Posts

Rand Paul to Blinken: ‘You’ve Created Hundreds or Thousands of New Potential Terrorists’ [Video]

My latest in PJ Media:

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had a contentious exchange Tuesday during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Biden’s handlers’ catastrophic bungling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and continued incompetence. Paul took the opportunity to tell Blinken some home truths, truths that Blinken and his colleagues are certain to continue to ignore, to their peril and ours.

Paul hit Biden’s handlers’ “colossal incompetence” in Afghanistan, and noted that the Biden administration was “holding no one accountable, having everyone circle the wagons.” He added: “To add insult to injury, this week you’ve now released sixty-four million dollars in aid to Afghanistan. Don’t we have some prohibition against giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Now the argument from the Biden administration is, ‘Oh, we’re giving it to charities, and it’s for the good of the people, for poor people, and for women.’ Well, the Taliban has a history of taking this. Throughout their governance, they would take the money. This was a big complaint we had when they were in power the last time. They now have eighty billion dollars’ worth of weapons. Three-hundred and fifty thousand automatic weapons. Are we really naïve enough to believe that we are just going to keep sending charity to Afghanistan and they’re not going to interrupt it? I think that’s a foolish notion.”

Paul made Blinken even more uncomfortable when he asked him: “The guy the Biden administration droned, was he an aid worker or an ISIS-K operative?”

Blinken first tried to deflect the question: “Uh, er, the administration is of course reviewing, that, uh, that strike, uh, and I’m sure that a, you know, a full assessment will be forthcoming .” Paul interrupted: “So you don’t know if it was an aid worker or an ISIS-K operative?” Blinken continued: “Uh, I can’t speak to that, and I can’t speak to that in this setting in any event.” Paul shot back: “So you don’t know or won’t tell us.” Blinken responded: “Uh, I don’t, I don’t know because we’re, we’re reviewing it.”

Paul then moved in for the kill: “Well, see, you’d think you’d kind of know before you off somebody with a predator drone whether he’s an aid worker or he’s an ISIS-K – you see, the thing is, this isn’t just you. It’s been going on for administration after administration. The Obama administration droned hundreds and hundreds of people. And the thing is, there is blowback to that. I mean, I don’t know if it’s true, but I see these pictures of these beautiful children that were killed in the attack. If that’s true and not propaganda, if that’s true, guess what? Maybe you’ve created hundreds or thousands of new potential terrorists from bombing the wrong people. So you’ve gotta know who you’re – we can’t sort of have an investigation after we kill people, we have an investigation before we kill people.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamophobia? On 9/11, There Were 1,200 Mosques in the U.S. Guess How Many There Are Now?

As Biden Says Islam is Peaceful, D.C. Imam Calls for Jihad

UK: University clears prof of charges of ‘Islamophobia’ but cancels his course anyway after orchestrated campaign

MSNBC’s Jonathan Capeheart: ‘MAGA and the domestic terror threat is much more worrisome than any foreign threat’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Is Trump Waging War on the Freedom Caucus? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Why is Trump attacking the House Freedom Caucus? He has tweeted that “we must fight them.”

My first thought: this is inevitable. Destiny is unfolding before our eyes!

There is the obvious fact that the Freedom Caucus was the reason the GOP’s so-called replacement for Obamacare went down to defeat. They fought it for a solid reason: it would not have reduced premiums or deductibles, and it would not have increased access to a greater degree of choice in the health-insurance market.

These people knew this. How? Because there was not one word of that bill that enabled the health care industry to become more competitive. Competition is the standard by which reform must be judged. The core problem of Obamacare (among many) was that it froze the market in an artificial form and insulated it from competitive forces.At minimum, any reform must unfreeze the market. The proposed reform did not do that.

Bad Reform

That means the reform would not have been good for the American people. It would not have been good for the Republican Party. And then the chance for real reform – long promised by many people in the party – would have been gone.

