Good News: Rand Paul rankling his father's Supporters

This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.

When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.

Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.

Via Right Side News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.

That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.

Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.

“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”

That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”

It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.

The question Bill O'Reilly didn't ask Marc Lamont Hill in interview about Christopher Dorner

"...If I was insensitive to the families, I offer them my condolences, but.." - Marc LaMont Hill on the O'Reilly Factor 2/14/13

The reason Columbia professor Marc LaMont Hill appeared on the O'Reilly Factor was because of his comments during a panel discussion on CNN a day earlier. During that discussion, Hill seemed to heap praise on cop killer, Christopher Dorner while making reference to Django Unchained and calling the comparison 'exciting'.

First, check out the short clip of Hill on CNN that led to his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor:



A day later, Hill appeared on O'Reilly's show. The host was right to confront Hill and didn't go easy on him but he did miss a huge opportunity to expose Hill for who the Columbia professor really is. While Dorner murdered several people, he was also a cop killer. Hill knows another cop killer quite well. In fact, quite well. His name is Mumia Abu Jamal, sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing police officer Daniel Faulkner.

In 2009, Hill allowed Jamal to write a weekly column for the former's website and introduced the cop killer thusly, via NewsReal:

I am thrilled to announce that Mumia Abu-Jamal has joined the Barbershop as a weekly contributor!! His column, Live From Death Row, will appear every Wednesday starting next week.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the world's most celebrated journalists, freedom fighters, and political prisoners. Since his early days in Philadelphia, Mumia was an active member of the Black freedom sruggle. From his award-winning journalism to his involvement with the Black Panther Party, Mumia has devoted his life to Black liberation. Wrongfully incarcerated since 1981 for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia has continued to place a spotlight on various forms of injustice around the globe through his numerous columns, commentaries, and books. Mumia has generated international support for his own case, which has been one of the most glaring and repugnant reflections of the criminal (in)justice system.

So, in 2009, while giving a cop killer a weekly platform, Hill referred to that cop killer as a 'political prisoner' and was 'thrilled to make the announcement'.

In 2011, Hill and Jamal co-wrote a book entitled the Classroom and the Cell, which consists of very comfortable and agreeable exchanges between the two men. In fact, Hill likely found it 'exciting' to publish the book.

You can watch the interview between O'Reilly and Hill below but once again, when presented with an opportunity to expose a creature of the left for what he truly is, folks like O'Reilly take a pass. Are we to believe he didn't know about Hill's collaborative work with Mumia Abu Jamal? Considering that Hill used to be a Fox News Contributor who made regular appearances on O'Reilly's show, that's hard to believe. Even if it were plausible, it's an indictment of the Fox News host's research team. It's also false to call it irrelevant; it's extremely relevant because it makes the case against Hill that the professor is trying to prevent from being made.

The likely answer is that O'Reilly just didn't want to go there, a dynamic not all that dissimilar from Mitt Romney not wanting to call Obama a 'socialist'.

How'd that work out?

Via MediaIte:

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.

Via the Washington Times:

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.

Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.

How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.