Cable News Smackdown: The Battle Between Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow Heats Up

After their initial dust up in 2010, Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow are trading blows once again, this time over the Senator's alleged plagiarism

  • Share
  • Read Later

May 19, 2010 is a red-letter date in cable news history. That was when Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, then a candidate, appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC news show, sparking a very public feud that continues to this date. At first, it was about whether Paul, now a senator, had objectionable racial attitudes, but now it has morphed into accusations that Paul has plagiarized some writings by others, a charge he has now admitted. Here are some highlights (or low lights, depending on your political views) of Paul and Maddow’s rocky relationship:

MAY 19, 2010

“There’s 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions, and I’m absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions. And had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.” —Rand Paul on The Rachel Maddow Show

“There’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from resegregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which you’re saying you’ve got some issues with.” —Rachel Maddow

“I think you’re an intelligent person. I like being on your show. But I think that — what is the totality of what I’m saying? Am I a bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No, I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing and I don’t want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.” —Rand Paul on The Rachel Maddow Show

MAY 20, 2010

“It was a poor political decision [to go on The Rachel Maddow Show], probably won’t be happening anytime in the near future — seem to have unleashed some of the loony left on me.” —Rand Paul on “Laura Ingraham Show”

MAY 21, 2010

“I’ve been trashed up and down one network that seems to side with the Democrats. For an entire 24 hours, I’ve suffered from them saying, oh, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. But that’s never been my position. So, really, this is a lot about politics.” —Rand Paul on Good Morning America

MAY 24, 2010

“I understand the political desire to blame the questioner and not the answerer when the answers prove upsetting, but if you’re going to try to make me the story, if you’re more interested in talking about me rather than your own candidate, then maybe you should be willing to talk to me yourself instead of just talking about me.” —Rachel Maddow

JUNE 7, 2010

“I think it’s been really a concerted effort by people who want to damage the Tea Party, people who want to make the Tea Party something it`s not, people who want to characterize me as someone who I`m not. —Rand Paul on Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, Fox News

JUNE 10, 2010

“I was on sort of a left-leaning network that started this going. And they said, all day long I was for repealing it, based on the words of my Democrat opponent but not based on my words. And that’s how it all got started. But I’ve never been for it. It’s never been my position. And I don’t know what else to say.” —Rand Paul on The Sean Hannity Show, Fox News

OCTOBER 29, 2013

“Rand Paul may not want to answer to me, or this show or this network, about this, but he is going to have to answer for this to his hometown press or to somebody. He may not want to answer for it, but he’s going to have to. This is getting worse by the day. We’ll keep you posted on what else we find and whether or not we hear from him.” —Rachel Maddow

OCTOBER 30, 2013

“The person who is leading this attack, she’s been spreading hate on me for about three years now. I don’t intend for it to go away, but also I don’t see her as an objective news source.” —Rand Paul on America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion TV

NOVEMBER 1, 2013

“It’s not the worst thing to be accused of. You cheated, you stole stuff from Wikipedia, high school students have done it and go to detention. There’s no detention for Senators. So, instead you go, oh, shucks, I’m sorry, I screwed up, and it won’t happen again. Blame an intern, dude … this is not just a Wikipedia thing. Rand Paul seems to have a penchant for plagiarizing from all sorts of different places.” —Rachel Maddow

NOVEMBER 3, 2013

“If dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it’d be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then … I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. And I’m just not gonna put up with people casting aspersions on my character.” —Rand Paul on ABC News

NOVEMBER 6, 2013

“Rand Paul is all but breaking down in these interviews about these ongoing plagiarism revelations. Not only can he not handle rigors of the difficult workload of being a freshman senator, which was his excuse for plagiarizing an article for an op-ed, not only cannot handle the workload of being a senator, he apparently can’t handle criticism of thing he has done wrong.” —Rachel Maddow