Trump latched on to the proposal without understanding it. Or, other theories: he doesn’t care, he actually does favor universal coverage even if it is terrible, or he just wanted some pyrrhic victory even if it did nothing to improve the access.

The Freedom Caucus killed it. And I’m trying to think back in political history here, is there another time since World War Two that a pro-freedom faction of the Republican Party killed a bill pushed by the majority that pertained to such a large sector and dealt with such a hugely important program?

I can’t think of one.

What this signifies is extremely important. We might be seeing the emergence of a classically liberal faction within the GOP, one that is self consciously driven by an agenda that is centered on a clear goal: getting us closer to an ideal of a free society. The Caucus isn’t fully formed yet in an ideological sense, but its agenda is becoming less blurry by the day. (And please don’t call them the “hard right wing.”)The old GOP coalition included nationalists, militarists, free enterprisers, and social conservatives. The Trump takeover has strained it to the breaking point. Now the genuine believers in freedom are gaining a better understanding of themselves and what they must do.

For the first times in our lives! Even in our parents’ and grandparents’ lives!

The Larger Picture

Trump is obviously not a student of history or political philosophy, but he does embody a strain of thinking with a history that traces back in time. I discussed this in some detail here, here, and here, among many other places. The tradition of thought he inhabits stands in radical opposition to the liberal tradition. It always has. We just remain rather ignorant of this fact because the fascist tradition of thought has been dormant for many decades, and so is strangely unfamiliar to this generation of political observers.

So let us be clear: this manner of thinking that celebrates the nation-state, believes in great collectives on the move, panics about the demographic genocide of a race, rails against the “other” invading our shores, puts all hope in a powerful executive, and otherwise believes not in freedom but rather in compliance, loyalty, and hero worship – this manner of thinking has always and everywhere included liberals (or libertarians) as part of the enemy to be destroyed.

And why is this? Liberalism to them represents “rootless cosmopolitanism,” in the old Nazi phrase. They are willing to do business with anyone, move anywhere, and imagine that the good life of peace and prosperity is more than enough to aspire to in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds. They don’t believe that war is ennobling and heroic, but rather bloody and destructive. They are in awe of the creation of wealth out of simple exchanges and small innovations. They are champions of the old bourgeois spirit.To the liberal mind, the goal of life is to live well in peace and experience social and financial gain, with ever more alleviation of life’s pains and sufferings. Here is magic. Here is beauty. Here is true heroism.

The alt-right mind will have none of this. They want the clash, the war, the struggle against the enemy, big theaters of epic battles that pit great collectives against each other. If you want a hilarious caricature of this life outlook, no one does it better than Roderick Spode.

Natural Enemies

This is why these two groups can never get along politically. They desire different things. It has always and everywhere been true that when the strongmen of the right-Hegelian mindset gain control, they target the liberals for destruction. Liberals become the enemy that must be crushed.

And so it is that a mere few months into the presidency of this odd figure that the Freedom Caucus has emerged as a leading opposition. They will back him where they can but will otherwise adhere to the great principle of freedom. When their interests diverge, the Freedom Caucus will go the other way. It is not loyalty but freedom that drives them. It is not party but principle that makes them do what they do.To any aspiring despot, such views are intolerable, as bad as the reliable left-wing opposition.

Listen, I’m all for working with anyone to achieve freedom. When Trump is right (as he is on environmental regulation, capital gains taxes, and some other issues), he deserves to be backed. When he is wrong, he deserves to be opposed. This is not about partisanship. It is about obtaining freer lives.

But let us not languish in naïvete. The mindset of the right-wing Hegelian is not at all the same as a descendant of the legacy of Adam Smith. They know it. We need to know it too.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Repeal Bill Left Too Much of Washington Power Grab in Place

Disinformation Campaign on the Hearing Protection Act Continues [Video]

This month the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) with co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as S.59. Representatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – together with 42 co-sponsors – introduced a similar bill in the House as H.R. 367.

