Mediaboss Marketing

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) went after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Monday, accusing him of making the country "weaker" on national security.

In town hall meetings, people are really worried about ISIS, they're really worried about the threat of terrorism," said Christie during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "And thats why what Rand Paul has done to make this country weaker and more vulnerable is a terrible thing. And for him to raise money off of it is disgraceful."

He added that if the country is ever attacked, Paul should be hauled in front of Congress and made to testify.

"He should be in front of hearings and in front of Congress if there is another attack, not the director of the FBI or the CIA," said Christie.

Christie has frequently criticized Paul on national security issues. In June, he called Paul's opposition to the Patriot Act "shortsighted." He has also compared the senator's views to those of Edward Snowden, the contractor who leaked classified National Security Agency information.

Hes [Snowden is] a criminal and hes hiding in Russia, and hes lecturing to us about the evils of authoritarian government while he lives under the protective umbrella of Vladimir Putin? Thats who [Sens.] Mike Lee and Rand Paul are siding with? With Edward Snowden? Hey, come on," said Christie in May.

Paul has also gone after Christie, saying his "bully demeanor" -- his tendency to yell at voters -- isn't what the country needs.

"I grew up in the South," said Paul in 2014. "And we're 'yes, ma'am' and 'no, sir' and a little bit more polite."

For more from The Huffington Post, download our app for iOS or Android.

Read more from the original source:
Chris Christie Slams Rand Paul For Making The Country 'Weaker'

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has a tax plan hed like to sell you on. The plan, which would put in place a 14.5 percent flat tax, was crafted with the input of some of the wrongest people in the conservative economic policy world, and it would redistribute wealth up the economic ladder while tossing a bone or two to the people at the bottom. But Rand is proud of it nonetheless, mainly because he thinks its less slavery-like than your average tax scheme.

Heres what Paul said last week about taxation and freedom, as reported by BuzzFeed:

Now you can have some government, we all need government, the Kentucky senator said while discussing Thomas Paine and the role of government at the local public library. Thomas Paine said that government is a necessary evil. What did he mean by that?

Paul said he believes that you have to give up some of your liberty to have government, saying he was for some government.

Im for paying some taxes, continued Paul. But if we tax you at 100% then youve got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. Its a debate we need to have.

That was his big pitch The Rand Paul tax plan: Only 14.5 percent slavery!

This is a dumb argument. And its upsetting to hear this dumb argument coming from someone who is trying to be president, but will go back to writing and approving legislation if/when that doesnt work out. Taxation is not tantamount to slavery. The only thing thats comparable to slavery is actual slavery. You might not like it that a portion of your paycheck is sent to the feds and your state government, and you may disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, but that is in no way comparable to being kept in bondage and having the fruits of your labor stolen from you.

Any way you look at this argument, its bad. When youve staked out the position that your effective tax rate is how you measure ones slave status, then youre arguing that a progressive tax structure means rich people are less free than the lucky poor folks who would see a smaller percentage of their income go to the government. By this reading, a hedge fund billionaire who moves his assets offshore to avoid paying taxes is basically Frederick Douglass. And when you refer to something as slavery, how can you then make the case that there is an acceptable threshold for it? Why should 14.5 percent slavery be any more tolerable than 100 percent slavery?

It gets even worse when you remember that Rand Paul is trying to make inroads with black voters and repair his partys abysmally bad reputation with African-Americans. Rand obviously understands at a certain level that slavery was a uniquely horrific crime, the memory of which still haunts our politics. After the shootings in Charleston last month, Paul called for the Confederate flag to be removed from grounds of the South Carolina Capitol because to every African-American in the country its a symbolism of slavery to them and now its a symbol of murder to this young man. Here we are, just a couple of weeks later, and hes comparing the grotesque human rights violations represented by that flag to the banal act of filing your annual tax return.

And this isnt Rand Pauls first foray into comparing policies he disagrees with to slavery. In 2011, during a Senate hearing, he said that a right to healthcare would, in effect, make slavesout of doctors such as himself:

More:
Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his "slavery ...

Rand Pauls raising money with the marijuana industry in Colorado. Hes holding private meetings with anti-government ranchers in Nevada. Ask him about same-sex marriage, and hell say the feds shouldnt be in the marriage business anyway it should be left for states to sort out.

The Kentucky senator has always held libertarian views. But hes leaning pretty hard into his anti-government cred during a campaign swing out West, championing states rights and excoriating Washington and federal overreach at every turn.

Story Continued Below

Until recently, Paul had taken steps to make sure hes not just a carbon copy of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He sanded down the edges of what his rivals call an isolationist foreign policy, talking tough on Iraq and Ukraine. He spoke of reviving cities like Detroit and teamed up with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker to promote sentencing reform for young black men. Instead of playing up fringe causes like his crusade against the U.S. Federal Reserve, he urged the GOP to become a big-tent party of working-class folks; we need to have people with earrings, nose rings, tattoos, ties, without ties, ponytails, no ponytails.

He also signaled that his presidential campaign wouldnt comprise only operatives associated with the libertarian or tea party wing of the GOP through key hires such as Chip Englander, the former campaign manager for now Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Then came Pauls quasi-filibuster of the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, when the Kentucky senator once again seized the libertarian limelight to oppose what he called domestic spying and his primary opponents said was a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. It looked to many like a desperation move for a candidate starving for attention and struggling to raise the kinds of funds hed need to battle the likes of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. And it certainly didnt help rebut Republican hawks accusations that a President Paul would be weak on terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

But it might have been a strategic pivot born of the recognition that going mainstream just wasnt working.

The return to Rand Paul 1.0 comes after weeks of trying to break out of a crowded GOP pack. His poll numbers arent terrible the Real Clear Politics average of national polls puts Paul at sixth place among 15 Republican contenders for the nomination, enough to put him on stage at the first GOP debate in August but show a worrisome lack of upward momentum. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, hes stuck in fourth place.

