Women In The Draft: Coming Soon


Are you ready to feel the equality yet? It’s coming…

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 passed the Senate 85-13-2. The bill passed by both a vast majority with Republican and Democrat support, along with one Independent.

Some of the notable no’s:

  • Rand Paul (R-KY)
  • Mike Lee (R-UT)
  • Ted Cruz (R-TX)
  • Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
  • Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Harry Reid (D-NV)

Who missed the vote, with some very crucial things like changes to Indefinite Detention and the Draft?

  • Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
  • Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

The next time someone tells you that Democrats stand with women, question it. Since the vast majority have signed on to having them drafted into war and killed on a battlefield, that high horse no longer should exist.

And the next time someone tells you that Bernie cares, tell them he skipped out and didn’t care at all. If he did, he would have been there, and fought.


Discussing Healthcare and Rights

I used this meme back last year in a post on whether people have a right to healthcare or not. Of course, I argued that people did not, as it does not naturally exist, and is the produc of other people’s labor. Still, many think they’re entitled to it, and for free as well. Recently, I responded to a few comments on this, and I will go ahead and post those below.

The first set are the criticisms that the Rand Paul argument received:

#1 – officermilky

Call me naive, but wouldn’t he be paid through taxes? He wouldn’t be working for free. The argument to that, of course, would be “robbing peter to pay paul” but healthcare would be taxes that, you know, a society would all agree to go in on because they democratically believe it’s the right thing to do?

I’m not even saying that’s a perfect solution to everything, but the Rand caption seems faulty.

#2 – ramblingferret

Yes just like in Canada and Europe we round up doctors and force them to work against there will. Like my poor shrink who works 8-5 with Wednesdays off.

#3 – sweertomato

And now, here is how I responded to each one of them:

@officermilky He would be paid under a market wage that he would have regularly earned, due to government price setting (both on goods and wages). Your main mistake is that you will not have all of society agreeing to this universal healthcare plan. You would only need 50% +1 to make this happen, and that doesn’t sound in any way like it “society would all agree to go in” with this, as you say. THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

@ramblingferret You mention Canada’s system, and I’d be a bit careful with that. They tried to first off ban private insurance, which was ruled unconstitutional. Canadian healthcare wait times are far longer than American wait times.

canada healthcare times

In addition to this, Canada’s system is lagging in adopting to new technology and practices to improve the quality and speed of care. And I’d be even more careful to use Canada’s system, since it’s projected to eat up 97% of government revenues over time. If that’s something America should copy, I’d be skeptical. And if you still don’t believe I should be skeptical, I would ask the 40,000+ Canadians who sought medical treatment outside Canada due to these problems, and more.

@sweer-tomato You mention that it would be free. About that…


And if that is the route you wish to take (in saying that universal healthcare is free), then this also applies:


Weird how neither me nor Rand actually said the “ and saying oh “Survival of the fittest” if you get seriously ill / injured you deserve to die is the most barbaric and jackass thing you can say.” I honestly wonder where this even comes from, but I don’t think I care.

Now, under the current ACA, quality of care has gone down, and prices have gone up (especially when you’re not subsidised, like regular people with their own healthcare or through their business). Under the universal system, the costs become simply unseen by the everyday taxpayer, but is still felt on April 15, and don’t think for a second this is going to be in any way cheap, especially for people who are poor or have pre-existing conditions. Not when the plan require a bunch of crap that a) shouldnt be part of health insurance, and b) is mandated by government fiat.

And let’s chat about government mandated bull. I’ve yet to hear someone explain logically how the government can require health insurers to cover something, and the health insurers won’t raise their prices. The health insurers know they can simply jack up their prices all they want, because it’s now mandated that “x” service be covered. You wanna know why healthcare costs keep going up? It ain’t corporate greed that is the main problem. I’ll tell you that.

And let’s talk about 2016. If you’d like to see more poor people, go ahead, enact your universal healhcare system. Bernie’s plan sure ain’t cheap, since you’d have to come up with $3.2 trillion in new tax revenue per year (equalling $32 trillion in total, more than his original projections were) over the next decade to pay for just the healthcare costs. Since the Sander’s plan already boasts of tax hikes on the wealthy (aka the one’s who currently pay the majority of taxes), where is the rest of the money coming from? Hint hint, he will HAVE look lower. But don’t worry, you might be audited by the IRS after not paying taxes because you can’t afford them, but you’ll have healthcare still… that is, as long as they haven’t cut you off.

It’s 2016: let people actually keep their money for a change and get the damn government out of healthcare, so people can afford it and not go broke should something bad happen.