The bill would remove suppressors from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires buyers to pay a $200 tax and undergo an enhanced background check that can take up to nine months to complete. Suppressors would continue to be regulated like non-NFA firearms, which require a background check when sold by a licensed firearms dealer or across state lines.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun advocates and their media allies are furious that the gun community would dare remove an onerous and unnecessary law that limits their ability to protect against hearing loss while target shooting and hunting.

Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald announced that “violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners.” Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times piled on, declaring that the naming of the “Hearing Protection Act” was “so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: ‘What are they hiding?’”

Joining the anti-gun tirade, Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center contended that “they want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” arguing that “when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.” Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went so far as to argue “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Let that sink in.  A representative of the Brady Campaign argues that there is no evidence of hearing loss from gunfire.  One is left to wonder if their zealotry blinds them to the truth or if they really are that ill-informed on firearms and their use.

Other anti-gun advocates argue that “silent” guns make it easier to commit crimes, citing YouTube videos and television shows where silencers reduce a gunshot to a faint cough. Professor Robert J. Spitzer, writing in the Washington Post, even argued that deafening noise “is an important safety feature of any firearm” and that “the lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate.”

Supporters of so-called “common sense gun safety” are willfully blind to the reality that clear, objective scientific evidence demonstrates that suppressors prevent hearing loss. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and tinnitus are high-priority health issues – and the only type of hearing loss that is completely preventable.

The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms.

Furthermore, suppressed firearms are not the choice of criminals, and the more than 100-year history of suppressors in both the United States and Europe demonstrates that anti-gun fearmongering is unfounded. A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder. Indeed, as the number of federally-registered suppressors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade (from 150,364 in 2006 to 902,805 in 2016), the Violence Policy Center can identify only a scant handful of crimes committed with them. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman notes, “any useful technology can be put to villainous ends,” and common sense demonstrates that the existing rule on silencers is “a major hassle for the law-abiding” while being “an irrelevance to criminals.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center are counting on public ignorance and disinformation to derail a legitimate effort to allow gun owners to protect their hearing and the hearing of those around them. Armed with facts and scientific evidence, the National Rifle Association urges its members to contact their lawmakers to support the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

You can contact your member of Congress via our Write Your Reps tool by clicking HERE or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Rand Paul ‘Baffled’ by Evangelicals’ Preference for ‘War-Mongering GOP Candidates’

FAYETTEVILLE, NC /PRNewswire/ — In an exclusive interview with FTMDaily’s Jerry Robinson, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul discusses the recent Senate vote on his “Audit the Fed” bill, as well as the lack of support of his candidacy within the American evangelical community.

Sen. Paul explains that the message in the New Testament is one of peace and that Jesus never encouraged his followers to rebel against the government or to instigate war. Therefore, Sen. Paul’s message of peace through prosperity should resonate within evangelical groups during this presidential election cycle. But when asked why many evangelicals in America prefer militarism over peace, Sen. Paul is truly baffled.

Sen. Paul comments:

“I think it is really an irony, and I continue to be baffled by it, but it’s not always true. I do remind them [religious and evangelical groups] that the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes were ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Oh, let’s gather some rebels and overturn the government that’s collaborating with the Romans’. Really, his message was a much different one.”

Jerry Robinson, a Christian economist and host of Follow the Money radio, recognizes that Sen. Paul’s message of a humble foreign policy, sound money, and fiscal transparency within government is in step with the teachings of the New Testament. And although Sen. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he promises that the fight for an audit is not over.

Sen. Paul concedes that he has worked for five years to get the bill up for a vote in the Senate, but that despite Tuesday’s defeat, he will continue to push his agenda.

Ultimately, Sen. Paul explains that his desire is to not only see a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s massive and opaque balance sheet, but also to allow interest rates to be set by the marketplace rather than the Federal Reserve. He claims that had interest rates been allowed to rise prior to the housing bubble of 2008, investors would have heeded the market signal that they had over-built and the bubble could have been avoided altogether.

