Mediaboss Marketing

New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2019373 pp. $28.99 (hardcover)

Socialism should need no further cases made against it. No books or essays penned in our time can stand as a starker warning of its perils than the blood and tragedy etched into the history of the 20th century. Yet time and again it enchants a new generation in another corner of the globe, and when it comes back in fashion, those charmed by it are largely impervious to its well-chronicled, catastrophic carnage.

Throughout its three hundred some pages, Rand Pauls The Case against Socialism revisits some of those familiar catastrophes, from the USSRs gulags to the killing fields of Cambodia. But recounting the grim and lethal paranoia of the Soviet police state or the murder of teachers and parents by students and children in Maoist China seems unlikely to sway those yearning for a Shangri-La of free health care, abolished student debt, and mandated economic equality. On social media, in opinion pieces, and on presidential debate stages, the disastrous results of socialist experiments are discounted and brushed aside with a few vague qualifiers, along the lines of: Todays socialism is nothing like that socialism. Todays socialism is about equality. Todays socialism is about fairness. Todays socialism is about health care. And look at Finland!

Pauls book is most effective when it focuses less on socialisms monumental and historic injusticeswhich have been well documented by historians, poets, and survivors with pens mightier than Paulsand more on the hot-button issues that are rallying points for socialists today: income inequality, climate change, cronyism, and so forth. Pauls analyses of socialisms selling points, from the supposed successes of European welfare states, to the perks of free universal health care, to the rich being made to pay their fair share, are valuable and insightful.

In chapters dedicated to the alleged successes of modern European socialism, Paul surveys supposedly socialist countries and shows that capitalist elements are the engines generating the wealth that props up a socialist veneer. Whether were considering the booming economy spurred by Polands low taxes and minimal regulations up through the 1970s or revenues generated via Norways immense North Sea oil reserves, industrialists and entrepreneurs create the wealth that funds exorbitant welfare benefits.

Paul also points out the relative economic freedom of Scandinavian countries; he cites rankings from The Economist that place Denmark, Norway, and Sweden among the top ten easiest countries to do business in. These countries have high middle-class tax rates, and Paul argues that their governments have perfected a strategy of largely staying out of the way of wealth generators and then swooping in to confiscate and redistribute a tremendous portion of their revenues. And he highlights their recent drift away from socialism, pointing to Swedens lowering of its taxes and its deregulation in the 1990s and 2000s in an effort to stem the exodus of its higher-earning citizens.

In a similarly keen analysis of present-day climate alarmism, Paul takes the position that something is happening with regard to global temperature, and human action probably is a contributing factor. However, he maintains, the notion that this trend inevitably will result in a catastrophe, and that this catastrophe can be averted only through socialization of world economies and by governments spending trillions of dollars, is absurd. He argues that climate change is a condition that some dishonestly diagnose as terminal, then use the opportunity to prescribe a particular medicine: socialism.

Paul exposes the nonsense and half-truths that the left (and some on the so-called right) tell about the necessity of instituting socialism. Todays socialists and their sympathizers in the West have grown up in a time of unprecedented prosperity, far away from the graves that mark the consequences of their ideology. To the extent that they acknowledge socialisms blood-drenched record, they express a conviction that the socialist concoction has been refined, the recipe improved, and that present-day America is ready for its much-needed cure. This book provides helpful analyses to address and counter such arguments.

What it sorely lacks is a strong, moral case against socialism and for its antithesis: capitalism. For instance, in the chapter titled Capitalism Is the More Moral System, not only does Paul make no moral arguments for capitalismhe does not use the words morality, moral, ethics, or their synonyms at all in the chapterhe makes no arguments, period. Instead, he stages a play battle between Thomas Piketty with his Capital in the Twenty-First Century on the one side and a slew of disparate quotations from journalists on the other.