NOVEMBER 6, 2013

”It’s also what people hate about politics, and it’s why, frankly, members of my family are not too interested in politics, period, or wanting me to do more of this,” he said. ”To tell you the truth, people can think what they want, I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they’re tired of me. I’ll go back to being a doctor, and I’ll be perfectly content.” —Rand Paul in the New York Times

483 comments
grammyputer
grammyputer

Don't plagiarize.  And if you do it accidentally, own up and don't attack the messenger.  That would have avoided the whole mess. Many college students have failed courses for less.

barneydidit
barneydidit

So Rachael tries to hold Rand accountable for a failure on his part to explain how it is that he can support a private business owner's right to refuse service to someone based on the color of their skin, and yet somehow simultaneously condemn the idea that people should be required to deal with discrimination based on the color of their skin, and the most popular comment from Conservatives is..."She's a lesbian!!!"

Galen
Galen

Another lying shallow conservative... the face of the GOP.

Conservatism is ruining this country!

drudown
drudown

Right, Sen. Paul.

The Senate is “just the body of government” to dispense an advisory opinion on “what lawful State Action is” as it thwarts the Appointment Power with greater whim that Foreign flies land at your desk in the course of an hour.

Tell me, is not the larger issue the fact that the GOP Congress has used the Filibuster device in a manner than (literally) subverts Democracy and, as such, the People's Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights? Isn’t it THAT simple? Why HASN’T Sen. Harry Reid and the alleged “majority” party remedied the PROBLEM?

What, such refusal to bring the most fundamental functions of our Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances within the three separate branches of government not a "deprivation" of life, liberty or property? [see, Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 U.S. 344] Here, the GOP Senate thinks it has some, what, magic Filibuster wand to deny the People the Appointment Power reposed in the Executive branch after an election on account of some cheap parlor "partisan gimmick" (i.e., if State Action is unlawful or violates the Constitution, if performed under the aegis of 'I hate Obama"), the prejudice to the People and our Democracy is less real?

Sorry, but Sen. Rand ‘almost famous’ Paul's "quasi-plagarism" is just a pretext to deflect attention from the real lawlessness: the GOP Congress abrogating the express FUNCTIONS of Article I, Section 8, as if, in the end, the Tea Party base simply invoking the "Founding Fathers' way" entitles such elected fiduciaries to disregard what the document says. It clearly says "RAISE REVENUE" for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and People's "GENERAL WELFARE"…there is nothing about the Decider having any "discretion" to have Dr. Seuss read on Taxpayer time much less subvert the rule of law (i.e., promulgate a commercially reasonable Budget) or engage in dilatory tactics with no Legitimate State Interest in mind.

“Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” – Bible, Proverbs 13:12

Can we say less of this fabricated “partisan trick” designed to thwart what our Founding Fathers’ actually had in mind?

seazen
seazen

If anyone ever wants to get a sense of how far the intelligence level has fallen in this country all they have to do is read through these posts. It is like being trapped in a sand-box of three-yr olds repeating half-formed insults they just heard from their 10 yr old brother. And the target is any adult who dare intervene.

GAFFER123456
GAFFER123456

Rachel maddow is a liberal biased PR person-------not a reporter and the farthest from a journalist so with the 78 people who watch her in the tank rated tv entertainment, who gives a rats ass what she says or thinks--excuse me--is told to think. 

DolphRamey
DolphRamey

Who give a rat's rectum about a tiff between a Senator and an MSNBC anchor?   The Senate does not work; MSNBC should be renamed the "Pants On Fire" network.  And I did not even mention Ms. Maddow's sexual preferences......OOOPS

StephenTorres
StephenTorres

Maddow has nothing to sharpen her claws on at the moment.   She is simply, and not convincingly, trying her best to divert peoples' attention from Obamacare and what Kerry is doing in Europe.  When Liberals fail, she will be there to scream foul on conservatives...that is her job.   She speaks about plagiarism...how disingenuous especially since Maddow personally and her producers have often faked news stories to attack conservatives...even bringing up the families of those conservatives and attacking them personally.

