February 16-18, 2016::End of the day round-up (pg 2)

Mother seeks information in 2014 murder case | WAVY-TV https://t.co/QCvpHXAxUL My nephew,,,almost 2 yrs,,,and still nothing :(

I have watched with interest the GOT/P reaction and rhetoric to the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia. At first glance, one may think that Paul has a valid point,

Rand Paul: It’s A ‘Conflict Of Interest’ For Obama To Nominate A Supreme Court Justice

“The president has said he has the power basically to create immigration law out of nothing,” Paul said. “He says he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress. So see, we have a Constitutional debate on whose powers is it, the president or Congress? And I think the president sort of has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody while we’re trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power.”

But, as noted by Steve Benen http://www.msnbc.com/rac…/important-debate-ridiculous-start…, Senate has a conflict of interest as well.

Let that sink in for a moment. There’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court; the Constitution empowers the president to nominate a prospective justice; it’s the Senate’s job to consider that nominee. In Rand Paul’s mind, however, President Obama “sort of has a conflict of interest” because the court is sometimes asked to adjudicate the limits of the executive branch’s powers.

If only the Constitution’s framers had been as wise as Rand Paul, they might have thought of this.

Of course, the flaw in the senator’s argument – well, one of them, anyway – is that the Supreme Court also considers the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Indeed, it’s one of the institution’s principal functions. By Rand Paul’s reasoning, the confirmation responsibilities shouldn’t rest in senators’ hands at all, since they too “sort of have a conflict of interest.”

If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be laughable.

I wasn't going to, but I had too,,,,this IS the best one yet. PSH gets Jones and Trump as well!

Christian Conservatives Claim Obama Killed Scalia In Pagan Sacrifice

Wiles explained that the “Luciferian” “devil-worshipers” who control the government are out for blood, noting that Lupercalia is observed between February 13 and 15. Scalia’s body was discovered on the 13th. “There’s always human sacrifice involved,” he said, claiming that Scalia was “killed” to mark the beginning of pagan fascism ruling over the U.S.

“The 13th was the 44th day of 2016, Obama is the 44th president of the United States,” Wiles said, “so you have this numerology thing taking place.”

Wiles said that the assassins who killed the conservative justice “deliberately left the pillow on his face as a message to everybody else: ‘Don’t mess with us, we can murder a justice and get away with it.’ And I assure you, there’s a lot of frightened officials in Washington today, deep down they know, the regime murdered a justice…. This is the way a dictatorial, fascist, police state regime takes control of a nation.”

“The day the justice died, the day justice in America died,” he continued, “they got away with it.”

Wiles, declaring that he has “a pretty good sniffer for finding crimes” based on gut feelings, said that the “murder” of Scalia proves that “we’re being sucked into a police state where anybody who opposes this regime will be at risk of extermination.”

He also speculated that Scalia’s purported assassins put chloroform on the pillow and burned all of the evidence in his hotel room.

“Like the Soviet Union in Stalin’s day, it’s like any police state and now we’re in it,” Wiles said. He then speculated that he might be the next victim of Stalinist pagan assassination: “It was a message to everybody out there: ‘Don’t mess with us.’ That’s the message. And it’s a message to people like me.”

Wiles is an idiot. Whether or not he is sincere in his crackpot conspiracy theory is up for debate.

Just plain disturbing and Vyckie seems to hit a nerve by the many responses and follow-up reports. This coming after Al Jazeera America's report http://america.aljazeera.com/…/does-america-need-saving-fro… that has left a sour taste as well. There no way to introduce this but to say that a farmer doesn't always give things away, you got to pay for your apples. The lesson, fathers have lots of daughters so you can sell them.

Christian conservatives push child marriage with creepy meme comparing girls to apples

The onerous quote above, which likens daughters to apples and their fathers to farmers, is an apt representation of the creepy objectification of young girls and women by their own fathers which pervades the Christian purity movement. The message is clear: the value of a young woman is in her virginity — a consumable commodity owned by her future husband, kept in trust by Daddy.
,,,
Kunsman adds, “A good father loves and cares for his daughters and sees these apples of his eye as beloved people, not objects. This meme reduces girls (who are assumed to be daughters if not all women) to products for consumption and men the devourers. But even the suitors who desire them (because of nature, not the farmer’s nurture) are subject to bounded choice. It appears that young men procure apples to devour, but they are also subjects of the farmer. It’s amazing to me just how many dynamics of thought reform and spiritual abuse this homegrown meme illustrates in just a short narrative.”

