Mediaboss Marketing

Burr, as Breitbart News and other outlets reported late Wednesday, has issued a subpoena of Trump, Jr., which the presidents eldest son is electing to rebuff despite Trump, Jr.s history of open cooperation on the Russia investigation. Trump, Jr., has been repeatedly cleared, as has the president himself.

But Burr has been trying to keep the case alive, in contravention of McConnells stated orders, and is now facing fierce backlash not just against himself but all Senate Republicans. Paul is the first Senate Republican to stand up against this, but others are expected to join him quickly.

McConnell, who is the ex officio chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and from whom Burr derives his authority as chairman, has not replied to requests for comment from Breitbart News on this matter.

But a top McConnell donor, who is also close with the Trump White House, told Breitbart News that McConnell must intervene to end Burrs decision to go rogue.

What Burrs doing isnt just a slap in the face to the President and his family, its a slap in the face to Americans across the country, the top McConnell donor said. Its incumbent that Leader McConnell steps up to the plate and strips Senator Burrs Chairmanship of the Intel Committee. If he refuses to do that, then he shoulders just as much blame for this travesty of justice as the Senator from North Carolina.

McConnells office has not answered when asked by Breitbart News what the Senate GOP leader thinks of the subpoena and whether he will allow Burr to remain as committee chairman in the wake of this move.

Its notable that Paul is the first of many expected Republicans to speak out against this, as he also represents Kentucky in the United States Senate. McConnell, who is Kentuckys other senator, is up for re-election in 2020.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul Slams Republican Richard Burr for Don Jr ...

Sen. Rand Paul is fed up with the longest war in U.S. history, and he is reaching across the aisle to bring American troops home from Afghanistan.

The Kentucky Republican submitted legislation on Tuesday with Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico,that says U.S. forces have completed their mission after nearly two decades of conflict.

Under the 2019 American Forces Going Home After Noble (AFGHAN) ServiceAct, the U.S. would declare victory in Afghanistan;set a 45-day deadline to formulate an orderlywithdrawal within a year ofall U.S. forces;and within one year pay a$2,500 bonus to military service memberswho have served in the war.

"This has been a long war,"Paul said during a conference call with reporters.

Recent headlines: Rand Paul says he'll vote to block Trump's emergency declaration

The senator's office noted that more than $2 trillionhas been spent on the conflict and it has cost about2,300 military members their lives.

"We both just think that war is a terrible thing and we should only do it when we have to," Paul added.

Udall echoed those talking points about the measure, saying that the U.S. must reconsider its position on a war thatbegan in October 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks striking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"This year we will reach a watershed moment in the nearly 18-year-long war inAfghanistan," he said. "Soon, American service members will begin deploying in a war that began before they were born."

Kentucky news: Matt Bevin says he would sign private school tax bill 'in a heartbeat'

More: Louisville VA Medical Center will get funding in Trump budget, McConnell says

Thank you! You're almost signed up for Breaking News

Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration.

Udall praised Paul for beinga consistent voice against the war. Pauls aversion to foreign entanglements has long been a part of his ideological profile and political appealsince he was first elected to Congress in 2010.

Those beliefs have found fertile ground with the presidency ofDonald Trump, who is poised to scale back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.Paul reportedly met privately with Trump in January, and he said the president acknowledged, "weve been at war too long and in too many places."

"I've talked to the president many times about this, and I think his instincts and his intentions are that we really have been long enough in Afghanistan and we have completed our mission," Paul told the Courier Journal.

Trump may also not be a reliable ally. NBC News reported Tuesday that the presidentwrote lawmakersthat he agrees "100 percent" with keeping a military presence in Syria just twomonths after declaring all U.S. troops would be leaving.

... War is a terrible thing and we should only do it when we have to.

Many of Paul's Senate Republicancolleagues have also voiced support for keeping a significant forcein Afghanistan and topull out of Syria more slowly.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, is chief among those hawkish lawmakers. Hebelieves terrorist groups, such as theIslamic State group, or other foreign governments will benefit ifthe U.S. pulls out of those regions.

Two months ago, McConnell, in a rare move,bucked Trump by spearheading a nonbinding amendment on a broader foreign policy bill that criticized the administration's withdrawal plans.

The language, which was added by a 68-23 vote, said leaving Afghanistan and Syria too quickly"could allow terrorists to regroup, destabilize critical regionsand create vacuums that could be filled by Iran or Russia"to the detriment of U.S.interests.

"I believe the threats remain," McConnell said during a January floor speech. "ISIS and al-Qaida have yet to be defeated. And American national security interests require continued commitment to our missions there."

McConnell spokesman Robert Steurersaid Paul's bill is being assigned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but thereare no scheduling announcements at the moment.

National news: McConnell: Senate will vote against Trump's national emergency

Paul told the Courier Journalthat he plans to speak withhis fellow Kentuckian about the withdrawal proposal, but that he isn't confident McConnell will allow his measure to see the Senate's daylight without outside pressure.

"I have very little hope," Paul said. "I mean, he was the leader of the amendment that chastised the president for even considering leaving Afghanistan. I just think we're on opposite sides on this."

