In an interview with West Virginia talk radio host Tom Roten yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul lamented that race relations seem to have “gotten worse” during Barack Obama’s presidency when “you would think we would have gotten beyond race, in a way” during his administration.
Roten, speaking of protests following police shootings of African American men in Oklahoma and North Carolina, told Paul that he thought “race relations have grown worse since we’ve twice elected a black U.S. president.”
“You know, I think we try to make everything about race and so we wind up with a lot of racial tension because of that,” the Kentucky Republican responded.
He added that there is “no question that African Americans have been on the receiving end of violence more than whites have” from police and that “the police have to do a better job at figuring out when they use deadly force.”
“It just seems like, though, that there’s a mindset that I don’t recall us having in this country eight years ago,” Roten said.
“It certainly hasn’t gotten better,” Paul responded. “You would think we would have gotten beyond race, in a way, and in many ways it seems to have gotten worse.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent out a fundraising appeal for the National Pro-Life Alliance, an anti-abortion “personhood” group today, seeking contributions to help the group pressure members of Congress to cosponsor Paul’s Life at Conception Act, which seeks to bypass the Supreme Court in order to ban all abortions.
Many “personhood” advocates, including Paul, believe that there is a magic loophole in Roe v. Wade that would allow Congress to declare fertilized eggs to be persons under the 14th Amendment, thereby banning all abortion without the need for a Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment overturning Roe. (Many leading anti-choice legal strategists, while they share the ultimate goal of criminalizing all abortion, are skeptical of this plan.) In the most recent version of his bill, Paul tries to allay concerns that granting legal rights to zygotes could outlaw some forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization, although it’s not clear how effective his attempts at carve out exceptions would be.
Paul has publicly taken several contradictorypositions on abortion rights, claiming at one point that abortion laws should not be changed and at another that the Life at Conception Act is merely meant to “drive the debate about when life begins.” However, in his email to anti-choice activists, he is very explicit that the goal of the bill is to enact a national ban on abortion without exceptions.
He writes in today’s email from the National Pro-Life Alliance that the “time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over” and that his bill could “end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.”
Excerpts from Paul’s email:
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.
And each year in our nation, 1.6 million innocent babies are slaughtered for the mere crime of being born.
I suspect that like me, you would sacrifice whatever it takes to see this slaughter of unborn babies end NOW.
Yet you were not one of the tens of thousands of Americans who responded to my prior appeal.
I think I know why...
You probably doubted that anything could be done to reverse the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and the resulting slaughter.
You want hard proof that there truly is an approach that can end abortion-on-demand in our lifetime.
Having lost hope, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.
But it always seems that we come back to tiptoeing around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.
Well I have good news for you:
The time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.
Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.
That is why it's so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.
Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.
And your petition will help do just that.
Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and ultimately win a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.
A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.
This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse."
When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.
Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.
But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.
But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.
And that's where your help is critical .
You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win.
By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen.
If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.
But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the 2016 elections .
Either way, the unborn win... unless you do nothing.
It didn’t take long for Republicans to admit that their purportedly principled vow to block anyone President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia is all about politics.
Just minutes after the news broke of Scalia’s death, many Republican politicians and conservative activists said that the Senate should refuse to hold any hearings or votes on whomever Obama nominates to replace him because it is an election year.
Donald Trump and Ben Carson have both admitted that if they or another Republican were in the White House, they would have no problem with filling the vacancy. Different rules, it seems, apply to President Obama.
This admission undermines the GOP’s entire argument that they are simply abiding by a nonpartisan tradition of refusing judicial confirmations in election years, an assertion also contradicted by past statements from Senate Republicans such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who said in 2008 that “the reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”
Before the president has even hinted at his choice to replace Scalia on the court, Republicans have been busy concocting bogus “traditions” and other excuses for obstruction — all in an effort to hide the partisan motivations behind keeping Scalia’s seat open.
5) It’s A Tradition!
Several conservatives have been pushing the easily debunked claim that the Senate never confirms a nominee to the Supreme Court during an election year.
Marco Rubio said on Meet the Press that “it’s not just for the Supreme Court, even for appellate courts, both parties have followed this precedent. There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating, or you stop the advice and consent process.”