More on the Creepy Apple Analogy

Regretfully Cenk kinda of gets it wrong and kind of gets it right,,, The Young Turks::Christian Website: No "Quivers" Until Marriage 

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks offers his disgust at the several of the blatantly obvious elements of the offensiveness of the meme that appeared on the Let Them Marry website, and in the process of expressing his disdain for the ideas conveyed, he misinterprets the origin of the name of what has become a whole belief system and lifestyle. Suzanne Titkemeyer offers a nice summary of his misinterpretations in the comments following an article at No Longer Quivering:

,,,
Uygur’s disgust at the meme highlights can be a wake up call to some who are still QF minded. I always hope that such expressions will help followers recognize how others outside of their bubble view these examples which they have learned to take for granted over time. If you know QF followers who find the podcast offensive, this is actually a good opportunity to get them talking and thinking for themselves. Uygur can be a mirror for them and can mark how striking the contrast in their lifestyles has or can become. You can also be a mirror for them.

Conservative Christians Think Girls Are A Crop, Should Be Married Off As Children (IMAGE)

Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? A Final Look at the Apple Meme with Philip Zimbardo 

February 2-5, 2016::End of the day round-up

Oregon woman fights Idaho faith healing laws

A former church member, Linda Martin, is trying to convince lawmakers in Idaho to do what Oregon did.

“These are not things children die of in our time, this is what children died of back in the 1800s, not in the 2000s,” says Martin. Martin grew up in Idaho as a member of the Followers of Christ. Now, she lives in Oregon, but often travels to Boise to lobby lawmakers to remove faith healing protections that prevent parents from being prosecuted for the death of a child.

This is her third attempt to reach lawmakers like Lee Heider. The Republican is chair of the Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

“If someone approaches me wanting to carry that legislation, then yes, I’ll hold a hearing. I can’t guarantee the outcome of the hearing. I can’t tell you what the other members of my committee would choose to do with that legislation but if someone chooses to do that I would be the first to stand up and give them the right to bring that legislation forward,” Heider says.

Huckabee Drops Out Of GOP Race

BREAKING: Rand Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign

CNN: Rick Santorum Suspending Presidential Campaign

Tony Abbott's speech to far right group in US not 'intentionally secretive'

"For us, it was never intended to be a public event.

"It was a dinner ADF was having and Tony Abbott aligned on some of these issues, and I think they thought he would be an interesting fella to hear from, so they invited him to come."

Mr Abbott is also reportedly scheduled to meet News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch in New York.

The ADF is surprised by the media interest in their event.

"It is going to be in New York, we have invited variety of people," Mr Trent said, declining to detail who would attend.

"It's a private gathering and Tony Abbott will be there."
,,,
Mr Abbott's sister, same-sex marriage campaigner Christine Forster, said his decision to address the group was "disappointing".

Kevin Andrews skips Parliament to address conservative lobby group in Washington on defence

Established in the 1970s, the Foundation was a key policymaker for Republican president Ronald Reagan and was a loud supporter of the original Iraq war. In recent years it has campaigned aggressively to defund Obamacare.

The Foundation's current president is former Republican senator Jim DeMint, a leading figure in the Tea Party movement and a pro-lifer who opposes same-sex marriage.

According to the Foundation's invite, Mr Andrews will cover Australia's key defence challenges, including in the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.

"Australia is in a unique position, straddling the line between Asia and the West. It faces global security and defense challenges from the perspective of an Alliance partner with the United States. It, also, focuses on the challenges that confront both nations, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region – especially the China Seas – and the Middle East," the Foundation said in promoting Mr Andrews' presentation.

The Foundation lists its mission as "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

Trump Touts Endorsement From ‘Reverend Jerry Fallwell Jr.,’ Who Is Not A Reverend

While Falwell is certainly a prominent figure in the evangelical community, he is not actually a reverend, a title specific to members of the clergy who have completed religious training.
,,,
Fallwell, who helped parlay his late father’s televangelism career into running one of the biggest Christian colleges in the country, fits into a category of religious figures known as “entrepreneurial evangelicals.” Falwell appreciates a good business sense and has been candid about his admiration for Trump.

