Page 3«..2345..1020..»

Category Archives: Ron Paul

Boris Johnson Has Coronavirus. He Handled It Badly. – The New York Times

Posted: March 31, 2020 at 6:49 am

Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Britain, on Friday announced that he had tested positive for the coronavirus. In a brief video released on Twitter, he shared the basics: Having developed mild symptoms thats to say, a temperature and a persistent cough he underwent testing and received the bad news. He will now be self-isolating until the illness has run its course.

Looking mostly healthy, if typically disheveled, Mr. Johnson stressed that he would continue to lead the national fightback from his home via teleconferencing. He urged the British public to abide by the three-week lockdown put into place on Monday. The more effectively people stick with social distancing, the faster the nation and its National Health Service will bounce back, he said, before closing with the plea, Stay at home, protect the N.H.S. and save lives.

It was a responsible, no-drama message. If only the prime minister had displayed such leadership sooner, he and who knows how many others might have been spared this illness.

Instead, Mr. Johnsons handling of the crisis has borne an unsettling resemblance to that of President Trump. He was slow to recognize the risks, taking a mid-February holiday with his pregnant fiance at his country home. Even after the virus became impossible to ignore, he remained glib and dismissive, as his government dithered and failed to put together a coherent response.

In early March, Mr. Johnson suggested that one course of action would be for Britain to take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population, without taking as many draconian measures. This, he explained later, would create a sort of herd immunity that would protect the population as a whole.

Um, maybe. But not without killing untold numbers of people first. The approach was quickly recognized as bonkers and scrapped, and Mr. Johnson moved to embrace a more conventional path of containment and social distancing.

Policy planning aside, Mr. Johnsons use of the bully pulpit has been an abject disaster. The best thing you can do is to wash your hands with soap and hot water while singing Happy Birthday twice, he said at a March 3 news conference. We should all basically just go about our normal daily lives, he urged, before chuckling about how he had been running around shaking hands willy-nilly. This prompted a cheeky scribe for The Guardian to call the prime minister the U.K.s own super-spreader.

Such macho swagger would be hilarious if the repercussions werent so lethal. Who knows how many people Mr. Johnson infected with his blithe ignorance, including potentially his fiance.

Mr. Johnson is far from the only bad role model of the moment. Mr. Trump, of course, has been trumpeting, and indulging in, even more reckless behavior. Until the past couple of days, his news briefings were a case study in poor social distancing, with officials crammed together for the cameras. Not so long ago, he was boasting of how he wasnt bothering to protect himself from germs and was, like Mr. Johnson, still out there slapping palms with the people.

As the death toll has skyrocketed and the economy has crashed, Mr. Trump, a well-known germaphobe, appears to have started taking his own safety more seriously. He even agreed to get tested after aggressively dismissing the idea. But he has grown, if anything, more cavalier about the lives of the American public. His suggestion that the country can get back to business by mid-April is delusional, and his call for people to pack the churches on Easter Sunday, April 12, is demented.

So far, Mr. Trump has avoided paying a personal price for his recklessness. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has not been as lucky. Last weekend, Mr. Paul became the first senator to test positive for the coronavirus. He is unlikely to be the last in part because in the six days between when he was tested, on March 16, and when his results came back positive, Mr. Paul strutted around Capitol Hill, shedding pathogens left and right. He lunched with his colleagues. He held forth on the Senate floor. He breathed all over unsuspecting aides, worked out in the Senate gym and swam in the Senate pool. The United States own super-spreader.

And this is before you factor in the fact that Mr. Paul was the lone no vote on the first coronavirus relief bill, and he was the guy who delayed passage of the second relief bill to push his pet concerns.

It also bears mentioning that Mr. Pauls father, the former congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, has been among those pushing the notion that the coronavirus pandemic is a hoax.

As has often been noted, the Senate is a high-risk population for Covid-19, with nearly half of its members age 65 or over. Mr. Pauls selfish negligence has already compelled two of his Republican colleagues to self-quarantine, Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney of Utah. The potential exposure of Mr. Romney who tested negative was particularly disturbing, since his wife suffers from multiple sclerosis.

But Mr. Paul put the entire chamber at risk, and by extension the entire nation, which is relying on lawmakers to help guide it through this nightmare. Rather than express regret, however, Mr. Paul has belligerently defended himself against all the finger wagging. In an op-ed for USA Today he whined that he never met the criteria for testing or quarantine, so he doesnt see why everybody is so angry. But he did get tested. He just couldnt be bothered with the quarantine part until after he got smacked in the face with the results.

Then theres Jair Bolsanaro, the president of Brazil, who continues to out-Trump even Mr. Trump with his poor example. Nearly two dozen people who traveled with Mr. Bolsanaro to meet with Mr. Trump in Florida this month have tested positive for the virus. There were initially reports that Mr. Bolsanaro has tested positive as well, which he and his family later disputed. Mr. Bolsanaro seems to have taken his near miss as license to dismiss the pandemic as a little flu.

Even as Brazil leads Latin America in both confirmed cases of and deaths from the virus, Mr. Bolsanaro has railed against social distancing as mass confinement and called on people to go back to their regular routines. He has blamed the media for fueling hysteria. He has continued to shake hands with people and says he has no concerns for his own heath, despite being, at age 65, at increased risk of complications. In my particular case, with my history as an athlete, if I were infected by the virus, I wouldnt need to worry, he said. I wouldnt feel anything or, if very affected, it would be like a little flu or little cold.

Brazils minister of health has warned that the nations health system could collapse by the end of next month, and the nations governors are struggling mightily to manage the situation on the ground, even as their president makes that job significantly harder.

Its a depressing echo of what many American state and local leaders are facing. As governors of hard-hit states such as Gavin Newsom of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Andrew Cuomo of New York labor to provide guidance and keep their residents safe, they are battling not only the virus but also the muddled messaging and stutter-step relief efforts coming from the White House.

