loathe your ideals; I admire your methods.” Objectivists believe in defending capitalism with the same ruthless methods of Communists.
• In Rand’s ideal world, government would control only police, armies and law courts.  To her, a   government which performs more than these three functions is not simply impractical or expensive: it is evil.

Many of those who embrace Rand substitute rage for logic: Tea Partiers are furious about the 2008 Wall Street crash, yet they blame the government for it.
(Ironically, in a way, they are right: The government can be blamed–but not for too much regulation of greed-fueled capitalists but too little.)
Weiss asserts that Tea Party members resent the social and economic realities facing the nation, but lack a coherent intellectual framework to help them focus and justify their rage.  But Objectivists have–and offer–such a framework.
Thus, Tea Partiers form the ideological part of the right wing, and the clarity–and fanaticism–of their views gives them a power far out of proportion to their numbers.
Weiss believes that Rand is presenting a moral argument for laissez-faire capitalism, which means eliminating  Social Security, Medicare, public road system, fire departments, parks, building codes–and, above all, any type of financial regulation.
Weiss maintains that Rand’s moral argument must be directly confronted–and defeated–with moral arguments calling for charity and rationality.
Given the fanaticism of Tea Partiers and the right-wing Republicans they support, success in countering Rand’s “I’ve-got-mine-and-the-hell-with-everybody-else” morality is by no means assured.

Read More