In a statement announcing his decision to endorse the hotel mogul, Falwell referred to Trump as “a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”

Former Pentagon chief Robert Gates: Republicans’ grasp of national security is at a child’s level

"The level of dialogue on national security issues would embarrass a middle schooler,” Gates said of the Republican contenders at a Politico Playbook event in Washington on Monday . “People are out there making threats and promises that are totally unrealistic, totally unattainable. Either they really believe what they’re saying or they’re cynical and opportunistic and, in a way, you hope it’s the latter because God forbid they actually believe some of the things that they’re saying.”
,,,
Gates, promoting a new book, A Passion for Leadership, said “one of the greatest, most appealing aspects of Ronald Reagan was his optimism about this country and about the future, and these guys all make it sound like we’re going down the drain.” All the candidates, he argued, should “try to communicate better to the American people that these are complicated, difficult problems that are going to be difficult to solve and are probably going to require some sacrifice”.

Rand Paul: Income Inequality Comes From 'Some People Working Harder' Than Others

Ah, the infamous Flat Tax is resurrected once again, to bad it is not as simple as Paul like to think it is.

Asked if his flat tax plan would further separate the haves from the have-nots, GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said Sunday that income inequality is the result of some Americans working harder than others, rather than economic policies.

"The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things," Paul told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money."

Paul has proposed what he calls a "flat and fair tax," which would put a flat 14.5 percent tax on all types of income. An analysis by the Tax Foundation found that under the plan, households earning more than $1 million per year would see their after-tax incomes rise by 13 percent. Households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income rise only by 3 percent.

Rand Paul: Income Inequality Comes From 'Some People Working Harder' Than Others

Rand’s cockamamie conspiracy theory: With top allies under indictment, Rand thinks DOJ is out to get him - Salon.com

Keep in mind that his is some one who "listens" to Alex Jones, who also has Jones' political support and received monies from the Council of Conservative Citizens as recently as 2012.

When news broke yesterday that the Justice Department had indicted several Rand Paul associates, including one of Paul’s top lieutenants, for their alleged role in a hilariously stupid political payola scheme (more on that in a bit), there was really only one way the Paul campaign could respond: they played the conspiracy card.

“Senator Rand Paul is disappointed that the Obama Justice Department chose to release this just prior to the highly anticipated first Republican presidential debate,” read a statement from Rand HQ, “it certainly appears suspiciously timed and possibly, politically motivated.” So, according to Paul World, the president and DOJ are out to sabotage Rand Paul’s presidential campaign just before the first primary debate of the 2016 election cycle. How deviously Machiavellian.

It’s not surprising that Rand went this route – he is, after all, an accomplished conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately for him, these complaints about the politicization of the indictment process are undermined by a bit of basic logic and the fact that Rand Paul brought this on himself.

Rand’s cockamamie conspiracy theory: With top allies under indictment, Rand thinks DOJ is out to get him - Salon.com

Leader of group cited in 'Dylann Roof manifesto' donated to top Republicans | US news | The Guardian

I am not interested for the momnt in the racist rhetoric of Dylan Roof or the fact that said politicians received monies - in the past - as peoples ideologies can and do change.  What is disconcerting is said individuals have received monies as recently as 2012 and beyond.

Holt has since 2012 contributed $8,500 to Cruz, the Texas senator running for the Republican presidential nomination, and his Jobs, Growth and Freedom Fund political action committee, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. On some filings Holt’s occupation was listed as “slumlord”.

He has also given $1,750 to RandPAC, the political action committee of Paul, the Kentucky senator and presidential contender, and he gave $2,000 to the 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

A further $1,500 was donated by Holt to Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator and 2012 Republican presidential primary runner-up, who is running for president again in the 2016 race and attended Sunday’s memorial service at Emanuel AME Church.
,,,
Holt has also distributed tens of thousands in campaign contributions among prominent Republicans in congress, such as Representative Steve King of Iowa ($2,000), Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas ($1,500) and Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona ($1,000). He also gave $3,200 to the former Minnesota congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.

