A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Alleged Dylann Roof blog reveals CCC's influence, donations to Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and

Posted: Jun 22, 2015

Like the victims' families, many of us were crying "why" when this first happened. We now know more about his motivaton for the crime. If the blog currently being investigated is authentic, Dylann Roof claims he was heavily racially AND politically influenced by Earl Holt (president of the CCC) and the Council of Conservative Citizens website (self-removed since this story broke).

The alleged "Roof manifesto" is very specific about his hatred for blacks, hispanics AND Jews (didn't I tell you Jews were still actually included in Southern far right-wing hatred despite them publicly proclaiming them their new BFFs for votes?;)

The alleged blog contains pictures of Roof and the last entry states he "had no choice" and "was in a great hurry", with the sites last log entry modification being made at 4:44 p.m. on Wednesday, right before the shootings. Friends and family of Roof have confirmed their belief the site is authentic and legitimate.

Though Roof has not confirmed ownership of the manifesto, Republican candidate Ted Cruz must believe it's authentic too - because he is now returning $8500 dollars to Mr. Holt.

Republican candidate Rick Santorum has denounced Roof's act as an act of terrorism, but remains unclear on the confederate flag as the state flag issue.

No word from Republican Rand Paul as of yet.

Btw, Tea Partiers, no distinction was made between "Republican" and "Tea Party" by any of the below articles, one of which is a conservative publication.

In other news, I have canceled my subscription to the Wall Street Journal after this weekend, after their opinion article about institutionalized racism "no longer existing" was published, without make clear distinction or disclaimer (except for digital-only subscribers or nonsubscribers) between whether the article was authored by editorial staff or private opinion, and because The Wall Street Journal did not publicly disclaim or denounce that article themselves.

Considering 21-year-old white supremacist, Dylann Roof, comes from a state which flies a flag at its state offices which is clearly proud of its (racist) history and heritage, the author has no point - at least not one I'd ever want to subscribe to again.

Here are 3 current publishings of this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/21/dylann-roof-manifesto-charlston-shootings-republicans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/campaigns-distance-themselves-from-white-supremacist-groups-donations/?hpid=z4

;

I pray for people who constantly have to politicize a - tragedy and blame everyone but

[ In Reply To ..]
the actual criminal.

My post/these articles answer the 'why' question even the victims' families asked - Julia Sugarbaker

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm curious as to why there's no similar comments about praying for the posts and media mentioned below which focus more on gun laws instead of either the victims or the actual motivation for the shootings?

At least mine speaks to the motivations, which appear to be both racial and political - the latter being what makes my post relevant on a politics forum.

However, I will make that clearer in my OP, thank you:)

Bill Clinton tried to blame Rush for the Oklahoma City - bombing, when McVeigh himself

[ In Reply To ..]
said it was the government and Waco (Clinton) and before that Ruby Ridge (Bush).

Two things you can always count on as far as blame; guns and talk radio (conservative). It's just as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.

Guns and conservative talk radio deserve - a lot of blame

[ In Reply To ..]
*****

Politicians and the media should speak more responsibly. Ever see The Fisher King? - Julia Sugarbaker

[ In Reply To ..]
I watched it last year after Robin Williams' death. The premise of the movie is (Jeff Bridges) Jack's guilt in sarcastically (but irresponsibly) stating to a caller that "all yuppies need to be shot", just before the caller went on a rampage shooting, killing several people, including the (Robin Williams) Perry's wife - and the shooter stated he killed him because Jeff Bridges character "told him to."

For some reason, instead of the politicians mentioned, my first thought was Donald Trump, just the day before, making that comment about Mexican rapists and how similar it was to what Roof had said.

But I wonder if Trump, any of the candidates donated to, Limbaugh or anyone else who shoots off their mouths so irresponsibly (and takes money from questionable groups) ever feels even a twinge of guilt like "Jack" did.