Weak leadership, it turns out, is its own form of devastating pandemic.

See the rest here:
Boris Johnson Has Coronavirus. He Handled It Badly. - The New York Times

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Boris Johnson Has Coronavirus. He Handled It Badly. – The New York Times

Dr. Ron Paul hits the nail on the head in an interview with No-Nonsense Coronavirus – RecentlyHeard.com

Posted: at 6:48 am

There are also civil liberties concerns as to whether widespread closures in American society to counter coronavirus dissemination are allowed under the Constitution. That said, there has been a grudging consensus that it has to be done, at least to the point that there has been no significant legal opposition to the numerous lockout measures across the United States.

However, I dont really know what to do with the danger by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to permanently close down every place of worship that seeks to serve in the face of a citywide moratorium on gatherings.

Yeah, if the congregation wants to work, says the mayor, you will do well.

If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and continue to hold services, despite being advised too much not to do so, our law enforcement officers will have no choice but to close down those services, de Blasio said Friday, according to a transcript from the news conference.

Im not doing that with much happiness. This is the last thing I would like to do, because I understand how important peoples religions are to them, and in this moment of turmoil, we need our religion. But we dont need meetings that would place people at risk.

There is no tradition of religion that endorses something that endangers the leaders of the community. So, NYPD, Fire Department, Buildings Department, everybody has been told that if they see religious services going on, they will go to the authorities of the church, they will tell them that they need to interrupt the service and leave. And if they continue to serve until fines are given, well, poof. De Blasio said the penalties should be the first line of action. Lets hope that will allow the congregations to stop meeting.

If that doesnt work, theyll take punitive measures to the point of fines and eventually close down the building indefinitely, he said.

De Blasio: churches and synagogues conducting religious services could be permanently closing pic.twitter.com/kdUsdp2YOMatthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) March 29, 2020 Most of the places of worship in New York City are performing their services online, if at all, and locking down their doors, according to Politico. Still not any of them.

Unfortunately, a limited number of religious groups, specific churches and specific synagogues do not pay heed to this guideline even if it is so universal, de Blasio said.

You were alerted. Youre going to need to interrupt services. Support people express their religion in many ways, but not in crowds, not in meetings that can place others at risk. Yeah, there is no safer way for recalcitrant religion organizations now conducting services in the wake of a moratorium on mass events to stop than to say, You have been warned. There is no doubt that the First Amendments protection of religious freedom is powerful too much so.

There is little in the legislation or precedent to create a general and unilateral declaration of state of emergency as an undisputed authority, Hall wrote in Op-Ed for The Western Newspaper. There is still nothing in the statute or tradition to justify a limit on the number of persons who can meet in a church, for health purposes or otherwise, as a justification for violating the constitutional right to freedom of worship. Yet another First Amendment expert, Eugene Volokh, told The Associated Press that the facts surrounding the coronavirus explosion are murky in the seas.

If religious groups argued that they were being called out for special treatment, it would be one thing, Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the AP.

Do you think the government should have the authority to ban the churches from meeting to discourage the coronavirus from spreading?

But if, for reasons entirely unrelated to the religiosity of conduct, you are only putting the same pressure on everybody, it is likely to be acceptable, he said.

Of example, its not clear if de Blasios comment was fully thought out. I would strongly doubt any church who has managed to meet in person in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, despite the questionable legal existence of any regulation restricting the right of speech, how can any official excuse indefinitely closing down a place of worship or a congregation, no matter how ill-informed their decision to start meeting in person was.

And in terms of things being counter-productive, if youre going to face a court battle over a series of orders given by state and municipal officials in the last few weeks, the legal challenge of ending the right of a religious group to worship in perpetuity is the nearest you can get to a slam-dunk litigation argument.

What part of U.S. case law makes de Blasio believe this is going to come before the courts? We may be in terra nova because of the coronavirus epidemic, but the first amendment also holds here and closing down a school, synagogue or mosque indefinitely does not appear to align with it. Moreover, if anything comes before the court and the injunctive relief is issued, what is to guarantee that other organizations and people do not use it to reverse other state and municipal coronavirus orders? If this occurs, de Blasio could do a disservice of cataclysmic proportions to the cause of public safety.

So even though theyre not toppled is that actually what de Blasios incompetent government needs to waste its time in court talking about? Whether or not the municipal council has the power to effectively extinguish a religious community?

It wont sound as good in court as it does at a press conference especially as the coronavirus issue comes to an end, but the ban on the congregation meeting wont come under de Blasios attack. That will be petty dictatorship, pure and simple, in the middle of the coronavirus crisis.

I dont believe thats what de Blasio said at all, however, as he could be seen to say something of considerable severity.

This was another politician in front of a camera, trying to look tough. Here we have another public official who imagines himself in the chaos of Aaron Sorkin, who fixes yet another question by doing or doing something dramatic (if not legally sound).

My guess is that we dont have to think about de Blasio really going through what he said on Friday. The Mayor can have his moment of President Bartlets cosplay as soon as anyone with the law chops took him aside after the press conference and said, Ah, yeah, but about the closure of the church, Mr. Mayor There is, of course, the awful chance that de Blasio is crazy enough to follow ahead with this, however. After all, he personally launched a failed presidential nominating bid, operating under the misapprehension that what Americans were really calling for in a president was a bland mayor of the nations largest city. (Thanks to de Blasio, his misapprehension was significantly less costly than that of the other man in the sector who made the same mistake.) Had de Blasio wanted to do that, it might not only end up in litigation, it would be the beginning of a legal avalanche that hinders the ability of the state and local governments to handle coronavirus.

Any way, it is a heavy-handed challenge that is almost definitely illegal and does nothing but damage credibility and confidence in Gothams ability to deal with COVID-19.

