Id like to take this moment to say that Vice President Biden and his family have my condolences for the loss of Beau Biden from brain cancer... May he rest in peace! God Bless.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
#GOP The Truth Hurts: Its Time To Admit Faults And Move On!
Today we saw Republican Senator and US Candidate Rand Paul continue to take a stand for the
truth. Today we saw Rand Paul tell the country that the War Hawks in the Republican Party
HELPED create ISIS to what it is today! Today we saw the continued repercussions on President Ronald Reagan's Commandment of not saying anything bad about other fellow republicans. Make no mistake, Senator Paul is a republican running as a republican for the republican nomination. He has never minced words, told you something just because it sounds good to blow smoke up your rear. He has never been one to toe the political party line just so that he doesn't rock the boat.
""Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said, 'Let's not go into Syria.' What do you say to Lindsey?" said Scarborough.
"I would say it's exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS," said Paul. "These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier. They created these people.""
This came from a WeeklyStandard post on their website
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rand-says-republicans-created-isis_956730.html
Of course if you read the Headline alone and formed an opinion, one would be upset with what Senator Paul had to say. Of course this headline was crafted in a manner which to generate outrage toward Senator Paul in the wake of his courageous attempts to block any renewal of the Patriot Act which is set to expire on June 1. Once you actually read and view the video included with the article post, you will actually see that Rand Paul did not say that Republicans created ISIS. He said that the WAR HAWKS in the Republican party HELPED!! Not only did he segment those in the party that he believed contributed, but also said that they were just a part of it. Once taken into context that the discussion revolved around the Republican party and the words WAR HAWKS and HELPED, you see that not only is the headline misleading, but that the outrage displayed on Twitter this morning shows just how ingrained War is to many in the GOP Voting base. It showed that we still have not learned our lesson about why its important for Congress to Declare War as Article I Section 8 dictates. We still have not learned our lesson about global militarism even after witnessing the fall of the USSR in the early 90s as a result of them fighting in Afghanistan. It shows that we are still falling in the trap of Big Government Cronyism.
Whether you believe that going into Iran in 2003 was warranted or not is irrelevant. What is relevant today is that ISIS is stronger today than ever before. Emboldened by weapons that the War Hawks gave to the Syrian Rebels which they either submitted to ISIS in cowardice or became turncoats to the cause. They are emboldened by a weak US President who is unwilling to Declare War on them,(Senator Rand Paul is the only US Senator to actually propose a Declaration of War against ISIS)
Now we see the likes of Governor Jindal of Louisiana taking his Neo-Con stabs at Senator Paul because he wants to impress upon a base that still believes in the narrative that we won Iraq and that Obama gave it back. Even going as far as to lay claim to the failed 2013 rhetoric that Senator Paul is to the Left of Obama on Foreign Policy.
Republicans need to stop worshiping War. They need to recognize that the "War on Terror" has been a wholesale dismal failure resulting in the infringement of Constitutional Liberties, in the deaths of THOUSANDS of US Soldiers and innocents overseas, and added to our already crippling debt. Republicans need to be adults here in the political arena since Democrats for the most part are not interested and admit that Rand Paul is absolutely right. That continuing the same path promoted by the War Hawks of the Republican AND Democrat Parties is a path which will continue to further embolden and empower ISIS. GET OVER YOUR FEELINGS!
Oh and one more thing. Just how many of you bellyaching about what Rand Paul said today were complaining when virtually the entire Party Abandoned Rand Paul during his 10.5 hour filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal? Just how many of you took to social media and condemned the likes of Ted Cruz, of Mike Lee, of Rep. Peter King, of Lindsay Graham, of John McCain, when they took their turns skewering your Constitutional Rights all in the name of "National Security". When they told you that you aren't important enough to be told about so called threats to justify the furthered surveillance state.
truth. Today we saw Rand Paul tell the country that the War Hawks in the Republican Party
HELPED create ISIS to what it is today! Today we saw the continued repercussions on President Ronald Reagan's Commandment of not saying anything bad about other fellow republicans. Make no mistake, Senator Paul is a republican running as a republican for the republican nomination. He has never minced words, told you something just because it sounds good to blow smoke up your rear. He has never been one to toe the political party line just so that he doesn't rock the boat.
""Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said, 'Let's not go into Syria.' What do you say to Lindsey?" said Scarborough.
"I would say it's exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS," said Paul. "These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier. They created these people.""