About FTMDaily

FTMDaily, or Follow the Money Daily, is an online media company delivering cutting-edge financial commentaries, unique economic strategies, and informed geopolitical analysis. FTMDaily.com was created in 2010 by Christian economist and best-selling author, Jerry Robinson. Since then, FTMDaily.com has grown exponentially with readers and subscribers from all around the world.

Our mission at Follow the Money Daily is simple. We exist to help people understand the global economic and geopolitical realities that face them. For our paid subscribers, we provide real-time, actionable investing ideas and income strategies, along with cutting-edge geopolitical analysis, designed to prepare them for the difficult challenges that lie ahead for America and the world.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Freedom Caucus Wants to Declare War on ISIS

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul use the “M” word! MORATORIUM! Trump follows with ban!

Be still my beating heart!  There it is, out there—the M-word!  Several of them in fact!  Moratorium on Muslim Migration!

moratorium-logo-update-blk

I started to write this post yesterday, then spent the day running out to the doctor (nothing is fast with doctors these days, have you noticed that) and as I’m trying to read news on my phone, the Cruz and Paul news was eclipsed by The Donald news when he jumped on the bandwagon.

However, all of the news reports I was reading and hearing claimed Donald Trump was alone in his call for a ban on Muslim migration to America.  He was actually the third Presidential candidate to make that call. Trump called it a “ban,” but that sounds like moratorium to me.

This is what I started to write about yesterday from Julia Hahn at Breitbart.   She has Senator Cruz uttering the word and I heard Senator Paul say it on Fox News yesterday morning!

trump paul cruz ap ap reuters

Presidential candidates Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim nations with jihadist movements.

Their fellow contender, Sen. Marco Rubio, did not call for curbs to Muslim immigration in his live response to the President address on Fox News – a response promoted by Rubio’s campaign.

Cruz tweeted that if elected president, “I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country.” Cruz elaborated in a statement:

The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.

Similarly, Rand Paul tweeted, “While ‪@POTUS paid lip service to this fight, he plans to keep failed rules in place & allow tens of thousands of refugees to enter the US.”

“Immigration visas & refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders,” Paul in a separate tweet. “His administration is focused on gun laws that won’t stop terrorists while pushing policies that will let more of them in the country,” Paul wrote.

Continue reading here.

Go here to see the ten Senators who might be counted on to support these calls.

Action Alert!  It is not too late, go here and follow instructions to call Congress today!  Stopping the funding for refugee resettlement is the surest way to get the job done immediately!  Details can be worked out once the money is cut off!  If they can cut off the visas too, more power to them!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Dick Cheney don’t get it! Bring in the Muslims!

Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul: ISIS has tried to infiltrate refugee stream to U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz is by AP/John Locher/Reuters/Carlos Barria/Photo montage by Salon.

Only ten U.S. Senators vote to limit visas from Muslim terror-producing countries

Julia Hahn writing at Breitbart tells us what happened here.

If yours is one of the brave ten be sure to thank them! (They are mentioned in Hahn’s story below but I put them right here on top so you wouldn’t have to look far).

Rand Paul
Jeff Sessions
Mike Lee
David Vitter
John Barrasso
Mike Enzi
Mark Kirk
Jerry Moran
Richard Shelby
Ted Cruz

After Paris and after San Bernardino this is the best they could do—only ten willing to go to the mat for your safety!

The amendment, offered Sen. Rand Paul, would have suspended visa issuances to more than 30 Muslim countries with active Jihadist populations. Graham and Rubio were both members of the Gang of Eight, which proposed legislation that would expand Muslim immigration, and Paul and Cruz were both opponents of the Gang of Eight bill.

Graham and Rubio’s vote against curbing Muslim migration follows the attack in San Bernardino. The male suspect, Syed Farook, is the son of Pakistani immigrants; and the female suspect, Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani native. According to CNN, the two met, “when he [Farook] had gone to Saudi Arabia in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at last once in their lifetime. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in July 2014 on a ‘fiancée visa’ and later became a lawful permanent resident.”

