Friday, September 20, 2013

Senator Rand Paul Getting it Exactly Right...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs-Tyranny

 You certainly won't hear many disagreeing with Senator Paul's position on this one. Well, that is of course unless you're really a big government fanatic that believes Big Bother has every right to every aspect of your life. Keep on pressing on this one Senator Paul. Maybe you could start a "Repeal the Patriot Act" movement while you're at it? Read the the full story  HERE Via: Memeorandum


  1. Actually, RN (and you know better) it was the PROGRESSIVES who have done more to protect our freedoms from big government and it was Russ Feingold, a Progressive Senator from Wisconsin, who was the lone senate vote against the Patriot act...

    It won't happen from the right....

  2. Actually TAO I thought you of all people would understand why I wrote my closing sentance as I did.

    Perhaps you did?

  3. I believe, within our respective online communities, there is a consensus on this one. In addition, I applaud Rand Paul for other comments made earlier this week when he equated injustices within our so-called "justice system" with Jim Crow. Specifically, mandatory minimum sentencing laws that consign non-violent drug offenders to harsh prison sentences, sentences that destroy lives and disenfranchise citizens from full voting rights where felons are not permitted to vote. I was quite surprised hearing this from Rand Paul.

    1. Actually (O)CT(O)PUS, given his libertarian leanings I'd be surprised if this wasn't his posistion.

  4. Failed former Senator Feingold was mostly someone who favored power for the state at the direct expense of the people.... from his "campaign finance reform" which included making it a crime for people to criticize politicians at the wrong time of year his very extreme abortion position which would have given abortionists the power to act as judge/jury/executioner to born US citizens.

    Not entirely though. There were exceptions, as Tao has mentioned. Rand Paul has a much better record overall, though.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. "Boy dmarks you have a way of spinning everything"

      I don't engage in spinning, but you engage in lying.

      ""born US citizens" really?

      You might want to do some research before you launch into something yo don't know about. I was referring not to Feingold's support of abortion for fetuses, but his support of abortion taking place after birth at which point the child is not a fetus anymore.

      "Let me know when a fetus gets a passport."

      Now, this is strange of yo to say. Few born US citizens have passports. Does this mean it is OK to kill them?

      "people to criticize politicians" is just a fancy way of saying that he limited the money that could be spent on elections"

      Not at all. You are spinning, lying, and showing poor reading comprehension.

      "that has nothing to do with speech or "criticizing"

      It has everything to do with it. The people who ran afoul of the government for making a movie critical of a sitting US citizen are a perfect example.

      "But then again you like your politicians who kowtow down to the wealthy and powerful..."

      Never. I prefer they serve the public interest, rather than serve only the idea of more power for themselves.

      "keep the working as slaves"

      I favor the Emancipation Proclamation, and strongly support the eradication of slavery anywhere in the world. Wow. you know how to make stuff up.

      "and want to regulate sexual relationships."

      I am consistently opposed to this type of thing, such as the recently mentioned Michigan instance involving Rick Snyder.

      Talk about "spin". In every single instance, you got wrong the views of the politicians being discussed, and my views only.

    3. Dmarks,

      Here is the exchange between Feingold and Santuriam in regards to the issue of after birth abortions:

      The following exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took place on the Senate floor on September 26, 1996:

      Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

      Sen. Feingold: I will.

      Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby’s head would slip out — that the baby was completely delivered — would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

      Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

      Sen. Santorum: That doesn’t answer the question. Let’s assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you’ve stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

      Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate."

      Now, you claim that you are all for politicians who "serve the public interest" now exactly what is more in the public interest than allowing a doctor and a mother to make informed decisions?

      In regards to your claim about CITIZENS UNITED, which you coyly never name directly. Forget the movie about Hillary Clinton in 2007, which is kind of funny considering that the Republicans are now against a movie being made of Hillary Clinton to be broadcast before the 2016 election, but you also support CITIZENS UNITED in its entirety, thus you have no problem with wads of money being spent to control politicians and exactly how does that jive with your "I prefer they serve the public interest, rather than serve only the idea of more power for themselves..."

    4. Tao: After reading again the statements by Feingold that are so damning and embarrassing that Feingold tampered with the Congressional record to try to cover it up, we will agree to disagree. A person acting as judge, jury, and executioner is not a "doctor" making an informed choice, in my view. This situation is long long after the dividing line in the compromise on abortion discussed by RN earlier in another item.

      "Citizens United"? I was not being coy at all. Whatever point you were trying to make there, it is obscured by your own coyness and lack of clarity. And I got right to the heart of the movie: some individuals tried to express criticism of a member of the ruling elite, and were blocked from doing so by a law that would make Kim Jong Un smile.

      "Republicans are now against a movie being made of Hillary Clinton to be broadcast before the 2016 election"

      So? As soon as I heard of this a while back, I went on record and sharply criticized the Republicans for objecting to this movie. I sure hope this backfires on those lousy party leaders, and it would serve them right if NBC/etc market this pro-Hillary move with the tagline "the movie the Republican Party doesn't want you to see". Usually the "don't want you to see" tagline in ads is hyperbole, but here it would not be.