This came from a WeeklyStandard post on their website
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rand-says-republicans-created-isis_956730.html
Of course if you read the Headline alone and formed an opinion, one would be upset with what Senator Paul had to say. Of course this headline was crafted in a manner which to generate outrage toward Senator Paul in the wake of his courageous attempts to block any renewal of the Patriot Act which is set to expire on June 1. Once you actually read and view the video included with the article post, you will actually see that Rand Paul did not say that Republicans created ISIS. He said that the WAR HAWKS in the Republican party HELPED!! Not only did he segment those in the party that he believed contributed, but also said that they were just a part of it. Once taken into context that the discussion revolved around the Republican party and the words WAR HAWKS and HELPED, you see that not only is the headline misleading, but that the outrage displayed on Twitter this morning shows just how ingrained War is to many in the GOP Voting base. It showed that we still have not learned our lesson about why its important for Congress to Declare War as Article I Section 8 dictates. We still have not learned our lesson about global militarism even after witnessing the fall of the USSR in the early 90s as a result of them fighting in Afghanistan. It shows that we are still falling in the trap of Big Government Cronyism.
Whether you believe that going into Iran in 2003 was warranted or not is irrelevant. What is relevant today is that ISIS is stronger today than ever before. Emboldened by weapons that the War Hawks gave to the Syrian Rebels which they either submitted to ISIS in cowardice or became turncoats to the cause. They are emboldened by a weak US President who is unwilling to Declare War on them,(Senator Rand Paul is the only US Senator to actually propose a Declaration of War against ISIS)
Now we see the likes of Governor Jindal of Louisiana taking his Neo-Con stabs at Senator Paul because he wants to impress upon a base that still believes in the narrative that we won Iraq and that Obama gave it back. Even going as far as to lay claim to the failed 2013 rhetoric that Senator Paul is to the Left of Obama on Foreign Policy.
Republicans need to stop worshiping War. They need to recognize that the "War on Terror" has been a wholesale dismal failure resulting in the infringement of Constitutional Liberties, in the deaths of THOUSANDS of US Soldiers and innocents overseas, and added to our already crippling debt. Republicans need to be adults here in the political arena since Democrats for the most part are not interested and admit that Rand Paul is absolutely right. That continuing the same path promoted by the War Hawks of the Republican AND Democrat Parties is a path which will continue to further embolden and empower ISIS. GET OVER YOUR FEELINGS!
Oh and one more thing. Just how many of you bellyaching about what Rand Paul said today were complaining when virtually the entire Party Abandoned Rand Paul during his 10.5 hour filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal? Just how many of you took to social media and condemned the likes of Ted Cruz, of Mike Lee, of Rep. Peter King, of Lindsay Graham, of John McCain, when they took their turns skewering your Constitutional Rights all in the name of "National Security". When they told you that you aren't important enough to be told about so called threats to justify the furthered surveillance state.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
2015 #KentuckyGovernor Blog Exclusive
On May 19th, Kentuckians will go to the polls to vote and one of those will be to determine who will be the Democratic and Republican party nominee for Governor. As I always encourage people to be well informed on the issues and the candidates, I wanted to put together a series of questions that were likely to not be part of any arranged debate or you would hear on TV/Radio. I extended invitations on social media to the four GOP Candidates of Matt Bevin, Hal Heiner, James Comer and Will T. Scott. What ended up happening was Drew Curtis an Independent party candidate saw my attempts and decided that he would offer to participate too, Very appreciative, I went ahead and sent him the same questions that I would have asked the others. As this week wore on, Hal Heiner's staff responded to me to send them the questions. Then Matt Bevin's staff contacted me to say they would like to participate as well. Will T Scott and James Comer never replied to my repeated requests. The deadline for participation in this blog post was 7pm EDT Today. As of writing this post, only Independent candidate Drew Curtis successfully submitted replies to the questions asked. This is disappointing because I wanted the readers especially those in Kentucky to see comparisons of responses in order to better distinguish differences between candidates. If Matt Bevin or Hal Heiner end up submitting responses they will be included in a later post. Without further ado, I will list each question along with Curtis' response.
1. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is very clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Question is where do you stand on individual states having laws on the books that infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms?
I'm big on separating "Issues" from solutions so let me take this one apart - the real problem is gun violence not guns. I am not aware of any workable US-based solutions to gun violence that involve infringing on individual's right to keep and bear arms.
This would effectively make me a second amendment advocate if we were just talking vanilla "issues". I'm explaining my thought process here because I want people to know I don't have stances, I've actually thought about these things.
A more effective way to prevent gun violence would be to deal with the root causes - starting with mental illness. Laws against guns have no impact on mental illness. I am not in favor of overly broad or ineffective laws.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm expecting no bills impacting gun ownership will escape the Senate. I'm not sure anyone even tried to file one in 2015? I would love for them to work on mental illness as an issue.