During Saturday’s GOP presidential debate, moderator John Dickerson called out Ted Cruz for saying that “we have 80 years of precedent for not confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year,” noting that Justice Anthony Kennedy was in fact confirmed in 1988, Ronald Reagan’s final year in office. Cruz responded that “Kennedy was confirmed in ’87,” which is simply untrue. (The audience booed Dickerson for saying he “wanted to get the facts straight for the audience.”)
Conservative activists have seizedonremarks that Sen. Chuck Schumer made in 2007, which they claim prove that the New York Democrat favored blocking any Supreme Court justice nominated by George W. Bush in case of a vacancy in his last year in office.
However, this line of attack conveniently ignores a key part of Schumer’s speech, where he said that Democrats would only oppose a far-right judicial nominee, explaining that “they must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
Josh Marshall of TPM notes that conservatives are misreporting the content of Schumer’s speech:
Schumer quite explicitly never said that the Bush shouldn’t get any more nominations. He also didn’t say that any nominee should be rejected. He said they should insist on proof based on judicial history, rather than just promises that they were mainstream conservatives rather than conservative activists, which both have proven to be. But again, set all this aside. He clearly spoke of holding hearings and being willing to confirm Bush nominees if they met reasonable criteria.
3) What About Robert Bork?
In defense of their stance that Republicans should refuse to consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee, some conservativeshavecited the 1987 fight over Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which they offer as proof that Democrats have done the same thing in the past.
This is an odd case to bring up, seeing that Bork did in fact receive a fair hearing and a vote on the Senate floor, two things many Republicans today say should not be given to a future Obama pick.
Bork was voted down by a bipartisan majority of senators due to his extremist views, particularly his hostility to civil rights laws, which is a completely different matter than flatly refusing to hold committee hearings or a vote on a nominee.
2) Obama Is Packing The Court!
Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group that, ironically, was previously named the Judicial Confirmation Network, told the Washington Post on Monday that “if the president tries to pack the court, as it is apparent he may, then JCN will be leading the charge to delay a Senate vote until the American people decide the next president.”
“Obama doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution…he sees an opportunity to pack the court,” conservative radio host Mark Levin said. “Obama wants to pack the court. That’s what he wants to do on the way out the door and he must be prevented.”
Simply fulfilling his constitutional duties to fill a vacancy in the court following a jurist’s death is not an attempt to “pack” the court. Court packing is when an official tries to expand the current size of the court or create new courts in order to appoint new judges without waiting for vacancies.
1) Obama Has A ‘Conflict Of Interest’
Sen. Rand Paul, who styles himself as a constitutional scholar, said he is uncomfortable with President Obama appointing anyone to the bench because the Supreme Court is considering cases involving Obama’s executive orders on issues like immigration and environmental regulation.
Therefore, Paul concludes, Obama “has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody” to the court.
The Kentucky Republican’s logic that a president shouldn’t be allowed to make judicial nominations because they may have to rule on actions of the executive branch is absurd on its face. The Constitution provides the president the power to do just that and, if Paul’s logic were to be applied, no president would be able to make any nominations at any time in office.
According to this argument, senators would similarly have a “conflict of interest” in voting to confirm Supreme Court justices since a future justice would likely decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
Paul’s bizarre assertion that presidents shouldn’t be allowed to appoint justices due to a possible “conflict of interest” merely speaks to how desperate the GOP has become in trying to come up with dubious arguments that will make their proposed blockade seem like a principled stance, rather than what it really is: a brazenly partisan endeavor that will allow them to shirk their constitutional responsibilities.
Last week, Sen. Rand Paul reintroduced his “Life at Conception Act,” an attempt to ban all abortion by granting legal “personhood” to zygotes and fetuses from “the moment of fertilization,” all without needing a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Paul has been a staunch backer of such personhood efforts despite once claiming that he didn’t support “changing any of the laws” on abortion “until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
The bill Paul introduced last week varies slightly from the one he first introduced in 2013, specifically stating that it shouldn’t be construed as “a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.”
It’s especially interesting that Paul attempts to avoid the growing controversy within the anti-abortion movement about in-vitro fertilization and the rights that should be granted to the excess frozen embryos that are often a byproduct of the process. It’s unclear if Paul is saying that embryos that are the result of in-vitro fertilization should not be granted the personhood rights that his bill would grant to all other embryos or if the bill would simply require that those embryos never be destroyed.