Maddow was never a journalist and in the interest of sexual equality I'll call her a tool.  The "B" word would have no meaning to her except swell her incredible ego beyond that of Olbermann which I had though was impossible.

banerry12
banerry12

This administration will end the day Madcow tells the truth, far Left propaganda for the people who can not think for themselves, who cares about Rand? Only the Tea Party and the extremely FAR LEFT......two idiot sides of the same coin...the hate brigade..which one are you?

banerry12
banerry12

This is the absolute nonsense of the far, far, far Left. They can not stand any opposing views, like the N A Z I s, its all just slander and discrediting their opinions. The Madcow mmmmooosss and the idiot Left listens. This network thrives on promoting racial hatred and socialist/communistic slander. They promoted such totally discredited policies as "the war on women" and not voting for Obama makes you a racist. If these people had any audience other than their small brain dead Leftist constituency, they might actually be a frightening power. But as it now stands, they make great far Left comedy. What IS Brian Roberts thinking by doing this?

msm
msm

wow, she is harder to watch than Nancy Grace on Trayvon.  Is she evil?

deadsingers205
deadsingers205

maddow  you probably cause a tingle up chriss dumb#### mathews leg i see why msnbc has no viewers 

deadsingers205
deadsingers205

maddow youare a blooming idiot paul is a better man than you will ever be a woman  are you a woman cant tell  not much of a news caster either

dellflorida
dellflorida

Plagerizing is stealing the words of others, and has nothing to do with what political party you belong to.

it is not ethical or honest to steal the work of others. Pointing out that some democratic politician does it,so it is OK for Rand Paul to do it is stupid reasoning. We are grade school reasoning. 'Don't look at me cheating, Johnny cheated,too'....


KevinSchellenberg
KevinSchellenberg

Who the hell cares? Senators don't write their speeches. Maddow is so desperate. 

willstark
willstark

"Oh please stop quoting me, quoting other people." - Rand Paul

bamkm2
bamkm2

I think Rachel Maddow is so hot, and he's so smart. He certainly has it all going for him.

bobcn
bobcn

Is that big bully Rachael Maddow being mean to poor little Rand?  Is she telling embarrassing truths about little Rand again.

To tell you the truth, people can think what they want, I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they’re tired of me. I’ll go back to being a doctor, and I’ll be perfectly content"

If people keep being mean to poor little Rand (i.e., telling the truth) he's going to take his football and go home.

<snark>Just the kind of toughness this country needs in a 'leader'</snark>

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@grammyputer  thing is he did own up to it...what more does he have to say to you? he even said she can call his office and ask for the citations of any speech he gives.. If she was a real journalist she would have done that from the beginning, before even making the false accusations of plagiarism . It's not plagiarism to cite something in a speech .. he's actually giving facts rather than most politicians who makes stuff up without any sources..

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@barneydidit   . what? A business owner has the right to do what he or she wants period. and nowhere in the constitution does it say otherwise..  He even said in the interview he abhors racism.. so i still don't get your point  

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@Galen  how about the lying shallow liberal masquerading as a non biased journalist? 

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@drudown  I agree with a lot of this, but seriously how con you constantly misconstrue the general welfare clause to mean any law you want? how is Obamacare helping the general welfare if most people are seeing higher premiums or lost coverage... Should general welfare mean something that helps everyone equally.. ? what about my right to put in my body what I wish ? why is Rand the only one talking about restoring those rights ? or the rights of voters to be allowed to vote after being convicted of a drug crime? 

drudown
drudown

That is, there is NOTHING about THIS Congress that has any self-perceived "discretion" to deviate from precedent and the rule of law. Do you public servants really, sincerely believe that you can just subvert the function of our Federal government to the immediate and irreparable INJURY to the Several States? That would render a mockery of the CONCURRENT JURISDICTION our Founding Fathers engraved upon the Constitution. It isn’t “for sale” nor does any individual GOP member of Congress get to “obstruct” the Appointment Power, unilaterally.