Leader of group cited in 'Dylann Roof manifesto' donated to top Republicans | US news | The Guardian

Restaurant That Refused Gay Weddings Closing For Lack Of Business - The New Civil Rights Movement

Although the Odgaards refused to admit they discriminated against the couple, they agreed to pay a $5,000 settlement, and then chose not to hold any weddings at their restaurant, so they wouldn't have to host scary gay ones.

The free market chose and they chose not to spend their money in an establishment that discriminates against gays.  I for one shed no tears,,,

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Back during Rachel - the early years, when the MSNBC star was still an unknown quantity, Rand Paul, who was running for the Kentucky senate seat he now holds, appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show. That interview is a prime reasons that Rachel is feared by Republicans and revered by Democrats. Rachel asked Libertarian Paul this question:

"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"

Candidate Paul hemmed and hawed and declared himself disgusted by racism and did everything but swear and oath to the baby Jesus that he himself would never discriminate, but in the end he said yes; a businessman has every right to serve those he chooses and turn away anyone who displeases him for any reason. Rand said he believed in the market, and that if anyone were foolish enough to turn away Black customers, outrage in the marketplace will soon either force the business to change, or to close it down.

The very scenario Rand Paul described is happening right now in Iowa. Restaurant owners who refused to host gay weddings are being forced to close up shop because people stopped coming. Dick and Betty Odgaard, owners of the Görtz Haus Gallery Restaurant, in Grimes, Iowa, announced this week that they will be closing.

Restaurant That Refused Gay Weddings Closing For Lack Of Business - The New Civil Rights Movement

Alex Jones Defends "Listener" Rand Paul On Vaccines By Attacking "Whore," "Trash, Tramp, Filth, Scum" CNBC Anchor | Blog | Media Matters for America

With a friend like this who needs enemies. Rand Paul may not have said these vile words himself, but they were said by his most vocal supporter, and therefore, it’s his responsibility to clean up the mess.

Very painful to watch, be forwarned!!
__
Jones said "Rachel Maddow, Obama, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, all of them, attacking anybody that tells the truth. They're just like, 'There are no side effects, it's totally safe, and it will protect you, you will not get the measles, if you get this shot.' All pure bull. Doesn't protect you. Can give you the measles -- super dangerous."

He later added that the government is trying to "bully us into medical tyranny. That's what Obamacare is. It's a bunch of forced inoculations, rationing the care. This is the same government that puts troops on secret no treatment lists to die. They don't have the moral authority to tell us anything with their history of secret testing and the rest of it! It's sick! It's a sick joke! Man -- these people make me want to throw up."

Jones then proceeded to attack Closing Bell co-anchor Evans with misogynistic language for challenging Paul about vaccines during her February 2 interview. Jones called her "a media whore. She's there to whore out the American people and sell us lies. She's not a whore, she's a pimp." Jones concluded that people like Evans (a "dumb lady") are "signing on to a system of murder, you little piece of trash, tramp, filth, scum woman! You arrogant piece of garbage! I'm sick of all you people up there lecturing us. She's the type of woman that wants Super Bowl ads to say, 'Sorry you had a boy.' All a bunch of pinhead cult members."

Jones praised Paul for his vaccine stance, saying he and father Ron Paul "have some basic morals, folks. They know how dangerous the vaccines are. They know what's in the inserts. They're not just going to go along with the system and lie ... that's why I like Rand Paul."

The host concluded his rant by saying "Rand Paul knows what's going on. He's a good guy. He's a listener."

Alex Jones Defends "Listener" Rand Paul On Vaccines By Attacking "Whore," "Trash, Tramp, Filth, Scum" CNBC Anchor | Blog | Media Matters for America

Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America

This is why I fight, because ignorant fucks like Tom Sullivan,,,

“I’m very skeptical. And I’ve got to tell you, if you haven’t been told, I will tell you. I think bipolar is like the latest fad. Everybody and their brother is getting diagnosed with bipolar. And last time I checked, we all have good days and we all have bad. And I don’t consider that an illness. And I don’t consider it a disability.”