Follow this link:
Dr. Ron Paul hits the nail on the head in an interview with No-Nonsense Coronavirus - RecentlyHeard.com

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Dr. Ron Paul hits the nail on the head in an interview with No-Nonsense Coronavirus – RecentlyHeard.com

Pandemic: The First Great Crisis of the Post-American Era – National Review

Posted: at 6:48 am

Medical staff treat patients suffering from the COVID-19 coronavirus in an intensive care unit at the Oglio Po Hospital in Cremona, Italy, March 19, 2020. (Flavio Lo Scalzo/Reuters)The absence of American leadership in the current crisis is not an aberration, and it is not temporary.

Faced with the great challenge of his time the thermonuclear menace of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Jack Kennedy famously laid out the American position: We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge and more.

That was heady stuff but exhausting, too, and expensive. Americans tire of heroism pretty quickly. We are the weary kind, and the weariness is thoroughly bipartisan: Kennedys determination to fight the Cold War was met with opposition not only from the Left, which was sympathetic to the Soviet Union, but also from the Right, with some conservatives of the old school taking to heart Randolph Bournes dictum that war is the health of the state and believing that what they saw as imperialism abroad was inexorably linked to imperialism at home. And both sides coveted the money that was being spent, calculating that we could fill a lot of potholes in Poughkeepsie for the cost of an aircraft carrier or three. The Walter Mondale Democrats and the Ron Paul Republicans saw eye to eye on that, at least.

That dynamic has not changed much: Barack Obama complained about the money the George W. Bush administration spent chasing jihadists around the world and declared, America, it is time to focus on nation-building at home. Donald Trumps embarrassing nickel-and-dime attitude toward U.S. commitments abroad, from NATO to USAID, is the barstool version of Obamas schoolboy posturing. But, of course, we are Americans, we are restless, we like a fight, and we cannot actually mind our own business for very long. Our method is to get ourselves into a fight, grow bored with it, become agitated by the expense of keeping it up, and then retreat in a huff.

That makes for a peculiar politics on the Right, especially, as conservatives make like a guy trying to pat his head and rub his belly at the same time, simultaneously beating their chests and pinching pennies. On 24 June 2019, Sean Hannity lamented that President Trump had failed to follow through on his insane proposal to hijack Iraqi oil output, which Hannity proposed using to compensate the families of American soldiers who died in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq at a rate of millions of dollars per family. Warming to his theme but never quite managing to call his proposal tribute, the AM-radio moral philosopher concluded We have every right to force you to pay for your own liberation.

Us pay any price, bear any burden? No, you will pay any price, and you will bear any burden we damned well tell you to, buddy.

Kennedy laid out an invitation to ancient friends and new cooperators alike:

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can dofor we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. . . . To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.

That is . . . not exactly how we talk about those things today.

It is easy to criticize President Trump for his pettiness in rhetoric and in fact but he is not the cause of American surrender, only its symptom. It is impossible to blame the American people for their weariness. For one thing, the critics of JFK-style imperialism and those Poughkeepsie pothole-watchers are not without a point: There is an economic and a moral price to be paid for that kind of leadership, and government should, in most ordinary times, be mainly preoccupied with those potholes and not with dreaming up new crusades through which to aggrandize itself and its officers. And didnt Hercules himself, sometime between killing the Nemean lion and that unpleasant Augean housekeeping business, look over his shoulder and mutter about the unfairness of it all, and wonder aloud why the . . . Belgians . . . werent shouldering more of the burden? They have been very unfair to us, I am sure he said.

The coronavirus epidemic is a global problem, one that points to the current deficit in global leadership. Americans are paralyzed by resentment. The European Union, having just been gutted by the departure of the United Kingdom, does not know quite what to do, and those European universal health-care systems so admired by U.S. progressives are failing. China has just reminded the world that it is a socially backward gulag state that is stalled right there between Mexico and Bulgaria in real economic performance. Putin is the czar of Twitter trolls. The U.S. president has two pornographic films, six bankruptcies, and a game show on his curriculum vitae, and the country is so short of emergency supplies that Ralph Lauren is making medical garments and Titos is producing hand sanitizer instead of vodka not exactly in a position to exercise global leadership.

With the prominent exception of the European Union and a few relatively minor exceptions (ASEAN, OIC, etc.), the success of the prominent multilateral institutions of the post-war era depended to an extraordinary degree upon the willingness of the United States to carry them, applying its vast wealth, military power, and credibility to their missions. The United States is, at least for the moment, no longer as willing to do that as it once was our relationship with NATO in the Trump era is indicative of a deeper and broader change in our national orientation. This is the age of the Little American, who turns up his nose at the world and asks, Whats in it for me?

The absence of American leadership in the current crisis is not an aberration, and it is not temporary. This is the new world order, light on the order.

Read more:
Pandemic: The First Great Crisis of the Post-American Era - National Review

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Pandemic: The First Great Crisis of the Post-American Era – National Review

Rand Paul and the Stench of Entitlement – European Interest

Posted: at 6:48 am

If you want to understand everything that is wrong with American politics and society, but are tired of the Trump show, Rand Paul might be a good place to start. Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky so, believe it or not, is actually the more decent and compassionate member of that unfortunate states senate delegation, but given that the other senator from Kentucky is Mitch McConnell, that is not saying much about Paul.

For much of his life, both inside and outside of politics, Paul has been a devout Libertarian. He is the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate, and current quack, Ron Paul, so Rand Paul, who was named after the high priestess of Libertarianism-and deeply mediocre novelist-Ayn Rand, came to his Libertarian from a very young age. In recent years, like many in his party, Paul has moved away from whatever odd principles he once had in favor of fealty to Donald Trump.