2. There are laws in the KRS that promote inequality as far as ballot access is concerned. For certain offices, Democrats and Republicans need only 2 votes to gain access to the ballot, all others need 5000 signatures to gain access to the ballot. What would you do as Governor to promote a remedy for this?
As the only candidate impacted by this, here is a bit of good news - initially I thought that having to get 5,000 signatures would be a burden, but it turns out it's actually been a useful way to engage people early in the process. It's not great, mind you, but it's not as bad as I thought.
I'd probably reduce it down to 1,000 signatures if anything, then require even party candidates to obtain them.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. So this is likely moot as well (although I wouldn't mind some discussion around it)
3. The state of Kentucky saw during the last US Senate Race that KET a publically funded Television Network decide who got to participate in the debate hosted based on THEIR view of who was most popular. What would you do to encourage Frankfort to pass laws forcing ALL Media outlets and ALL publically funded institutions hosting political debates to welcome ALL appearing on the ballot to participate?
I've been thinking a lot about this and I honestly don't know what a better set of guidelines would look like. Personally I'd start by talking to KET about why and how they produced their current list of rules to understand what they're trying to accomplish.
At any rate, Kentucky Sports Radio's debate was by far and away the best debate.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? As I said before, I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. They enjoy their two-party debate duopoly and there's no way they're willing to give it up.
4. Where do you stand on when a human life begins?
Age 22 right after college?
I hit Google to see if there was any consensus - there isn't. Additionally, I think that question continues to get more complicated as medical advancements continue, and I know that different religious and spiritual traditions also have varied answers on this topic. I don't think people will ever all agree. I certainly don't know the answer.
I therefore fall back on supporting individual rights, and think that people should make private medical decisions based on their own conscience and the medical advice of their doctors. That's also my answer on medical marijuana by the way. It's also Bevin's answer on medical marijuana I believe.
Abortions are like guns - no one wants a lot of them around but once in awhile you need one.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? Nothing - the House kills all bills relating to this issue in committee.
5. In 2011, Democrats in Wisconsin literally fled the state in order to avoid voting on legislation that they knew that they could not defeat that would weaken the power of Labor Unions in that state. What would you as Governor do to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from such political maneuvers that leaves citizens from having proper representation in Frankfort?
As Governor you must act within the law, and from a practical standpoint there is an item in the KY state constitution that prevents anyone from impeding the movement of a legislator during session. I only found out about this when a legislator used it to get out of a DUI this year. So we can't prevent what happened in Wisconsin from happening here. It's stupid but constitutional.
I would hope this specific example would take care of itself in the following election cycle - if voters have a problem with that kind of extreme behavior by legislators they can vote those individuals out of office. I would.
As for stopping other potential political maneuvers, I'd have to see what those look like first. That's not a dodge by the way, I don't think we can predict anything rising to that level.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? No idea - I'll have to handle this on a case by case basis.
6. The first amendment guaranties all individuals the right to their religion. Do you believe that an individual that owns and operates their own business loses that right as part of being in business for themselves?
DREW CURTIS CHOSE TO ANSWER BOTH 6 AND 7 WITH ONE RESPONSE
7. Where do you stand on legislation such as Smoking Bans? Should private business owners not have the ability to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking just as individual customers have the ability to decide if they want to enter an establishment that allows smoking? Also do you believe that e-cigarettes/vaping should be a part of such legislation since the end product is not smoke rather than vapor as harmless as steam from something out of the microwave.
This is actually the same question - when should the government impose its will on a large group of people for the betterment of society? My answer is I'd rather avoid this whenever possible - but any discussions should involve all stakeholders up front.
The real question is -how- should we construct law? People ask me if I'm in favor of a Religious Freedom Act - my response is which one? Compare Indiana's to Utah's - they both do the same thing, but in Utah it started when the LDS church engaged the LGBT community and came up with wording amicable to all parties. Indiana's version had a loophole you could drive a truck through - namely "belief" being the requisite reason to do -anything- (which is impossible to prove) and requiring the state to provide a reason for having vested interest to stop you from doing it. Which among other things legalizes Sharia law and the Church of Cannabis, two things I guarantee the law's originators were not in favor of. Indiana wrote a law that sucked and had far-ranging unintended consequences baked in.
I'm a big believer in defaults - so on the question of smoking, I believe that a smoking ban should default to -on- with an opt-out for businesses that wish to allow smoking (I'm thinking cigar bars in particular). And I'd recommend the legislature start looking around for what other states have tried to see if there are any solutions there.