Racism is a critical issue that must be answered - by political leaders and action

[ In Reply To ..]
It was politicized by its very happening, if you believe racism exists, or believe he actually said the statements regarding killing blacks and starting race war, et cetera.

Maybe you could squeeze in a prayer for those still fundraising over Benghazi - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
and holding hearings attempting to blame Obama and Hillary for made up conservative talking points about events that happened halfway around the world that have been politicized and propagandized ad nauseam, meanwhile whine about how conservatives are victims being unfairly accused of the actions of a man who bought "all in" to the propaganda and hate spew for reacting to the "take our country back" rhetoric and constant mindless propaganda and hate spew coming from conservative media and the right-wing fringe that are documented all over the place?

I am so sick of certain people/publications deliberately - misconstruing words to

[ In Reply To ..]
score cheap and not credible political points against people they dislike, which are many.

FACT these candidates have been involved - with CCC office holder

[ In Reply To ..]
in the form of donations to their campaigns - not just $10 either!

Not fact as to whether candidates knew of CCC Holt's relationship with racism, etc.

The dubious group the CCC Holt supports-- Ernst, Akin, Cotton, Bachman, King donations are enough for me to realize the immorality rolled up in this whole group.

It is not really the donations per se, as the candidates did not necessarily have any knowledge of Holt's other activities, but it is indicative of the type of people (and their morality) that support these candidates.

Roof blog claims CCC's site influenced him. Did the candidates not read the website - before they took their money?Julia Sugarbaker

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm with you, I'd really like to believe they weren't aware what kind of people they were taking money from. But considering Roof allegedly quoted the CCC's website, did the politicians who took their money not at least have "people" to check out their website first before they took their money? (We can't read it now, the site has been self-removed).

I'm sorry, but anyone who read a site like Roof allegedly described and took their money anyway has no integrity.

BUT we don't know they read it. So giving these candidates the benefit of the doubt they still didn't know, I'm in hopes these candidates will at least be more careful about what they say and do NOW as a result (but won't hold my breath).

Because politicians - and especially their media - need to be more mindful of how what they say can influence others, as well as how who they take money from can be perceived.

Not doing this already is completely irresponsible.

I would bet the donations weren't big enough - to worry with and they got bit

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm pretty sure as long as the check doesn't say KKK $500,000 for Cruz or something pretty obvious, they cash and spend and hope for the best.

Real test is whether they keep the money and/or support the CCC now.

The Westboro Church and Fred Phelps are Democrat donors. - CCC is NOT a conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
organization. Just because they have the word "conservative" in their title does not make them so.

The Black Panthers, American Communists,
Black Caucus, NAACP, LaRaza, the Hispanic Caucus and the multitude of race based organizations donate to Democrats.

Our President went to a CHURCH for 20 years led by a vulgar anti-white , anti-American Jeremiah White.

I've heard the CCC called "Junior Klan" before - They do not represent conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
values. They are white supremacists.

Conservatives and KKK frequent bed fellows - Disown if you like

[ In Reply To ..]
but make them feel the pressure--do not accept their donations.

Frequent problem for politicians to actually research their donors before accepting monies, as it does translate into influence.

Ever heard of Robert "sheets" Byrd? - NM

[ In Reply To ..]
NM

Reference was to current politics - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

You conveniently left out the fact that... - The Sarge - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and other republicans returned funding received by CCC.

http://uncovermichigan.com/content/24641-ted-cruz-and-other-republican-candidates-return-funding-received-ccc

How convenient you left that out.

That was only after they found out - the killer was a fan!

[ In Reply To ..]
Let's face it, they never would have bothered otherwise.

Yes, because those groups are the true - embodiment of the Conservative base

[ In Reply To ..]
They are only giving the money back because they "got caught" and it is the political primary season.

Wonder what would they would have done if this had happened December 2016.

Libs ALWAYS leave out facts/truth, especially what - routinely proves them uninformed

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

And cons considerthemselves "informed"? - Thats a good one, made me LOL.

