Rand Paul unsettles the media’s insufferable fools

Paul's argument against abortion mimics LIncoln's argument against Slavery

Kentuky’s Senator Rand Paul speaks to the press on his terms.

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.

Read Also:  Rand Paul begins the first of his four presidential campaigns

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.”

Read Also: U.S. Abortions at forty year low: Birth control or personal responsibility?

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.

Read Also:  The Roe v. Wade abortion debate – a question of Choice and Power

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.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • dialogic

    Is the author on drugs? There was scarcely a rational sentence in the whole article. There is something special when you see someone who is equal parts pompous and ignorant. It is similar to watching the joker in high school who didn’t do the home work trying to bamboozle the teacher — not being able to understand HOW the teacher knows he is lying.
    This author can speak in his pseudo-intellectual fashion with others who are as ignorant as he is, but probably couldn’t understand how he appears to a person who isn’t a moron.
    I don’t see much difference in the hot air being blown by the author and an uneducated criminal trying to lie to a judge this way… “well, you see your honor, due to the perplexity of the situational aspect, taken in conjunction with…”
    Good grief.

    • judgementjones


    • crescentfang

      If you would rather listen to what the talking heads of the media have to say than what the candidates have to say, you are wasting your time. Their names are not on the ballot.

      • dialogic

        I’ll grant you that. I DO want to hear what the candidates actually have to say. Rand Paul is a perfect case in point. All most people get are the talking points, and as such, he almost appears to be a reasonable person. As did his father. If the american people actually had an inkling of what Ayn Randian ideology really meant, and by extension, what the Pauls’ vison for America really is, they would deal with the Pauls the way they would deal with rotten maggot ridden food.

        • kenvandoren

          WOW! I like direct, honest reasonable and principled arguments. Too bad I found none of that in the comment above.

          • dialogic

            For the sake of a gentlemanly argument, would you kindly point out what part(s) of my comment were indirect, dishonest, unreasonable or unprincipled?

          • Dex

            I couldn’t follow it either. I think I know which way you were going, but you were chaining ideas together without a lot of context or even clarifying what you were talking about. What was the position on the Fed and how did it relate to armed militias. (we get not directly, but conceptually, how?) The rest sort of rambles on in that direction and that Rand Paul was the way out. But I don’t see how without abusing the same powers that you seem to eschew.

        • crescentfang

          Don’t be so sure. I thought Ron’s position on the Fed was nonsense until Bernanke conned Congress into giving him a ton of money and gave it to his banker friends in direct contradiction with what he said he was going to do with it. The same goes for the militias that claimed they needed to be armed to protect themselves against the government. Once Dick Cheney announced that the President could declare anyone an enemy combatant and have him hauled off the streets at night and sent overseas to be tortured without the involvement of judge or jury, I understood that they had a point. The country’s leaders are going crazy and they need to be stopped somehow. Rand at least seems to be trying.

    • Rob Mason

      I understood it just fine,maybe it’s You.

    • Dex

      Agreed. The press isn’t there for you to stump with. Individual publications ask questions that they think readers want to know your answer to. Rand thinks he’s thumbing his node at the media. In reality, by dodging questions and pouting like a child, he demonstrates why he needs to grow up before he’s ready to be president.

  • ginjit.dw

    How is it that the first interview given by Rand Paul as a candidate for president, gets more critisism than six plus years of obama?

    Perhaps there is something tawdry going on?

    • jlord37

      Paul is falling into the same trap as his father is. He allowed himself to be distracted by a non issue which Will enable government media complex to paint him as ” an extremist” who wants to deny women the right to have control over their own bodies. He made a similar mistake when he first ran for the Senate, when he stated that the equal rights amendment, was unconstitutional. You cannot allow them to control the narrative.