Rand Paul is a man who desires to run for president. Rand Paul twists the truth and distorts the facts. When Rand Paul reached back 15 plus years in time and called Bill Clinton a predator and identified Monica Lewinski's age as 20 at the time of the affair, that was a lie, a twisting or distortion of the facts. Phrase it any way you want to Rand Paul did not speak truthfully or factually.
Monica Lewinsky worked at the White House, first as an intern and then as an employee, from July 1995 to April 1996. With the assistance of family friend Walter Kaye, a prominent contributor to political causes, she obtained an internship starting in early July, when she was 21 years old.
Rand Paul represents Kentucky so lets look at their laws first.
Minors – Age of Majority – Kentucky
Persons of the age of eighteen (18) years are of the age of majority for all purposes in this Commonwealth except for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and for purposes of care and treatment of children with disabilities, for which twenty-one (21) years is the age of majority, all other statutes to the contrary notwithstanding.
Title 1, Chap. 2, §2.015
The age of consent is the age at or above which a person is considered to have the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity.
Here's an interesting twist on Kentucky law. The age of majority in Kentucky for purposes of the marriage law is 18. To satisfy the laws of Rand Paul's state you can engage in sex at 16 and then 2 years later if you want you can get married.
Here's a tid bit for the conservatives who decry all changes and contend the old ways are better. While the age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was 10 in most states but ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 across nine states and the District of Columbia.
Monica Lewinski got her job at the white house after she was 21. Rand Paul stated that Monica was 20 years of age while in his own state of Kentucky the age of consent is 16. Mz. Lewinski was 5 years older than she needed to be to say "Yes" in Kentucky. Rand should spend his time and effort trying to change the Kentucky laws or put a little time in teaching his children how to behave.
As far as Rand's dreams of being president go, the major thing Rand Paul has to worry about is Hillary stomping a mud hole in his dumb ass and then proceeding to walk it dry.
We'll get to the war on women but first lets look at how Rand's children behave and treat women.
We interrupt this Rand Paul story for some great news for Virginia Democrats. In addition to controlling all the state wide offices in Virginia we now have control of the Senate.
Great News For Democrats
Wexton Wins in the 33rd, Dems Control VA Senate
DPVA Chair Charniele Herring released the following statement on Senator-Elect Jennifer Wexton's victory in the special election for the 33rd Senate District:
"Congratulations to Jennifer Wexton for winning a major victory in the 33rd Senate District tonight," said DPVA Chair Charniele Herring. "Her win solidifies Democratic control in Virginia's Senate.
"Jennifer will continue Mark Herring's long history of working to strengthen Virginia's economy and supporting legislation that makes the Commonwealth the best place to live, work, and raise a family."
Thank You to all Amherst County Democrats for your hard work and dedication, another victory is yours.
We return to the Rand Paul story.
The Paul Families Personal War on Women
William Hilton Paul was charged with consuming beer/wine underage, disorderly conduct and being intoxicated and disruptive. Mr. Paul is suspected of assaulting a female flight attendant “by aggressive physical force.”
This happened a year ago so stuff your republican complaints where the sun don't shine. I'm using the Rand Paul time frame for attack, 15 years. Rand reached back to 1998.
The Associated Press reported that 19-year-old William Paul, the son of Republican senator Rand Paul from Kentucky and grandson of ever-present presidential candidate Ron Paul, was charged with misdemeanor assault. William Paul was taking a flight that deplaned in Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. While details of the arrest remain vague as the story develops, what is known is that young Mr. Paul is suspected of assaulting a female flight attendant “by aggressive physical force.”
We are aware of the historically poor choices made by young adults from time to time and it is critical not to rush to a determined judgment until all facts are brought to light. As I read the AP’s brief piece, I found myself weary and resigned. While William Paul has never run for public office, the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree, does it?
Remember in October 2010 when MoveOn.org volunteer Lauren Valle had her head stomped at a Rand Paul Rally? Who can forget the repugnant images of the small woman falling under the burly feet of Paul’s testosterone-enraged security detail.