[ In Reply To ..]
00

Received this direct reply: You're mistaken. I SAID Ted Cruz did in the OP from the moment - I wrote it~Julia Sugarbaker

[ In Reply To ..]
At the time those articles were written and when I posted, the other 2 had not confirmed doing so publicly yet - Santorum had only condemned it a terrorist act, at that time. Please read it again.

Really? After all the stuff people posted last night, you're gonna go after the only lib in the room that stood up against some libs bashing/taking things too far on conservatives? Seriously?

And you really think that's gonna reflect well on conservatives (or even makes sense) to falsely accuse me, of all people, of "conveniently leaving stuff out" for liberal purposes. Ok:)

Speaking of "leaving out things" out - you know, that initial comment I wrote last night, which apparently the ID I'm replying to later picked up, "borrowed" for their own comment, labeled it "conservative" and as if their own handiwork, then stabbed ALL liberals with it - hardly the way to show gratitude.

But that's fine, now you're left with mostly hater libs to contend with. Have fun with all THAT!

Or is that the idea - in hopes that only the hater libs will remain here because it suits your political agenda and how you want them to be perceived;)

But that's not very honest, from the "my party has morals and values" set now is it?

PS - ya know, when I first showed up here a long time ago (and left for over a year), I liked this ID I'm replying to, he/she was reasonable, fair and funny and didn't bash ALL liberals and left-leaning indies.

I even remember this same ID presented a clip from the movie "Dave" and we all agreed if only we had a candidate like that, regardless of party, and we ALL laughed over it;)

Now it's come to not even reading my comments, twisting my words and falsely accusing me of things it knows I'm not doing. What happened?

Blame whomever you like, but how is this kinda stuff helping anyone, most of all conservatives?

Poster's link proves the OP's point versus the poster's convenietly added rhetoric. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The OP said: "Though Roof has not confirmed ownership of the manifesto, Republican candidate Ted Cruz must believe it's authentic too - because he is now returning $8500 dollars to Mr. Holt."

To which this poster responded: "You conveniently left out the fact that Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and other republicans returned funding received by CCC. [link] How convenient you left that out."

The post here is so indicative of the mindless conservative hate spew and endless incorrect drivel we see posted here daily. If any of the conservative posters had bothered to read the article at this poster's supplied link (copied below), they would have learned that the article states that Ted Cruz was returning the political contributions, but nowhere in that article does it say that "Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and other republicans returned funding received by CCC" as the poster claims. "How convenient" that the poster added that part when it, in fact, appears nowhere in the poster's linked article. But hey, it's the incorrect drivel they all agree with, and validation of their propaganda is all that really matters with conservatives.

Contrary to this poster's conveniently added rhetoric, the fact is that Rand Paul and Rick Santorum have not "returned funding received by CCC" but have each stated they are donating the contributions to a fund set up by Charleston's mayor to assist the victims' families.

I took the commenter's words at face value and didn't research, I'm sorry - had an AC line/water break yesterday~OP/Julia Suga

[ In Reply To ..]
AC line, water seeping up through my floor, so just a few minutes here and there.

Nothing was "conveniently added", I unfortunately just took the commenters words about Santorum and Paul w/o researching it, didn't have time yesterday, sorry about that, jeez.

But thanks for the snark and jumping to conclusions.

So glad I worked so hard behind the scenes to make sure people didn't get banned from the entire site over even polite disagreement on a politics forum - just so libs could now use those voices to act like cons and falsely accuse me of stuff I don't do and motivations I don't have.

You're welcome.

Someone keeps saying in other comments conservatives are "reaping what they sow" now.

Maybe cons are reaping what they sow, but why would anyone let those seeds of hate for anyone grow within themselves?

But I'm done here because I, for one, didn't "sow" some of the comments I've seen lately out of the mouths of libs. I guess just wasted my time sowing, here.