Paul said the American public is ready to have the debate about ending the war even if McConnell and the rest of Congress is not. He said thelegislation he's co-sponsoring with Udall can also serve as a rallying cry for peace activists and the military alike.

"Our hope is that the military, who have served all these missions, will see this and say, 'you know what, I've risked my life eight times in Afghanistan, and I'm nolonger interested in serving missions to a failed state,'" Paul said. "This is to try to light a fire under the American public and get things going."

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at502-582-4475 or pbailey@courierjournal.com. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today:courier-journal.com/philb.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/05/rand-paul-tom-udall-resolution-remove-american-troops-afghanistan/3065304002/

See the article here:
Rand Paul, Tom Udall want to pull troops out of Afghanistan

The middle of a measles outbreak may not seem like the best time to stand up for the eccentric preferences of the people who caused it. But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is a libertarian, which means he is used to challenging conventional wisdom. His thoughts on mandatory vaccinations, however, only confirm that conventional wisdom is sometimes genuine wisdom.

At a hearing Tuesday, Paul made two points in opposition to requiring measles inoculations for children. The first: For myself and my children I believe that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh the risks, but I still dont favor giving up on liberty for a false sense of security.

The second: There doesnt seem to be enough evidence that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children risk spreading these diseases to the immunocompromised community.

These were in keeping with his past statements. In 2015, he rejected mandatory vaccinations on the ground that the state doesnt own your children, while claiming many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines though he later said, somewhat implausibly, that he didnt mean to suggest vaccines caused the disorders.

All states require children to be vaccinated against various communicable diseases to enroll in public schools. But most let parents refuse if they have religious objections and some let them decline for any reason. That turns out to be dangerous.

Editorial: Major new study adds to our plea: Vaccinate your children against measles

Paul is wrong on the issue of freedom vs. public health, as many prominent libertarian thinkers agree. Individuals do have rights, and they include the right to decide what risks to take with their own lives and property. But they arent free to subject others to deadly harms.

Before a vaccine was invented, 450 to 500 Americans died each year of measles. By 2000, it had been eradicated in this country. But with the spread of anti-vaccine propaganda and state exemptions, the disease has made a comeback, infecting 159 people this year. Some legislatures are now considering abolishing virtually all exemptions, as California, Mississippi and West Virginia have done.

Many so-called public health measures are really about private health preventing people from harming themselves, say through smoking or drinking sugary sodas. Libertarians have good reason to oppose them. But mandatory vaccinations are about protecting people from the dangerous practices of their fellow citizens.

Parents have no right to expose other people notably those too young or too sick to be inoculated to a serious contagion by refusing to vaccinate their children. For that matter, they have no right to expose even their own kids to measles. The government doesnt own them, but it is entitled to intervene to shield them from harm, even at the hands of their parents.

Libertarians look back fondly on the days when government was far less intrusive. But even then, mandatory immunizations were upheld by the Supreme Court.

In 1905, the court ruled in favor of such requirements, reasoning that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Critics claim that vaccines are unreasonably dangerous to recipients, causing autism and other ailments. But all the evidence is against them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says: Vaccines are safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines save lives. Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature.

After seeing Pauls suggestion that unvaccinated kids are no threat to people with weakened immunity, I emailed his office asking for documentation. An aide got back to me, but offered no evidence.

But Paul is wrong. Dr. Sean OLeary, a spokesman for the AAP, told me that measles is certainly potentially deadly, especially among the immunocompromised, and we now relatively have a much larger group of immunocompromised people in the U.S. thanks to new disease modifying medications, better cancer treatments, etc. Many of the deaths from varicella (chickenpox) in the U.S. prior to the varicella vaccine were in immunocompromised patients.

The familiar criticism of libertarians is that they have a selfish obsession with their own rights and no regard for how their exercise of those rights injures others. Paul is not refuting that charge.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

See the original post:
Rand Paul's weak case against mandatory vaccines undercuts ...

Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax! Paul tweeted.

Paul became the second senator, after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, to call for an investigation into Obama officials who were responsible for pushing the Russia narrative.

While the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid Fusion GPS to produce the dossier alleging there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, numerous Obama administration officials were involved in spreading it.

Fusion GPS co-founded Glenn Simpson and the author of the dossier, ex-British spy Christopher Steele, would shop the dossier to Obama officials at the State Department, the Justice Department, the FBI, and members of the media.

According to the New York Times, former FBI Director James Comey discussed with unnamed White House officials what to do about Russian interference in the election, including writing an op-ed. The president replied that going public would play right into Russias hands by sowing doubts about the elections legitimacy.

But Obamas CIA Director John Brennan reportedly was so concerned he gave an unusual private briefing in the late summer on the dossier to then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), according to theTimes.

The dossier was used by FBI and DOJ officials to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

After the election, Comey briefed the dossier, which was promptly leaked to CNN, to President-elect Trump, with then-Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as the prime leaker suspect. CNN reported on the briefing, prompting BuzzFeed to publish the dossier in full.

However, involvement of Obama-era officials did not stop there. Anonymous former and current officials leaked to media outlets intelligence and other material to suggest a conspiracy between Trump associates and Russia.