All in all, I haven’t done a good rebuttal like this in a while, and I probably could have done tons better, but this still came out good, and still hasn’t been rebutted by any of these three posters. I’m not expecting it to, but hey, we shall see.

Rand Paul vs. Tax Treaties


“I’m calling on the Senate, in particular Sen. Rand Paul, who’s been a little quirky on this issue, to stop blocking the implementation of tax treaties that have been pending for years,”

Someone sounds a little upset. These are the words of President Obama, who was talking about tax treaties that he’s really wanted to be passed in the Senate. The reason why he wants these treaties put through? So he can stop “tax evasion”, a problem which he is looking to address.

Now, on the surface, this doesn’t look like it should be much of an issue. You need to understand that nothing in Washington is simple though. What these tax treaties would do is allow for law enforcement to basically act as if it were unbound by the 4th Amendment, and become almost NSA-like, since it would have the power to allow law enforcement to see what you’re doing, when you’re doing it, and what comes in and goes out. Yes, this can all be seen from bank activity. Scary, isn’t it?

So what about tax cheats? To be honest, these are the symptom of a much larger problem: a tax system not many know how to properly navigate, and many would like to just avoid all together, seeing as how there is no hope in trying to figure it out while keeping their costs low. And compliance? Haha, that’s a funny one.

2 of these treaties are with Switzerland and Luxembourg, two of the wealthiest nations on the planet, and since they see a lot of monetary traffic, the White House feels like it would be wise to have access to their records, so they can be used in tax investigations by the IRS if needed.

Going further into some research, I can across this gem over at Accounting Today:

Of the eight treaties, seven of them are bilateral agreements with various countries to facilitate cooperation to avoid double taxation and to lower compliance costs. Regrettably, these agreements also unnecessarily change the standard for providing personal financial information to law enforcement agencies from probable cause of criminal behavior, such as fraud—which Paul correctly regards as the only constitutionally permissible standard under the Fourth Amendment—to what amounts to wholesale bulk collection on the pattern of the NSA’s violations of email and phone privacy.

This is Paul’s only concern with these seven bilateral treaties. A simple amendment could conform them to constitutional standards and they could move forward expeditiously.

However, that reasonable solution is not acceptable to Secretary Jack Lew’s Treasury Department. That’s because the Department also insists on using the treaties as a Trojan Horse for one of the most dangerous and dysfunctional laws enacted under the presidency of Barack Obama: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. 

FATCA, which few Americans have ever heard of, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010, supposedly as a weapon against “fatcat” offshore tax evasion. Disdaining the constitutional path of investigating individuals who are suspected of wrongdoing and securing a warrant for accessing their private records, FATCA takes the NSA approach: to require all non-U.S. banks to hand over information on U.S. private persons (not corporations, by the way) absent any requirement of reasonable suspicion, due process, or a court order. If banks fail to do so, they face crippling sanctions that essentially shut them out of the American market. FATCA has led many foreign banks to deny services to Americans rather than deal with the burdens and crushing compliance costs, thus impeding U.S. business and export opportunities and risking economic harm.

*bolding is my own*

Now you see why Obama wants these treaties passed in Congress, don’t you? There’s always another reason than just something like “tax evasion”. There’s always something more to it.

Rand Paul is right to be in opposition to these, and the thing is, is that these cannot pass while there is still opposition to them. Meaning, that as long as Rand keeps saying “I object”, then these cannot move on at all. They’ll just continue to sit around and collect dust.

Rand Paul & His Many New Bills From This Week


Rand Paul has been quite active this past week with a series of bills that have been introduced.

Here are three of the one’s that have caught my eye:

Gun Rights for Recipients of Social Security

Sen. Rand Paul has introduced a new bill aimed at stopping an Obama Administration move to strip seniors on Social Security of their gun rights.

The current White House deal would strip gun rights as follows:

The reporting would happen “in consultation with the Department of Justice” and would “cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment.”

The Paul bill, if passed, would make sure that due process is followed when the case of a mental evaluation is taken for these people, instead of the current rubber-stamping of these cases by state mental health organizations. In addition, the Paul proposal would do the following:

  • Prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to an individual that has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Adjudication requires findings by a judicial officer or court and the individual receives notice to participate with counsel.
  • Within 90 days, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must review and remove from NICS any veteran that has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will certify that the removal of names has taken place.
  • Prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Attorney General will conduct a yearly review to certify reported names have necessary documentation.
  • Attorney General must certify a state’s report indicating a person had been adjudicated as mentally incompetent prior to inclusion to NICS.
  • All individuals considered to no longer be adjudicated as mentally incompetent will be notified and have their rights restored .

