Mediaboss Marketing

Rand Paul took a left turn on his journey to the Republican nomination, and now his hopes seem to be headed south.

The libertarian Kentucky senators new book, Taking a Stand, came out Tuesday, and it is chock-full of lines that would position Paul well if he were running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

On the environment: Youll find Im a tree hugger, literally ... Im a Republican who wants clean air, clean water, and the life-extending miracle of electricity. I compost.

On Wall Street: Only in a world of crony capitalism would bankers whose faulty decisions caused bankruptcy be allowed to cash out as the middle class absorbs the losses.

On his party: Right now, the Republican brand sucks. I promised Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, that I would stop saying the GOP sucks, and I will (except for this last time).

On racial minorities: I want a New GOP that resonates with America, that looks like America white and black. ... The face of the Republican Party should not be about suppressing the vote but about enhancing the vote.

On Ferguson, Mo.: [T]housands of peaceful protesters were met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and a police department that showed up at the protest in gear more fitting for Fallujah or Kandahar.

On drug sentencing: We should free those who are in jail under the old guidelines. Our prisons are bursting with young men and women who are poor or of color.

But Paul has a problem: He isnt running for the Democratic nomination. And though Paul may think his Republican Partys brand sucks, the primary voters dont necessarily share his view that the party is too old and too white. His candidacy has so far failed to ignite and, indeed, he seems to be fading as a force within the party.

The most recent national poll, by Fox News, has Paul in sixth place, with 7percent, trailing Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Paul averages only about half the support he had late in 2013. Paul doesnt appear to be winning over young voters perhaps the most important justification for his candidacy and does not do better than other Republicans, according to a survey released last month by Harvard Universitys Institute of Politics. Even in his home state, a media consortium poll this month found that Paul had lost his lead in a theoretical matchup with Clinton.

More here:
The decline of Rand Paul - The Washington Post

Story highlights Hillary Clinton will be in South Carolina for the first time since she announced 2016 campaign Clinton was damaged after a racially charged South Carolina battle against Obama in 2008

Rita Outen remembers everything that happened here the last time Clinton made her case for the presidency, slogging through a bitter and racially charged primary contest against Barack Obama in 2008.

Standing in the aisle of Reid Chapel A.M.E. church one recent afternoon, the retired nurse ticked off the lowlights: the "Jesse Jackson thing," when Bill Clinton seemed to dismiss Obama's victory in the state by noting the reverend won South Carolina twice without making it to the White House. And the time when Hillary Clinton accused Obama of working closely with a slumlord.

"There was also that fairy tale comment," Outen said, recalling yet another Bill Clinton gaffe from the campaign that was interpreted as an effort to diminish the man who would become the first African-American president.

Obama routed Clinton 55% to 27% in the 2008 primary, when she won just one of South Carolina's 46 counties -- a drubbing that sparked shouting matches between old friends and fears of a permanently fractured party. It left many African-Americans feeling disenchanted about the Clintons, a political couple adored by many minorities during their years in the White House.

The Southern test for Clinton now centers on whether she can move past the wounds of that campaign. In the past few months, Clinton's team has moved aggressively -- if quietly at times -- to heal lingering damage from 2008 and solidify black support in early states and among prominent African-Americans.

READ: 5 questions for Hillary Clinton on Wall Street

For now, Clinton is enjoying some goodwill. Outen, for instance, voted for Obama in 2008 and despite what she called the "nastiness" of that race, she now says she's a Hillary Clinton supporter.

"When you run for political office, everybody makes statements you shouldn't make and some of the statements back then were derogatory," recalled Outen. "At first, my support was a little wavering, but you get over it. She now has a chance to redeem herself."

Shortly after Clinton lost in 2008, Rep. Jim Clyburn got an angry phone call from Bill Clinton, who blamed him for the defeat in part because he didn't endorse the former first lady. Seven years later, tensions have calmed and the divisions that were feared haven't come to pass, Clyburn said.

See the article here:
Will black voters give Hillary Clinton a second chance ...

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

See constitutional amendment.

Read this article:
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

In her first interview ahead of the publication of her new book, Adios, America! conservative commentator Ann Coulter stood by her claim that Americans should fear immigrants from Mexico more than ISIS, the extremist group making gains across Iraq and Syria.

I have a little tip. If you dont want to be killed by ISIS, dont go to Syria. If you dont want to be killed by a Mexican, theres nothing I can tell you, Coulter said in an interview Tuesday with Fusions Jorge Ramos.

After several seconds of silence from a rather stunned audience, she added, Very easy to not be killed by ISIS. Dont fly to Syria.

Are you really sayingwere talking about 40 million immigrants in this country? Ramos said. When he pressed Coulter further, she suggested that certain cultures are obviously deficient.

There are a lot of problems with that culture, she said of Mexico. Hopefully it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here.

America is the best in the world, she added, and we are about to lose it. Everyone who lives here is going to lose that. She said those whod be most hurt by the introduction of new cultures to the United States would be vulnerable groups like women and children and animals and plants.

Coulter and Ramos squared off Tuesday in an interview in which they debated how to reform the U.S.s immigration laws.

Coulter also took questions from the studio audience. After Coulter gave an answer to a previous questioner in which she said young, undocumented immigrants should be barred from paying in-state tuition at state university systems, audience member Gaby Pacheco asked Coulter a more simple question.

Can I give you a hug? she said.

I wouldnt today, Coulter replied, laughing. Im recovering from the worst flu Ive ever had.

See the rest here:
Jorge Ramos spars with Ann Coulter over her comparison of ...

Heres how you profile Ann Coulter by the numbers. Job well done, Daily Beast!

Lloyd Groves new piece has it all multiple Ted Kennedy cracks, a sexy description of what shes wearing, provocative but not too serious conversation about immigration, and finally an Adolf Hitler kicker.

Here are the highlights!

Ann Coulter arrives. The Daily Beast swoons:

She wears tight, seemingly painted-on jeans, a hint of midriff showing beneath her blouse; at 53, she still rocks that Vixen of the Right thing that once promptedPlayboyto ask her to take it all off. In a rare display of caution, she declined.

Requisite denial that her act is mere right-wing performance art:

I dont know why liberals find this idea about me comfortable .I have summer-camp friendswho, when they see people say this is just an act, she doesnt really believe itthey would write indignant letters and say, No. She would march up to me on the hiking trail and explain that Nixon was being lied about.

Her new (topic of latest book goes here) book is about how everything is Ted Kennedys fault:

(It was) an evil-genius plan to change the country. Obama never could have been elected in this country but for Teddy Kennedys immigration act. Never, never, ever, ever!

In order to change this country to one more favorable to crazy liberal policies, Democrats passedand Republicans were hoodwinked into passingthis crazy 1965 immigration law that has changed the country in shocking and dramatic ways This has been our law for 50 years now, and I blame the Republicans for idiotically continuing it. As for these idiot Tea Partiers or whichever conservatives are idol-worshipping Ronald Reagan, he was great for his time, but it was a different world. I dont think hes going down as the greatest president when he signed an amnesty law.

Go here to read the rest:
Ann Coulter: GOP hopefuls are bozos and morons (Also ...