Sen. Paul’s amendment failed 89-10, with only nine other Senators joining Paul’s bid for a halt to the large-scale distribution of visas to nations with jihadist populations. The nine others supporting Paul’s amendment were Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Senator Ted Cruz.

Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and GOP Conference Chair Sen. John Thune (R-SD) voted against the amendment. Thune’s vote is particularly notable as the GOP conference is in charge of the Republican Party’s messaging in the Senate.

Go here for the rest of the story (there is a lot more information).  Readers Rubio is never going to be your friend on immigration issues!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Looking for one brave and patriotic governor! Lawsuit ready to file against refugee program, needs only a plaintiff

1,000 U.S. Rabbis sign letter to “welcome” Syrian Muslims to America

What has Rand Paul done?

One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.

Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:

After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:

Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:

  1. Introduced a 5-year balanced budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes.
  2. Filibustered for 13 hours to stop Obama/Holder’s illegal drone strikes on Americans – and succeeded.
  3. Filibustered for 11 hours to kill the PATRIOT Act – and succeeded.
  4. Sued the Obama Administration/Justice Department for illegally collecting all Americans’ phone records, as they are still doing under the so-called FREEDOM Act.
  5. Consistently advocates for social issues to be left to the states, just as his father did.
  6. Only Senate Republican who opposed the efforts to bomb Syria in late 2014.
  7. Opposed the US-funded war in Libya.
  8. Detailed specific plans to form a coalition with Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis to defeat ISIS without ever putting U.S. boots on the ground.
  9. Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
  10. Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
  11. His plans for making social security and other entitlements solvent are crystal clear, phasing in raising the age of eligibility and means tests for wealthier recipients. (This would solve the massive deficit coming out of SS and, most likely, lead to privatization in the form of personal accounts, which is a good thing.)
  12. Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
  13. Consistent top ratings from all three major gun rights advocates groups (NRA, GOA NAGR).
  14. Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
  15. Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
  16. And, last but not least, he has some fun in the process.

This is a direct quote from Nate Dawg:

“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”

I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…

EDITORS NOTE: Please click here for Tad MacKie’s YouTube page.

Senator Rand Paul Introduces ‘Read the Bills Act’

AKRON, Ohio /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “Congress has to read the bills, if they want to claim they represent us,” declares Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. “The ‘Read the Bills Act’ restores fiduciary duty in Congress.”

Under the Read the Bills Act (RTBA, S. 1571), members of Congress would have to sign an affidavit indicating they’ve read the bill or heard it read to them before voting “For” the bill. Courts would be prohibited from enforcing laws that didn’t meet this requirement.

“You can’t claim ignorance of the law as a defense in court,” Babka continues. “So there shouldn’t be any excuse for politicians to pass huge bills they haven’t read.”

Senator Paul has been featuring this issue as one of his priorities while on the campaign trail.  The Senator himself observes that, “Too often in Congress, legislation is shoved through without hearings, amendments or debate. Elected officials are rarely given an adequate amount of time to read the bills in full, and unlike Rep.Nancy Pelosi, I believe we must read the bills before passing them into law.”

RTBA also requires the bill to be posted online for seven days before the final vote. This, Senator Paul notes, will give Americans “sufficient time to read and give input to Members of Congress as they consider legislation.”

This simple, “transpartisan” act is hard for members of Congress to accept. But Americans love it. Grover Norquist, in his book, Leave Us Alone, called the bill an essential reform for transparency, applauding the fact that it prohibits sneaking-in last minute deals.

Babka commends Senator Paul. “He’s not only re-introduced this bill, which would be a law that would protect individuals, but he’s also put forth a Read the Bill rule, which would require the Senate to have a waiting period of bill publication for the vote. Truly, he’s committed to this issue.”

