Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts

Friday, February 22, 2013

PROOF COMING OUT DAILY TO WASHINGTON INCOMPETENCE IN THE LEGISLATURE ON ALL LEVELS.

Apparently aides and legislators cannot tell the difference between reality and humor.  Apparently Mitch McConnell's aide did not realize they believed the satire of The Onion and wrote an offensive letter with the stamped signature of the Senator, believing that our government was giving full Veteran's rights to prisoners in Guantanamo.

Rand Paul and Lindsay Graham have been taken in by blogs of some with extreme right leanings but with no truth.  Read an article by Jennifer Rubin as she writes about why Rand Paul is formidable.  Click here.
Rand Paul
Rand Paul also has said he, as President, will cut off all foreign aid, even that to Israel.  He may be pandering to potential voters but, if that is so, he is really assuring his loss as he is speaking to a gross minority.

The Hill posted a column on Rand Paul's views currently about the GOP.  It will help you understand the danger of having people in the Legislature who have no respect for the President, his position, or the platform of the person and party who won the Presidency. It is difficult for me to respect the disrespectful.

For an article on the Republican Identity crisis, click here.   The House of Representatives is looking more and more like it is populated by the boys in the Lord of the Flies.

Friday, January 14, 2011

NEWS IN TODAY'S WORLD

Americans continue to die in two wars in the Arab world, one inherited and the other drawn into by American greed.carried out by politicians' lies.  It seems the media chooses to focus on certain stories while ignoring  the spectacular rather than the necessary and interesting.  For years I've observed news people shove a microphone into  the face of a totally devastated mourner, tears streaming down their face, and ask, "Can you tell us what you are feeling now?"

Imagine that we should see as the leading news story on the BBC Americas page,  the funeral of the 9 year old killed in Tucson.  It is sad that it takes the inevitable and predicted deaths of innocents to confront deaf ears of the guilty that the right to free speech requires some use of common sense.  Hate rhetoric, TV, computer games, etc have done little to make a peace-loving new generation.  As in free software, after a trial period you have to buy the software to be able to run the program.  Similarly, in order to be accepted in the 'club', you have to prove yourself through your speeches and words. 

Sarah Palin has proven herself to be beautiful but somewhat brain dead in sensitivity to most of the people in the lower '48'. Ethics and morals are strangers to far too many. She may defend her right to free speech but she is yelling 'fire' in a movie theater.  I do not 'blame' her for the shooting. I have observed Michele Bachmann making no comments in the past few days, Glenn Beck making the kindest speech I have ever heard him make about toning down the hate speech, Palin whose writer didn't look far enough down the list of meanings of 'blood libel' to use a different phrase defended her poor choice.  I've learned that there are people who don't wish you to explain your meaning.  They know the words you used and that is all they wish to know.  The right choice of words distinguishes the great statesmen from the unsuccessful ones.  Sarah Palin failed that round.

Rand Paul on Hannity speaks of 'they' and what 'they ' have to do.  That vague  
they' allows him to continue to talk about the ideal without any real way of knowing what has to be done to get there other than his suggestion of needing new leadership in Washington, obviously forgetting that it what we voted in two years ago to undo what the Bush administration did to our economics.  Rand Paul has zeal but lacks experience to see ahead to political consequences.  I don't mean about his own re-election, I mean the results to our countrymen if his policies are enacted.

Monday, October 11, 2010

According to Daniel Tencer of The Raw Story, at least 78 Republican candidates would force a woman to bear rapist's babies.  Apparently we have our old fiend friend Phyllis Schlafly (who started this group) to thank for this.  As I read this, I tried to play out some possible scenarios in my head.  #1 a mother of five, husband out of work, little money to pay for groceries and the roof over their heads, is raped and left pregnant.  How would forcing her to have this baby help any one?  Balancing out those five children of hers watching her belly grow, forcing her husband to have to raise the child as his because they are legally married or find a less legal solution, and let us all hope there will be no psychological consequences added to their current mind-numbing woes.

#2  daughter, with a sister who is also adulterously being used by their father, finds herself pregnant as a result.  Mother is no longer able to look on with denial since the daughter has clearly not dated.  The marriage does not survive, mother and two daughters now without the father as a breadwinner struggle for survival.  Adding to their misery, father goes to jail when the doctors find out who the father of the child is and he is sent to jail.

I'm sure I could go on with these scenarios, many of which I've been pretty close to in my years of practicing family therapy.  For a group professing to want less government, how can there be an intelligent human being who doesn't see through their hypocrisy?  It translates to "Get out of my life, government, unless it is something I want...regardless of whether my fellow man agrees, because I am biased and pigheaded with the wish to inflict my values on all."

Tana Ganeva published, in AlterNet, five GOP candidates who would force women to bear children as the result of rape.  They are: 1. Rand Paul (Kentucky); Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), Sharron Angle (Nevada), Ken Buck (Colorado), Joe Miller (Alaska).  One can only seriously question the judgment (or even sanity) of  those politicians who consider this a worthwhile platform to run on in an era when people need to eat, pay rent, taxes, and survive in the job-hungry economy.  That should tell their supporters something critical but it is not likely to do much because, unfortunately, their supporters are as fanatical as they with equally poor sense of what the country needs to survive.  Lots of money is pouring into the coffers of these candidates and, again, one has to wonder where ti is coming from.  These people are driving our country to H*** in the proverbial hand basket, for sure.

I can see Uncle Sam on the floor yelling now, "Help!. Help!, I've fallen and I can't get up!"