But readers arent even presented with Pikettys views or accurate summaries of them. Instead, we get snippets of Piketty through his critics, such as David Harsanyi at the Federalist and Daniel Schuchman at the Wall Street Journal. The level of Pauls response here does not rise above this:

[AdamSmith.orgs Sam] Bowman cites a paper by Kristin Forbes that found the opposite of what liberals argue. She found that an increase in a countrys level of income inequality has a significant positive relationship with subsequent economic growth. So much for Pikettys argument that too much income inequality impedes economic growth. (31)

And to bolster his case that were all better off under capitalism, Paul offers:

As I have noted on national television, much to my wifes chagrin, I buy shirts at Target for $7. [Dalibor] Rohac writes that [I]n terms of the actual material conditions of living, developed countries appear to be more equal than ever before. You can see this firsthand. Just go to Target or TJMaxx and you, too, can experience the equalizing effects of worldwide free trade and the division of labor. (32)

While addressing the credit and debit variance in the revenues and expenses of the proposed Green New Deal, Paul writes:

It isnt enough to point out that Ocasio-Cortezs tax brings in $50 billion and her spending proposals cost $50 trillion. Basic math is not enough to win the hearts and votes of todays voters. . . . we must get todays voters, particularly the youth, to love the liberty of voluntary transactions between consenting adultscapitalism. (111)

Unfortunately, $7 T-shirts wont do. Although Paul acknowledges that purely economic arguments wont trigger a sea change, he fumbles for some other means. What he and many other would-be freedom fighters appear not to realizeand what AOC and other leftists definitely dois that winning hearts and minds requires understanding and taking the moral high ground. Here, Paul is entirely ineffective.

The Case against Socialism exposes some of the fallacies of todays socialists, providing those who wish to meet them on debate stages, on social media, and across dinner tables with helpful facts and figures. In that respect, insofar as it goes, its a timely and welcome resource. Alone, however, its insufficient for defending capitalism. Those who want to defend freedom may enjoy The Case against Socialism. But it will prove of little use to them without knowledge of the moral case for free society.

Follow this link:
The Case against Socialism by Rand Paul - The Objective Standard

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Earlier this year, Senator Rand Paul caused a stir when he stood up against the Republican establishment on the question of using military force abroad. He joined Utah Senator Mike Lee in breaking from the ranks of the GOP by criticizing the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Paul put particular focus on his Republican colleagues who questioned the patriotism of people who were skeptical of the attack.

For all intents and purposes, Soleimani was probably a vile man. However, such a brash operation could have turned out badly had the U.S. escalated to a bolder course of action like using direct military strikes on Iran. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and President Donald Trump has not escalated military action in the region. However, neoconservative cheerleaders in the party were jumping for joy and were preparing to take even harsher action against the country. This has been their M.O. for decades. For them, the entire world is a laboratory that must be subject to constant experimentation through regime change and nation-building projects.

Neoconservatism centers on democratic global crusades and some lip service to free markets. On the latter point, neocons will occasionally be solid on issues like tax cuts. But on the economic issues that have massive macroeconomic implications or deal with federal overreach, such as central banking and the regulatory state, neocons have been complicit with the rest of D.C. in perpetuating government.

Many neocons will rail against big government on the campaign trail but vote to preserve it once in office. They also fail to see the connection between global democratic crusading abroad and social engineering at home. Similarly, the neocon fetish for never-ending wars betrays all their talk about fiscal conservatism. Certain reports show that the U.S. spent nearly $6.4 trillion on the War on Terror.

In addition to the obvious costs that foreign policy misadventures in the Middle East incur, the manner in which these conflicts are conducted is clear affronts to the U.S. constitution. Paul noted that Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. However, the U.S. is a government characterized by separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, authorizes Congress to declare war.

A declaration of war is no casual matter, given how it affects all Americans. At the very least, getting congressional input before launching a misguided military venture should be the standard operating procedure for D.C. This is not a foreign concept in our history.

For more than a century, America used to conduct foreign policy in such a manner. However, America has largely deviated from such constitutional prudence since World War II. Military actions from the Korean War all the way to President Barack Obamas actions in Libya and Syria all involved the disuse of formal declarations of war.

It would probably behoove our elected officials to go back to constitutionalism in foreign policy matters. By refusing to defend their constitutional authority to declare war, Congress is only ceding more power to the executive branch and allowing special interest groups to run free in D.C., dictating sensitive policy matters with impunity.

Americas foreign policy quagmires must end, and a reinvigorated Congress is the only entity that can stop this madness.

See the rest here:
Neoconservatives in the Republican Party Cannot be Trusted - The Liberator Online

Communication is a key component in fighting the coronavirus, according to Mike Sherrod, CEO of TriStar Greenview Regional Hospital in Bowling Green.