      "but you also support CITIZENS UNITED in its entirety"

      And here, Tao, you have completely lost a grasp of the facts, and are merely making careless assumptions and typing stuff that just feels good to type, without much thought. I have always and consistently opposed the idea of 'corporate personhood' because it is nuts, and I support that part being removed. I also favor strong restrictions on campaign funding. I have a big problem with "with wads of money being spent to control politicians". However, I strongly support the right of anyone to speak truth to power, any time of the year, be it the individuals in the "Citizens United" group, Michael Moore, NBC, or anyone. For or against issues, for or against candidates. The First Amendment demands this.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

      The fact remains that it appears that you and most others I talk to about this who favor such censorship think it is a good thing for the government to harass and persecute individuals for the crime of criticism politicians at the "wrong" time. I've even seen someone repeatedly justify such censorship if the content is a "hit piece" (i.e. too critical of someone in power). In this case, it should be banned. Russ Feingold overall has a poor record on civil liberties and our Constitutional rights. So does McCain in this area. Make of that what you will. Rand Paul is overall on more sound footing, with more proper caution toward the idea of acceding more power to those in control than Feingold has.

      Besides, Feingold is a has-been: a failed politician, rejected by the people. Sent home. For good or ill, he is irrelevant. Rand Paul is a in position of power. Hope he does more good with it.

    5. If you are going to claim that Feingold had the congressional records changed then please produce such evidence; the exchange I quoted came from the Wisconsin Right To Life blog.

      While I do not favor abortion I also do not like the fact that others, such as yourself and Rand Paul believe that they have a moral imperative to intercede.

      Don't fool yourself Dmarks, you have no problem "with wads of money being spent to control politicians." Especially if its money that comes from the Koch Brothers or one of their front groups and yes, the Koch Brothers fund Citizen United and they were the initial sponsors back in 1988.

      Forget the constitutional quote, because Citizens United had nothing to do with "people" but rather with granting Corporations "personhood." You cannot say on one hand that you are against "corporate personhood" and on the other sustain the belief "..the right of anyone to speak truth to power..."

      In fact, because Citizens United is a 501(c)4 it does not disclose who contributes to its fundraising, if anyone.

      I would like for you to point out where Russ Feingold has a "poor record on civil liberties and our Constitutional rights."

      The people in "control" are not the politicians but the folks that fund them. That is the mess that the current Republican Party finds themselves in, they have to appeal to voters who in their case are mostly Tea Party folks to be able to stay in power to do the bidding of those that bankroll their campaigns: They are in a tug of war.

      Don't let the Rand Paul movement fool you....they are as much about power and elitism as the Clintons are. That is why Ron Paul grandson-law, who ran his last presidential campaign and ran Rand Paul's senatorial campaign is now running Mitch McConnell's senatorial campaign.

      Let me know when Rand Paul votes against the Patriot Act.

    6. Sorry, tao, you are very very wrong. The people wronged by Feingold's fascistic attempt to punish individuals who dare speak truth to power are flesh-and-blood human beings. People. And you seem to be claiming that they have no rights if they are associated with organizations you hate.

      I am indeed against corporate personhood and for the right to speak truth to power. Both views are consistent with the Constitution.

      Those in power are the ruling elites: the government. Sorry I am too well informed to buy into baseless conspiracy theories.

      Feingold's poor record on rights and liberties? I already detailed it.

      Your assertion that it is OK to censor movies if all the funding sources aren't revealed is very outrageous and fascist. Koch brothers? So what. If you dont like a movie they fund, don't watch it. Problem solved. The rest of your diatribe involved either making up stuff about my views or showing a basic contempt for the civil liberty of dissent, and a dislike for the specific rights in the First Amendment.

      The First Amendment stands. Your attempts to justify censorship are directlly contradicted by it.

    7. To Tao I say, "well said". I see he didn't bother replying again, most likely because it is clear he won the debate. Especially when Dennis asked for proof of Feingold's "poor record on rights and liberties" and he says he "already detailed it" (when he didn't). It's a transparent dodge he's pulled numerous times in the past.

      The First Amendment does stand... for individuals and not for the corporations Dennis loves. This is why Dennis' claims of being against corporate personhood ring hollow. He continually argues for corporate rights of free speech because he wants the voice of the little guy drowned out. In Dennis' world "free speech" is something available for sale... and those with the most money can buy the most "free speech".

    8. Excuse me, I meant "when Dennis WAS asked"...

    9. I indeed detail some "proof" of failed former senator Feingold's hostility toward civil liberties, including his assertion wanting born American citizens to be killed without any due process and fair trial, and his views (along with McCain's) that criticizing a politician in film is something that can be censored and regulated (making criminals of dissenters). I found two examples, and did more than mention them. I am sure I can find more.

      "He continually argues for corporate rights of free speech"

      I never do. However, I point out the fact that the right of free speech belongs to everyone, according to the First Amendment. And no exemption is made for stripping this right from people just because they are associated with certain organizations.