At least not lawfully.

Where’s the LEGAL precedent that justifies these crimes against the Constitution. There is nothing to be “unearthed” or “discovered” or “learned” about Benghazi that is more probative and material that the purported LEGAL JUSITIFICATION to purportedly use the Filibuster device in the manner already used. Like the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping and blatant seizures of United States’ citizens’ personal effects and privileged communications, here the UNLAWFUL State Action has already accrued.

Tell me, just what “laws are now null and void next, dear Tyrants of the Congress” so the Several States can make do?

Taken to its illogical conclusion, THIS Congress acts as if State Action is not limited by the Bill of Rights. What else is the point? How can the NSA not “pretend” to follow the letter of the law, even if transgressed in legitimate means of fighting enemy combatants?

The People cannot have their civil liberties "contracted away" in "immunities" by the "new" GOP nor does any amount of self-perceived "partisan posturing" affect the simple operation of basic civic procedure: the CONGRESS HAS PLENARY POWER AND THEREFORE LEGAL DUTY TO RAISE AND COLLECT TAXES OWED TO THE PEOPLE. The Congress cannot “opt out” of its job function any more a US Postal Worker or Federal Judge or Navy SEAL.

It is called following the law. What magical Kingdom abroad is ringing in your ears?

Nor does ANY amount of “paid for” news purporting to “blame” President Obama for our fiscal state make any logical sense: the Legislative branch is the ONLY and EXCLUSIVE branch that can affect the debt or spending. Again, all this is in the Constitution and any 1st year lawyer knows this. So why is the Congress even intimating the President doesn’t have a Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law as promulgated by Congress- that is, neither President Obama or ANY President EVER could exercise “discretion” as to “how much to spend”. Why? It’s called the Separation of Powers and the “grid lock” is just ONE branch NOT doing its job: the Congress.

That is not a “liberal bias” it is just the law, i.e., GOP “supporters” keep bringing up the President’s spending when the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES that Congress exercise PLENARY TAXING AND SPENDING POWER. As such, BECAUSE the issue is thus squarely the REFUSAL of THIS Congress to FOLLOW THE LAW, i.e., the express language of Article I, Section 8…instead of these “compare and contrast” news articles…how about ONE article exploring where, pray tell, the LAW supports what Sen. Graham claims, i.e., he (or any single member of the Senate) can arbitrarily “halt” or “limit” the Founding Fathers’ express Appointment Power reposed in the Executive branch for the People’s benefit.

Has a SINGLE article been written on the People’s PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS rights that were VIOLATED by the GOP “shut down”, if not ongoing refusal to perform necessary Congressional functions (e.g., RAISE REVENUE for infrastructure projects) that the Several States’ likewise have a DUE PROCESS right to.

Just this: the plain meaning of the Constitution BINDS the Congress. They can't just "make up" their own "new" laws or "refuse to fund" whatever the latest “Congressional Decider” puppet decrees. This Unlawful State Action is NOT anything new- nor is any form of Tyranny, i.e., here, it is cloaked in Legislative Veto power. [see, INS v. Chadha, (1983) 462 U.S. 919]. Just this: Procedural Due Process is required for intentional acts of DEPRIVATION by the State and/or its employees [see, Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 U.S. 344]. It defies all credulity for ANY GOP pundit to even intimate Congress is absolved of DUTY to the constituents its serves. THAT is how blinded by greed the GOP is by its own misstatements of applicable law. The Due Process clause's VERY PURPOSE is to provide procedural safeguards against "arbitrary deprivation" by STATE ACTION. [see, 439 U.S. 438] How does cutting Social Security or even denying Medicaid Expansion that BENEFITS the CITIZENS of the Several States not suffice?

Restated, how is the GOP Senate’s misuse of the Filibuster NOT a "deprivation" of life, liberty or property if it is PREVENTING Democracy from going forward pursuant to our Nation’s established precedent? [see, Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 U.S. 344]

Somebody point to the LAW that says “partisan considerations supersede the rule of law”. 