To help attract more co-sponsors to Senator Paul’s bill, DownsizeDC.org offers a free tool for constituents to deliver letters directly to their Representative and two Senators. Here’s the link: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

http://www.DownsizeDC.org

RELATED ARTICLES: 

50 Years of Dysfunction: The Failures of Medicare and Medicaid

How Rich Corporate Elites Are Lobbying Lawmakers to Crush Marriage Advocates

First the Media Ignored Planned Parenthood Videos, Now a Court Wants to Censor Them. Here’s Why It Won’t Work

Born 225 Years Ago, Tocqueville’s Predictions Were Spot On

Poll: Teflon Donald Takes Double Digit Lead into GOP Debates

BOSTON /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — One week out from the first GOP debate, Donald Trump leads the Republican field with 31% of the vote, followed by Gov. Jeb Bush at 15% and Gov. Scott Walker in third at 13%. The survey was conducted July 26 to July 28, with 481 likely GOP voters at a 4.4% margin of error.

248896

Forty percent (40%) of respondents viewed Trump’s comments regarding Senator John McCain’s War record as unimportant to their vote while another 47% said they would be less likely to vote for Trump because of his comments about the Arizona Senator. Interestingly, 11% percent said they were more likely to vote for Trump because of his commentary on McCain.

Rounding out the top 10 Republicans in this poll were Sen. Ted Cruz at 8%, Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6%, followed by Dr. Ben Carson at 5%, Sen. Rand Paul at 4% and Sen. Marco Rubio at 4%. Carly Fiorina was in 9th place at 3% and Gov. John Kasich was tied with Gov. Chris Christie with 2% of the vote. All other candidates received under 1% of the vote; 7% of Republican Primary voters were undecided.

Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a significant lead with 54% of the vote in the Democrat Primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 33% and VP Joe Biden at 9%.  All other announced candidates register under 2% of the vote each. The sample size of likely Democrat Primary voters was 476 with a margin of error of 4.4%.

248897

In a head to head contest, Clinton holds a 2 point lead over Jeb Bush 44% to 42%, an 8 point lead over Walker 49% to 41%, and a 9 point lead over Donald Trump 49% to 40%.

The poll suggests that likely voters are not that thrilled with any of the presidential candidate as all held higher negative then favorable opinions except for Sanders who had a 33% favorable and 32% unfavorable opinion.

Clinton holds an overall 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating, Trump is at 31% to 56% rating, Bush at 25% to 52% and Walker at 24% to 38%.

Trump holds the highest favorable rating among Republican primary voters at 54% to 33%, with Bush at 40% to 39% and Walker at 46% to 20%.

ABOUT THE  EMERSON COLLEGE POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted Sunday July 26 through Tuesday July 28. The polling sample for both the Democrat and the GOP Primary consisted of 476 and 481 likely voters each, with a margin of error of +/-4.4% and a 95% confidence level. The General Election sample consisted of 950 likely voters with a margin of error of +/-3.1% and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: SHOCK POLL — Donald Trump Leads Jeb Bush in Florida

Donald Trump and Other GOP Nominees Neck and Neck

NEW YORK /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has definitely ingested the race for the 2016 Republican nomination with a sense of, well, I guess the right adjective depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. But, especially after the criticism of POWs this past weekend, the path to the nomination is not an easy one for him. The talk has been that he might use some of his considerable fortune, a la Ross Perot in 1992, and run as an Independent. If so, what does that mean for the race with some of the leading Republican contenders right now and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender?

These are the results of an online survey conducted by Regina Corso Consulting among 2,012 U.S. adults 18 and older between July 20 and 22, 2015.

Clinton/Bush/Trump

If the election was a three way race, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, while almost one in five would each vote for Jeb Bush (19%) or Donald Trump (18%); one-quarter (25%) are not at all sure. As expected, strong majorities of Democrats (74%) and Liberals (68%) would vote for Clinton, but among Republicans and Conservatives there is a divide. Two in five Republicans (41%) and one-third of Conservatives (33%) would vote for Jeb Bush while three in ten Republicans (30%) and Conservatives (29%) would vote for Trump. Among Independents, three in ten (31%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, one in five (21%) would vote forDonald Trump and less than one in five (17%) would vote for Jeb Bush.