Take care

PS - If I misread which "poster" was meant when, in that comment, I apologize - but no time to sort (waste)anymore here/JS

[ In Reply To ..]
I think the being accused of "appeasing" repubs after I'd fought so hard behind the scenes for libs being giving a fair shake here was actually the last straw.

Wrote the moderator just now, told her I won't be returning after this comment and apologized for working so hard to give libs that right to a voice they'd later misuse - because that then makes ME partially responsible it.

I am finding it hard to follow - I am a liberal - and can I ask what you mean?

[ In Reply To ..]
About "fighting behind the scenes?"

I have noticed that there is not so much complaining about liberal posts and posters yelling in capitalized buzz words to get the moderator's attention, but I still think the liberal posts are not so awful. What, you think they are supposed to be so much better than conservatives? Well, I still think they are better, I am not seeing what you think is so bad.

I really don't know what you are talking about still, and I also appreciate whatever it was that you did to stop all the comments being taken down, but still, liberals have a right to vent and get angry too, especially under the circumstances of the last week or two, and I still do not see anything that is as bad as you seem to think. As liberals we always think we have to take the high road ideologically, but do you really expect liberals to be so much better than the conservatives? I don't see why. Why fight for a "right to a voice" when you are going to turn around and say - but only if you are nicer than the conservatives.

I am the one who "accused" you of appeasing the repubs, but only because I do not get why you think the liberal comments were so bad. Please explain or provide an example.

You really should not feel you have to go just because of this, you get far more abuse from the repubs than the liberals still, even when you praise them.

There is a reason I'm being vague about a certain aspect, but here's a link - example to answer your other question~Julia Sugarb

[ In Reply To ..]
Hope the moderator doesn't mind me answering this question after writing them and saying I would leave, but there were actually several things that went into the positive changes for libs, here, I can't take all the credit.

And I'm not sure how long you've been here but there have been a LOT of changes made within the last few months that have been positive.

Because even a year ago, a certain political persuasion, shall we say, would not have been able to say any of these things without getting banned permanently from this site if even disagreeing politely - and banned from this site means not even being able to post a resume, word help, ask questions about companies, etc.anymore.

Though I think there were many factors that went into the changes, there were 3 things in speaking with the admin/moderator that seemed to help make a difference, but only one I think I can mention publicly and it seemed to make an immediate difference the next day.

I already mentioned it above, in my only other comment made today, which was in reply to the following comment:

http://general.mtstars.com/420390.html

And here's is my reply:

http://general.mtstars.com/420441.html

The first link, by the way, is an example of the type of bashing I'm talking about?

It says "Most conservatives DESERVE to be bashed - their morals are nonexistent in most cases."

When I first came here, I saw lots of comments like that, only with "liberals" in that sentence instead of "conservatives."

I understand anger/venting, but NOBODY "deserves" to be bashed or bullied, I'm sorry.

Perhaps one reason libs are blind to how nasty that is, is because it's not about THEM anymore?

But can you imagine how incredibly frustrating and embarrassing it would be for someone like me, who worked very hard with the admin/moderators to make sure libs didn't get removed/banned at every turn and helped affect change, to read that kind of stuff?

And I did so because I trusted libs NOT to write nasty stuff like that or I wouldn't have pushed so hard with the moderator/site admin to let them have more say.

Perhaps you also missed another commenter who said yesterday (can't find it at the moment and don't have much time - as I mentioned, these last/next few days are busy ones which may account for some of the lack of clarity/misunderstandings):

They said(something like): "I've been on here for 8 years, if there are REAL haters who are lib on this board, conservatives are reaping what they sow".

They may have meant in society in general, as opposed to here, but in a quick read, it sounded like some libs consider it "payback" for the way they feel conservatives treated them here for a very long time, here.

(I personally haven't been here 8 years, but I saw enough a year ago.)