Gee... I bet the same “regime” that “decided” our Criminal Procedure should be “improved” by making “a crime in the name of jihad” somehow “different” than, what, ordinary crimes "subjectively" thinks it should be so. Nobody is even talking about “what’s next” once the Congress is no longer bound by law.

“Alex, I’ll take ‘Foreign Money Starves People In Cold To Thaw’ for $1000”

Dear Sen. Leahy:

Say it ain't so.

Galen
Galen

@GAFFER123456 

She is smarter then all the conservative hacks put together. She is gay and female, that is the biggest problem for the conservatives. She is brilliant!! Thats your problem!

tom.litton
tom.litton

@DolphRamey You realize Fox News viewers consistently beats out MSNBC viewers in every study about misinformed voters right?


I'm not saying MSNBC isn't a biased network.  I'm saying Fox News is way better at it.

Galen
Galen

@DolphRamey 

A bigot slip!

Pants on fire is a full time job keeping up with conservative hacks and Fox!!

RaptorAckbar
RaptorAckbar

@StephenTorres Another right-wing moron, flailing desperately to divert attention away from the fact that one of their heroes, a potential 2016 Presidential candidate, is guilty of more than a dozen counts of plagiarism, not only in his speeches but in his published material. Try addressing the actual issue instead of whining about how mean Maddow is for not following the right-wing storyline that Obamacare's a failure (which it isn't, despite their best efforts to the contrary).

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@dellflorida  but he never said those views were his. he even said she can call him to ask his sources...

banerry12
banerry12

@dellflorida Yeah, if it was anything substantial I'd agree, but this is just the Madcow making mayhem, only the far Left brain dead see this as a true story.

Davelli
Davelli

@KevinSchellenberg so interesting that you don't think it is something worth caring about. It speaks to one's character especially for members of a party that is always spouting off about values. People get fired for this stuff. People get expelled from schools. We have copyright laws for these very reasons. It is a big deal

DolphRamey
DolphRamey

@bamkm2  It will take about 12 hours for the shrooms to be totally ineffective....until then sweet trip to Magicland

Davelli
Davelli

@bamkm2 that is tired and played out. Come with something new and remotely clever

RaptorAckbar
RaptorAckbar

@bobcn Yes, yes she is, and the right-wingers on this comments section are having a hissy fit about it. Bitching and moaning about everything BUT the fact that their Tea Party hero can't come up with his own material. I wonder how many of them are paid Fox News stooges with dozens of alt-accounts trying to make it seem like the public is against Rachel in this issue, and not with a plagiarist who wants to challenge women to duels?

banerry12
banerry12

@bobcn 

This administration will end the day Madcow tells the truth, far Left propaganda for the people who can not think for themselves, who cares about Rand? Only the Tea Party and the extremely FAR LEFT......two idiot sides of the same coin...the hate brigade

WarDog2099
WarDog2099

@bobcn You are such a moron. You are saying it's ok for madCOW to be a liar, and a hypocrite and a plagiarist. But the moment someone else does the same thing, you will start your typical libTARD crying and whining. "waaaaah, we are the only ones who can plagiarize, waaaaahwaaaaaah, we are the only ones who can bully people, waaaaWawaaaaaaaah, we want to ruin this country and take morals away from children and you Conservatives are trying to stop us, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!" STFU libTARD


DavarieusFox
DavarieusFox

@JohnVandertow @grammyputer your statement makes no sense… You start by saying he owned up to the plagiarism then you say she falsely accused him of it. He stated that she can get citations of any speech he gives after being caught… not arguing just trying to find a little logic in what you posted.

barneydidit
barneydidit

@JohnVandertow @barneydidit My guess is, you don't get my point because you don't understand the law. The Civil Rights Act- which was passed according to the Constitution forbids a business owner from discriminating on the basis of a person's color. That's how it works. Oddly enough, that same act prevents me from keeping Republicans out of my office. 

drudown
drudown

@JohnVandertow @drudown

“I agree with a lot of this, but seriously how con you constantly misconstrue the general welfare clause to mean any law you want?”