Clinton/Walker/Trump

Changing the Republican nominee, two in five Americans (40%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (18%) would vote for Donald Trump and 15% would vote for Scott Walker while over one-quarter (27%) are not at all sure. Strong majorities of Democrats (75%) and Liberals (72%) would vote for Hillary Clinton while those on the other side of the aisle are even more divided. Three in ten Republicans would each vote for Scott Walker(31%) and Donald Trump (30%) and three in ten Conservatives would each vote for Scott Walker (29%) and Donald Trump (29%). Among Independents, almost three in ten (28%) would vote for Clinton, one in five (20%) would vote for Trump and 16% would vote for Walker.

Clinton/Paul/Trump

Looking at still a different possible Republican nominee, if the election were to be held today, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (19%) would vote for Donald Trump and 17% would vote for Rand Paul. Over seven in ten Democrats (76%) and Liberals (71%) would vote for Clinton; at least one-third of Republicans (36%) and Conservatives (33%) would vote for Trump; and over one-quarter of Republicans (31%) and Conservatives (27%) would vote for Paul. Among Independents, over one-quarter (28%) would vote for Clinton while just over one in five would each vote for Trump (22%) and Walker (21%).

Musings

At this stage of an election, these polls should be looked at with a great deal of caution. Is this what will happen in November? Most assuredly it isn’t. But, these do give us an important takeaway – there is a desire for something different out there. One thing about Donald Trump that can’t be denied is he tells it exactly as he thinks and feels it. Many of those who have catapulted him to the top of a number of Republican primary polls probably aren’t saying they want him to be President or even the GOP nominee. They are saying they don’t want more of the status quo. A candidate who dares to be a little different can go a long way.

ABOUT REGINA CORSO CONSULTING:

Regina Corso Consulting is a full service research firm specializing on research for public release. They provide research for agencies and companies to help them drive their PR. For more information, please visit ReginaCorsoConsulting.com.

For full methodology/data, please click here.

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit www.oann.com/poll

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visitwww.OANN.com.

New Concerned American Voters Super PAC Launched to Support Rand Paul for President

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire/ — Concerned American Voters, a political action committee supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, launched today with millions of dollars committed and 40 full-time field staff in the key primary state of Iowa, President Jeff Frazeeand Senior Advisor Matt Kibbe announced.

“Once in a while, you discover a presidential candidate who has the potential to change the political conversation, to elevate key issues in voters’ minds, and disrupt and transform a tired Republican brand,” said Kibbe. “Once in a lifetime, maybe, you will have an opportunity to support a transformative candidate who can do all of these things, and win. Rand Paul is that candidate.”

Kibbe is the former president and founder of FreedomWorks, a national community-building and grassroots advocacy organization of more than 6 million Americans who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Frazee is executive director of Young Americans for Liberty and previously served as the national youth coordinator for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

Concerned American Voters launches with millions of dollars in funding pledged so far.

Concerned American Voters is building campaign infrastructure by organizing Rand Paul supporters nationwide and in key primary states, including Iowa, where it has 40 full-time field staffers and has already knocked on the doors of more than 60,000 voters. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Rand Paul tied for the lead among Republican voters nationwide. Polls consistently show he is the Republican most competitive against Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking 45 percent to 37 percent for Rand in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

“Our strategy to elect Rand Paul will maximize the potential of the new rules of politics, which are shifting power away from political insiders and establishment favorites, towards more authentic candidates willing to reach directly to voters,” said Frazee, Concerned American Voters campaign director. “By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election.”

Frazee added, “The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010. It’s why Senator Mike Lee was able to defeat 18-year incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in Utah that same year. And it’s how Rand Paul will win the White House in 2016.”