And she's right - at one point, I had 16 emails from people from a certain political persuasion that were banned from the entire site (including resume posting) for crazy reasons - but "payback" is NOT okay. And had I known some libs had that in mind here, I wouldn't have said/done the three things I did to help give them the right to speak more freely here.

That's really all I can should say about that without getting us both in trouble, and I'm pretty sure even what's been said will be removed in a few days. I hope it at least made things a little clearer - sorry if it does not.

Best to you, sincerely, and I appreciate your forthrightness and your willingness to discuss these things.

Just know I wasn't trying to appease, I was trying to prove to the moderator/admin that libs DO have the capacity of discussing instead of bashing/attacks, as well as positively reward their good behavior! lol

Oh, for Pete's sake, listen to yourself! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "Wrote the moderator just now, told her I won't be returning after this comment and apologized for working so hard to give libs that right to a voice they'd later misuse - because that then makes ME partially responsible it."

I can only speak for myself, but you needn't suffer another minute on my behalf. I should have known better than to agree with you and point out that another poster's link actually proved what you said in the OP.

Not for nothing, but you should know that my typing teacher had long ago already assumed not just partial but rather full and complete responsibility for anything that I might post on the Internet, for her tutelage in key stroking and her having the audacity to teach me how to type.

Now go and sin no more. :)

To both new commenters: I apologized. And I admit I got overly defensive, need to ask your forgivene - However I DID try to do good here~ JS

[ In Reply To ..]
To this commenter and the one below:

I apologize again and ask both to forgive me for getting overly defensive - not because I at all want to stay, but because an apology is warranted.

Not an excuse, but in my one small defense, I HAVE been jumped on a lot here and it gets old - and you KNOW much of it was not warranted.

And I DID try to do some good here and if you want to act like I didn't because of this mistake, that's fine.

But the "go and sin no more" part was a bit much, don't you think? :)

How about you worry about your own sin and I'll worry about mine.

That's the problem with this board, IMO, whether they believe in God or not, everyone imagines they're without sin/morally superior to people disagreeing with them.

I don't think I'm better than anyone - and just because I got frustrated with so much false accusation all the time and defended myself for trying to do good here doesn't mean I'M the one with the superiority complex - it means I'm a human, messed up, admitted it and pointed out the good I tried to do here, too.

So you both can accept the apology and forgive me or not, after I'm gone, but DO note it WAS given - because I'm sure hell will freeze over before you'll see another "admission of sin" and apology on this forum lol

Oh, for Pete's sake, you're doing it again! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "How about you worry about your own sin and I'll worry about mine."

Ummm. Not exactly what I meant at all! I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here, and that's probably my fault since I sometimes assume that all liberals will understand my brand of humor. In your post, you're "partially" blaming yourself for my opinion, and I'm saying you might as well totally blame my typing teacher for teaching me how to type versus blaming yourself.

I'm not calling you a sinner; I'm calling you a human and saying far be it from me to condemn other humans for being human and I'll not be stoning you for the inherent humanity that lives in us all. Get it?

Neither do I condemn you....... go and sin no more! :)

You know what's somewhat ironic and relevant to both our conversation and politics in general?: - Julia Sugarbaker

[ In Reply To ..]
First of all, yep, I get you - and the fault is not yours, actually, the problem has been my attention span.

Because you see, other than the AC issues - my fiance is a final candidate in a very important public position which will be decided within days - and a political twist has transpired that perhaps you'll appreciate especially as a conservative (but both sides may appreciate the irony.)

So, he scored the highest among the candidates on testing, is the most educated, has the most amount of experience (having been in the position he's a candidate for for 8 years before in Detroit), and he treats everyone the same and refuses to engage in the current volatile political climate, right?

The job was pretty much in the bag, and despite a LOT of racial tension there right now, BOTH old school and new school, whites and blacks, loved him.