First of all, arguing against a straw man is disingenuous. Please humor me with specifics, i.e.., "but seriously how con you constantly misconstrue the general welfare clause to mean any law you want"? That is your straw man argument. I don't quite know what it means. Explain. 

“How is Obamacare helping the general welfare if most people are seeing higher premiums or lost coverage... “

As a threshold matter, your conclusions are flat out false. Where’s the EVIDENCE to support such an absurd claim? “Most people”…sure, right.

Despite your feeble attempts to condition readers to the contrary, you want to look at the instant “results” before the ACA is even implemented. What a farce. Moreover, you conflate unfounded tales of woe with actual, independent research. 

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412665-Despite-Criticism-The-Affordable-Care-Act-Does-Much-to-Contain-Health-Care-Cost.pdf

That is research. Where’s your evidentiary support?

Taken to its illogical conclusion, you and other “concerned citizens” seem to expect the most comprehensive Health Care reform in History to, what, magically “work” as intended when the entire GOP is attempting to thwart it? When the market players are likewise attempting to thwart it? Moreover, why wouldn’t any rational person look to a comparable program in MA to judge the ACA? Did it “work as intended” before even being fully implemented? No. Does the selfsame COMPETIVE PRICING COMPONENT work in MA as is will LOWER PREMIUMS under the ACA?

Duh.

Why assume the opposite inference as you do?

“Should general welfare mean something that helps everyone equally.. ?

Listen. I know the Tea Party “mantra” is “gee, what does ____ mean” but we are a Nation of laws and the law on what General Welfare means is already established. So there really is little point in eliciting “subjective” opinions on what you or I “think” it should mean.

With that said, given the ACA will LOWER the government’s deficit, yes, funding the ACA and Medicaid expansion are in furtherance of the People’s General Welfare.

What about my right to put in my body what I wish ?”

Absent few exceptions (e.g., controlled substances), I was unaware you or any other citizen was so limited. Again, you proffer the most broad statements imaginable. Humor me with specifics.

“why is Rand the only one talking about restoring those rights ? or the rights of voters to be allowed to vote after being convicted of a drug crime?” 

If you think “these rights” are material compared the NSA program’s egregious invasion of the People’s privacy rights, or the Senate’s subversion of the Founding Fathers’ Appointment Power (e.g., Sen. Graham purporting to “block all judicial nominees” until his whim regarding “more answers on Benghazi” is sated), my sense is that Sen. McCain has a bridge in Iraq he’d like to sell you.

A cursory review of your sentiments impels me to think you don’t agree with much of anything I argue. Humor me with specifics.

Do you agree the recent devastation in the Philippines tends to prove how utterly idiotic the Libertarian ideology of “government is the problem” is? What, the “private sector” is going to help clear roads and rebuild infrastructure? Do you think that is prudent policy in an era of Climate Change-induced ‘super storms’? Do tell.

drudown
drudown

One of the principal purposes of our elected officials following precedent and ordered procedure is to minimize Government Waste and improve Judicial and Legislative Economy. Here, is undisputed that the GOP Congress is flagrantly misusing the Filibuster to try to “limit” the Appointment Power of the People, obstruct even the most mundane Legislative functions to thwart, directly and indirectly, the efficient, economical disposition of State Action pursuant to what is necessary and proper for the Nation, the People and ordered Liberty on the merits. [See, McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 210.] When one party (GOP) is simply playing “musical chairs” by expending substantial FISCAL resources in furtherance of subverting Congressional Economy, this subversion of Justice merits immediate remedial action by the State.