Senator Paul recently became the first member of the senate to announce that he has tested positive for the Covid-19 virus. According to a statement his office released on Sunday, Paul, is feeling fine and is in quarantine. He is asymptomatic and was tested out of an abundance of caution due to his extensive travel and events. If you are reading this and are able to take a test out of an abundance of caution because of extensive travel and events raise your hand. I dont think many American hands went up. The US has been so slow getting tests out that many people who have symptoms are not able to get tested, but Paul a powerful, well-connected and wealthy man was able to get the front of the line. At no point has Paul expressed any recognition that the president he so faithfully follows has worked hard to deny other Americans the ability to assuage concerns similar to Pauls.

Paul, like virtually every other member of his party made no effort to restrain, or even contradict, a Republican president who has spreading disinformation about the virus

In the days leading up to deciding to be tested for the Coronavirus, Paul continued to go about his life more or less as usual. Even after being tested, but before getting the results, Paul conducted his business as a senator, worked with staff and other members and did minimal social distancing. In doing that he exposed countless others to the virus, putting their health and lives at risk. Additionally, Paul, like virtually every other member of his party made no effort to restrain, or even contradict, a Republican president who has spreading disinformation about the virus.

Pauls reckless behavior may have directly affected dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people, but for every high profile senator like Rand Paul who ignored the warnings right up until he became concerned for his own health, there are thousands of Americans who continue to be misinformed by Donald Trump and his enablers in politics and media. These people are unable to get a test when they are concerned, and, in many cases, like Paul have spent weeks ignoring the reality of the Coronavirus crisis and therefore accelerated the spread of the disease.

Rand Paul is an angry, unpleasant, hostile man who has been educated and indoctrinated far beyond his intelligence and who has sacrificed whatever limited integrity he once had at the feet of an unstable and dangerous president. He is now suffering from a deadly illness in no small part because of his own ignorance. However, I wish that he, like all sick people, have a speedy and quick recovery. If he recovers, the test of Pauls meager intellect, and indeed humanity, will be if he recognizes that parroting scientifically bankrupt ideas for fear of upsetting a deeply troubled president is condemning others, who do not have access to early testing or good medical care, to death.

Lifting social distancing policies will lead to an extremely significant increase in deaths. However, a growing number of Republicans think that is okay if it helps the economy and therefore Trumps reelection chances

Unfortunately, that reality still escapes most Republicans whether in government or media. The proof of that is the extent to which conservatives sought to downplay the Covid-19 crisis and their subsequent failure to defer to those who understood pandemics and how to fight them. Moreover, those previous failures are in danger of being compounded exponentially as Republicans including Donald Trump and numerous others are advocating lifting social distancing policies and recommendations because of the effect it is having on the stock market.

This is an extraordinarily short-sighted, murderous, immoral, and for lack of a better word, idiotic idea. Lifting social distancing policies will lead to an extremely significant increase in deaths. However, a growing number of Republicans think that is okay if it helps the economy and therefore Trumps reelection chances. This is simply evil, but it also reveals a level of stupidity that is exceptional even in the Trump era. Do they not realize that two million deaths will lead to economic disruption and fear that would make the current economic downturn look like a Sunday school picnic?

Trump and Paul share a core inability to accept scientific reality when it gets in the way of either ideology or partisan interest, as well as an astonishing inability to recognize how this pandemic is already affecting millions of Americans. These two powerful politicians are completely buffeted from the economic uncertainty and lack of access to healthcare that frame the crisis for the rest of us. Thus, it is no surprise that they can blithely issue statements about getting tested because they are concerned or say things like we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem. Like most Republicans Paul and Trump know and clearly dont care that the lives and livelihoods that are lost because of their decisions are unlikely to be their own.

http://www.lincolnmitchell.com

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LincolnMitchell

Continued here:
Rand Paul and the Stench of Entitlement - European Interest

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Rand Paul and the Stench of Entitlement – European Interest

Kathy Griffin was trying to jump the queue for a COVID test, turning out she had diarrhea after a trip to Mexico. – RecentlyHeard.com

Posted: at 6:48 am

There are also civil liberties concerns as to whether widespread closures in American society to counter coronavirus dissemination are allowed under the Constitution. That said, there has been a grudging consensus that it has to be done, at least to the point that there has been no significant legal opposition to the numerous lockout measures across the United States.

However, I dont really know what to do with the danger by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to permanently close down every place of worship that seeks to serve in the face of a citywide moratorium on gatherings.

Yeah, if the congregation wants to work, says the mayor, you will do well.

If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and continue to hold services, despite being advised too much not to do so, our law enforcement officers will have no choice but to close down those services, de Blasio said Friday, according to a transcript from the news conference.

Im not doing that with much happiness. This is the last thing I would like to do, because I understand how important peoples religions are to them, and in this moment of turmoil, we need our religion. But we dont need meetings that would place people at risk.

There is no tradition of religion that endorses something that endangers the leaders of the community. So, NYPD, Fire Department, Buildings Department, everybody has been told that if they see religious services going on, they will go to the authorities of the church, they will tell them that they need to interrupt the service and leave. And if they continue to serve until fines are given, well, poof. De Blasio said the penalties should be the first line of action. Lets hope that will allow the congregations to stop meeting.

If that doesnt work, theyll take punitive measures to the point of fines and eventually close down the building indefinitely, he said.

De Blasio: churches and synagogues conducting religious services could be permanently closing pic.twitter.com/kdUsdp2YOMatthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) March 29, 2020 Most of the places of worship in New York City are performing their services online, if at all, and locking down their doors, according to Politico. Still not any of them.

Unfortunately, a limited number of religious groups, specific churches and specific synagogues do not pay heed to this guideline even if it is so universal, de Blasio said.