Latest "fad" my ass!! Another able-bodied, privileged, white male telling us how life really is. Honey child, you wouldn't last 24 hours in my world on my best day. You would be crawling back to your momma asking to suckle on her teet and protect you from the monster that is your brain (if you have one).

Oh and Tom in answer to your question, "What were these people called 25 years ago?" They were called manic depressives back then, it was my original diagnosis 22 years ago. You may want to brush up on your pre-Hippocratic history to understand more and then follow up with a more contemporary history. It was in the 1850s that the "concept" of manic-depression (or what we call bipolar disorder) took its current place in psychiatry beginning with Baillarger and Falret. Kraeplin continued in the early 1900s coining the term manic depressive psychosis. It progresses from there,,, [Edited to add: The DSM-III (1980) is the first official publication in the US where the nomenclature surrounding bipolar disorder was changed from manic-depression.]

Make no mistake in believing that this was "just" an off-hand comment(ary). Unless one was living on a remote island, who can forget Romney's forty-seven percent comment. But this animosity towards the under-served and disadvantaged seems to be a common thread among the Reich. Consider, Rand "get them a job on the first floor" Paul's recent statement alluded to in the article:

You know, the thing is is that with all of these programs, there's always somebody who's deserving and everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system. What I tell people is, "If you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn't be getting a disability check." You know, over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club! [Laughter] Who doesn't get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts?! Everybody over 40 has a back pain.

This is no coincidence, the Reich has made it clear what they are trying to accomplish. As TPM points out, it has been going on for 80 years:

Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.

Republicans know they have a new opportunity with the disability trust fund and a leverage point that comes along once every 20 years, and they're seizing it. Price floated some favorite proposals like means-testing, increasing the eligibility age, and individual accounts (otherwise known as privatization). He described it as the GOP's effort to "normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security."

Privatization is their goal and has been since the early 80s, beginning in earnest with Reagan's luke-warm attempt at revamping the program.

Privatization -- called "individual accounts," which had people investing their money, eliminating the base benefit that Social Security had been conceived as -- was the goal. They considered young people "the most obvious constituency for the private alternative" and pondered ways "to detach, or at least neutralize" the older Americans who were or would soon be benefitting from the program in its current form.

It continues to this day.

As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.

The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program. Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.
,,,
The rule change reflects the burgeoning demonization of disability recipients, a trend we've reported on in the past. it's been fomented by conservative Republicans and abetted by sloppy reporting by institutions such as NPR and "60 Minutes."

Disability recipients are easily caricatured as malingering layabouts by politicians, academics and journalists too lazy to do their homework. They'll say disability benefits are easy to obtain, so lavish they discourage work, and convenient substitutes for welfare payments. None of that is true.

As Jason Easley explained in response to Bernie Sander's statement, "[t]he rule change is a part of a Republican effort to kill Social Security. If the disability fund can’t be replenished, Benefits will have to be cut, and some of the most economically vulnerable people in our society will be pushed deeper into poverty. According to experts, the problem with the Social Security disability cash assistance programs is that it limits the earnings of disabled individuals to just above the poverty line. This creates a trap that makes it impossible for individuals who can’t work to escape poverty."

The Reich is doing what they do best, continuing their insidious attack against those that are unable defend themselves. Creating a wedge issue where one should not be by polarizing the lower and middle classes against each other while the rich just get richer.  "[N]ormalizing the discussion and debate about Social Security" means only one thing, cut it.

During his January 16, 2005, interview with the Washington Post, President George W. Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization is no longer the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups.  Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during a February 9, 2005, interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News. According to the News Hounds blog, Mr. Rove spoke of modernizing Social Security.

Rove's favorite euphemism was also used in a memo sent to the Social Security Administration's regional and public relations directors in February 2004. It stated that "Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts." Also in the memo were talking points on the "long-term challenges facing Social Security." Critics said the memo was evidence of the Bush administration instructing a government agency to promote a certain political agenda.

Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America

Alex Jones Envisions Paul-Cruz Dream Ticket: 'Rand Paul Is The Best' | Right Wing Watch

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think this is exactly something I would be "proud" of. It will definitely make the upcoming election season interesting.