Pauls move back into his comfort zone also underscores a key priority for his presidential campaign: Lay the groundwork for a strong showing in caucus states where strong organization can pay off and where the live-and-let-live mentality thrives. An early state like Nevada is a plum target for any Republican in the field but holds special appeal for Paul, whose father won the second-most delegates in the past two Republican presidential caucuses there.

A win there or even a strong showing would help Paul distinguish himself among a large Republican primary field that is clamoring to dominate in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. If Paul were moving through, say, South Carolina, with a large contingent of Republican evangelical voters, he might be trying to do something different.

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul 2016: Libertarian politics and his campaign ...

About Rand Paul

A devoted husband and father, Dr. Paul and his family live in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where Rand owned his own ophthalmology practice and performed eye surgery for 18 years. As a hard-working and dedicated physician--not a career politician--Rand Paul came to Washington to shake things up and to make a difference.

Dr. Paul has been married for 24 years to Kelley Ashby Paul of Russellville, Kentucky, and together, they have three sons: William, 21; Duncan, 18; and Robert, 15. He regularly volunteered to coach teams for each of his three sons in Little League baseball, soccer, and basketball. Rand and Kelley are both devout Christians and are active in their local church.

Rand is the third of five children born to Carol and Ron Paul. He grew up in Lake Jackson, Texas and attended Baylor University. He graduated from Duke Medical School in 1988. Dr. Paul completed a general surgery internship at Georgia Baptist Medical Center in Atlanta and completed his residency in ophthalmology at Duke University Medical Center. Upon completion of his training in 1993, Rand and Kelley moved to Bowling Green to start their family and begin his ophthalmology practice.

In 1995, Rand founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, an organization that provides eye exams and surgery to needy families and individuals. Rand is a former president and 17 year member of Lions Clubs International, which is dedicated to preserving sight by providing eyeglasses and surgery to the less fortunate around the world. In recognition of his outstanding and sustained efforts to provide vision care to Kentuckians in need, Lions Clubs International has awarded Rand many of its highest commendations.

A large part of Rand's daily work as an ophthalmologist was dedicated to preserving the vision of our seniors. In 2002, The Twilight Wish Foundation recognized Rand for Outstanding Service and Commitment to Seniors.

During his free time, Dr. Paul performs pro-bono eye surgeries for patients across Kentucky. Additionally, he provides free eye surgery to children from around the world through his participation in the Children of the Americas Program. Most recently, he traveled to Guatemala on a medical mission trip with the University of Utah's Moran Eye Center. During the week over 200 patients, many of them blind with cataracts, had their vision restored by Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul's entrance into politics is indicative of his lifes work as a surgeon: a desire to diagnose problems and provide practical solutions, whether it be in Bowling Green, Kentucky or Washington, D.C.

See the original post here:
About Rand Paul

Just before 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) aself-styled racial and political history resourceall his own, shared this tidbit.

Trying to read the mind of an elected official or the meaning of any 2016 candidate's social media feed can be a risky business. But we'll make an attempt.

First, let's set the stage. Paul was in Denver to address a crowd gathered at Chopper's Sports Bar. Per coverage of the speech, Paul seemed to share his ideas on the state of the republic and the Republican Party and why Republicans must be less inclined to move toward what he called "the mushy middle." Then came the thoughts in that tweet.

We could certainly quibble with the idea that "minority" status is always defined by one's appearance -- or at Paul put it, the color of one's skin. But that would distractattention from thereally interesting part of the tweet:Paul appears to have joined agrowing legion of conservative minds focused on the idea that "minority" status is a particularly potent and influential one -- and according, a desirable one -- in American society.

Certainly, political scientists and philosophers have made a study for decades of so-called identity politics. That's banning together of ethnic or ideological minorities in a democratic society to advance a core set of policy ideas or political priorities and maximize their potential influence. It's a political practice that, as Paul seemed to hint at his Denver gathering, sometimes requires those inside said group to put aside some of their differences and maximize their impact. And maybe, that's reallywhat Paul was going for.

After all, there are plenty of reasons that an increasingly conservative Republican Party might wantto embrace smaller-group politics. The much-chronicled changing demographics of the electorate are not moving in a direction that will make Republican expansion easy. So a thought exercise or even a rallying cry for the shrinking but still significant portion of the electorate that votes Republican (or mightbe inclined to do so) makes some sense.

[The GOP's major 2016 problem - in 3 maps]

But quite often, the conservative fixation on "minority" politics and power is also tied up with a sense that said minority groups exert undue influence over American politics or issues in public life. The notion that said groups somehow unfairly or unreasonably make use of their group status and identity to hamstring and control "the majority" is fairly widespread. It gains support or a least an audience each time something major (think the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision) or ultimately minor or symbolic (think the push to remove the Confederate flag from public spaces) happens to change the cultural landscape.

That's the set of ideas that kept the Confederate flag in a cultural space where it could be sold on t-shirts and cell-phone covers and largely unmolested on the South Carolina statehouse grounds until this month. That's the sentiment that Donald Trump just tried to foment as the consequences of his statements about immigration, Mexicans and their alleged criminality began to mushroom. That was the idea behind the numerous articles about the allegedly endangered white male, that CNN piece questioning whether white Americans had become an imperiled and oppressed minority and that Deadline Hollywood story arguing that the drive to diversify film and television casting having "gone too far."

Ok, let's face it, that list is long. Very, very long. And much of what those reactions seek to excuse or defend is pretty, in the minds of many Americans (and especially racial minorities), reprehensible.

Read the rest here:
Rand Paul says you can be a minority because of your ...