Reduced to its essence, the GOP Senate cannot play "hide the ball" with Democracy by refusing to put anything to a vote as the Constitution requires, e.g., it is axiomatic that procedural rules cannot be invoked to obstruct the express functions of the United States Constitution [see, Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96.] But that is precisely what the GOP Members of Congress are doing- in furtherance of no Legitimate State Interest at all. Your non sequitur assertion that "no harm came from" the GOP "shut down" fails to acknowledge the $24 BILLION in direct losses and the incalculable indirect losses to Treasury Holders. Such conduct is per se UNLAWFUL insofar it VIOLATES the Contract Clause.

The CONGRESS CANNOT LIMIT the United States’ ability to pay its debts. It is a CRIME against the very Social Contract that creates the State that coins money.

It is per se UNLAWFUL for the Congress to even “threaten” or “unduly restrict” the People’s use of the mail “privilege” protected y Federal law and the Constitution [see, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7]. How can anyone credibly contend the GOP “shut down” did not do just that for no reason at all?

Notwithstanding your evasive responses herein, would you agree that the premeditated “shutdown” is the result of the Tea Party-led GOP’s own (1) dishonest conduct regarding following the oath to serve the People and (2) failure to Faithfully Execute the FUNCTIONS of Congress. The fact the “shut down” was effectuated in a pre-meditated manner tends to show the Tea Party Scienter of either deliberate and/or negligent recklessness towards both the Full Faith and Credit Clause AND the Contract Clause of the US Constitution. In this latter regard, by deliberately interfering with the Several State’s ability to honor their respective bond obligations- constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of Procedural Due Process. Young v. Rosenthal 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 119 ("Law prohibits party from testifying falsely and/or effectuate larger plan to willfully and repeatedly refuse to allow proper government procedure to go forward"); see CA Evidence Code Section 1222(b). Here, the misuse of the Filibuster by the GOP –that is, refusing to simply bring matters to a full vote likewise contravenes Substantive and Procedural Due Process owed to the People AND the Several States. See, United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (1993) 510 U.S. 43; Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327 (“Fair process is required for any such intentional acts of the government or its employees causing deprivation of property interests”).

What, the Several States don’t have Due Process rights selectively incorporated via the 14th Amendment? What, the case law OUTLAWING Gerrymandering based on race “is no longer the law” because the Tea Party pays you to say so? [see, Shaw v. Hunt (1996) 517 U.S. 899] Gerrymandering based on politics “is no longer the law” because the Tea Party pays you to say so? [see, Davis v. Bandemer (1986) 478 U.S. 109]

That too, is a subversive notion, and is wholly without legal support.

In summary, because you haven not cited a single mandatory authority, and cannot proffer SPECIFIC provisions within the CONSTITUTION itself to even lend support to your collective "wishful" construction of our laws and Social Contract, the entire Tea Party-led GOP is therefore on direct notice that the conduct they seek to "garner support for" is, under any reasonable construction, outside the ambit of lawful State Action.

Not unlike your Dr. Seuss citing leaders in Congress, you are wasting everybody's time proffering "subjective" law according to the Decider. Our Bill of Rights precedent is more pertinent insofar it was established to LIMIT such transgressions of Federal law.

Such overt subversion of Privacy is also demonstrated via a lack of decency. Such contrived "questions" of "gee, is there a need for government" no more ennobling than your Foreign puppeteer's planned chaos abroad and terrorist scare tactics at home.

Say…where exactly do you people "imagine" Lady Liberty's 4th Amendment went "missing", hidden in the trackless Arabian sand?

The grotesque spying apparatus of the NSA defiles the People's rights as much as its retention of unlawfully seized evidence threatens the integrity of the Democratic process. Doppes v. Bentley motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.

Such willful disobedience of the law is not the Way of civilized man.