Sen. Rand Paul has scored a big endorsement for his potential presidential candidacy…from legendary conspiracy theorist Alex Jones

Paul has appeared a number of times on Jones’s program and has said he relies on the “Infowars” host for information on the Bilderbergers and the “people who are promoting this globalist agenda," so it came as no surprise when Jones endorsed him for president yesterday, citing their years of friendship.

Jones’ endorsement came after an interview with the senator’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul, who warned of an imminent economic collapse and foreign calamities.
,,,
The “InfoWars” host has previously boasted of his nearly two-decade relationship with Sen. Paul while cautioning that “he’s got a real shot at [the presidency] except for the electronic voting machine fraud.”

Alex Jones Envisions Paul-Cruz Dream Ticket: 'Rand Paul Is The Best' | Right Wing Watch

Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children | ThinkProgress

The idea of withholding benefits from women who have more than a certain number of children is actually current policy in many states. While most programs through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) give families more money if they have more children, 16 states cap the assistance and don’t give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.

These policies were initially adopted in an attempt to dissuade low-income women from having more children out of wedlock. But the results haven’t panned out. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report on whether or not they change birth rates couldn’t conclude whether there was any impact. In California, for example, where the state has been considering a repeal of its family cap policy, most women who receive welfare from the state have a similar number of children as those who don’t. What the policies do end up doing, however, is pushing people further into poverty. That can have serious health risks, with one study finding that some limits on benefits lead to a higher death rate.

The caps also get assumptions wrong about the people who rely on public programs. Overall, those who use public assistance have the same average family size as those who don’t. There’s little evidence that low-income women on welfare are having far more children than those who aren’t enrolled.


Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children | ThinkProgress

Rand Paul Suing Over NSA Policies, Senator Tells Fox News

I will be the first to admit that I am clueless when it comes to the whole NSA stuff. I mean seriously, is this the BS that came about from the Snowden affair (biting tongue)? Maybe it is my naivete, but so what if they are. If the government has that much time on their hands to worry about what I (don't) use my phone for, or what my opinion of the Administration is, we have bigger problems. I'm a blogger, my views are out there for the world to see, they don't need to access my phone records or e-mails. Think about it, Ted "I shit my pants" Nugget is still walking freely about, as is Larry "let's have a Revolution" Klayman. You would think they would be the first to go.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "there doesn't need to be more questions asked." The lack of information about the program’s scope and functioning makes any debate about it impossible. But there needs a balance between officials’ defense of the program and the public’s right to know about it.

Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, makes an interesting point, "The news that the government issued a blanket order for Americans’ phone records is deeply disturbing and exactly why I voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. It’s also why I have opposed reauthorization of similar provisions without adding civil liberties protections – protections that require agencies to explain specifically what information it thinks it needs to see and why.

So step one, according to some, is to secure more transparency and the legal rationale the Obama administration is claiming for it. But is Rand Paul's lawsuit the way to go?

Rand Paul Suing Over NSA Policies, Senator Tells Fox News

See also:

Rand Paul’s misguided case against the NSA


Charles Lane lays the legal precedence for the governments actions,,,

The bane of Big Government, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is inviting Americans to join him in a class-action lawsuit to stop what he says are unconstitutional invasions of privacy by the National Security Agency. “I’m going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level,” he declared Sunday on Fox News.

Who would win Paul and 10 Million Citizens v. NSA? Paul’s first problem would be a lack of standing to sue in federal court. It’s not enough to claim that the government is threatening your rights; applicable precedent says you have to show a “concrete and particularized” violation of those rights or, at least, an imminent one.

Forward Progressives — Not The Onion: Rand Paul’s Appallingly Ridiculous Claim about Science and Abortion

One slight problem with the following article, which Rachel Maddow aptly points out, it fails to mention that Paul lifted his Gattaca spiel from Wikipedia

When it comes to Republican politicians I absolutely can’t stand, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is right near the top of that list. And let’s be honest here, the only reason he’s even a senator is because of who his dad is. Rand tries to piggy back off the “Paul-bot” cult-like following his dad built, while still trying to pander enough to the other radicals in the Republican party in hopes that all of it will someday culminate in a successful presidential bid.

Well, while speaking at a “Christian” school founded by the late Jerry Falwell, Rand “tea party darling” Paul took his pandering to the far right fanatics to a whole new level.