Then the NAACP and EEOC was called over discrimination in hiring practices for this organization in general, so they reopened the applications process to wider fields for more minority candidates and now a 10-person committee voting on it.

In fact, one of the chairs of the equity team (who is black) apologized to him for having to revoke what was nearly a done deal, because he KNOWS he's not a good ole boy - African-Americans have praised him for getting stuff for them the previous person ignored.

So now there are 3 finalists:

1. Candidate on the right has Bachelor's degree, 2 years of experience at a neighboring (but much smaller) community, used to work in our community, friends with the old school team, and is white.

2. Candidate on the left has a Bachelor's, never worked in this position, comes from another state, and is black.

3. My man in the middle has a Master's degree, 8 years of experience doing the same job in Detroit, scored the highest on testing, and has worked in his current position for 2 years.

Then, after being pressured by both sides daily, he then receives word/subtle theat that despite liking both him and a candidate for another position, the right side is going to smear both of them and "do anything" to fight against people not a part of their little old-school good ole boy clique AND the NAACP/EEOC approved candidates.

So, the reason I felt I needed to come back here and apologize was because I think I took out some of that frustration here, over similar themes, and not really reading half of what people were saying anymore

Because I'm mad, but not really with anyone here - but at the same time, with both the left AND the right political machines.

I'm mad because my fiance is the most qualified candidate for the job, and he has (and still will) championed for and hired minorities in positions beneath him. All that effort and equality changes he's made and ironically, he may get beat out by a less qualified person BECAUSE they are black or BECAUSE the old school good ole boys gonna make sure the NAACP candidates don't win and don't want any new "outsiders" not from here.

Because I know and love him better than anyone, I know that unlike those two sides, my man in the middle really cares about what he could do for others in this position, and is still fully aware that he is a public SERVANT, not about political agendas and power.

So I don't think I should post anymore while feeling this way, because my mind and heart aren't in it anymore and it just doesn't matter, some people will always cheat/stoop lower than good people to get the job done, and they are often on both sides.

BUT - I hope people read this comment more than any one I've ever written - not because I'm so awesome or it's so awesome - but because there comes a time when you realize, both sides really, well, suck, when things get THIS messed up in our society and we can't find a way to work it out.

Sometimes the coincidental timing of similar events is weird, isn't it?

Anyway, wish us luck and good luck to all here:)

Wishing you luck and no worries. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You do what you can for as long as you can, and when you finally can't, you do the next best thing. You back up but you don't give up. - Chuck Yeager

Did I respond to you? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "Nothing was 'conveniently added', I unfortunately just took the commenters words about Santorum and Paul w/o researching it, didn't have time yesterday, sorry about that, jeez."

To whom did my post respond? I responded to another poster about what they posted, and in that response I refer to "the OP" and "the poster" and merely point out that the poster has conveniently added rhetoric that wasn't contained in their cited link. The poster's link actually confirms what you had already stated in the OP.

You said: "But thanks for the snark and jumping to conclusions."

Oh, no. That honor is all yours.

You said: "So glad I worked so hard behind the scenes to make sure people didn't get banned from the entire site over even polite disagreement on a politics forum - just so libs could now use those voices to act like cons and falsely accuse me of stuff I don't do and motivations I don't have. You're welcome."

I hope you didn't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back for everything you believe you have done for liberals on the Politics board; how thoughtless of us to have the temerity to post our opinions in the same manner that, say, everyone else does.

You said: "Maybe cons are reaping what they sow, but why would anyone let those seeds of hate for anyone grow within themselves?"

You tell me, as I know nothing of the hate of which you speak. I responded to the other poster, not you, and in my response to that poster I point out that their link proves your original post, and in that response, I actually make no mention of either reaping or sowing; that handiwork is all yours.

Please accept my apology just left for you both above. Not because I want to stay, I don't - but but because it's warranted/JS

[ In Reply To ..]
especially in your case. Thank you.