Sherrod, joined Wednesday by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Bowling Green, spoke with reporters outside the hospital where Paul has been volunteering since Tuesday after recovering from the coronavirus.

Sherrod said sharing information and staying connected to multiple agencies through the Bowling Green-Warren County Coronavirus Workgroup has been an essential part of the hospitals pandemic response. The group encompasses members from 13 area agencies, including the local health department, government, hospitals and schools.

Sherrod has been CEO of Greenview since 2013 and said the group has probably been one of the best (and) most functional groups Ive ever worked with in my career to not only make sure our community is safe, but also make sure that we are prepared.

He added that in the fight against the virus, the staff and doctors at Greenview are heroes.

Its been very challenging and for (them) to walk in every day not knowing what is involved, and going home to your kids I think is very difficult, Sherrod said. When youre in hard, challenging times, its amazing how people come together (to) find a solution to do whats best for the patients.

He also said learning more about the virus, which causes the respiratory disease COVID-19, has helped increase employees morale compared to three weeks ago, because we understand it more as weve gotten more information.

Public health workers are also being celebrated across the country this week during National Public Health Week.

In terms of supplies of personal protective equipment, Sherrod said the hospital is pretty good and that there might be a couple areas that were working with local manufacturers and others to bring more in. But that has not been the concern today as it was maybe two, three weeks ago.

Greenview is reportedly working with Fruit of the Loom in Bowling Green, which is shifting from making clothes to protective masks, and other companies to receive personal protection equipment including gowns, face shields and gloves.

The CEO also thanked Paul for reaching out to volunteer, and said weve been tickled to death having (him) here. Hes lifting the spirit of our patients and our colleagues and we really appreciate that.

As of Wednesday, the Barren River Health Department is reportedly investigating 35 cases of the coronavirus in Warren County, and there are 1,346 total cases statewide, according to Gov. Andy Beshear.

Although Sherrod could not provide the current number of people being treated for the coronavirus at Greenview, he said that in recent days there has been a decline in both positive cases and in patients under investigation for COVID-19.

Hopefully thats a sign that were getting through this, but its not saying were ready to go back to the norm, he said.

He also noted that its a good thing the hospital has not seen the big surges in cases that had been predicted.

On Sunday, Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on Fox News that this is going to be the hardest and saddest week of most Americans lives, but he added that there is a light at the end of the tunnel if everyone does their part for the next 30 days.

Continued here:
Greenview CEO says doctors and staff are 'heroes' - Bowling Green Daily News

Sarah Silbiger / Getty Images

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

WASHINGTON As sick people across the country struggle to get tested for the new coronavirus, asymptomatic members of Congress have been able to access tests despite guidance from the federal government urging doctors to save tests for people who are ill.

Lawmakers have access to a top-notch medical clinic in the Capitol building, the Office of the Attending Physician, which is staffed by Navy doctors and was once described as "the best health care on the planet.

But thats not where members of Congress who havent exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, are getting tested. BuzzFeed News contacted the Office of the Attending Physician and more than a dozen congressional offices and found that those lawmakers who had been tested without showing symptoms did so outside the Capitol, often in their own districts. Meanwhile, the attending physician has turned away asymptomatic lawmakers seeking tests.

The Office of Attending Physician (OAP) follows prevailing medical practice guidelines for testing individuals who may have the coronavirus infection, the office said on an internal website. At the OAP, individuals considered for testing must exhibit symptoms. They must have no alternative explanation for illness (such as influenza A), and they must have a nexus to risk.

Sick people across the US are struggling to get tested amid a shortage of both tests and protective equipment for medical staff. Even some health care workers have reportedly not been able to get tested, while nurses on the front lines have faced long waits to get their results.

That asymptomatic lawmakers got tested underscores a growing trend of powerful people in the US getting better access to critical health care during the outbreak, and it highlights the confusing messaging around testing, especially that of earlier in the month as the coronavirus began to spread rapidly. President Donald Trump has wrongly stated that everyone who wanted a test could get one, and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has continued to evolve as the crisis deepens.

At least four members of Congress Sens. Rand Paul and Mitt Romney and Reps. John Yarmuth and Matt Gaetz have been able to obtain tests despite a lack of symptoms. Only Paul has tested positive. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been tested too, but he told Fox News he had experienced allergy symptoms that he wanted to make sure weren't from COVID-19 after attending a dinner at Mar-a-Lago with people who later tested positive.