A close Paul aide labeled the incident “incredibly unfortunate” at the time., Can we feign surprise at the disrespectful and dangerous treatment of female protesters from a team that believes it has a right to comprehensively control the female body? Rand Paul is opposed to abortion without exception, even in cases of rape or incest. He supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act, which confer more privileges and protection on a cluster of cells than a living, independently breathing female adult. Need it be said that he also favors the overturn of Roe v. Wade, allowing states to decide the issue of abortion unburdened from federal involvement?
And here is Rand Paul’s enlightened stance on the tolerance of sexual harassment in the office: “There are people now who hesitate to tell a joke to a woman in the workplace, any kind of joke, because it could be interpreted incorrectly.”
In 2012, Rand Paul had this to say about the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill designed to equate the pay of workers irrespective of gender: “Three hundred million people get to vote everyday on what you should be paid or what the price of goods are… In the Soviet Union, the Politburo decided the price of bread, and they either had no bread or too much bread. So setting prices or wages by the government is always a bad idea.”
Given his father’s illustrious track record as a patriarchal patronizer of female equality, William Paul’s brush with the law is hardly shocking. The entitled son of the political elite is further accused of “underage drinking, disorderly conduct and being intoxicated and disruptive.”
Rand Paul must be very proud. His son has done a magnificent job of ingesting and reflecting his father’s ideology. If Paul is concerned about the effect of William’s imbroglio on his popularity and re-election chances, clearly, he has no one to blame but himself.
The Phoney Doctor Scam as Practiced by Rand Paul
The eye doctor isn’t properly certified? Dr. Kent Sepkowitz on Paul’s slick end-run around the profession’s licensing rules—and what it tells you about the kind of politician he is.
Scarcely a day passes that we don’t find out something new and objectionable about Dr. Rand Paul. The risk in the pile-on is that a real doozie will get missed, lost in the daily torrent. The recent news—his lack of standard certification as an ophthalmologist and its relationship to his self-anointing and self-created National Board of Ophthalmology—is just such a Big Deal. Its specifics, however, are so complicated and unrewarding to follow as to threaten to place it on the endangered scandal list.
I am here to make certain that we don’t let this one slide. His decision to sidestep the standard way doctors are certified in America is—even by summer politician standards—slimy, lazy, self-serving, and, important to remember as we sink deeper into his muck, revealing of the real reason for his me-against-the-Man shtick. (Hint: He’s not looking out for you, Mr. Little Guy). But before we read from the latest entry of the Randiad, let me guide you through the mind-numbing world of American physician credentialing.
Trying to gin up a moral issue out of the selfish power play is reminiscent of Nixon’s view of the law as something to try to outsmart. It’s also disrespectful to the oddball but often courageous stances of his father and other giants of the right willing to fight on principle.
Here’s how it works: To practice medicine legally requires a license issued by the state. Eligibility for licensure is granted after graduating medical school and after passing a series of difficult standardized exams prepared by the National Board of Medical Examiners. Once completed, licensure is forever (assuming a person behaves and isn’t a total disaster). Rand is a licensed physician.
But a guy's got to practice medicine somewhere—an eye specialist like Dr. Paul, for example, needs a hospital's operating rooms to ply his trade. And that's where certification comes in. Whereas licensure is a one-size-fits-all blanket of general adequacy, certification is granted by a specialty board to indicate competency in a specific field such as ophthalmology (or medicine or surgery or psychiatry). Certification tests long have been administered by venerable, apolitical groups such as the American Board of Ophthalmology (or Internal Medicine or whatever). The certificate is a national credential that, although not absolutely necessary to practice medicine, is more or less required for any doctor seeking an affiliation with a hospital.
It gets even more complicated, but hang in there; Rand is hoping the distinctions are just too subtle for anyone to really care about. In the 1980s, American medicine decided that it should police itself. A little. So the Grand Old Men of the various fields decided that already certified specialists should recertify once a decade. Rand initially did the right thing and became certified; but when his 10 years were up, he decided he’d had enough and chose not to recertify. Rather, he organized his own certifying program for ophthalmology based right there in his hometown of Bowling Green. He then appointed himself president of the group, which he named the National Board of Ophthalmologists, and better yet, declared his wife (not a doctor) VP and his father-in-law secretary.