On the issue of religious beliefs of businesses - seems to me legally you could make a case that a sole-proprietorship might be able to have beliefs because legally the business and the owner are the same entity. Which is dangerous from a personal legal liability standpoint but people are welcome to do whatever they want there.
However corporations of any other structure can not and do not have legal beliefs.
What am I likely to see hit my desk?
Smoking - doesn't ever seem to pass each year, offhand I don't recall which side of the legislature kills it. If I ever got one, I'd have to decide based on the specific wording. Maybe adding opt-outs would make it more likely to pass whichever chamber keeps killing it?
Relgious Freedom - same answer. Because an exact copy of Utah's would have the best chance of surviving scrutiny, I'd advise the legislators to check it out. An exact copy of Indiana's would be vetoed instantly.
I would again like to thank Drew Curtis for his responses to these questions. I also appreciate Matt Bevin and Hal Heiner for at least getting back with me even though they did not meet the deadline set to be included in this post. Please Kentuckians do not go to the polls without being educated on the candidates available to you. You can find out more about Drew Curtis at his website www.DrewCurtis.com
1. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is very clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Question is where do you stand on individual states having laws on the books that infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms?
I'm big on separating "Issues" from solutions so let me take this one apart - the real problem is gun violence not guns. I am not aware of any workable US-based solutions to gun violence that involve infringing on individual's right to keep and bear arms.
This would effectively make me a second amendment advocate if we were just talking vanilla "issues". I'm explaining my thought process here because I want people to know I don't have stances, I've actually thought about these things.
A more effective way to prevent gun violence would be to deal with the root causes - starting with mental illness. Laws against guns have no impact on mental illness. I am not in favor of overly broad or ineffective laws.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm expecting no bills impacting gun ownership will escape the Senate. I'm not sure anyone even tried to file one in 2015? I would love for them to work on mental illness as an issue.
2. There are laws in the KRS that promote inequality as far as ballot access is concerned. For certain offices, Democrats and Republicans need only 2 votes to gain access to the ballot, all others need 5000 signatures to gain access to the ballot. What would you do as Governor to promote a remedy for this?
As the only candidate impacted by this, here is a bit of good news - initially I thought that having to get 5,000 signatures would be a burden, but it turns out it's actually been a useful way to engage people early in the process. It's not great, mind you, but it's not as bad as I thought.
I'd probably reduce it down to 1,000 signatures if anything, then require even party candidates to obtain them.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. So this is likely moot as well (although I wouldn't mind some discussion around it)
3. The state of Kentucky saw during the last US Senate Race that KET a publically funded Television Network decide who got to participate in the debate hosted based on THEIR view of who was most popular. What would you do to encourage Frankfort to pass laws forcing ALL Media outlets and ALL publically funded institutions hosting political debates to welcome ALL appearing on the ballot to participate?
I've been thinking a lot about this and I honestly don't know what a better set of guidelines would look like. Personally I'd start by talking to KET about why and how they produced their current list of rules to understand what they're trying to accomplish.
At any rate, Kentucky Sports Radio's debate was by far and away the best debate.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? As I said before, I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. They enjoy their two-party debate duopoly and there's no way they're willing to give it up.
4. Where do you stand on when a human life begins?
Age 22 right after college?
I hit Google to see if there was any consensus - there isn't. Additionally, I think that question continues to get more complicated as medical advancements continue, and I know that different religious and spiritual traditions also have varied answers on this topic. I don't think people will ever all agree. I certainly don't know the answer.
I therefore fall back on supporting individual rights, and think that people should make private medical decisions based on their own conscience and the medical advice of their doctors. That's also my answer on medical marijuana by the way. It's also Bevin's answer on medical marijuana I believe.
Abortions are like guns - no one wants a lot of them around but once in awhile you need one.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? Nothing - the House kills all bills relating to this issue in committee.
5. In 2011, Democrats in Wisconsin literally fled the state in order to avoid voting on legislation that they knew that they could not defeat that would weaken the power of Labor Unions in that state. What would you as Governor do to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from such political maneuvers that leaves citizens from having proper representation in Frankfort?
As Governor you must act within the law, and from a practical standpoint there is an item in the KY state constitution that prevents anyone from impeding the movement of a legislator during session. I only found out about this when a legislator used it to get out of a DUI this year. So we can't prevent what happened in Wisconsin from happening here. It's stupid but constitutional.
I would hope this specific example would take care of itself in the following election cycle - if voters have a problem with that kind of extreme behavior by legislators they can vote those individuals out of office. I would.