No apology required. :) - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
:)

Similar Messages:

Sep 28, 2016
Even the New Republic called the Democratic National Convention 'one big corporate bribe,’ as Trump-phobic donors threw in big money. Corporate interests and influences have gained a great deal of ground in the Democratic Party under Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. For example, Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz rescinded a DNC ban enacted by Barack Obama in 2008 on donations from lobbyists and SuperPACS. The dec ...

Jan 05, 2017
is set to oppose the Republican budget resolution which adds 9 trillion dollars in debt over the next 10 years. I hope those of you who have said that Obama bankrupted this country consider this. And BTW this is before any corporate and high income tax cuts. ...

Aug 16, 2012
I have been hearing that Paul Ryan worships Ayn Rand saying the following: "I just want to speak to you a little bit about Ayn Rand and what she meant to me in my life and [in] the fight we're engaged here in Congress. I grew up on Ayn Rand, that's what I tell people." "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are." I have to admit I did not know anything about Any Rand, so I ...

Apr 07, 2014
personal profit. Jeb says lets love the immigrants. Republicans coming to terms. ...

Mar 05, 2013
Please note the 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence on; but, of course, The President would only authorize lethal force within the U.S., ..... if necessary to protect the homeland....of a catastrophic attack like December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf ...

Dec 03, 2014
Senate and President at the same time (maybe any 2 offices?) The Paul strategists may be trying to find a work around, but that is how it stands. ...

Apr 08, 2015
I always like to hear what constituents have to say about their senators or other public officials running for higher office. Are there any MTs from Kentucky out there who have any personal knowledge or stories they can share? Is Rand Paul well liked in your state? To me, he really seems like a moderate, not too right and not too left. He may be what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate, but I'm open to hear more or follow more links. Many thanks. If it's just snark or go ...

May 10, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DigpZl-wQQw ...

May 22, 2015
Rand Paul equates right to healthcare with slavery. This is an idiotic equivalence. I knew he could not be trusted. ...

Jun 28, 2012
The exact quote is, “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so." OMG. Is this the best the TP has to offer? Is this the same Tea Party whose platform is founded on the principle that, "The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to without exception at all levels of government?" One has to wonder if he has ever read it. Then he said, "The Tea P ...

Mar 07, 2013
McCain quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that slammed Paul’s filibuster on the Obama Administration’s drone use, including a line that said “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.” McCain called Paul’s concern that the government could kill any American with a drone “totally unfounded.” Graham also chided his fellow Re ...

Aug 07, 2014
Those glasses are not working for Perry. Below link led me to wonder which RP you were referring to (moved this post as someone thought the subject change was too confusing). Find it interesting the recreation of Rand Paul of late. ...

Sep 18, 2014
I am liking this guy more and more. Plus, I just read on FoxNews.com that there is yet another terrorist group jockeying for power in Syria. They are called the Khorasan Group and pose an ISIS-like threat. I think the USA should close down its borders and let the Middle East fight the Middle East. We don't need anything they have. ...

Apr 08, 2017
More than 125 times in our history, Presidents (including in recent times Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump) have taken military actions without the approval of Congress. Obama is an interesting case in point. He sought approval from Congress to launch attacks in Libya, failed to get it and then launched the attacks anyway, arguing that he had the Constitutional and legal authority to do so (which he did). Two years later, after the chemical attacks in Syria, Obama's ...

Aug 09, 2010
Who says the GOP is not dead serious about their stall tactics? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/rand-paul-at-fancy-farm-congress-needs-a-waiting-period-for-bills.php ...

Aug 12, 2016
Very clear, cogent argument on both fronts (mishandling classified top-secret information and peddling influence through the Clinton Foundation). By inference, Bill would be indicted on the influence peddling as a co-conspirator. These two people really are a couple of contemptible grubs. ...

Feb 28, 2015
They are almost never right. Sort of a funny group. They get together to bash Democrats, and then take an imaginary vote as to who would be their choice. What a waste of time, people and resources -- sort of the definition of Republican party of late. ...