Talk about convenient! It remains unclear what the NBO criteria for certification are; the organization appears to have no website or easily located documents (though it is registered with the state of Kentucky as a nonprofit and claims to have certified a few hundred eye doctors).
All of this would be OK with me; I just took the frigging recertification test in my field and I hated every minute of it. It is humiliating and infuriating and insulting and a waste of time and money. Indeed, I applaud Rand’s sticking his tongue out at the gasbags who insist on teenage procedures (multiple-choice tests proctored now by cybersecurity) to assure that a doctor is certified in his field.
But Rand lost me when he articulated the reason why he resisted. Being a conscientious objector or pissed off adult simply wasn’t good enough. No, he decided to cast it as a high-end moral stance against groups that discriminate—groups like the American Board of Ophthalmology. And what exactly was their discriminatory practice? Opposing civil rights maybe? Nope—much, much worse. The old geezers who made up the test requirements built a nice little loophole for themselves: They excluded themselves from having to recertify—instead they were “grandfathered” in. And in so doing they discriminated against poor Rand and me and thousands of other of victimized doctors. Thank goodness someone had the strength to make a stand against the nefarious two-tiered system. Ah the pure horseshit—true Kentucky thoroughbred stuff.
Trying to gin up a moral issue out of the selfish power play is reminiscent of Nixon’s view of the law as something to try to outsmart. It’s also disrespectful to the oddball but often courageous stances of his father and other giants of the right willing to fight on principle. With his creation of a ludicrous home-brew “certifying board,” he has shown his dedication not to a movement but to the single goal of making life a little bit more convenient for Rand Paul. And here Paul does appear to speak for his generation: He has given us the finest example yet of yuppie selfishness in senescence.
Congressional Summary:
Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including : "culturally specific services" to mean community based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
"personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
"underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.
Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.
Paul says, "Paul (R-KY)"
Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill S. 47 ; vote number 13-SV019 on Feb 12, 2013
President To Give State of the Union Speech
The Next Act in the GOP Circus
Leaders of different factions of the republican party respond to the President.
Tonight, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) will deliver his own response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, in yet another example of the presidential hopeful’s desire to build a national profile.
Last year, Paul gave a similar response to the president’s speech. He spoke from the National Press Club and focused on the agenda of the Tea Party Express, which sponsored the speech.
This year, however, Paul will not speak as a tea party spokesman. Instead, he will prerecord his rebuttal in his Senate office and publish it on YouTube soon after the president finishes. He will then appear on CNN and Fox News that night and sit for several Sunday show interviews later in the week, all part of his drive to draw attention to his critique and boost his name recognition as he plans his 2016 presidential run.
At the moment, Paul’s top advisers, such as Doug Stafford and Sergio Gor, are focused on broadening Paul’s national reach while simultaneously keeping him close to the GOP’s conservative base, who they hope will share Paul’s video response on social media. Next week’s push will be a multi-platform, multi-faceted effort, a Paul aide said. Paul's recent attack on Bill Clinton got great coverage so look for that trick to surface again.
Paul will not be the only high-profile Republican who will speak out. Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers will give the official GOP response, according to the office of House Speaker John A. Boehner. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio gave the Republican rejoinder last year and became famous for his product placement ad for Poland Springs Water.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R), a close friend of Paul’s and a leading conservative voice during last year’s government shutdown, will also deliver an alternative GOP response to the president’s speech. Like Paul’s speech last year, Lee’s will be sponsored by the Tea Party Express.
The many different divisions of the republican party are in negotiations to purchase a cable station so that next year they can have dusk to dawn, never ending responses to the President's State of The Union Message. So far they have recruited over 80 republicans willing to do a rebuttal to the state of the union. This year they have set microphones up outside the chamber so that members can stop and give their comments. As Ted Cruz recently said, "No matter what your idea of a republican issue is one of these divisions of the party will be speaking for you."
According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey of New Hampshire Republicans, Paul is tied with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for second place among potential GOP contenders, each with 12 percent support. Mitt Romney weighs in with 9 percent support even though he has expressed no interest in running. Embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads the pack with 14 percent support and Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are dragging the bottom with less than 4 percent support. None of the above scored a healthy 7 percent tally.
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ACVDN
No comments:
Post a Comment