Paul spoke out and suggested that scientific advances in technology and medicine, combined with abortion, may one day lead to the return of eugenics.

What’s eugenics, you ask? It’s the process by which the human race might try to “perfect” itself by eliminating less than desirable traits.

Forward Progressives — Not The Onion: Rand Paul’s Appallingly Ridiculous Claim about Science and Abortion

Rand Paul: 'We Haven't Had a Big Debate About Obamacare' - YouTube

No debate,,,WTF planet is he on, that’s funny as hell. Obamacare is the most thoroughly debated piece of legislation in decades.

It was created by a conservative think tank (The Heritage Foundation in response to "Hillarycare"). A version of it was passed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney and it has been tremendously popular with both Massachusetts conservatives and liberals alike (informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level.) It took a year and a half to pass in Congress. It was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. We had an entire election in 2012 based on Obamacare and the American people rejected the Republican position. And yet – the Republican controlled House tried to defund Obamcare 42 times over the past year.

If that isn't debate I don't what is,,,

Rand Paul: 'We Haven't Had a Big Debate About Obamacare' - YouTube

How Congress reached this point - The Maddow Blog

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appeared on "Face the Nation" yesterday and made clear that he's confused about the federal budget process. Noting that the House and Senate have passed competing spending measures intended to keep the government's lights on, the Republican senator asked, "Why don't we have a conference committee on this?"

It fell to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to patiently try to explain the details Rand Paul must have missed: "We've been trying for more than six months to get Republicans to approve a conference committee on the budget."

How Congress reached this point - The Maddow Blog

36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers | ThinkProgress

More than three-quarters of the Senate Republican caucus signed onto legislation introduced Wednesday by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rand Paul (R-KY) that could render it virtually impossible for Congress to enact any legislation intended to improve working conditions or otherwise regulate the workplace. Had their bill been in effect during the Twentieth Century, for example, there would likely be no nationwide minimum wage, no national ban on workplace discrimination, no national labor law and no overtime in most industries.

,,,It’s named the “Enumerated Powers Act of 2013,” a reference to the provisions of the Constitution outlining Congress’ specific powers, and it claims to require all federal legislation to “’contain a concise explanation of the specific authority in the Constitution’ that is the basis for its enactment.”

The key provision in this bill, however, would revive a discredited interpretation of the Constitution that America abandoned nearly eight decades ago. Although the text of the bill is not yet available online, a press release from Coburn’s office explains that it “[p]rohibits the use of the Commerce Clause, except for ‘the regulation of the buying and selling of goods or services, or the transporting for those purposes, across boundaries with foreign nations, across State lines, or with Indian tribes.’”

36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers | ThinkProgress

GOP Senator Sponsors Measure Calling For U.S. Withdrawal From The U.N. | ThinkProgress

This is not the first time that I have heard this suggestion.  The concern, this mindset is indicative of those that espouse a NWO or conspiracy theory rhetoric.  So my question, is Paul a closet con-nutter or is this just a means to push his/their political agenda,,,

An amendment was filed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for just such a purpose, purporting to delete all spending related to the United Nations from the FY14 budget. Specifically, the amendment calls for a reduction of $7,691,822,000 in spending 2014 and 2023. That slash goes beyond even the most draconian of cuts proposed by House Republicans since they reclaimed a majority in 2010.

[,,,]
Paul appears to be following in the footsteps of his father — former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) — in advancing the call to have the U.S. completely pull out of the United Nations. The elder Paul was the primary sponsor of the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” a bill introduced periodically from 1999 to 2009 that would ban the U.S. from membership in the U.N. Despite this antipathy towards the United Nations, Ron Paul recently turned to the U.N. system to help him gain control of a website bearing his name.

But the Republican senator from Kentucky is no stranger to using U.N. paranoia to burnish his right-wing credentials. In 2011, he sent a conspiratorial email to his supporters, warning of a supposed U.N. plot to confiscate and destroy U.S. citizens’ guns via a “Small Arms Treaty.” In reality, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is only just now being developed and in no way will effect civilian ownership of firearms.

GOP Senator Sponsors Measure Calling For U.S. Withdrawal From The U.N. | ThinkProgress