      "because he wants the voice of the little guy drowned out."

      I don't, and this never happens.

      "In Dennis' world "free speech" is something available for sale.."

      Well, you might have a point there. But this is the way of the nation since the founding, and the writing of the amendments. There was always exchange of money all over in the newspaper business, for one example, from the beginning.

      Regardless, the First Amendment, again, does not contain any such exemptions you are imagining. Yes, there is no provision for censoring when money is involved. And no, WD, the mention of the "press" does not mean (as you have repeatedly asserted) that free speech rights only belong to the press.

      WD, if you don't like it that someone dares to criticize politicians you don't like, ignore it..That is the American way. Don't censor it. That is the North Korean way.


      What does this have to do with Rand Paul? On these issues, he is much more in line with civil liberties than Feingold. He opposes "doctors" killing young born people without any sort of due process. While Paul is open to accusations of extremism on the "other end" of the abortion debate, when it comes to the late term, Feingold is the true extremist.

      On First Amendment and free expression issues? He is leagues ahead of Feingold. After all, the Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The exceptions WD is imagining that justify and support the government crushing those that speak out against it simply do not exist in the text.

    10. Anyway... WD, I will "let" you have the last word here. There's really nothing new to be said by either of us that we have not said before, and even if this post isn't becoming a crap-fest, there's such thing as a dead-horse parade. We've beaten this one too much, even in the comments to this post. I'll let you get a few more kicks in the side of the deceased equines, but I won't "take the bait' and respond further.

    11. If the First Amendment says what you say it does (it doesn't, but let's suppose it does)... then HOW did the McCain/Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act pass? How did the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 pass? What about the Tillman Act of 1907, or the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 or it's 1910 and 1925 amendments? What about the Hatch Act, the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?

      All of these laws sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections; regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

      And, I'd wager Dennis believes every one of these laws violated the first amendment.

    12. I will neither confirm or deny or argue the points in WD's last comment. Refusal to do so does indicate agreement with the points. None of his comment is related at all to Rand Paul or the Patriot Act, and it is clear even more that this dead horse has galloped even further along the tangent trail. If these questions or raised assumptions come up later under a post where they are on topic, I will address them there.

    13. Professionally handled dmarks, and quite appropriately as well.

  5. Some of the facts coming out about ACA

    Imagine that, it will benefit part time workers.
    In fact when the exchanges get going they could lead to single payer eventually.

    Why is the fringe right so adamant about eliminating the ACA?
    Because they know it can work and people will like it and benefit.

    Can't have that so through out the usual elementary school nonsense about "the nanny state" but NEVER get down and discuss the real issue.

    Paul, Cruz and other fringe right stalwarts like Louie Goombah are dead set on stopping ACA because it will work.

    1. "Paul, Cruz and other fringe right stalwarts like Louie Goombah are dead set on stopping ACA because it will work."

      I believe this is an unfounded conjecture. I have yet to run across any conservative who opposes "Obamacare" because it will be successful.

      "In fact when the exchanges get going they could lead to single payer eventually."

      That happens to be a great argument against exchanges... that they would lead to an unaccountable monopoly and such significantly increased state power. If you want to REALLY make sure "Obamacare" dies from even stronger public opposition, and candidates opposed to it get elected, publicize this idea that it is a stepping stone to complete Federal control of healthcare.

    2. I say let ACA unfold in all its anticipated fullness and presumed benefits. That way if it turns out to be the ruination of America Obama and the Dems will have it laid squarely at their feet.

      Then rebublicans will have the opportunity to fix it and be heroes.

      If on the other hand it works, is managed effectively,
      and the people are happy the republican party can kiss itself goodbye.

      Merely an observation, not an endorsement of the ACA. Take my comment for whatever it may be worth.

      The republican party and its leadership is lacking in wisdom IMNHO.

  6. It is an unfortunate fact that there is a long, old body of law that has led to what we have today. It's actually a myth that what the government was doing here is plainly illegal. It SHOULD be illegal, but it is not necessarily illegal or a violation of rights. Remember, when you use a third party to communicate, like a phone company or an internet provider, the information you are communicating is now not entirely or necessarily your own.

    Rand Paul is going about this argument wrong. He should be focused on changing the law, something Obama says he'd be happy to entertain, and perhaps it's time we should all call for a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees some level or levels of privacy. The right to privacy is naturally implied by the Constitution, but it is not directly addressed in and for itself. I'd love to see someone like Paul take that on.


    1. Great points, start to finish. Now more than ever, right Jersey?

      I wonder how much the NSA/etc stuff will be an issue in the next two elections.

    2. Likely not much. Both parties are drunk with powerlust. Occasionally we hear a bit of reason from guys like Rand Pau

  7. I wouldn't expect the NSA issue to get much play in the next presidential election. It depends on who runs, I suppose. Paul may run, but his messages will be muddied by some of his other positions. His take on the Civil Rights act of '64 will bury him in the generals.


  8. Good point jmj. NSA, the Patriot Act, et all will remain in place Both statist parties find them useful.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.