You were alerted. Youre going to need to interrupt services. Support people express their religion in many ways, but not in crowds, not in meetings that can place others at risk. Yeah, there is no safer way for recalcitrant religion organizations now conducting services in the wake of a moratorium on mass events to stop than to say, You have been warned. There is no doubt that the First Amendments protection of religious freedom is powerful too much so.

There is little in the legislation or precedent to create a general and unilateral declaration of state of emergency as an undisputed authority, Hall wrote in Op-Ed for The Western Newspaper. There is still nothing in the statute or tradition to justify a limit on the number of persons who can meet in a church, for health purposes or otherwise, as a justification for violating the constitutional right to freedom of worship. Yet another First Amendment expert, Eugene Volokh, told The Associated Press that the facts surrounding the coronavirus explosion are murky in the seas.

If religious groups argued that they were being called out for special treatment, it would be one thing, Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the AP.

Do you think the government should have the authority to ban the churches from meeting to discourage the coronavirus from spreading?

But if, for reasons entirely unrelated to the religiosity of conduct, you are only putting the same pressure on everybody, it is likely to be acceptable, he said.

Of example, its not clear if de Blasios comment was fully thought out. I would strongly doubt any church who has managed to meet in person in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, despite the questionable legal existence of any regulation restricting the right of speech, how can any official excuse indefinitely closing down a place of worship or a congregation, no matter how ill-informed their decision to start meeting in person was.

And in terms of things being counter-productive, if youre going to face a court battle over a series of orders given by state and municipal officials in the last few weeks, the legal challenge of ending the right of a religious group to worship in perpetuity is the nearest you can get to a slam-dunk litigation argument.

What part of U.S. case law makes de Blasio believe this is going to come before the courts? We may be in terra nova because of the coronavirus epidemic, but the first amendment also holds here and closing down a school, synagogue or mosque indefinitely does not appear to align with it. Moreover, if anything comes before the court and the injunctive relief is issued, what is to guarantee that other organizations and people do not use it to reverse other state and municipal coronavirus orders? If this occurs, de Blasio could do a disservice of cataclysmic proportions to the cause of public safety.

So even though theyre not toppled is that actually what de Blasios incompetent government needs to waste its time in court talking about? Whether or not the municipal council has the power to effectively extinguish a religious community?

It wont sound as good in court as it does at a press conference especially as the coronavirus issue comes to an end, but the ban on the congregation meeting wont come under de Blasios attack. That will be petty dictatorship, pure and simple, in the middle of the coronavirus crisis.

I dont believe thats what de Blasio said at all, however, as he could be seen to say something of considerable severity.

This was another politician in front of a camera, trying to look tough. Here we have another public official who imagines himself in the chaos of Aaron Sorkin, who fixes yet another question by doing or doing something dramatic (if not legally sound).

My guess is that we dont have to think about de Blasio really going through what he said on Friday. The Mayor can have his moment of President Bartlets cosplay as soon as anyone with the law chops took him aside after the press conference and said, Ah, yeah, but about the closure of the church, Mr. Mayor There is, of course, the awful chance that de Blasio is crazy enough to follow ahead with this, however. After all, he personally launched a failed presidential nominating bid, operating under the misapprehension that what Americans were really calling for in a president was a bland mayor of the nations largest city. (Thanks to de Blasio, his misapprehension was significantly less costly than that of the other man in the sector who made the same mistake.) Had de Blasio wanted to do that, it might not only end up in litigation, it would be the beginning of a legal avalanche that hinders the ability of the state and local governments to handle coronavirus.

Any way, it is a heavy-handed challenge that is almost definitely illegal and does nothing but damage credibility and confidence in Gothams ability to deal with COVID-19.

View original post here:
Kathy Griffin was trying to jump the queue for a COVID test, turning out she had diarrhea after a trip to Mexico. - RecentlyHeard.com

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Kathy Griffin was trying to jump the queue for a COVID test, turning out she had diarrhea after a trip to Mexico. – RecentlyHeard.com

Sen. Rand Paul Reveals He Has Coronavirus – The Daily Beast

Posted: March 24, 2020 at 5:08 am

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who was the only senator to oppose a coronavirus relief package last month, announced Sunday that he has tested positive for the virus.

He is feeling fine and is in quarantine, an announcement on his Twitter said. He is asymptomatic and was tested out of an abundance of caution due to his extensive travel and events.

It added, He expects to be back in the Senate after his quarantine period ends and will continue to work for the people of Kentucky at this difficult time.

In addition to being the only senator to vote against an $8.3 billion emergency coronavirus package, Paul also was one of the eight senators who voted against paid sick leave in a stimulus bill that passed with an overwhelming 90-8 vote last week.

I think that the paid sick leave is an incentive for businesses to actually let go employees and will make unemployment worse, Paul, a physician who has a Kentucky-issued medical license, explained to Newsweek.

CNN reported that Paul closed his Capitol Hill offices over a week ago and urged employees to work from home due to concerns over the coronavirus outbreak. Two people who attended the annual Speed Art Museum ball in Kentucky with the senator on March 7 later tested positive for the virus, according to the Courier-Journal.

But despite reportedly being tested roughly a week ago, Paul continued to interact with colleagues and even worked out at the Senate gymand was swimming in the poolon Sunday morning, shortly before he received his positive test results, Politico reported.

Paul is the first senator to test positive for the novel coronavirus. Two other members of Congress, Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ben McAdams (D-UT), have also gone public with positive test results.

According to the World Health Organization, COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, is particularly dangerous for people with lung problems. In August 2019, Paul had part of his lung removed after an altercation with his neighbor Rene Boucher. The two had a long-running dispute over lawn care.

On March 2, Paul appeared on Fox News and downplayed the global threat of the coronavirus.

While it is worldwide, I think there is room for optimism that this thing may plateau out in a few weeks and not be as bad it as it may have been portrayed, he said to host Neil Cavuto. Weve seen pockets of this around the world and even in Italy and Iran where we have it, but none of it is approaching what started in China.