As for stopping other potential political maneuvers, I'd have to see what those look like first. That's not a dodge by the way, I don't think we can predict anything rising to that level.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? No idea - I'll have to handle this on a case by case basis.
6. The first amendment guaranties all individuals the right to their religion. Do you believe that an individual that owns and operates their own business loses that right as part of being in business for themselves?
DREW CURTIS CHOSE TO ANSWER BOTH 6 AND 7 WITH ONE RESPONSE
7. Where do you stand on legislation such as Smoking Bans? Should private business owners not have the ability to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking just as individual customers have the ability to decide if they want to enter an establishment that allows smoking? Also do you believe that e-cigarettes/vaping should be a part of such legislation since the end product is not smoke rather than vapor as harmless as steam from something out of the microwave.
This is actually the same question - when should the government impose its will on a large group of people for the betterment of society? My answer is I'd rather avoid this whenever possible - but any discussions should involve all stakeholders up front.
The real question is -how- should we construct law? People ask me if I'm in favor of a Religious Freedom Act - my response is which one? Compare Indiana's to Utah's - they both do the same thing, but in Utah it started when the LDS church engaged the LGBT community and came up with wording amicable to all parties. Indiana's version had a loophole you could drive a truck through - namely "belief" being the requisite reason to do -anything- (which is impossible to prove) and requiring the state to provide a reason for having vested interest to stop you from doing it. Which among other things legalizes Sharia law and the Church of Cannabis, two things I guarantee the law's originators were not in favor of. Indiana wrote a law that sucked and had far-ranging unintended consequences baked in.
I'm a big believer in defaults - so on the question of smoking, I believe that a smoking ban should default to -on- with an opt-out for businesses that wish to allow smoking (I'm thinking cigar bars in particular). And I'd recommend the legislature start looking around for what other states have tried to see if there are any solutions there.
On the issue of religious beliefs of businesses - seems to me legally you could make a case that a sole-proprietorship might be able to have beliefs because legally the business and the owner are the same entity. Which is dangerous from a personal legal liability standpoint but people are welcome to do whatever they want there.
However corporations of any other structure can not and do not have legal beliefs.
What am I likely to see hit my desk?
Smoking - doesn't ever seem to pass each year, offhand I don't recall which side of the legislature kills it. If I ever got one, I'd have to decide based on the specific wording. Maybe adding opt-outs would make it more likely to pass whichever chamber keeps killing it?
Relgious Freedom - same answer. Because an exact copy of Utah's would have the best chance of surviving scrutiny, I'd advise the legislators to check it out. An exact copy of Indiana's would be vetoed instantly.
I would again like to thank Drew Curtis for his responses to these questions. I also appreciate Matt Bevin and Hal Heiner for at least getting back with me even though they did not meet the deadline set to be included in this post. Please Kentuckians do not go to the polls without being educated on the candidates available to you. You can find out more about Drew Curtis at his website www.DrewCurtis.com
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Updated Upcoming #KyGov Blog Post
Today Hal Heiner, GOP Candidate @HalHeiner on twitter contacted me and provided me with an email address to send the same questions that Drew Curtis @CurtisForGov on twitter and Independent Candidate has already provided answers to. Still waiting on GOP Candidates Matt Bevin @MattBevin , James Comer @KYComer , and Will T. Scott @WillTScott on twitter to reply. The deadline is Friday May 15 at 7pm EDT. Blog will be posted Friday evening 8pm EDT
UPDATED: Matt Bevin contacted me earlier tonight and has accepted to participate in the blog post coming up Friday 5/15 at 8PM EDT, This just leaves Will Scott @WillTScott and James Comer @KYComer who has not responded. I will accept all participation until 7PM Friday.
UPDATED: Matt Bevin contacted me earlier tonight and has accepted to participate in the blog post coming up Friday 5/15 at 8PM EDT, This just leaves Will Scott @WillTScott and James Comer @KYComer who has not responded. I will accept all participation until 7PM Friday.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Upcoming #KentuckyGovernor Race Post
On May 19th, Kentucky will be heading to the polls and the state's top office will be on the ballot. I have contacted all 4 GOP Candidates of Matt Bevin, Hal Heiner, Jamie Comer, and Will T. Scott to see if they would be willing to participate in my blog entry on the race and so far none of them have replied yea or nay. However, Independent candidate Drew Curtis's staff saw my tweet and decided to respond to me which was a complete surprise to me. My post which will be posted Friday evening the 15th will include Drew's responses to questions along with any of the others that are willing to participate.
Dont Miss it.
Dont Miss it.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)