Both Paul’s 2013 bill and his 2016 version state that they shouldn’t “be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child,” an important exemption because under such a law, ending a pregnancy at any stage would be the legal equivalent of murder. Already, an experiment in personhood-style laws in Alabama has led to the arrests of hundreds of womenfor using drugs while pregnant or otherwise contributing to the “chemical endangerment” of a fetus.
All of this, of course, is purely hypothetical at this point. Paul's bill is the product of a theory, which is controversial even within the anti-abortion movement, that there is a magic loophole in Roe v. Wade that would allow legal abortion to come tumbling down if Congress were simply to define fertilized eggs as “persons” under the law. Most likely, however, such a strategy would collapse in the courts: One prominent anti-choice attorney has called the personhood loophole an “urban legend.”
Yesterday, Rand Paul appeared on “The Simon Conway Show” to rail against left-wing environmentalism that he says “has infected the Pentagon” and driven up military expenditures.
One result of this “green craziness,” he said, was the construction of a natural gas fueling station in Afghanistan, even though, according to the Kentucky senator, “nobody’s got a damn car in Afghanistan.”
However, the money in question actually went towards a larger effort “to bring Afghanistan’s giant Shebergan gas field back into production,” and people in Afghanistan do in fact drive and own cars.
Paul then pivoted to attack his fellow presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for their stances on military spending, which he said would “bankrupt the country.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., appeared on Alex Jones’ radio program today, where he tried to win the bizarre conspiracy theorist back from his Republican presidential rival Donald Trump, who lavished praise on Jones last month.
Paul, who has appearedonJones’show several times before, urged InfoWars viewers to demand that the Republican National Committee allow him on the main stage during Thursday’s Fox Business Network debate, which he is currently boycotting because he was placed in the undercard debate.
Jones said that Paul could defeat Trump, who he said is riding a wave of anti-government resentment.
“How do we get you elected president?” he asked. “I know there’s a lot of time left and folks thought Trump would fade but I think really getting aggressive is the way to go. I don’t claim to be the big political guru here, sir, but I’d really like to see you as president.”
Paul insisted that Trump isn’t a true conservative, citing his differences with Trump on the issue of eminent domain.
“I know you’re the statesman that would make the perfect president,” Jones told Paul, wondering “how we could catapult you back to the lead.”
Media Matters, which first highlighted Paul’s appearance today on Jones’ program, pointed out that “Paul attempted to downplay his alliance with Jones,” whom he once thanked “for being a vital part of his 2010 Senate campaign.”
After floating the idea of mosque closures, being open to a government database to track all Muslims and making false claims about Muslim-Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks, Donald Trump is now calling for a sweeping ban on all Muslim immigration to the U.S. Trump proposed the immigration ban in a press statement today, claiming that Muslims harbor a “hatred” of America and of human life.
To back up this assertion, Trump cited an unscientific online poll from the Center for Security Policy, a radical group led by conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, that the group claimed demonstrated anti-American views among American Muslims. Experts have dismissed the poll as significantly flawed and dishonest.
While Trump’s statement implies that he is interested in “preventing Muslim immigration,” his new plan may even bar tourism as it calls for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Trump’s GOP presidential rival Rand Paul made a similar suggestion on Glenn Beck’s program today, saying that “until we have a better handle on who is already here and whether the people here are obeying our laws, I’d just stop immigration from the Middle East.” Paul also called for increased scrutiny from European travelers because too many people who live in the continent are “against Western civilization.”
Seven Republican presidential candidates will be travelling to Iowa today to take part in a “presidential family forum” hosted by The Family Leader, a social conservative group led by activist Bob Vander Plaats, who is seen as a kingmaker in the Iowa caucus.
The endorsement of Vander Plaats, whose backing helped catapult Huckabee and Santorum to Iowa caucus victories in 2008 and 2012, is one of the most coveted in the state. While most observers think that Cruz will nab Vander Plaats’ endorsement, the activist is keeping his options open. Vander Plaats told a reporter that although Donald Trump was unable to make tonight’s forum, he told him, “If you can guarantee me your endorsement, I will turn the plane around and get there.”
As Vander Plaats’ previous endorsements of Huckabee and Santorum show, he has a powerful machine ready to push an ideologically pure social conservative. Back in 2010, Vander Plaats also led a successful effort to remove three Iowa Supreme Court judges who participated in the court’s landmark unanimous marriage equality decision.