When asked about institutions taking larger measures to limit the spread of the virus, Paul was resistant to the idea. I think closing down the Smithsonians would be way too premature and I wouldnt advise something like that.

And when Cavuto asked Paul about making personal adjustments to avoid infection, the Senator was particularly defiant. I mean, I fly all the time and Im not cutting back on my flying... I was on a plane today, he said. I could be wrong and this could be really bad in two or three weeks or a month, but Im hoping its not going to be. Im not ready to buy all the toilet paper at Target.

The senators father, Dr. Ron Paul, a physician and a former Republican congressman from Texas, published an essay called The Coronavirus Hoax last week for the New River Valley News, a local outlet based in Virginia.

People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus pandemic could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profitfinancially or politicallyfrom the ensuing panic, the elder Paul wrote.

As of Sunday afternoon, there are 30,000 COVID-19 cases in the U.S., and nearly 400 people have died.

View post:
Sen. Rand Paul Reveals He Has Coronavirus - The Daily Beast

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Sen. Rand Paul Reveals He Has Coronavirus – The Daily Beast

Against the coronavirus corporate bailout | TheHill – The Hill

Posted: at 5:08 am

Americans should oppose the nearly $2 trillion corporate bailout bill masquerading as stimulus currently under negotiation in the U.S. Senate. This profligate spending will do little to help the American economy or average citizens in the long run. But the additional debt added to an already whopping $1 trillion 2020 federal deficit will plague taxpayers for years.

Long-run thinking, though, is not in vogue in Washington, D.C. Perhaps our president, senators, and U.S. representatives are beyond hope. Perhaps they have fully embraced state control of the economy. The American people have not and if our elected representatives vote yes on this rushed and unholy bill, we should vote no on them in the fall.

We are in a dramatically deflationary period, with vast parts of the U.S. economy shut down due to the COVID-19 virus. More money and more cheap credit cant stimulate anything in such an environment, because money and credit arent goods and services. It can and will, however, saddle future generations of Americans with more debt misery and entrench a standard of moral hazard for corporations from which free markets may never recover.

The correct response to the current economic crisis is simple and painful. First, get America back to work as soon as possible. Humanitarian concerns and economic concerns are not in conflict; in fact, they are closely linked. An economic depression is far deadlier than any virus, and tradeoffs are required.A poorer America is an America with far worse public health.

Second, allow existing bankruptcy and insolvency processes to run their course. Bailouts are not the answer, new owners who can turn companies around are. Corporate assets, contracts and products dont disappear in bankruptcy. Yes, there will be pain as many (not all) existing employees lose their jobs. But executives and boards of failing companies should lose their jobs first and foremost, and new shareholders should seek clawbacks of ill-deserved bonuses and stock compensation.

Again, this will not be pretty but shareholders, not taxpayers, must bear the economic burden when companies fail.

As with most emergency spending legislation, this proposed bill is lengthy and its details are fuzzy. But todays Wall Street Journal sums up the whole sordid process nicely: Lobbyists Pile On to Get Wins for Clients Into Coronavirus Stimulus Package.

Among these opportunities: $500 billion in business loans from the U.S. Treasury, which means backed by you and me. Seventy billion dollars is earmarked for airlines and their suppliers, including Boeing, Delta, United and General Electric.

Airlines especially deserve scrutiny for approaching the public trough. Several reportedly spent more than 95 percent of their free cash flow in recent years on stock buybacks. That money was wasted, vaporized by the drop in their share prices over the last week. If they need money now, they have several choices: Borrow, sell stock or sell airplanes. Theirs is a particularly cyclical and volatile industry; dont executives remember the falloff of travel after 9/11? Why dont they hold more operating cash?

The unasked question lurking underneath the Senate bill is this: How do we pay for it all? Congress doesnt have $2 trillion to spend, and 2020 tax receipts wont begin to cover the bill. This means the federal government will effectively print the money, likely in a circuitous way by issuing new Treasury debt and using the Federal Reserve Bank as a backstop to buy it all if investors wont. And what sort of investor wants to loan Uncle Sam money for 10 years at less than 1 percent interest anyway?

At least Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersRand Paul's coronavirus diagnosis sends shockwaves through Senate Biden says he will broadcast regular coronavirus briefings Biden says he will start vetting process for VP pick 'in a matter of weeks' MORE (I-Vt.) is more honest: He thinks government simply should give Americans money every month, with or without a crisis. We now see plainly that congressional Republicans agree with him, at least conditionally. What a sad state of affairs.

If the bailout of 2008 had worked, U.S. companies would not need a bailout today. They would have thanked their lucky stars then, and focused on building healthier balance sheets with more cash and less debt. Let new owners, not American taxpayers, save them today.

Jeff Deist, former chief of staff for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), is president of the Mises Institute, a non-profit think tank that promotes teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics.

See the original post:
Against the coronavirus corporate bailout | TheHill - The Hill

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Against the coronavirus corporate bailout | TheHill – The Hill

Congressional Candidate Ordered Not to Repeat Charges That Her Opponent Abused His Wife – Reason

Posted: February 20, 2020 at 10:45 am

Derrick Reed and Nyanza Moore are running against each other and one other serious candidate in the Mar. 3 Democratic primary for a Houston-area House of Representatives seat. (Pierce Bush, President George H.W. Bush's grandson, is running on the Republican side, and the district is said to be competitive, though it used to be solidly Republican and had indeed been Ron Paul's old House district.)

Moore had apparently accused Reed of committing domestic violence, so Reed sued; as the Houston Chronicle (Jasper Scherer) reports,

In one post, Moore indicated that she possessed a protective order involving Reed and his ex-wife. Reed denied the allegations and said no protective order "exists between he and his ex-wife or any other woman."

