Rand Paul unsettles the media’s insufferable fools
WASHINGTON, April 10, 2014 — GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul’s detractors say he’s mean to girls—mean in particular to NBC’s Today show host Savannah Guthrie.
Paul insists that he treats female reporters with the same level of deserved contempt that he confers on the nominal males of the Fourth Estate.
What dismays the press is that Paul would rather tell American voters what he thinks on any given issue than respond to empty-headed questions designed to further a particular Democratic Party ideological hobby horse—say, for instance, abortion.
In an interview with Philip Elliot of the Associated Press, Paul asked his own insightful questions and provided equally insightful answers.
“Do you support the sanctity of life?” asked Paul of Elliot’s readers, “Do you think that a human baby is different than an animal? Do you think that there is something specially imbued into human life?”
He answered, “I think there is. What divides us as a culture is, ‘When does life begin?’ Now, I’m a physician. I’m an eye surgeon. I often examine babies, and I’ll examine them in the neonatal nursery. Some of them are small enough that I can put them in the palm of my hand—sometimes a pound, sometimes under a pound. And nobody really sort of questions whether they have rights. They’re there, and if you … try to harm a baby in the neonatal nursery—that’s murder.
“Some people don’t believe in any protections [for the unborn], and some people do believe in protections. And I think that if you had that distinguishing characteristic, and know that there is a debate over exactly when life begins, then I think you have a more intelligent debate—other than having … everybody … in neat, little categories.”
It was at this point that Elliot attempted to shift the focus of the abortion issue away from its victim and in the direction of the Democratic Party’s “pro-choice” constituency. “But to get into these neat categories,” said Elliot, “In our database, when we say, just for filling out, [a candidate] believes in exemptions for life …”
Paul cut him off.
“I would report [it] exactly the way I said it … I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put my five-minute answer in,” Paul demanded.
The press would rather print Paul’s answer to their questions than print his thoughtful argument against abortion, which happens to be identical to Abraham Lincoln’s argument against slavery.
“Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires us to consent to the extending of slavery to new countries,” said Lincoln in his Peoria speech of 1854. “That is to say, inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. Now, I admit this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and Negroes.”
Lincoln invoked Greek philosopher Aristotle’s Law of Identity: “A is A,” everything has its individual nature and characteristics. Differentiating one thing from another helps us understand reality.
Southerners passed laws that forbade teaching slaves to read and write, not their hogs, because they recognized the humanity of their abused, chained prisoners.
The balm that soothed the Southern conscience, as Lincoln brilliantly observed, was to view their slaves as mere property.
Rand Paul simply employed Aristotelian logic to state the painfully obvious: The unborn are not “unviable tissue mass” but human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
And that explains why the mainstream media is on the verge of a fainting spell.