Because of the nationwide test shortages, the CDC has issued guidelines to medical staff, instructing them to focus testing on those who are showing symptoms, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing. Even Vice President Mike Pence who tested negative for the coronavirus after a staffer in his office tested positive has urged Americans not to get tested unless theyre feeling sick. "If you don't have symptoms, don't do a test," Pence said this month. "It is another way that the American people can make sure that we are preserving the resources that our health care workers need." Pence was asymptomatic but said because of his unique position as vice president, he wanted to get tested.

The Attending Physicians Office, which gets an extra $400,000 in Congresss latest stimulus package to help deal with the coronavirus outbreak, has followed that advice. The office has told lawmakers who pay just over $600 per year to receive its services to quarantine themselves if theyve been in contact with someone confirmed to have the virus even if they do not show symptoms.

Such was the case for Utah Sen. Mike Lee, according to his office. Sen. Lee visited the Attending Physician of the US Congress immediately after being informed Sen. Paul had tested positive for Coronavirus, spokesperson Conn Carroll wrote in an email. After taking Sen. Lees information the doctor advised him he did not need a test.

The same went for Florida Sen. Rick Scott. Senator Scott consulted with both the Senate physician and his personal physician when he was informed that he had potentially been exposed to someone who tested positive, spokesperson Chris Hartline wrote in an email. Both said he was low risk and should not be tested unless he had symptoms. Senator Scott did a self quarantine out of an abundance of caution. He hasnt had any symptoms and hasnt been tested.

Virginia Rep. Don Beyer also inquired with the Attending Physicians Office about a test after having dinner with someone who later tested positive for the coronavirus. Beyer had been around House leadership and many others and wanted to make sure he hadnt infected them, according to his spokesperson, Aaron Fritschner. After 90 minutes and phone conversations with three doctors, Beyers office was told that because he didnt have any symptoms, he didnt meet the threshold for testing, Fritschner said.

At least one lawmaker Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart has been tested by the Attending Physicians Office but was exhibiting symptoms. Diaz-Balart became the first member of Congress to test positive for the coronavirus, followed by Utah Rep. Ben McAdams, who was tested by his local doctor after getting sick.

But as the CDC notes, its guidelines are just that guidelines so local and state health authorities, as well as individual doctors, ultimately make their own decisions about who gets tested. Some doctors have even charged patients hundreds of dollars to be administered unapproved tests; last week, rapper Cardi B called out fellow celebrities for paying thousands to get tested despite not showing symptoms.

The members of Congress who have been tested without showing symptoms have offered varying explanations as to why they were able to get access.

Paul, the first senator to test positive for the coronavirus, is keeping quiet about where and how he got tested. Hes said only that he took the test upon arriving in DC two weeks ago due to concerns about his extensive travel and higher risk for complications. Last year, Paul had part of his lung removed after an altercation with a neighbor. He didnt self-quarantine after he learned he had been at the same event in early March as two people who had tested positive (Pauls office said he had no interaction with either person) nor after he took the test. In Washington, he mingled with colleagues and used the Senate gym while waiting for his test results, prompting criticism from fellow senators.

Paul who held up a coronavirus bill earlier this month did admit he didnt fit the testing guidelines, though.

For those who want to criticize me for lack of quarantine, realize that if the rules on testing had been followed to a tee, I would never have been tested and would still be walking around the halls of the Capitol. The current guidelines would not have called for me to get tested nor quarantined. It was my extra precaution, out of concern for my damaged lung, that led me to get tested, he said in a statement.

Pauls office did not respond to questions about who tested him or how he got tested in light of the guidelines.

Like Lee, Romney the other senator from Utah had been in contact with Paul before his test results came back positive, but he wasnt symptomatic either. Nevertheless, the former Republican presidential candidate got tested at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah last Monday, his office said. Based on Senator Romneys age (73) and the duration and proximity of his exposure to Senator Paul, his physician recommended he get tested, spokesperson Liz Johnson said in an email. A day later, Romney tweeted that he had tested negative.