"Mr. Reed was with his ex-wife for approximately 20 years and has never beat or abused her," the filing reads. "The police have never been called out to any of their residences for domestic violence or any physical altercation."

In a statement, Reed's ex-wife said, "The claim being made that my ex-husband, Derrick Reed, physically abused me during our marriage is false. This accusation is damaging and unfair to our young and impressionable children and is an untrue characterization of their father."

And last week, Brazoria County (Texas) District Court Judge Patrick Sebesta issued a temporary restraining order requiring Moore to stop making such allegations (at least until a hearing scheduled for Feb. 25), and issue a retraction:

The Court, having read and carefully examined the pleadings, testimony, and/or affidavits presented, this Court determines that Plainitiff has demonstrated that there is substantial likelihood that Defendants [Nyanza Moore and her campaign committee] have engaged in conduct and/or are continuing to engage in conduct, about to perform, or will be allowing the performance of acts related to the subject litigation that are unwarranted and in violation of the Plaintiff's rights and could render the judgment in this litigation ineffectual. It appears from Plaintiff's Verified Original Petition that if the commission of said acts on the part of Defendants is not immediately restrained, there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable damage to Plaintiff's business, integrity, and reputation, among other things. Further, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if the Temporary Restraining Order is not granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order restraining and enjoining Defendants from making any and all publication or republication of the Defamatory Statements or any defamatory statements regarding Mr. Reed allegedly committing any criminal act of domestic violence [and] continuing their acts of defamation per se of Mr. Reed and falsely stating and inferring that Mr. Reed "beats women" or has committed an act of domestic violence;

Defendants are ordered to withdraw their published defamatory statements, including those that have published via video recording; and

Defendants are ordered to issue a public and express retraction of the statements in every social media and media method Defendants used to disseminate the defamatory statements.

Yet regardless of who's telling the truth as to the underlying allegations, the order is clearly unconstitutional:

[1.] The First Amendment may allow injunctions against repeating libels, issued after there has been a trial at which the statements were found to be false and defamatory. But it doesn't allow pretrial injunctions, based on a finding that there is merely a "substantial likelihood" that the statements are false (especially when, as seems to be the case here, the injunction was a temporary restraining order issued without the defendant even having a chance to defend herself). That's true in libel cases generallyand it's certainly true as to charges being made by candidates in a political campaign.

[2.] But beyond that, the Texas Supreme Court expressly held in Kinney v. Barnes (2014) that the Texas Constitution forbids injunctions against making or repeating libels (though it allows injunctions, entered after a trial, ordering the removal of specific web pages found libelous):

Accordingly, we hold that the Texas Constitution does not permit injunctions against future speech following an adjudication of defamation. Trial courts are simply not equipped to comport with the constitutional requirement not to chill protected speech in an attempt to effectively enjoin defamation. Instead, as discussed below, damages serve as the constitutionally permitted deterrent in defamation actions.

The court had in a 1983 case made clear that pretrial injunctions are unconstitutional as well, and reaffirmed that in Kinney, rejecting any "distinction Kinney emphasizes between permanent injunctions on speech adjudicated defamatory and pretrial temporary injunctions on allegedly defamatory speech." But it appears that the trial judge was unaware of this.

Continued here:
Congressional Candidate Ordered Not to Repeat Charges That Her Opponent Abused His Wife - Reason

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Congressional Candidate Ordered Not to Repeat Charges That Her Opponent Abused His Wife – Reason

Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation – Raw Story

Posted: at 10:45 am

The Atlas Shrugged author made selfishness heroic and caring about others weakness.

This story first appeared at AlterNet.

Ayn Rands philosophy is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. Gore Vidal, 1961

Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Rands impact has been widespread and deep. At the icebergs visible tip is the influence shes had over major political figures who have shaped American society. In the 1950s, Ayn Rand read aloud drafts of what was later to become Atlas Shrugged to her Collective, Rands ironic nickname for her inner circle of young individualists, which included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, Am an admirer of Ayn Rand. Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his foundation book. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bushs second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

But Rands impact on U.S. society and culture goes even deeper.

The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal

Ayn Rands books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, nearly perfect in its immorality. But is Vidal right about evil? Charles Manson, who himself did not kill anyone, is the personification of evil for many of us because of his psychological success at exploiting the vulnerabilities of young people and seducing them to murder. What should we call Ayn Rands psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to influence them not to care about anyone besides themselves?

While Greenspan (tagged A.G. by Rand)was the most famous name that would emerge from Rands Collective, the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author and self-esteem advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a 14-year-old who read Rands The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, I felt hypnotized. He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age 20, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rands home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her 50th birthday and Branden his 25th, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.

What followed sounds straight out of Hollywood, but Rand was straight out of Hollywood, having worked for Cecil B. DeMille. Rand convened a meeting with Nathaniel, his wife Barbara (also a Collective member), and Rands own husband Frank. ToBrandensastonishment, Rand convinced both spouses that a time-structured affairshe andBrandenwere to have one afternoon and one evening a week togetherwas reasonable. Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rands New York City apartment,Brandenwould sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rands sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his self-destructive affair with alcohol.

By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel Brandenhad grown tired of the now 59-year-old Ayn Rand. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand,Brandenbegan sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. Rand, now the woman scorned, calledBrandento appear before the Collective, whose nickname had by now lost its irony for both Barbara andBranden. Rands justice was swift. She humiliatedBrandenand then put a curse on him: If you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological healthyoull be impotent for the next 20 years! And if you achieve potency sooner, youll know its a sign of still worse moral degradation!

Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Brandens face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extramarital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough onBrandensextra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspans political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rands good graces even though he, fixed up byBrandenwith Patrecias twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)

After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either Self or Self-Esteem in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remained an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest until his recent death in December 2014.