Speaking at an event last year, Vander Plaats played a video showing a gay pride event alongside the Boston Marathon bombing and mass shootings as illustrations of the “darkness” that has fallen over America:
Vander Plaats had also dabbled in birther conspiracy theories, implying in 2011 that the president’s birth certificate was missing and praising Trump for his “bold” crusade to uncover the truth about the president’s past.
Sen. Rand Paul came up with an interesting analogy in an attempt to argue against refugee resettlement yesterday, saying that Iraqi refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S. “when we won the war” is “sort of like us winning the revolution and our Founding Fathers decide to take political asylum in England.”
Paul recalled the arrest of two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky who were accused of sending weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq, the sole case of terrorism charges among the 745,000 refugees admitted to the U.S. since the September 11 attacks. (None have been accused of planning domestic attacks). “My question at the time was why did we admit 60,000 Iraqi refugees when we won the war?” Paul asked. “I thought you got political asylum if you lost the war.”
“Here’s my point also is that if they were pro-Western, which many of them probably are, they would have been the best people to rebuild Iraq in a reasonable fashion,” the Kentucky Republican added. “It would be sort of like us winning the revolution and our Founding Fathers decide to take political asylum in England. You know, it just makes no sense at all.”
Among the many obvious faults with Paul’s analogy is that, as Think Progress has noted, “Many of the Iraqis seeking asylum are people who helped the United States military or contractors as translators and guides,” a somewhat different relationship than the American revolutionaries had with England.
Paul told Mickelson that this microscopic government might not have room for a postal service. “I think the federal government ought to defend us from foreign attack and have a judiciary and, let’s see, I would say the post office, but they screw up the post office too, so we really don’t even need them for the post office,” he said. “So I want a government that’s really small.”
“I would have a country that defends us from foreign attack, a country that sort of keeps the peace and a country that has a judiciary, a legislative branch, but a country where the federal government didn’t do much,” he added.
Rand Paul repeated his mantra that Bernie Sanders could turn into a murderousdictator if elected president, this time in an interview yesterday on the conservative network Newsmax.
While speaking with host Ed Berliner, Paul said that he “spends quite a bit of time on Bernie” during appearances at college campuses to let students know that “there’s nothing sexy or cool about socialism.”
The Kentucky senator said that “socialism is anti-choice” and deadly. “If you choose to challenge the state,” he said, “they have to get rid of you, they have to arrest you or they have to eliminate you.”
In a Newsmax interview posted online yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul said he was confident that Republican primary voters will eventually turn against frontrunner Donald Trump once they realize he is a “disaster” who, if nominated, would “get swamped in a landslide.”
“Donald Trump would be probably the largest loser of any candidate ever in the history of the country if he were our nominee,” the Kentucky Republican told host Ed Berliner. “He’s the worst nominee we could possibly think of.”
He explained that Trump is only leading because “people haven’t started looking really seriously at the record” of the different candidates, agreeing with Berliner’s point that “America is just simply too smart to elect Donald Trump as president.”
Republicans have tried for years to use the terrorist attack — which led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens — to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is testifying before the committee today. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy recently admitted that the special committee was formed to bring down Clinton’s popularity in advance of the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, uncovering facts has never been the GOP’s primary motivation when it comes to Benghazi (or much else). As these five instances show, Republicans and their allies in the conservative media have been much more concerned with creating bizarre scenarios to claim that the administration, and fellow Republicans, are suppressing the truth of the attack.
1) ‘No Evidence’ But What The Hell…
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch unveiled an elaborate conspiracy theory earlier this year, alleging that the Obama administration wanted Libyan militants to kidnap Stevens in order to then do a prisoner swap for terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, the compound attackers botched the job after Stevens died, Fitton said, and therefore we can never know if the administration was actually ready to release Abdel-Rahman.
Fitton conceded in an interview with WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi, a fellow Benghazi truther, that there is “no evidence” to support his theory.
“Given what we know now, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the terrorist attack on Benghazi could have been a kidnapping attempt aimed at releasing the Blind Sheik,” Fitton said.
He noted, however, there is “no evidence” that the Obama administration may have been complicit in any kidnapping plot related to the Benghazi attack.
And since he can’t find any evidence to substantiate this claim, Fitton is pretty sure that there must have been a cover-up, insinuating that the State Department was trying to stop his group from receiving corroborating information.
2) Cover-Up Of The Cover-Up!