Many of those in Utah with symptoms have struggled to get tested due to shortages and the states strict guidelines. Since then, testing capabilities in Utah have expanded. On the same day Romney was tested, the state relaxed its guidelines. Still, the guidance tells medical staff to prioritize those with symptoms combined with other risk factors. Asked how Romney got tested, considering the guidelines, Johnson said, Senator Romneys physician recommended he be tested and he received testing at Intermountain Healthcare. Youd have to ask Intermountain directly about specifics regarding their testing questionnaire/criteria.

Intermountain said that due to federal privacy laws, it couldnt confirm whether someone was a patient or provide information about their care.

The Utah Department of Health acknowledged a couple caveats to its guidelines. [T]his guidance is for testing at the Public Health Lab, but many commercial labs and health care facilities have adopted it, spokesperson Tom Hudachko wrote in an email to BuzzFeed News. The guidance is simply that, guidance and when we are not experiencing a shortage of materials (which we currently are not), providers are advised to exercise clinical judgement in determining who should be tested.

Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat whose state has also experienced test shortages and backlogs, was tested back home as well. Yarmuth, who chairs the House Budget Committee, was tested in Louisville, KY after being informed that he came into close contact with a person who had since tested positive, his office said. The test consisted of a nasal swab and an oral swab. He received his results about 24 hours later, spokesperson Christopher Schuler said by email.

Schuler said Yarmuth was directed by the head of Louisvilles Department of Public Health and Wellness to get tested because of his direct exposure to an individual who had tested positive. Yarmuths exposure was at the same event in Kentucky that Paul had attended.

[A]t the time the Congressman was exposed, it was CDCs guideline that those in direct contact be tested, Schuler said. He was seated next to and interacted with an individual who was then known to be positive throughout the charity event, Schuler said, adding that Yarmuth consulted with his doctor and was then tested by a local provider. This wasnt anything done through the Attending Physicians office or some sort of special avenue of access provided to House members.

Jean Porter, a spokesperson for the Louisville mayor, confirmed that the local health department had informed Yarmuth hed been in close contact with someone who has tested positive and that the head of the department recommended, per CDC guidelines, that he consult with his health care provider about testing.

Guidance from the CDC has said that those with symptoms should be prioritized, but its ultimately up to a doctors discretion. The day before Yarmuth was tested, only 153 Kentuckians had been tested, according to a local news report. Were only testing the ones that are the sickest," Dr. Sarah Moyer, Louisville's chief health strategist, reportedly said at the time. Less than a week later, another news report said testing was still being reserved for the sickest patients due to the limited supply.

For Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, an ally of the president, the situation was a little different. His office said he was tested at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, DC, and received the results from the White House physician's office.

I was specifically told by WH medical staff that I was NOT being tested because I am in Congress - but because I had been in close contact with President Trump over several days, Gaetz tweeted earlier this month. Of course we have a national interest in keeping the President safe.

Read the rest here:
Members Of Congress Got Tested For The Coronavirus Despite Not Showing Symptoms, And Now We Know How - BuzzFeed News

It was the last straw or in this case the last twig.

Rene Boucher, 58, was charged on Friday with assaulting a member of Congress, a felony, months after his sneak attack on Sen. Rand Paul in November, according to officials.

Federal prosecutors said Boucher "had enough" after he witnessed Paul stack brush into a pile on his own lawn, but near Boucher's property. Boucher then ran onto Paul's property and tackled him.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Paul was wearing headphones at the time while mowing his lawn in Bowling Green, Kentucky, when he was attacked from behind by Boucher.

Paul managed to throw Boucher off of him and they exchanged words, NBC News previously reported.

Paul suffered five rib fractures, including three displaced fractures, and later required medical attention for pneumonia.

"Assaulting a member of Congress is an offense we take very seriously," said Josh Minkler, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. "Those who choose to commit such an act will be held accountable."

Earlier accounts of the incident suggested bad blood between the neighbors, who have known each other for roughly 17 years, including a dispute over a property line and possible distaste for Paul's politics, as well as those of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

However, federal prosecutors on Friday said Boucher admitted the assault but denied it was politically motivated. Boucher's lawyer also denied previously that politics had anything to go with the fight.

Officials said Boucher signed a plea agreement, but no date or sentencing has been set. He faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.

View original post here:
Prosecutors reveal why Rand Paul was attacked by neighbor