Concerned American Voters has recruited a proven team of professionals who have successfully organized grassroots activists for both the ideas of, and the candidates for, liberty – on the ground and through sophisticated social media targeting online – for years. In addition to Frazee and Kibbe, Concerned American Voters’ leadership group includes Senior Development Advisor Terry Kibbe, who brings 18 years of experiences as a fundraiser for various nonprofit and political causes; Chief Operating Officer Edward King, the former national youth director for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Senior Tech Advisor Steve Oskoui, the founder of Austin-based Internet advertising network Smiley Media; Senior Data Architect Mike Topalovich, the founder of cloud-focused technical and business process expert collective Delivered Innovation; and Senior Tech Strategist Martin Avila, the co-founder of political technology firm Terra Eclipse.

For more information on Concerned American Voters, visit ConcernedAmericanVoters.com.

A Behind the Scenes Look at the Republican Candidates

Join The United West team as they show an excellent analysis of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates presented by Orlando attorney, John Stemberger.

Stemberger evaluates each Republican Presidential hopeful by examining their pros & cons and then reveals the rich benefactors behind each candidate and how that money may help or hurt them.

This is very interesting and necessary information to know in order to intelligently vote on November 8, 2016.

American Exceptionalism: The Defining Question for Presidential Candidates

The most important question we can ask our presidential candidates in this rapidly approaching primary season is for their definition of American Exceptionalism. After six-plus years of an administration that has apologized for America, demoralized our American military, destroyed our status on the international stage, attacked America’s unparalleled entrepreneurial vigor, and assaulted our future path to prosperity, I’ve had enough. My daughters deserve better, your children deserve better, and the many men and women who sacrificed and died for the ideas our flag represents deserve better.

We are an exceptional nation, and Americans are an exceptional people, and we should never make any apologies for that. We are not only the economic breadbasket of the world, and the innovative idea factory of the world, but we are a beacon of freedom for other nations to follow. Yes, we’ve fallen short at times, but we’ve always gotten back up and emerged stronger.

We were born of a revolution where the odds of being victorious were incalculable. We conquered the scourge of slavery. We sent our fighting men and women to foreign shores to conquer fascism and communism. And we measure our national valor not by the conquered land we’ve acquired, but by the land we’ve returned to people we’ve set free from the shackles of tyranny in exchange for the blood of our sons and daughters. Our commitment to liberty and freedom as gifted by God, not man, is unique and has no equal on the world stage either now, or historically. Reagan recognized this, JFK recognized this, our military men and women recognize this and, most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize this.

It’s time for an American renaissance. We’ve been through the economic travails and the international Barack Obama American apology tour and it’s time for an American president who will boldly stand, both at home and abroad, for a reinvigorated and vibrant American spirit, which shines brightly on the global stage. Our next president must passionately fight back against the idea that the United States of America can happily enter into an era of “managed decline.” I will be no part of any “managed decline” and our next President should reaffirm that an exceptional America will never decline, managed or otherwise, in this lifetime or in the lifetimes of the American sons and daughters to follow.

While I’ll be intensely focused on all of the candidate’s responses to questions on taxes, spending and the other important issues of our time, it’s their answers as to what makes America exceptional that will tell me if they can right America’s course. I ask you to join me in this mission to challenge our candidates for president, and everywhere else at the state and local levels, and to ask our future leaders what makes America exceptional. It’s not a gotcha question and I’m not looking for a candidate who can wax poetic in their response. I am looking for a candidate who can firmly, passionately and vigorously defend the axiom that this nation has been touched by the hand of God and has no equal, and that it’s not who we’ve been willing to fight with that has made us exceptional, but what we have been willing to fight for.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Rick Santorum is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

Senator Rand Paul on Hillary Clinton’s Baggage: Benghazi, Emails and Cash

Senator Rand Paul, Republican primary candidate appeared on America’s News Room on the Fox News channel to clarify what he meant by his comment that Hillary Clinton will need two airplanes during her campaign “one for her entourage and one for her baggage.”

Senator Paul defines “her baggage” metaphor.