When President Obama first proposed bombing the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons on civilians in Ghouta, Glenn Beck knew that Obama didn’t want to stop such war crimes — but instead wanted to cover up what really happened in Benghazi.
According to one conspiracy theory, Stevens was actually organizing an operation to transfer weapons from Libya to Syria to aid Islamic extremists (which of course raises the question of why these extremists would then want to attack the American post in the first place).
Seizing on that conspiracy theory, Beck speculated that it wasn’t the Assad regime that used the chemical weapons in Ghouta, but rebels using weapons delivered from the U.S. via Benghazi. Now, Beck reasoned, Obama wanted to bomb Syria because he was “covering the trail of the lost weapons from Benghazi.”
Beck later claimed that David Petraeus stepped down as CIA director not because he leaked classified information to his mistress but because he was about to blow the Benghazi scandal wide open. Beck’s theory ran into a slight hitch when Petraeus publicly praised Clinton’s response to the attack.
Beck has also alleged that the administration “let them die” in Benghazi after issuing a stand-down order, an accusation refuted on his very own news website.
While we weren’t surprised that Beck would pick up a conspiracy theory from such a website, it was a bit more shocking when a U.S. senator brought up WND’s conspiracy theory in a hearing with Clinton. At a 2013 hearing, Sen. Rand Paul demanded that a dumbfounded Clinton tell him if the U.S. was transferring weapons from Libya into Syria via Turkey.
Paul admitted that he didn’t “have any proof” before suggesting that the gun-running scheme was what was really happening “and the cover-up was an attempt to massage and get over this issue without getting into the gun trade.”
Investigations, including one led by Republicans, have found that Stevens was trying to find weapons, but in order to keep them out of the hands of extremists, with no evidence at all that he then sent those weapons to Syrian groups.
4) Marijuana A Benghazi Distraction!
Ben Carson is very upset about the Obama administration’s push to reform American drug laws. The GOP presidential candidate told Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily (notice a theme?), that the administration’s push to liberalize laws on marijuana, along with its stance on the trademark of the Washington Redskins, is all part of a plot to “distract people” from the Benghazi attack.
Carson told Farah last year that most people now just think Benghazi “is a singer.”
“And these people vote and they have no idea,” he lamented.
Carson isn’t the only one to latch onto the “distraction” theme. Conservative activist Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union dedicated a column in the Washington Times about New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s since-lifted suspension by insisting that the “Deflategate” scandal was part of an effort to distract people from Benghazi. Iowa radio broadcaster Steve Deace similarly wonder if NFL prospect Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet was also just a Benghazi distraction.
5) Benghazi Special Committee Is Part Of The Benghazi Cover-Up!
Since every single official committee, including ones led by Republicans, that has investigated the Benghazi attack has ended up debunking the conspiracy theories percolating through the right-wing media, a group of conservative activists has launched the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi to find the real truth.
This unofficial committee has embraced so many conspiracy theories surrounding the attack that its members even believe that the GOP-led Benghazi Special Committee is aiding the cover-up!
One member, Ret. Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, told, guess who, WorldNetDaily, that committee chairman Trey Gowdy needs to go, lamenting that “this is a continued cover-up.”
Republican politicians RandandRon Paul have long been bigfans of radical conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, so it is no surprise that Ron Paul was a guest on Jones’ “InfoWars” program today, discussing renewed calls to pass gun restrictions following the recent string of mass shootings.
The elder Paul told Jones that eventually the people will be driven to violence, which would then lead to calls for authoritarian government and gun confiscation.
“If push comes to shove and there’s violence in the street, they’re going to look for a strongman, they’re going to look for somebody who is an authoritarian and said the violence in the cities won’t last, and then people will say, yeah, that’s right, we can’t have anarchy, and they will capitulate,” he said. “The day will come.”
The only form of gun control that’s appropriate, he said, “is taking the guns away from the bureaucrats, the government and taking the guns or restricting the guns use of the president starting wars.”
Last week, Sen. Rand Paul went after Sen. Bernie Sanders, comparing the Democratic presidential candidate to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and warning that his ideology could likewise lead to “mass genocide.”
In an interview yesterday with Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson, the Republican senator and presidential candidate doubled down on his warning, but clarified that he wasn’t comparing Sanders to Pol Pot … “yet.”