Fighting the Heroin Epidemic

Rand Paul has been fighting for a bill that would expand the usage of a certain drug called Suboxone, which helps to lessen the dependence on heroin, allowing a person to better overcome it as a whole.

Currently, federal law only allows doctors to prescribe this drug to 50 patients in their first year with this drug, followed by 100 afterwords. The proposed legislation would expand the starting number to 500, thus allowing for more people to seek and receive actual treatment.

While it would be better to allow this to be prescribed more freely (without restriction, for their main concern is this drug being used in pill mills), this bill moves things in the right direction, and allows more people to seek out and receive treatment.

Economic Freedom Zone’s

Rand Paul has proposed the Economic Freedom Zones Act as an amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016. If passed, this amendment would allow for Economic Freedom Zones to be created in areas where there is poverty and little to no growth.

What would these economic freedom zones do for the people who live in them? Here is a brief overview of the changes:

The legislation would provide for a series of tax cuts, such as reducing the corporate and individual income tax to 5% and lowering payroll taxes by 2%. It would also ease regulation, such as suspending the Davis-Bacon wage requirements and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act. The amendment would also give a $5,000 per child educational tax credit to parents.

Moving Forward w/ Rand Paul

rand-paul-marijuanaTo start, I’m simply talking about what the future may bring with Rand Paul. And the future certainly does have him being quite busy in it. In many ways, there is much for Rand to do coming up soon, and moving forward.

To start, let me draw on the past a bit, and make a comparison. Like his father, Rand did not make it to convention in his first GOP Presidential run. Sure, things were different back in 2008, but in some ways, they’re still similar. For instance, the economy is in no way on stable ground and looking to be heading anywhere good (see my post on the economy for more on this).

Now, what’s up for Rand in the future? Well, for starters, he’ll have another election to go through this year, unlike Ron’s election every 2 years in the House. So far, there are 10 people running for the Senate seat Rand occupies in KY, including Rand himself. 3 are Republicans, and 7 are Democrats. The Democrats in the state are crippled, and this may be their last opportunity to show that they still have power by ousting Rand Paul from his seat. Their candidate wasn’t who they had originally planned for, and now, they’ve settled on Lexington Mayor Jim Gray as their best hopes to take on Paul. Whether that’ll work or not is yet to be seen, but I would expect the GOP Establishment to sit by and let Rand deal with this one all on his own, which in many ways, is a good thing (largely because they don’t do anything right).

Now, speaking about the Senate seat, I do not believe that there is much to truly worry about. To start, let us look to one of the more terrible Senators in the Senate, who leads the Majority now: Mitch McConnell. He won his race back in 2014 against Sec. of State Allison Grimes 56%-41%. The race, for most of the time, was called a toss-up, and people said things didn’t look good for McConnell a lot, but look how that turned out. Talking about Rand’s seat, when Bevin has won his Governorship, I think there really isn’t too much to worry about, or at least, not as much as the Establishment fears there will be.

Now, what will Rand be up to in the Senate? Well, there are a few important things coming up. Here are some of those things:


Supreme Court Appointee Hearings

For starters, there will be Supreme Court nominee’s coming into the Senate for hearings and appointment votes. In a note he posted to Facebook on February 15th, he said:

President Obama and the Democrats have wasted no time making this vacancy a huge political statement, and they are calling for an immediate replacement in the court – of course a liberal one that could tilt the balance of the court for years.
President Obama thinks this is his chance to put an end to originalist interpretation of the Constitution. His last chance, in his last few months office.
I am not going to let him do it. There’s too much at stake.
As much as I’d love to see a Justice Napolitano (Andrew Napolitano, that is), I don’t believe that would happen.


Budget & Debt Ceiling Negotiations

Specifically, the Debt Ceiling won’t be an issue to do anything over till 2017, when the last deal will finally run out. When that happens, you can bet that there will be a harsh fight over what get’s more funding, what get’s cut, whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, and what happens with the overall national debt and deficit. Expect these procedures to be bloody, and outright nasty, as they’ve usually been. What will Rand be doing? If there is any indication, he may propose another budget to cut spending and kill off the deficit, while actually shrinking government in all area’s.


Killing The PATRIOT Act

Under the USA FREEDOM Act, the PATRIOT Act had many of it’s key provisions extended until 2017, when a new President is in power, and a new Congress is as well. There will be a renueued fight over these provisions, and the spying state as well. The NSA has largely continued it’s unconstitutional searches, and must be stopped. Many conservatives and many liberals will oppose this, seeing it as either necessary for security or, to say the least, constitutional. Rand will be needed to lead the fight against these provisions and actions in the Senate, and to assist the House Freedom Caucus with their battle in the House should they need any assistance. It will be Rand, and quite possible Mike Lee (R-UT), leading once more on this issue, and should notable hawks like McCain and Rubio (who is confirmed leaving the Senate) not be around, the fight is only easier.