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@Galen @GAFFER123456  again I am a liberal that supports Rand, precisly because he is pushing liberal values like legalising marijuana or stopping the NSA spying.. You know the thing Obama ran on saying he would do different than Bush? hmm wonder why Rachael won't go after Obama for any of that..or wars int h middle east

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@RaptorAckbar @StephenTorres  how about addressing an actual political possition on something rather than this hit piece... The fact you only hear this story on Rachael's show should telly ou why she isn't a journalist. But you take her side because you either believe in her liberal ideology over what are actual facts... or that you think she is some non-biased journalist which she is not... Again Rand is more liberal than all the domocrip or rebloodlican candidates ,,but you won't bother to look up his actual views...just bash him with names 

tom.litton
tom.litton

@RaptorAckbar @KevinSchellenberg Um.  No, not generally.  


I'll bet you will also be surprised to find out James Patterson doesn't write his own books either.  And Miley Cyrus doesn't write her own songs.  


We now live in a world in which the public face is rarely running the show.  It's true for politics too.  It's the uber rich that set the political agenda, and the staff that write the laws.   Politicians job is now to go on TV and convince the public that whatever the uber rich wants is what's best for America, and to sell the programs built by their staff that achieves it.

banerry12
banerry12

@Davelli @KevinSchellenberg grow up ,get a life, buying this nonsense as a true story shows you need something better to do..its only the Madcow after all..

Davelli
Davelli

@bobcn it is amazing how guys make up stuff and after a while you start believing and repeating it. When did Rachel plagiarize? Rand Paul was caught. Deal with it. Even if a million other people did it it still doesn't change the fact that he is dishonest. You and other right wing loonies can whine all you want it doesn't change the facts. You still have to deal with that your quiet delusional moments

Curious_Quiche
Curious_Quiche

Watch out, bob, you made it angry. It only gets dumber when it's angry. Enjoy never being relevant again, you pitiful mouthbreather.

Galen
Galen

@JohnVandertow @Galen @GAFFER123456 

The Paul's have some good ideas, but they are to wacked. Rand has been all over the map, he lacks integrity, something Madow doesn't. She is who she is and when she screws up, she comes on air and admits it. Rand is just a softer nut of the many in his party. He has not lasting value, just like his dad.

O was stuck with Bushes wars and economy, he has done all he can to get out! Pauls want to hunker down, and thats going to far that way. Its the middle ground that works, and O is doing his best. McCain would have had us in a couple more wars by now, you should be thankful O was elected. O has had his own problems, what would you expect, but its easy for the hypocritical Paul types, with hind site, attempting to claim the mantle now. Rand is not electable in a General election, don't wast your breath.

tom.litton
tom.litton

@JohnVandertow @tom.litton @RaptorAckbar @KevinSchellenberg  

Not entirely true.  Here is the top campaign contributions for his campaign:

Club for Growth$106,515$106,515$0

Alliance Resource Partners$40,650$40,650$0

Senate Conservatives Fund$37,085$32,085$5,000

Corriente Advisors$24,200$24,200$0

Koch Industries$17,000$12,000$5,000

source:  http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=I&cid=N00030836&newMem=N&cycle=2012


And that doesn't include Super PACs, both specifically for him and for the tea party more generally.  These usually are highly funded by certain industries/individuals.

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@tom.litton @RaptorAckbar @KevinSchellenberg  I agree totally except for the fact Rand is probably the only politician in DC who isn't in the pockets of lobbyists..he won his campaign on grassroots organization and money bombs from small individual donors. can look that up anywhere..anyone who actually wants to bring change to this country gets these hit pieces in the media...anyone who wants to give corporations more control over our society gets all the praise from these hacks posing as journalists.  Rachel works for a giant corporation and her thoughts are more bought and sold than politicians ... turn off the tv

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@Davelli @banerry12 @bobcn  the lies were there from the beginning. HE NEVER SAID HE WANTED TO REPEAL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, she accuses him to this day of that .. She is the biggot against anyone trying to fix this country's problems... the only guy in dc who wants to LEGALIZe MARIJUANA, so why does Rachel want to throw people in jail for smoking a plant?

JohnVandertow
JohnVandertow

@Davelli  he never said he didn't plagiarise. so what is the big deal if all politicians do this?