Ayn Rands personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence. After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she neednt mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

How Rands Philosophy Seduced Young Minds

When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rands The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasnt much difference between the comic books and Rands novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

Rand said, Capitalism and altruism are incompatible.The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and mans happiness on earthor the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces. For many young people, hearing that it is moral to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: My ex-husband wasnt a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.

To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: Metaphysicsobjective reality. Epistemologyreason. Ethicsself-interest. Politicscapitalism. How did that philosophy capture young minds?

Metaphysicsobjective reality. Rand offered a narcotic for confused young people: complete certainty and a relief from their anxiety. Rand believed that an objective reality existed, and she knew exactly what that objective reality was. It included skyscrapers, industries, railroads, and ideasat least her ideas. Rands objective reality did not include anxiety or sadness. Nor did it include much humor, at least the kind where one pokes fun at oneself. Rand assured her Collective that objective reality did not include Beethovens, Rembrandts, and Shakespeares realitiesthey were too gloomy and too tragic, basically buzzkillers. Rand preferred Mickey Spillane and, towards the end of her life, Charlies Angels.

Epistemologyreason. Rands kind of reason was a cool-tool to control the universe. Rand demonized Plato, and her youthful Collective members were taught to despise him. If Rand really believed that the Socratic Method described by Plato of discovering accurate definitions and clear thinking did not qualify as reason, why then did she regularly attempt it with her Collective? Also oddly, while Rand mocked dark moods and despair, her reasoning directed that Collective members should admire Dostoyevsky, whose novels are filled with dark moods and despair. A demagogue, in addition to hypnotic glibness, must also be intellectually inconsistent, sometimes boldly so. This eliminates challenges to authority by weeding out clear-thinking young people from the flock.

Ethicsself-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders? Her champions, Nathaniel Branden still among them, feel that Rands view of self-interest has been horribly misrepresented. For them, self-interest is her hero architect Howard Roark turning down a commission because he couldnt do it exactly his way. Some of Rands novel heroes did have integrity, however, for Rand there is no struggle to discover the distinction between true integrity and childish vanity. Rands integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate ones selfishness, vanity, and egotism with ones integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.

Politicscapitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you dont get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: Americas Persecuted Minority: Big Business. So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rands self-styled radical capitalism and feel radical radical without risk.

Rands Legacy

In recent years, we have entered a phase where it is apparently okay for major political figures to publicly embrace Rand despite her contempt for Christianity. In contrast, during Ayn Rands life, her philosophy that celebrated self-interest was a private pleasure for the 1 percent but she was a public embarrassment for them. They used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness, but they publicly steered clear of Rand because of her views on religion and God. Rand, for example, had stated on national television, I am against God. I dont approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.

Actually, again inconsistent, Rand did have a God. It was herself. She said:

I am done with the monster of we, the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I.

While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United States dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it moral for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she liberated millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.

The good news is that Ive seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rands philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?

Bruce E. Levineis a practicing clinical psychologist. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite.

Go here to read the rest:
Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation - Raw Story

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation – Raw Story

What We Found On Rand Paul (2020-02-20) – Pop Top News

Posted: at 10:45 am

Our team has conducted some tiring research on Rand Paul, current as of 2020-02-20. Rand Paul is a politician in Kentucky. Heres their handsome photo:

Twitter activity: As of 2020-02-20, Rand Paul (@RandPaul) has 2682583 Twitter followers, is following 498 people, has tweeted 13551 times, has liked 854 tweets, has uploaded 3015 photos and videos and has been on Twitter since November 2010.

Facebook activity: As of 2020-02-20, Rand Paul has 789,863 likes on their facebook page, 814,593 followers and has been maintaining the page since February 3, 2011. Their page ID is SenatorRandPaul.

How popular is Rand Paul right now? On Google Trends Rand Paul had a popularity ranking of 3 ten days ago, 2 nine days ago, 3 eight days ago, 2 seven days ago, 2 six days ago, 3 five days ago, 3 four days ago, 2 three days ago, 2 two days ago, 4 one day ago and now has a popularity rank of 1. So in the recent past, they were gathering the most attention on 2020-02-16 when they had a rank of 4. If we compare Rand Pauls popularity to three months ago, they had an average popularity of 1.1, whereas now their average popularity over the last ten days is 2.5. so by that measure, Rand Paul is getting more popular! Its worth noting, finally, that Rand Paul never had a rank of 0, indicating people are always searching for them.

And what about how Rand Paul has fared if we consider the entire past 3 months? Our date indicates 2020-01-31 to be their most popular day, when they had a relative rank of 100. Not bad!

We found suggested searches for people looking up Rand Paul include Rand Paul (duh), Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016, Paul Rand, Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know and Libertarianism: A Primer.

As of 2020-02-20, our research indicates that people searching for Rand Paul are also searching for these related terms: whistleblower, rand paul whistleblower name, rand paul twitter, trump, eric ciaramella, senator rand paul, who is rand paul, rand paul news, impeachment, rand paul impeachment, ron paul, rand paul names whistleblower, who is the whistleblower, rand paul 2020, iran, donald trump, trump twitter, rand paul iran, fox news, rand paul lindsey graham, lindsey graham, trump news, rand paul tweet, cnn and sen rand paul.

We did some more serious analysis today on the web sentiment regarding Rand Paul, and found a number of recent news articles about them. I may update this post when I have analyzed more of them.

Do you have anything youd like to share on Rand Paul as of 2020-02-20? Let us know in the comments! (And keep it civil)

990 Vesta Drive, Westchester, IL 60154773-652-4824karen.crowder@poptopnews.com

Read more:
What We Found On Rand Paul (2020-02-20) - Pop Top News

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on What We Found On Rand Paul (2020-02-20) – Pop Top News

Page 3«..2345..1020..»