War In Syria

I do not doubt that under the next President that there will be more stronger calls for war in Syria to combat both ISIS and the Assad Regime, a key plank of the Neo-cons and Progressive’s agenda. War in Syria is what they’ve been looking forward to for a while now, and with their continued arming for the Syrian Rebels who were supposedly “moderate”, weapons have trickled over to ISIS, who has also taken away weapons the US gave to the Iraqi Army when they were rebuilding the country.

The next President will be faced with a War Authorization presented by the Congress, and as lovers of freedom and liberty, we must be there to oppose such a thing and a war we have no stake or claim to be in. Rand must lead in the Senate the anti-war opposition to this terrible idea, and sound the alarm that, besides sending American sons and daughters to die, the foreign policy will only lead to more instability and destruction in the Middle East. It must be done, or the rest of the world will continue to unite against the American Empire behind Russia and China.

These are my thoughts on what is in store for Rand coming up in the future. These, again, are only a few things. I can’t predict the future, but I can tell you that at the very least, these are the more important things we have to worry about, and these are the things that Rand should definitely pay attention to as well.


My Thoughts On The Refugee Crisis : Part III


So what is the US doing, and what are the legislators and executives saying here? That is, afterall, what ends up being translated into bomb orders and troop shipments. What is said in the halls of Congress, and the White House is key to understand why the Middle East is in it’s current state, and if you do not pay attention to that, then you’re missing out.

I can assure you, I will be covering a lot of people in this, so it’ll be long.

Continue reading

CNN Caught Red Handed Working With Clinton Campaign

cnn benghazi.png

Media bias in elections isn’t anything new. Media bias of covering what is going on in government is nothing new. However, it should upset people when corruption like this emerges at a supposedly “unbiased” network news station.

Recently, emails from the Clinton Campaign going between an aide and a CNN reporter were released, and showed how the Clinton campaign conspired with the reporter to try and slander the Senator in the Benghazi hearings back in 2013.

From The Daily Caller:

The emails, which were released to the website Gawker, show that Elise Labott, a foreign affairs reporter at CNN, took guidance from Clinton aide Philippe Reines by posting a tweet criticizing Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul for asking Clinton tough questions during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks.

Labott also coordinated with Reines to post a favorable quote from Clinton’s testimony, which she gave just a week before she left office.

In the Reines emails, which are the subject of a Gawker lawsuit against the State Department, Labott appears to pick up on a previous conversation she was having with Reines during the Benghazi hearing, asking him: “are you sure rand paul wasn’t at any hearings?”

Five minutes after sending that email, Labott sent Reines another message sharing what she had tweeted about Paul.

Sen Paul most critical on committee of Clinton, but a little late to the #Benghazi game.Not sure he was at many of the 30 previous briefings

— Elise Labott (@eliselabottcnn) January 23, 2013

Hours later, Labott and Reines were at it again.

“She was great. well done. I hope you are going to have a big drink tonight,” Labott wrote to Reines, complimenting Clinton’s performance.

Reines followed up that compliment by telling Labott that he had “suggested a good Tweet.”

Labott said that she had not received an email concerning another tweet. Reines wrote back “Pin,” an apparent reference to a private messaging system.

Labott wrote back “will get back to you.” Eleven minutes later she sent an email reading, “done.”

A reporter who Tweets on request! pic.twitter.com/vdFGrYisgU

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 25, 2015

According to free-market advocate Phil Kerpen, who scoured through the emails on Tuesday, Labott sent the following message at Reines’ request:

Clinton:   I tried to be transparent. I could have joined the 18 ARBs, kept it classified and then said goodbye.  That is not who I am.

— Elise Labott (@eliselabottcnn) January 23, 2013

ARB is a reference to the Accountability Review Board that Clinton appointed to investigate the Benghazi attacks.

The release of the emails caps a rough month for Labott. On Thursday, she posted a biased tweet decrying the House’s passage of a bill that would halt the program allowing Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the U.S. until federal agencies can ensure that they don’t pose a national security risk. CNN suspended Labott the next day for violating its editorial guidelines.

House passes bill that could limit Syrian refugees. Statue of Liberty bows head in anguish  @CNNPolitics https://t.co/5RvZwVftgD

— Elise Labott (@eliselabottcnn) November 19, 2015

Well, so much for journalistic integrity. I wonder what would have gotten them so rilled up that they would have wanted to do this? Maybe reviewing the Benghazi hearing questions from Paul may give some answers:

I’ll leave you to make any other judgements about CNN and Clinton’s campaign operatives.