I want to go head to head with this, I think, crazy notion of collectivism, crazy notion of socialism. And I want to make sure that all these young people realize is what socialism is is a lack of choice. You won’t be able to make what you want, you won’t be able to buy what you want. It’ll be controlled by the government. If you disobey, you’ll be fined. If you do it again, you’ll be imprisoned. If you continue doing it, what has often happened under socialism is the inherent force morphs into something even more dastardly. And that’s what happened under Stalin, under Mao, under Pol Pot.
And people say, ‘You’re calling Bernie Pol Pot.’ Not yet. But what I’m saying is the underpinnings of the belief in socialism is the implication of force in that you will force people to do what the states want them to do and that you take away their choices. And I think if young people knew that it was anti-choice, that socialism took away their choices to buy, sell, and do and work where they want to work, I think they’d be running away from it. But Bernie’s offering a version to them where he doesn’t quite inform them of the horrors of socialism.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined South Carolina radio host Vince Coakley yesterday to discuss the first Democratic presidential debate, where he said the candidates were “all trying to outdo each other in their disdain for the economic system of capitalism that made us great.”
The Republican presidential candidate linked Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist in the mold of Northern European countries, to the murderous communist regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, saying that “most of the times when socialism has been tried” there “has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it.”
“It amazes me and it actually kind of scares me,” Paul said. “I’ve been spending more time going after Bernie and socialism because I don’t want America to succumb to the notion that there’s anything good about socialism. I think it’s not an accident of history that most of the times when socialism has been tried that attendant with that has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it. Stalin killed tens of millions of people. Mao killed tens of millions of people. Pol Pot killed tens of millions of people. When you have a command economy, when everything is dictated from one authority, that’s socialism, but it doesn’t come easily to those who resist it.”
Whatever one might think of Sanders’ political ideology, there is a vast gulf between the kind of socialist policies he is discussing and the total economic and social control imposed by communist dictatorships.
Falsely suggesting that the recent mass shooting at an Oregon community college took place in a gun-free zone, Sen. Rand Paul said yesterday that as president he would encourage every school in America to place stickers on its windows warning potential criminals that teachers are armed and “you will be shot.”
The Kentucky Republican told Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson that the Oregon shooting was “an incredible tragedy, but it’s even made worse by the president politicizing it and jumping in.” The president “doesn’t understand,” he said, that “the problem is mental illness and not necessarily gun registration or gun ownership.”
“The other common denominator, other than mental illness,” he added, “is that people are going to places where guns are prohibited. So when you have a gun-free zone at a school, it’s like an invitation, if you are crazy and want to shoot people, that’s where you go. I would do the opposite. I would have and encourage every school in American put stickers on every window going into the school saying, ‘We are armed. Come in at your own peril. We have concealed carry for teachers who have it and we also have armed security and you will be shot.’”
Such stickers should be placed on “every cockpit of every commercial airliner” and on “every school,” he said.
Paul said that he would support preventing “people who have exhibited criminal insanity” from owning guns, but that such laws would have to be made at the state level. But he added that broader issues, such as the lack of a “Christian foundation” in the country, may also be influencing mass shooting.
“I do think that we have generalized problems in our country that may somehow influence, I’m not sure they’re the answer, but I think that we lack a certain belief in right and wrong, a certain Christian foundation or religious foundation to our country anymore,” he said, “and I think some of this perversion is coming from that. But also there’s some things that are just inexplicable, that’s just mental illness, they’re not getting better with treatment and they’re not going to get necessarily better with religious influence as well.”
Yesterday, anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney had on his radio show well-known white nationalist Jared Taylor, who has called African-Americans “crime-prone” and “deviant” and said that his goal is to ensure the “ biological and cultural continuity” of white people in America. On the show, Gaffney said that he “appreciated tremendously” Taylor’s work. While that’s all heinous on its own, seven of the Republican presidential candidates have appeared on Gaffney’s program or spoken at his events, including recent campaign events in early primary states.
People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan responded with the following:
“This is a new low, even considering how hard all the leading Republican candidates have been courting the xenophobic Republican base enthralled with Trump.
“All of the Republican candidates should cut ties with Gaffney immediately and refuse to go on his show or speak at future events he sponsors. The Republican Party should not give any space to white nationalism.”
Additional background on Gaffney, Taylor, and the connections that Trump, Carson, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Jindal, and Cruz have to Gaffney can be found here, from People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.