May 15, 2015
Well, well, welll, I guess it's not just Dems that whine and throw fits about things being unfair, now is it? :) Because it seems Senator Paul is the one who led the charge against George Stephanopoulos moderating Republican debates , telling Hannity he's avoided his (George's) interviews for a year. So let's see, Randy boy - you run your big mouth in protest all over the country, only to press you think you can manipulate, but cower from journalists you can't ma ...

May 20, 2015
Did any of you know that famously "liberal" celebrities such as Bill Maher actually endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 rather than Barack Obama as they had previously? The Washington Post article below mentions a few who endorsed Ron Paul, but whom have either "defected" over his son, Rand Paul, or just aren't sure about him yet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/20/ron-pauls-celebrity-fans-arent-flocking-to-rand-paul/ Apparently disillusioned with Obama by 2012, Bill Maher c ...

Jan 27, 2013
Posting for information purposes since liberals are saying it is conspiratory theory and Clinton played dumb when asked the question. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& ...

Apr 23, 2015
William Hilton Paul, the 22-year-old son of Republican presidential contender Rand Paul, was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol just before noon Sunday after he hit the back of a parked vehicle on Woodland Avenue. This is the third time William Paul has had a run-in with the law because of alcohol use. A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul's presidential campaign said the senator "does not comment on any private matters in regards to his family." According to the citati ...

May 20, 2010
Open mouth, insert foot . . . (he struck me as a little Stepford-like) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html ...

Aug 09, 2013
His temporary move from Paul to McConnell was supposed to bring the two adversaries closer together, their two GOP wings closer together, and set Rand Paul up for 2016. As for holding noses, Benton has himself recently been implicated in alleged bribery of an Iowa state senator to endorse Ron Paul during the last election. From the Washington Post; recorded conversation is real, at the link below. McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton says he is running the race ‘holdin’ m ...

Jan 10, 2015
Rubio, Fiorina, Carson? Clown car of the circus train is filling up fast? Which ones will make the cut? I don't see anything particularly promising there, which, mind you, is a good thing to me, but the Republicans must be shuddering. ...

May 29, 2015
And the Tea Party wonders why public perception is that they are hostile, paranoid and have no loyalty to anyone but themselves. Apparently, not even to themselves, the ad took a shot at Ted Cruz as being a Patriot Act spy supporter , too? lol On second thought, now there's a wrestling match I'd like to see - Cruz vs. Paul. However, methinks it would end as it would with most big-mouthed brawlers - both would end up crying and running to their daddies;) http://www.washin ...

Feb 03, 2015
. ...

Oct 23, 2013
He not only condones it but he seems rather proud of the "misinformation" (LIES) he tells!! http://politicalmemes.blogspot.com/2013/10/rand-paul-r-ky-misinformation-quote-meme.html ...

May 07, 2010
I know some do not like Grayson, but he is doing the right thing concerning transparency. What on earth have they done with the rest of our money? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE3oiKuU8UI ...

Apr 22, 2013
PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING, NOT JUST WHAT IS POSTED HERE. Canadian police and intelligence agencies will announce later today they have thwarted a plot to carry out a major terrorist attack, arresting two suspects in Montreal and Toronto, CBC News has learned. Highly placed sources tell CBC News the alleged plotters have been under surveillance for more than a year in Quebec and southern Ontario. The two men are expected to appear in court tomorrow. Police have made a number of arre ...

May 17, 2011
Geez. Every time gas prices go through the roof, they want to investigate, and never find anything wrong, or else they lose interest and it never goes very far. Why do they insist on wasting time? Could it be they don't want to deal with the deficit/debt ceiling vote, or JOBS; i.e., getting people back to work. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri on Monday asked federal regulators to investigate potential price fixing by oil companies that could be keeping gasoline prices arti ...