Tag: Sen. Rand Paul

Settled Science

Rand Paul, Anthony Fauci, covid, gain of function

Remember the blow-up last summer between Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky.) and Dr. Anthony Fauci over gain-of-function research?

Paul charged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had supported such research in China. “Senator Paul,” Fauci fired back, “you don’t know what you are talking about, quite frankly.”

“Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20,” imagined Katherine Eban recently in Vanity Fair. “You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right.…”*

Nevertheless, Ms. Eban added, “Paul might have been onto something.”

Might?

Last week, the NIH sent a letter to Congress admitting that its grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, laundered through the infamous EcoHealth Alliance, resulted in research that even the NIH acknowledges was gain-of-function.

Sen. Paul knew what he was talking about; Dr. Fauci did not.

NIH was quick to defend Fauci, arguing the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President was in the dark last summer about the controversial research because EcoHealth Alliance was two years late in reporting. For its part, EcoHealth Alliance “appeared to contradict that claim,” telling Vanity Fair, “These data were reported … in April 2018.”

“Given all of the sensitivity about this work,” Stanford University microbiologist Dr. David Relman remarked to Vanity Fair, “it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”

Is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Eban concluded her sentence with this clause: “up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab.” Her assertion that “the right” was calling COVID a “bioweapon” is a canard designed to prematurely halt any inquiry into even the possibility. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R‑Ark.) simply said there needed to be an investigation of the Wuhan lab, he was fiercely attacked by big media and the lab leak theory was suppressed on Facebook and Google.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags covid, Dr. Fauci, gain of function, Sen. Rand Paul

Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility too much government

One at a Time

A new procedural reform is in the offing.

And just because it is “procedural” doesn’t mean it’s insignificant.

Or boring.

Remember, how something gets done determines, in part, what gets done. The checks and balances that were written into our Constitution are there to regulate the how of government, the better to limit the what.

But it’s obvious our federal government is out of control, and in need of some additional … controls.

Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mia Love have introduced just such legislation. It’s not a constitutional limitation, but a legislative change of procedure. The title of their bills pretty much explains the idea: the “One Subject at a Time Act,” initialized as OSTA.

I first heard rumblings about it from Rand Paul; then, just last week, Mia Love sent out her press release, ballyhooing the House version of OSTA, H.R. 4335.

Rand’s Senate version is S. 1572, and was introduced a little over a year ago.

The idea is not new. I’ve talked about it before. You probably have, too. Anyone with sense realizes that the congressional habit of adding unimportant, controversial programs to unrelated but necessary, uncontroversial bills, is a leading cause of government growth.

And one reason why Congress is so roundly detested.

OSTA, by forcing Congress to deal with subjects one bill at a time, might even save Congress from itself.

The bill is still looking for sponsors. You can help by putting your representative’s and senators’ feet to the fire.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Congress, legislation, Mia Love, OSTA, Rand Paul, Sen. Rand Paul, Senate

general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

Standing with Rand

Rand Paul, 2016 Presidential Race, Common Sense

Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, suspended his presidential campaign yesterday. He took fifth place in Iowa, but garnered just four percent of the vote.

I’ll miss him.

“Ours has been a unique voice in this race,” the senator rightly declared, “one that says Big Government threatens Americans from all walks of life, rich and poor, black and white — from the coal miner who has lost his job over President Obama’s destructive EPA regulations to the teenager from a poor family facing jail time for marijuana.”

Some of Rand’s message resonates in the Republican Party; other parts, not so much.

An anonymous senior Paul aide told Politico that the problem — in addition to “Trump” — was “this foreign policy environment,” noting that “Rand was more flavor of the month a year ago … before they were beheading people in the Middle East.…”

Still, the GOP would be wise to heed Paul’s message, especially on foreign policy.

“I will not ignore the terrible cost of decades of war and chaos in the Middle East, and the unintended consequences of regime-change and nation-building,” the senator assured supporters. “I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform, for privacy, and your Fourth Amendment rights.”

In assessing his presidential campaign, Paul told reporters, “Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I.”

That’s good. Like his father, Dr. Rand Paul has become freedom’s foremost firebrand. We need him in the U.S. Senate.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Presidential campaign 2016, Rand Paul, Sen. Rand Paul

Accountability general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility tax policy

Bankrupt Leadership

national debt, debt, deficit, debate, Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, CommonSense

Sen. Rand Paul wasn’t the only thing absent from the GOP presidential stage last Thursday.

Also missing? Any meaningful talk about reducing federal spending and avoiding a sovereign debt crisis. The debt looms over all our heads. But you wouldn’t know it to listen to the GOP hopefuls. (And the same nearly goes without saying for the Democratic Party’s debt-denying presidential aspirants.)

Way back when the Bush Administration had lost America’s confidence, deficits and debts were a common concern. Much of the disgust that birthed the Tea Party movement was disgust at Republican over-spending, as well as at the bailouts that spurred the initial protests. And then came Obama, Obamacare, and a 70 percent increase in federal debt.

Why the silence now?

Nick Gillespie, of Reason, figures that Republicans don’t really care about deficits and debts.

Andrew Flowers, of FiveThirtyEightPolitics, wonders whether the GOP has abandoned the issue because Republicans don’t want to face the fact that Obama has, indeed, reduced deficits — though definitely not the debt, which has nearly doubled.

Alternative theory? Republicans have given up hope, because the last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have successfully threatened government shutdown over even the itty bittiest spending cut, safe in the knowledge that the mainstream media’s full spin-cycle will be blaming conservatives.

This has made it easier for Big Government Republicans to embrace greater military funding and other spending programs, as Gillespie notes.

But real leadership recognizes the present danger of debt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, debate, debates, debt, deficit, Presidential campaign 2016, Sen. Rand Paul

Accountability national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Droning On?

For my birthday, Sen. Rand Paul started a filibuster.

I jest. The junior senator from Kentucky had something more important than my big day on his mind: the U.S. Constitution.

At 11:47AM, Sen. Paul took the floor: “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes.”

I didn’t watch all of his endeavor (yet). What I did catch was amazingly eloquent.

It was also very specific. The Kentucky senator had asked candidate Brennan not one but two substantial lists of questions regarding the drone strike program. He also asked the Obama Administration whether the president thinks he has the constitutional right to use drone strikes against non-combatant Americans on American soil. Brennan had answered well enough, but left the administration to answer for itself. Attorney General Eric Holder responded, later, evasively.

And so Rand Paul took to the floor. And spoke at length — without teleprompter. He was joined, later, by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. And then some Republicans, including Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.

Though Rand Paul’s office had started a Twitter hashtag, #filiblizzard. It didn’t take off. Instead, #StandWithRand became the international trending topic.

The world watched.

But filibusters have to end. About 13 hours in, Rand Paul did end it, though not before insisting that, with regard to our rights, compromise is very, very bad: “The Fifth Amendment is not optional.”

If this filibuster solidified that constitutional principle, what a present that would be — and not just to me, but to all Americans. And the world.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.