One infamous case involved the leak of highly-classified material to the Washington Post, about Trumps incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and his alleged conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

That and numerous other leaks by former and current officials continued to spread the narrative that Trump associates colluded with Russia, with the assistance of mainstream media news outlets willing to publish them.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul: Time to Investigate Obama Officials Who Spread ...

Transcript for Sen. Rand Paul on health care bill: 'We never ran on a replacement of Obamacare Lite'

that whatsoever. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you. We're joined by senator Rand Paul. You heard Dr. Price -- Good morning. Good morning. You heard Dr. Price. He said the plan you propose will put vulnerable people at risk. I think it's sort of the opposite. The program they're putting forward, Obamacare light, they're keeping half of what Obamacare presented. They're not going to fix the fundamental problem. It's the insurance mandates. When you mandate what has to be insurance, it elevates the price. When you tell people they can buy insurance after they are sick, they will. You get adverse selection. It will continue turned the Paul Ryan plan. And, my fear is that a year from now, people will come back, we'll have all the same arguments again. You heard Dr. Price. He said it's not fair to look at the Ryan planks as you just called it, in isolation. You have to look at everything the administration is proposing. The problem is, we, as conservatives, ran on repeal of Obamacare. I was elected in 2010, right after it came into place, to repeal it. We never ran on replacement of Obamacare light. Of making the entitlement subsidies permanent. Keeping the taxes. Keeping the medicaid expansion. They're flat-out false in telling us you ran on this plan. None of us did. We ran on repealing Obamacare because it doesn't work. They're going to repeal part of it and leave in place all of the stuff that causes your insurance rates to go through the roof. We have a plan, a replacement plan we would like to talk about at the same time that instead of subsidizing people's health care, actually forces prices down. Forces the insurance companies to come to the table. Under my plan, 37 million people who belong to aarp would be able to negotiate and buy a group policy of insurance. That would drive prices down, particularly for people leading right up to retirement and on into the retirement years. It's the only thing that would work to bring prices down. We're not talking abthat at all. Now we're in a bidding war with Democrats. We're going to offer half as much. We're never going to win that bidding war. They should scrap it all. Start over. And let's have a real meaningful debate. Have you convinced enough conservatives in the house to vote no? I talked to the house freedom caucus leadership over the weekend. They still believe that the conservatives in their caucus don't want Obamacare light. I believe the real negotiation begins when we stop them. You have to stop them. Conservatives will only have a seat at the table if we have 21 votes in the house or 3 of 4 in the senate. I passed out the them all the art of the deal last week. Because, we need to -- learn from the master. And let's make sure that we increase our lemplg average by holding the line. You don't think it will pass? I don't believe so. Enough conservative do not want Obamacare light. This is the biggest mistake of Republicans not thinking about how this is going look. They call it repeal and replace. When it doesn't fix the problems and you say you have if I can fixed the problems, they're going to own it. I promise you in a year, the insurance markets will still be unraveling. They'll be begging for handouts. They have bailouts for insurance companies. Conservatives don't want that. We're for empowering the consumer to drive prices down to get better cost insurance. We're not for when you get sick, the taxpayer takes over the tab for the insurance company. It's a terrible situation. You socialize the insurance company losses but privatize the billions they make. I'm not for a gift for the insurance companies. You're a member of the senate foreign relations committee. The president is standing by the claim about president Obama. It's caused a rift with British intelligence over the week end. How big of a problem is this? How does the president fix it? We know one thing for sure that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn. Now, whether it was direct or indirect, somebody was reading and taking -- a transcript of his phone calls. They released it. It's very, very important that whoever released it go to jail. Because you cannot have members of the intelligence community listening to the most private and highly classified information and then releasing that to "The New York Times." There can only be a certain handful of people who did that. I would bring them all in. They would have to take lie detector tests. I would say, including the political people, some of them knew about this as well. We need to get to the bottom of who is releasing these highly classified conversations. If the president was surveilled. He probably wasn't the target. I don't know that he was or wasn't. If he was, they probably targeted someone in a foreign government. But they listened to the conversation with Americans. Our government's talking to foreigners all the time. We can't allow people in the intelligence committee to release the contents of that informing to the media. You don't believe -- We will get a deep state. You don't believe president Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of president trump? Well, what happens is it's different than that. We target foreigners all the time. They talk to Americans. They talk to the president. They talk to the national security advisers. They're supposed to be masked. There was something alrming the other day. General Hayden admitted people down to some of the lowest analysts can unmask who the American is. So, someone unmasked general Flynn and they're a low-level analyst, we need to be looking at their computer and find out if they unmasked that conversation and if they spoke with "The New York Times" you have to put those people in jail. You cannot allow this to happen or we'll have presidents being blackmailed or national security advisers being blackmailed. This is a huge, huge problem. Bigger than anything else being discussed. Private conversations are being leaked to the press. Gnat's not like a leak that says, oh, the president watches TV in his bathrobe. This is important to national security. You can't let it happen. Senator Paul, thank you for your time this morning.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

More:
Sen. Rand Paul on health care bill: 'We never ran on a ...